K-11 teachers’ school-based outdoor education practices in the province of Québec, Canada: from local initiatives to a grassroots movement

ABSTRACT

Although the school curriculum of the province of Québec, Canada, does not explicitly encourage teachers to provide outdoor learning experiences, it appears that there is a growing momentum for outdoor education. Thus, the research question that guided this study was: What are preschool, elementary, and secondary teachers’ outdoor education practices in the province of Québec, Canada? To answer this research question, we conducted a survey that collected quantitative data to describe teachers’ intentions, the places they use, the learning that is targeted, and the challenges. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the data. Our results show that school-based outdoor education can realize complementary learning intentions that cannot be met by using only classrooms, that outdoor education can be practiced in a variety of places, regardless of the settings in a school’s immediate surroundings, and that school-based outdoor education has the potential to decrease sedentary behaviours and increase students’ levels of physical activity.

KEYWORDS:

• School-based outdoor education
• teacher practice
• Canada
• primary
• and secondary education

Introduction

Around the world, there are cultural differences in the philosophies, approaches, and practices of school-based outdoor education (Rea & Waite, 2009). Examining these different forms of school-based outdoor education, we can identify three broad ways in which it manifests in education systems. First, in some Nordic countries, outdoor education is explicitly encouraged in the national curriculum (Remmen & Iversen, 2022). For instance, Denmark now have a tradition based on the concept of udeskole, which is a curriculum-based approach that integrates regular outdoor educational activities (Barfod et al., 2016; Bentsen et al., 2009). Second, in some areas of the world, outdoor education is a grassroots movement that is encouraged by national authorities or organizations but is not mandatory (Rea & Waite, 2009), such as the ‘Learning Outside the Classroom Manifesto’ in the UK. Third, in several other countries (e.g. Turkey, Netherlands), outdoor education is also a collection of loose local initiatives (e.g. Palavan et al., 2016; van Dijk-Wesselius et al., 2020).

Outdoor education in Canada

Across Canada, there is a growing interest in outdoor education (Boileau & Dabaja, 2020). However, it is difficult to articulate a national outdoor education policy for schools, mainly because of Canada’s geographic, climatic, and cultural diversity (Purc-Stephenson et al., 2019). In addition, one of the major challenges is that curricula are independently developed by each province and territory, so initiatives are usually developed locally rather than nationally (Henderson & Potter, 2001). Nevertheless, it is important for researchers and practitioners to continue their efforts to increase dialogue between provinces and territories so that Canada can form a more unified voice for international discussions on outdoor education (Asfeldt et al., 2021; Maher, 2018; Purc-Stephenson et al., 2019). With few exceptions (e.g. Dyment, 2005; Lacoste et al., 2021), our review of the literature revealed that there exist limited studies on preschool, primary, and secondary outdoor education in regular school settings that is provided by teachers who are not outdoor educators.

Although Québec’s curriculum does not explicitly encourage teachers to provide outdoor learning experiences, it appears that there is a growing momentum for outdoor education (Lacoste et al., 2021). The province of Québec’s Ministry of Education published a review of the literature on outdoor benefits, policies, and practices in order to provide tools that would foster the promotion and development of outdoor activities (Lefebvre et al., 2017). In addition, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, more and more indicators beyond the scientific literature (e.g. newspaper articles, promotions of school-specific programs, social media posts) suggest a bottom-up increase in preschool, elementary, and secondary teachers’ interest in outdoor education in regular school settings.

The Québec school context

A distinctive feature of education in Canada is that each province is responsible for the development of its own curriculum. The province of Québec is different from other provinces insofar as it is the only officially French-speaking province; one other province is bilingual, and the rest are English-speaking. Québec’s curriculum is divided into three levels of education: preschool (4-year-old kindergarten and 5-year-old kindergarten), elementary school (levels 1–6), and secondary school (levels 7–11). In the formal curriculum, there are no explicit requirements for outdoor education, except in physical education and health (e.g. cross-country skiing and cycling). The main school disciplines are French, English as a second language, mathematics, science and technology, social sciences (geography, history, and citizenship education), arts education (drama, visual arts, dance, and music), and ethics and religious culture. In Quebec, students who pursue post-secondary education then go to a college of general and professional education (CÉGEP), an institution where the first level of higher education is offered before university (two or three years depending on the program).

Research question

Since there does not exist a clear portrayal of existing outdoor teaching practices in the Canadian province of Québec, there is a need to describe more specifically the outdoor education initiatives conducted by K–11 teachers in regular school settings, targeting findings that are relevant to an international audience. The research question that guided this study is: What are K–11 teachers’ outdoor education practices in the province of Québec, Canada?

School-based outdoor education in the literature

This research is grounded in the assumption that school-based outdoor education experienced in places in students’ community allows them to make more meaningful learning. Research—and many recent reviews—has documented benefits of outdoor and nature-based education that can be applied to the school context. At the cognitive level, in their integrative review, Kuo et al. (2019, p. 5) found that ‘pedagogy and setting of nature-based instruction” improve academic achievement, especially when learning situations are student-centred. Another review concluded that even a short-term exposure to a green environment has the potential to improve students cognitive performance (Mason et al., 2021). Frequent periods of outdoor learning also help students transfer their learning to everyday, non-academic contexts (Becker et al., 2017). From a physical perspective, outdoor education is known to decrease sedentary behavior and increase physical activity intensities (Coventry et al., 2021; Mason et al., 2021). Among the psychological outcomes relevant to education, learning in contact with nature increases students wellbeing (Miller et al., 2021; Remmen & Iversen, 2022). A systematic review about immersive nature-experience showed that increased self-esteem and self-efficacy are additional benefits (Mygind et al., 2019). While contact with nature has been found to reduce stress, the same results have been found in a nature-based school setting with students (Coventry et al., 2021). At the social level, outdoor education generally helps students to develop social relationships (Becker et al., 2017; Miller et al., 2021). The nature setting itself would actually provide more opportunities to develop cooperation among students (Kuo et al., 2019).

Outdoor education is a ‘semantic umbrella’ (Lacoste et al., 2021) that includes multiple approaches (e.g. place-based learning, experiential learning), intentions (e.g. environmental education, physically active lifestyle), and practices (e.g. field trips or outreach activities). Some specific expressions that are used to refer to outdoor education in the school context are outdoor learning (Mann et al., 2021), learning outside the classroom (LOtC; Prince, 2019) and udeskole (Bentsen et al., 2009). A distinctive feature of school-based outdoor education is that the teaching and learning experiences focus on learning that is directly related to the curriculum. Outdoor education is generally not a formal discipline (Dyment & Potter, 2015), and the learning depends on the discipline targeted by the teachers (Ayotte-Beaudet et al., 2019; Becker et al., 2017). The two fundamental conditions of school-based outdoor learning are ‘that the school surroundings are used as a learning arena but also as a source of knowledge’ (Fägerstam, 2014, p. 57).

To study teachers’ school-based outdoor education practices, several dimensions can be examined, including teachers’ intentions, the outdoor places they use, the learning that is targeted, and the challenges that are encountered.

Intentions

Outdoor experiences in the school context can be quite diverse, as teachers can have very different intentions for using outdoor spaces. Being intentional as a teacher means being able to explain one’s teaching practices (Thomas, 2021). One intention for outdoor learning is to increase students’ exposure to nature. This intention is generally associated with nature-based learning, which can occur in natural settings or in built environments where manifestations of nature can be found (Jordan & Chawla, 2019; Kuo et al., 2019). Among the noteworthy outcomes, nature-based learning appears to have a positive effect on cognitive functions, such as attention (Mason et al., 2021). Another intention for outdoor learning is to use contexts that can connect academic learning to students’ daily lives. In this case, the outdoor education focuses on increasing conceptual understanding or engaging in scientific practices so that the learning will be useful outside of school (Ayotte-Beaudet & Potvin, 2020; Giamellaro, 2014). Much research also focuses on interventions that increase physical activity (Coventry et al., 2021), either as a direct goal (Lacoste et al., 2021) or as a collateral benefit (Finn et al., 2018). Finally, research has also focused on outdoor education from a mental health perspective. Here the aim is, for example, to reduce schoolchildren’s hyperactivity (Gustafsson et al., 2012) or to improve their well-being (Bølling et al., 2019).

To summarize, common intentions for providing school-based outdoor education are to connect children to nature, to use a meaningful context for learning, to increase students’ physical activity, and to promote their mental health and well-being. These intentions are not mutually exclusive, as a given outdoor experience can pursue more than one intention. It is also important to note that these are not the only intentions for providing outdoor education; rather, these are the intentions that are most commonly mentioned in the scientific literature.

Places

An important feature of school-based outdoor education in this specific study is that it mostly takes place in schools’ immediate surroundings. This means that teachers must work with the local places that are accessible to them. In a survey aiming to identify motivations for school-based outdoor learning in different countries/regions and the practices that are involved, Waite (2020) proposed seven forms of school-based outdoor learning: 1) forest school and bushcraft, 2) field studies, 3) embedded on-site curricular learning, 4) natural environment play and early years outdoor activities, 5) outdoor and adventure education, 6) school gardening, and 7) wildlife areas and visits to nature reserves and national parks. However, although all of these forms of outdoor education can be found in the same country/region, not all teachers have the same possibilities. Even when teachers share a common curriculum, the manifestations of nature or the visible heritage in the built environment near their school will be different for teachers in the city, in the suburbs, in rural areas, and in very remote areas.

The present research focuses on school-based outdoor education experiences that can be easily incorporated in local places near the school, regardless of its immediate surroundings. Such places are not limited to natural environments; they can be the schoolyard, an outdoor classroom, sport facilities, a city park, streets in the neighbourhood, a woodland/forest, or a watercourse.

Learning

The subjects that are traditionally associated with school-based outdoor education are health and physical education and the natural sciences. However, there is a growing body of research on outdoor learning for other subjects such as the arts, mathematics, languages, history, and geography. For example, studies have shown that it is possible to investigate places in a school’s neighbourhood to learn about the past when teaching history (Harris & Bilton, 2019), to conduct a discovery rally for observable math concepts (Moffett, 2011), or to create an art project using the environment as inspiration (Schneller et al., 2021). Although many teachers generally associate the outdoors with nature (Fägerstam, 2014), the possibilities for school-based outdoor education are not limited to the natural sciences.

In recent years, the school-based outdoor education research community has tried to shift its focus towards the development of scientific evidence that can be adapted to various educational systems around the world. Examples of such joint efforts include Kuo’s et al. (2019) mini-review of converging evidence on nature-based learning and Jordan and Chawla’s (2019) study, which proposes several research avenues for advancing the understanding of the added value of nature-based learning in the school context. Additionally, Svobodová et al. (2021, pp. 351–352) suggested four principles for implementing school-based outdoor education based on a study involving 18 lower secondary school teachers in the Czech Republic: 1) ‘links of outdoor education to knowledge acquired in the course of previous years of education and to learning progress,’ 2) ‘connection of outdoor education with classroom work,’ 3) ‘combination of various forms of outdoor education from the temporal point of view,’ and 4) ‘interconnection of current topics with outdoor education in various types of landscape.’

Challenges

While the scientific literature about effective school-based outdoor education has been growing and diversifying in recent years, challenges that limit outdoor practices have also been extensively documented. Common concerns reported by teachers include how to manage students (Borsos et al., 2018; Hyseni Spahiu et al., 2014) and student safety (Glackin & Jones, 2012; Ray & Jakubec, 2018), a lack of ideas for learning situations (Hyseni Spahiu et al., 2014; Ray & Jakubec, 2018), and insufficient confidence and professional development (Borsos et al., 2022; Ray & Jakubec, 2018). Several challenges have also been attributed to how schools are organized, such as the national curriculum (Carrier et al., 2013; Dyment, 2005), the schedule (Carrier et al., 2013; Hyseni Spahiu et al., 2014), the organization of material (Rickinson et al., 2004), planning time (Glackin & Jones, 2012; Skamp & Bergmann, 2001), financial resources (Ray & Jakubec, 2018; Rickinson et al., 2004), and a lack of support from authorities (Dyment, 2005; Hyseni Spahiu et al., 2014). There are also other challenges over which teachers have no control, such as weather conditions (Dyment, 2005; Glackin & Jones, 2012) and whether suitable outdoor places are near to the school (Borsos et al., 2018; Skamp & Bergmann, 2001).

Materials and methods

Instrument and participants

To answer our research question, we conducted a quantitative descriptive study. We developed an online survey in French that could be completed by any preschool, elementary, or secondary school teacher in Québec. The survey was designed to provide a portrait of the respondent teachers, their declared intentions for engaging in outdoor education, the places they used, their perceptions of the effects of outdoor education on learning and physical activity, and the challenges they perceived. It was clearly stated in the survey that outdoor education referred to any outdoor teaching situation related to student learning. In order to compare teachers’ practices before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we surveyed the teachers regarding their practices between September 1 and 31 October 2020 compared to the same period in 2019. The survey comprised a total of 46 close-ended questions and took a maximum of 15 minutes to complete. The types of responses were mixed and adapted to each question, including single or multiple choices, Likert scale ratings, and frequency scale ratings. We do not report the results for some questions in this study because they are too specific to the Québec context for an international audience.

The questionnaire was distributed by the Government of Québec as well as various professional education associations, and it was also relayed in social media related to either education in general or outdoor education. The questionnaire was available to all K–11 teachers in the province of Québec, Canada—regardless of whether they practiced outdoor education—for completion between 24 November 2020 and 10 January 2021. Kindergarten children were between 4 and 6 years old, elementary school (1–6 levels) children between 6 and 12 years old and high school (7–11 levels) children between 12 and 17 years old. A convenience sample of 1008 teachers completed the questionnaire.

Data analysis

For our analysis we use descriptive statistics, mainly by calculating frequencies, for all study variables. In the tables, we generally indicate percentages to facilitate understanding of the results.

Results

Descriptive statistics for the participants

Among the 1008 participants in the online survey, 578 teachers practiced outdoor education, and the results published in this article are based on only their responses. Among these teachers, 432 were level K–6 teachers and 146 were level 7–11 teachers, representing 74.7% and 25.3% of the total sample, respectively. Turning to demographics, 69.7% of the 578 teachers were female. The highest level of education completed was a bachelor’s degree for 80.8% of the participants, a specialized postgraduate certificate for 8.7%, a master’s degree for 8.5%, and a doctoral degree for 0.5%, with 1.5% reporting ‘other.’

Among the schools, 31.0% were urban (e.g. large cities), 44.3% semi-urban (e.g. suburban, small, or medium-sized municipalities), 23.2% rural (e.g. villages), and 1.5% remote (e.g. mining or logging areas). A total of 94.3% of the participants taught in public schools and 5.7% in private schools. The number of years of teaching experience for the population under study was reasonably distributed: 21.5% reported 0 to 5 years, 18.0% reported 6 to 10 years, 20.9% reported 11 to 15 years, 17.8% reported 16 to 20 years, and 12.8% reported 21 years or more.

The participants who taught at levels K–6 were preschool, elementary school, and physical education and health teachers, along with other specialists such as special education teachers. The participants who taught at levels 7–11 were teaching in the following disciplines (as named in the province of Québec): physical education and health, science and technology, languages (French or English), mathematics, humanities and social sciences, arts, ethics and religious culture, and professional development. Table 1 presents the number of participants associated with each level and discipline.

Table 1. Participating teachers per level and specialty.

Levels and Specialties	n
Levels K–6
Preschool teachers	94
Elementary school teachers	153
Physical education and health	159
Other specialists	26
Levels 7–11*
Physical education and health	95
Science and technology	28
Languages	14
Mathematics	7
Humanities and social sciences	8
Arts	7
Ethics and religious culture	7
Professional development	3

*Teachers at levels 7–11 can teach more than one discipline.

Declared teaching practices in outdoor education

Teachers’ intentions for engaging in outdoor education

Teachers were asked to indicate up to three of their intentions for engaging in outdoor education. Table 2 presents the results separately for kindergarten, levels 1–6, and levels 7–11, as well as aggregated for all K–11 teachers. Overall, the three main reasons for teaching outdoors were 1) to connect children to nature, 2) to use real-life contexts for learning, and 3) to benefit from a larger space. Kindergarten teachers were more likely to let students initiate free play, which is an explicit curriculum orientation for them but is not specifically aimed at the outdoors. For the intention engage in sports activities, level 7–11 teachers were more represented, which is consistent with the fact that physical and health education specialists comprise an important proportion of this group. We also note that the overall least frequent intention indicated by teachers was to allow students to have fun. Finally, the physical and health education teachers stood out with their most frequently cited reason being to benefit from more space, both in elementary and secondary school.

Table 2. Teachers’ intentions for engaging in outdoor education.

Intentions*	Levels K-6 (n = 432)	Levels 7-11 (n = 146)	Total (n = 578)
Connect children to nature	35.2%	45.2%	37.7%
Use real-life contexts for learning	35.2%	41.1%	36.7%
Benefit from a larger space	16.2%	46.6%	23.9%
Enable students to mobilize their energy	22.0%	17.1%	20.8%
Teach the same learning outdoors	14.1%	17.1%	14.9%
Let students initiate free play	17.4%	4.1%	14.0%
Have students engage in sports activities	6.7%	33.6%	13.5%
Allow students to have fun	13.4%	13.0%	13.3%

*Each participant could indicate up to three intentions.

Disciplines taught outdoors

Excluding the preschool teachers, physical and health education teachers, and other specialists, the subjects taught outdoors by level 1–6 elementary school teachers (n = 153), ranging from the highest to the lowest frequency, were as follows: 1) languages (French or English), 2) mathematics, 3) science and technology, 4) arts, 5) humanities and social sciences, and 6) ethics and religious culture (Table 3). Based on the specialties of the level 7–11 teachers (see Table 1), the three most frequently taught subjects, ranging from the highest to the lowest frequency, were: 1) health and physical education, 2) science and technology, and 3) languages. Few mathematics, humanities and social sciences, arts, ethics and religious culture, and professional development teachers participated in the survey.

Table 3. Disciplines taught outdoors by elementary school teachers.

Disciplines	Frequency (n = 153)
Languages	77.1%
Mathematics	69.3%
Science and technology	65.4%
Arts	49.7%
Humanities and social sciences	25.5%
Ethics and religious culture	15.0%

Places that are accessible and used for outdoor education

Teachers were asked to indicate the extent to which the following locations are accessible from their school (no access at all, difficult to access, fairly accessible, or easily accessible): schoolyard, city park, woodland or forest, streets in the neighbourhood, sport facilities, outdoor classroom, and watercourse (Table 4). The three most accessible locations were: 1) schoolyard, 2) city park, and 3) sport facilities. Teachers were also asked to indicate the locations they use for outdoor learning, and the three most used were: 1) schoolyard, 2) city park, and 3) woodland or forest.

Table 4. Places that are accessible and used for outdoor education.

Places	Levels K–6 (n = 432)		Levels 7–11 (n = 146)
	Accessible	Used	Accessible	Used
Schoolyard	90.5%	90.3%	87.7%	56.8%
City park	77.1%	59.3%	70.5%	37.7%
Woodland or forest	55.6%	50.9%	63.7%	43.8%
Sports facilities	51.9%	25.2%	80.1%	43.8%
Outdoor classroom	22.9%	14.6%	24.7%	8.9%
Watercourse	27.1%	11.8%	28.8%	12.3%

Duration and frequency of outdoor education periods

The average duration and frequency of outdoor education periods varied greatly at both the elementary and secondary levels. For levels K–6, outdoor education periods of 1 to 60 minutes were the most frequent. For levels 7–11, periods lasting 61 to 120 minutes were slightly more frequent than periods of 1 to 60 minutes. Overall, for all levels, as the duration of the period increased, the number of teachers who reported going outdoors at least once a month decreased. The detailed results are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Duration and Frequency of Outdoor Education Periods.

		Duration
Level	Frequency	1 to 60 Minutes	61 to 120 Minutes	Half Day	Full Day
K–6 (n = 432)	Never	16.4%	61.3%	72.5%	87.5%
	1 to 3 times a month	35.6%	23.8%	21.8%	9.5%
	1 time a week	15.5%	7.4%	3.9%	0.5%
	2 to 3 times a week	18.3%	5.6%	0.5%	0.9%
	4 to 5 times a week	14.1%	1.9%	1.4%	1.6%
7–11* (n = 123)	Never	43.9%	33.3%	58.5%	75.6%
	1 to 3 times a month	19.5%	18.7%	15.4%	12.2%
	1 time a week	9.8%	14.6%	5.7%	4.1%
	2 to 3 times a week	11.4%	14.6%	10.6%	4.1%
	4 to 5 times a week	15.4%	18.7%	9.8%	4.1%

*23 teachers ignored this question in the survey.

Average active travel time to and from places

A total of 68.6% of the K–11 teachers reported that their active travel time to and from places during an outdoor education period took one to ten minutes, 18% 11 to 20 minutes, 7.2% 21 to 30 minutes, and 6.1% more than 30 minutes. These results suggest that places used for outdoor education are generally near to the school.

Intensity of outdoor versus indoor activities

Teachers were asked about their perceptions of the frequency of sedentary behaviours and the practice of light, moderate, and high-intensity physical activities, both indoors and outdoors. Perceived frequencies were reported based on the following choices: rarely, sometimes, often, and almost always. K–11 teachers perceived that light, moderate, and high-intensity physical activities were more common when students were outdoors and that sedentary behaviours were clearly less common. A total of 8.1% of the K–6 teachers indicated that students often or almost always exhibited sedentary behaviours outdoors, while 62.3% of the same teacher population reported that students often or almost always exhibited such behaviours indoors. Similarly, 8.1% of the level 7–11 teachers indicated that students often or almost always exhibited sedentary behaviours outdoors, while 57.4% of these teachers reported that students often or always exhibited such behaviours indoors. The complete results are presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Physical intensity of outdoor versus indoor activities.

Level	Physical Intensity of Activities	Outdoors (almost always or often)	Indoors (almost always or often)
K–6 (n = 432)	Sedentary	8.1%	62.3%
	Light	63.9%	44.7%
	Moderate	57.9%	31.9%
	High	15.5%	10.9%
7–11* (n = 123)	Sedentary	8.1%	57.4%
	Light	49.6%	41.5%
	Moderate	59.4%	37.4%
	High	18.7%	10.2%

*23 levels teachers ignored this question in the survey.

Outdoor education challenges

Participants were asked to identify up to three challenges associated with outdoor education (Table 7). Among all K–11 teachers, the five most frequently cited challenges were: 1) weather conditions, 2) student management, 3) places near the school, 4) the schedule, and 5) the organization of material.

Table 7. Outdoor education challenges.

Challenge*	Levels K–6 (n = 432)	Levels 7–11 (n = 146)
Weather conditions	68.3%	70.5%
Student management	32.4%	32.2%
Places near the school	28.0%	29.5%
Schedule	24.3%	30.8%
Organization of material	32.6%	**
Ideas for learning situations	21.1%	12.3%
Planning time	18.1%	23.3%
Student safety	15.3%	15.8%
COVID-19 context	14.1%	11.6%
Financial resources	10.6%	17.1%
Budget	8.1%	17.1%
Curriculum	6.9%	12.3%
Principal	4.6%	10.3%
Training	4.4%	2.7%
Perception of other colleagues	3.7%	5.5%
Other challenge	7.4%	8.9%

*Each participant could enter up to three challenges, so the total for each column does not equal 100%.

**For technical reasons, the option organization of material was not displayed for level 7–11 teachers.

Discussion

We conducted this research because we wanted to know more about teachers’ practices in outdoor education in the province of Québec, Canada, with regard to student learning. The fact that several hundred teachers engaging in outdoor education across the province of Québec, Canada, voluntarily completed this survey shows that outdoor education may be becoming more than a local initiative, and maybe a grassroots movement. Many of the findings are relevant for an international audience.

What emerges from the Québec province case is that it is possible for outdoor education to be a teacher-driven movement that is politically supported, without being mandatory. For this change in practice to occur, teachers must perceive that there is a need to address. Our results show that this desire to engage in outdoor education in the school context is driven by two main reasons. First, teachers want to connect children to nature. This intention is associated with the belief that today’s children are more likely to develop what Louv (2005) called a ‘nature-deficit disorder’ because they have less contact with nature. This assumption was confirmed in a systematic review by Oswald et al. (2020), who found that children today are more engaged with screen-based technologies and have less contact with nature. This combination of low contact with nature and greater contact with screens may negatively impact mental health and well-being (Greenwood & Gatersleben, 2016; Mutz et al., 2019). Second, school-based outdoor education allows teachers to use real-life contexts for learning. This intention is related to a perceived disconnect between school learning and the value of learning outside of a school context. The contexts that teachers use for teaching in school are often academic (Giamellaro, 2017), in the sense that teachers ‘teach to the test’ to prepare students for academic achievement (Jennings & Bearak, 2014). Thus, although the research was conducted in the context of COVID-19, the results do not show that the use of outdoors was mainly prompted by the need to have space between students to reduce the spread of a deadly virus but still allow them to learn. If schools do not always focus on meaningful learning, we contend that outdoor learning can be more useful beyond school, in everyday life. We believe that our results show that teachers’ interest in outdoor education addresses complementary intentions that cannot be realized solely within the classroom.

Teachers typically perceive outdoor education as tied to natural environments (Fägerstam, 2014), and those who do not have access to such settings may believe that there is no real potential for outdoor education in their school. However, the teachers who voluntarily participated in this study showed that it is possible to teach in a wide variety of areas regardless of the places that are nearby. Additionally, although outdoor education may be perceived as more conducive for science education and physical and health education, our findings show that all school disciplines have a potential for outdoor education. Thus, what emerges from our research is that outdoor education can be practiced in a variety of places, regardless of the settings in schools’ immediate surroundings.

Another major finding of our study is that outdoor education contributes to a decrease in students’ sedentary behaviours and an increase in their physical activity levels, even when this is not an explicit goal. About 60% of the K–11 teachers indicated that their students often or almost always exhibit sedentary behaviours indoors, whereas outdoors, this proportion drops to less than 10%. The teachers also reported that light, moderate, and high-intensity physical activities are more common outdoors. The increased physical activity level during outdoor learning that was reported in our study has also been measured quantitatively in other studies (Finn et al., 2018; Mygind, 2007). These results are particularly encouraging given that prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, only 30.5% of Canadian children met the Canadian Public Health Agency’s guidelines for light physical activity and 12.7% for moderate to vigorous physical activity (Rhodes et al., 2019). Even more concerning, Moore et al. (2020) found that one month after the World Health Organization ‘declared COVID-19 a global pandemic,’ there was ‘a significant decline in all physical activities,’ with the most dramatic decline associated with outdoor activities (p. 4). Our results are therefore particularly important during a time when young people do not generally meet the standards for physical activity, because they show that even when teachers use the outdoors to achieve students’ curriculum-related learning, the students also benefit from the physical activity.

Study limitations

In order to understand the context of our results and to identify future research directions, it is important to mention some limitations of this study. First, we used volunteer sampling, as probability sampling was not possible. Although our results provide important information about the state of outdoor education in the province of Québec, Canada, the interpretation of our results must be limited to our sample and not generalized to the entire teaching population. Second, we found a stronger representation of health and physical education teachers versus other categories of teachers compared to the distribution in the general teaching population. The fact that health and physical education teachers seem to engage in more outdoor teaching may be explained by the explicit references to outdoor activities in the curriculum. Third, level 7–11 teacher participation in our survey was lower than the level K–6 teacher participation. This could be explained by fewer outdoor education practices at the higher levels or by a better dissemination of the survey to K–6 teachers. Fourth, the results of this study are self-declared and not observed practices. This is typical of a large survey, but there is room for research to investigate and document effective outdoor practices. Fifth, this research was conducted in the specific context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since we believe that this context has had the effect of increasing school-based outdoor education, it would be highly relevant to conduct longitudinal research to document the evolution of outdoor teaching practices.

Conclusion

While school-based outdoor education has to date received limited attention from researchers, our findings suggest that the province of Québec, Canada, may be shifting from local outdoor education initiatives to a grassroots movement. On a broader level, we aimed to shed light on relevant findings for an international audience. In this regard, considering that the school-based outdoor education practices emerged from the field and are not mandatory, three general conclusions are worth mentioning. First, our results show that school-based outdoor education can realize complementary learning intentions that cannot be met solely within the classroom. The outdoors do not provide a context for implementing the same learning experiences as in the classroom, nor are they just places for allowing students to have fun. Second, despite the common perception that school-based outdoor education can be practiced only when particular conditions are met, our research shows that outdoor education can be practiced in a variety of places, regardless of the settings in a school’s immediate surroundings. Finally, regarding the important health and well-being issues related to young people’s physical activity, we found that school-based outdoor education has the potential to decrease sedentary behaviours and increase students’ physical activity levels, even when this is not the teacher’s explicit goal.

Beyond the presented results, the main originality of this study lies in the approach used to study school-based outdoor education, that is, in a context of a bottom-up movement rather than a mandatory requirement. While much research has focused on the challenges of school-based outdoor education, documenting these endogenous practices provides a better understanding of how teachers implement use of outdoor environments in practice, without guidance from either the research community or the government. This is of particular interest because the cases documented in the scientific literature are often outdoor education that is explicitly encouraged in the national curriculum or loose local initiatives captured by researchers. The study of an educational system with an emerging grassroots movement emerging allows us to better understand practices that are naturally developed by teachers, consistent with their own realities, intentions and convictions. We believe that our results can thus provide a better understanding of how to bridge the gap between teachers’ naturally implemented practices and research on outdoor education, which is an explicit ‘game-changing’ recommendation in Jordan and Chawla’s (2019) call for a coordinated agenda.

Finally, our results lead to recommendations for future research questions—some of which may require more in-depth qualitative studies—to better understand how school-based outdoor education develops in the context of a grassroots movement that is supported by the Ministry of Education, but led by teachers. How can we develop assessment practices that are consistent with outdoor education practices when they are not embedded in the existing curriculum? What are the most effective strategies for incorporating outdoor education into pre-service and in-service training on a broad scale? What are successful ways in which principals can support the development of outdoor education in their school? How do we foster the understanding among students who are not accustomed that learning in school is not limited to what is learned in the classroom? Answers to such questions should contribute to an improved articulation between research, policy, and practice.

Disclosure statement

All of the authors confirm that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec.

Notes on contributors

Jean-Philippe Ayotte-Beaudet

Jean-Philippe Ayotte-Beaudet, PhD (Corresponding Author) Jean-Philippe Ayotte-Beaudet is a professor in the Department of Preschool and Elementary Education in the Faculty of Education at the Université de Sherbrooke, holder of the Research Chair on Outdoor Education and Director of the Centre de recherche sur l'enseignement et l'apprentissage des sciences (CREAS). His main research activities focus on science education and outdoor education at the elementary and secondary levels. In order to foster meaningful experiences at school for students, his work focuses on the effects of teaching contexts on the quality of learning.

Félix Berrigan

Félix Berrigan, PhD Félix Berrigan is a professor in the Faculty of Physical Activity Sciences at the Université de Sherbrooke and is responsible for the intervention strategies axis of the Kino-Québec Research Chair on the adoption of a physically active lifestyle in a school context. His research work focuses on the effects of physical activity on children and adolescents as well as on predisposing factors related to school learning. His expertise supports the implementation of intervention strategies aimed at the adoption of a physically active lifestyle and healthy habits.

Antoine Deschamps

Antoine Deschamps, M.A. Antoine Deschamps is a PhD student in education at the Université de Sherbrooke. Previously, he completed a Bachelor's degree in elementary and preschool education at Laval University and then specialized in outdoor education by pursuing a Master's degree in Outdoor Education at the University of Edinburgh. He is very active in the outdoor field as a canoe expedition guide and downhill ski coach. His research focuses on outdoor education and its relationship to teacher well-being and student academic success.

Kassandra L’Heureux

Kassandra L’Heureux, B.A. Kassandra L'Heureux is interested in the conceptualization of science teaching and learning contextualization and the applications of this approach, particularly for pre-service teacher education. She is currently completing a Master's degree in science didactics and is beginning a PhD in education at the Université de Sherbrooke. Involved in various research projects related to contextualization and outdoor teaching practices, she collaborates with Canadian and American researchers and uses qualitative and quantitative research approaches.

Marie-Claude Beaudry

Marie-Claude Beaudry, M.A. Marie-Claude Beaudry is a master's student in science didactics and a lecturer at the Université de Sherbrooke. As part of her studies, she is interested in the contextualization of scientific teaching and learning situations outdoors. She has also completed a master's degree in intercultural mediation in recent years, allowing her to read educational issues with an inclusive perspective.

Sylvain Turcotte

Sylvain Turcotte, PhD Sylvain Turcotte is a professor in the Faculty of Physical Activity Sciences at the Université de Sherbrooke and holder of the Kino-Québec Research Chair on the Adoption of a Physically Active Lifestyle in School Contexts. He is also a regular researcher at the Centre de recherche interuniversitaire sur la formation et la profession enseignante (CRIFPE). His research interests include the analysis of teaching and learning conditions and the promotion of healthy lifestyle habits among young people.