Published Article: The dynamic future of british pedagogy of place.

The dynamic future of British pedagogy of place

Pedagogy of place has been of key interest to me within the last 5 years of my practise. The seeds of interest were sown as a child whilst living and playing on the side of an ex industrial mountainside in Wales, these ideals and values were challenged during my time serving within the military in Afghanistan, then began my academic interest, firmly grounded during my time studying and playing in the vast wilderness of Norway and enhanced through studies with historians and professors taking groups into the landscape to explore sense of place. These experiences have greatly influenced my understanding of sense of place and informed this article. I believe it important that I acknowledge my own bias as a white British male whilst discussing pedagogy of place within my own country where my family have resided for as far back at you can look. Pedagogy of place for me has been an experience of understanding my heritage and how my history was formed, along with a more spiritual and philosophical understanding of my place within the landscape, the world, the universe and reality itself. My experience of pedagogy of place in Wales, my home, compared to a tourist or immigrant’s experience of pedagogy of place in wales will be vastly different, and it is my prerogative here to explore the changes necessary to continue using pedagogy of place within a changing British population.

The emerging form of pedagogy of place within outdoor education is an all-encompassing form of landscape relationship and knowledge. Pedagogy of place can be split into 3 separate areas; 1st : The relationship between the participant and the human cultural and social history of the landscape. 2nd : The relationship between the participant and the scientific and economic benefit of the landscape. 3rd : The relationship between the participant and the landscape, physically, spiritually and psychologically.

           These three areas can also be used progressively, by starting with the human connection, moving to the scientific and ending with the philosophical and spiritual. Throughout all of these areas it is inevitable that we will be at some point touching on controversial, political, and important historic ideas. Groups are extremely susceptible to cues from facilitators 1 and it is our responsibility to treat subjects covered with impartial caution.

           The first section; History between the participant and the human, social and cultural history of landscape, allows the participant to understand the human impact within the landscape 2. It is important that during such sessions we are aware of discussion formats and how information relating to a landscape is approached during facilitation. It is vital that we are offering “Education to groups rather than advocacy 3.” By telling students what happened at an area without discussion means that the participants will be missing out on important learning. By telling participants what to think or do, they miss out on building analysis, problem solving and decision making skills. Wiseman 4, brings an intriguing argument in that religious beliefs in general do not advocate questioning or analytical skill, and states that religions that see humans with the born right to rule over the world as wrong. He also continues to explore what impact Judaeo Christian belief can have on a sense of place. His argument is well constructed but totally un-inclusive and biased with little compassion, this is not an example that would suit professional educational discussion. We must be sure that we address conversations of this kind very sensitively and allow the participants to use their own analysis, problem solving and decision making skills.. Shaw and Sanera 5, put forward the idea of Issues education. This can be used as a model for such controversial discussions 18. It is a way for participants to be introduced to such subjects but also giving them a process to its resolution, even if that resolution is to agree to disagree. This means that, we can touch on topics using an unbiased and developmental approach. Fostering an atmosphere where we encourage the participants to explore the issues, be critical and come to their own realisation. This educational approach is supported by Tordsson’s 6, belief that pedagogy of place can and should be used to combat current issues within the individual and society.

           This element within the larger umbrella of pedagogy of place is a stepping stone for individuals to begin to understand how they relate to their surroundings by seeing how others have 19. It could be used in the future to combat the issue of facilitating pedagogy of place with participants that increasingly have no personal link to the landscape they are visiting or traveling through. My experience of pedagogy of place in Wales, my home, compared to a tourists or (first, second and third generation.) immigrant’s experience of pedagogy of place in Wales will be vastly different. It is important to discuss the impact of pedagogy of place for ethnic communities. The projected rates of immigration within my lifetime, a study by the University of Leeds 7,  shows that, “The proportion of black, Asian and other ethnic minorities will rise from 8% of the population, as recorded in the 2001 census, to 20% by 2051.” Professor Rees 7 states that the UK's ethnic make-up was ‘evolving significantly’. The data used to create these figures comes straight from the 2001consensus along with demographic factors including immigration, emigration, fertility and mortality. These figures have been peer reviewed and are quite conservative in their findings, as they did not take into account second or third generation immigrants. This has an impact for those professionally within the pedagogy of place, because these citizens will be within the educational system and will also not have a long history or relationship with the landscape. This has large implications for the practise of pedagogy of place. Fuelled by my own commitment to inclusion within the practise of outdoor education, I see it as highly important the techniques already discussed are put into place in order for pedagogy of place to evolve and meet positively with the evolving British population.

           The second element of pedagogy of place; the understanding of the scientific landscape and its benefits to mankind. It is focused on gaining practical knowledge of the landscape, dissecting it and creating quantitative data on the individual life forms and objects. This in essence is what has developed medicine, technology and many other human developments 8, 9 10 . However it is also responsible for a downfall in modern society that pedagogy of place could be used to combat. “Thus conscientious, effective place-based science teaching must be informed not only by the sound scienti?c knowledge of the places of study (such as would underpin any good mainstream pedagogy.) but also by a respectful if not mutual understanding of the diverse meanings and attachments af?xed to these places.” 11 By using all three areas we will be able to offer true inclusive sense of place experiences.

           The third element of pedagogy of place; the relationship between the individual and the landscape, in relation to how a participant is biologically, chemically, atomically, philosophically, spiritually and cosmically related to the landscape, and the conceptualization of that experience into a wider understanding of reality. It can be simply understood as “The inner landscape, rather than the ground beneath your feet 12.” This form of experience is often discussed within deep ecology 13, 14,15, 17, 20, 21.

However more and more western populations are no longer living in a landscape that they have long history with. Many have very little relationship with the landscape, and for them going through the experience within the same landscape it is more honest to admit that they would experience a sense of a place. With immigration levels rising coming in to the UK, travel becoming easier, and international relations as stable as they are within the western world. It is fair to say that people are becoming more nomadic, and changing from a people of, “Biosphere cultures 16” .and reverting to the independence of our own skills, rather than dependence on the landscapes gifts. Pedagogy of place will need to become further inclusive in its outcomes, focus on each element as a separate ideology, but attribute each with equal worth 22. It will need to cater for a wider spreading human ethnicity, it will need to take consideration for individual historical relation to landscape, and if there is no historical link, then comparisons and conceptualizations as well as fostering a new sense of place. The true future for pedagogy of place will need to be an inclusive and dynamic one.

References.

1.     Hovelynck, J. (2002). Moving active learning forward. The Journal of Experiential

           Education, 26(1).

2.     Stewart, A. (2008) Whose place, whose history? Outdoor environmental education pedagogy as ‘reading’ the            landscape Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 8 (2) pp78-98.

3.     Sanera, M. (1998) Environmental Education: promise and performance. Canadian journal of Environmental Education 3, 9-26.

4.     Weisman, A. (2008) “The world without us.” Virgin book ltd. UK.

5.     Sanera and Shaw,( 1996), Facts not Fears. pp. 155-157

6.     Tordsson, B. (2007). What is friluftsliv good for? Norwegian friluftsliv in a historical

perspective. In B. Henderson & N. Vikander (Eds.), Nature first: Outdoor life the

friluftsliv way (pp. 62-74). Toronto, ON: Natural Heritage Books.

7.     BBC (2010) “UK's ethnic minority numbers 'to rise to 20% by 2051'.”https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10607480            viewed : 03-01-2014.

8.     Emekauwa, E. (2004) The case for place based learning; They Remember What They Touch;The Impact of Place-Based Learning in East Feliciana Parish.

9.      Riggs, K (2005) Young children have difficulty ascribing true beliefs. Volume 8, Issue 3, pages F27–F30.

10. Semken, S (2005 )Sense of Place and Place-Based Introductory Geoscience Teaching for American Indian and Alaska Native Undergraduates

11. Freeman, C & Semken, S (2007) “Sense of Place in the Practice and Assessment of Place-Based Science            Teaching.” Wiley InterScience. Arizona State University. USA. Pg.1004

12. Ryden, K. (1993) “Mapping the invisible landscape; Folklore, writing, and the sense of place.” University of Iowa press. Iowa. Pg. 47-229.

13. N?ss, A (1989). Ecology, community and lifestyle. Cambridge University Press.

14. Reed, P & Rotherburg, D. (1993) “Wisdom in open air: the Norwegian roots of deep ecology.” University of            Minnesota press. Minnesota

15. Wurdinger, S. (1997) “Philosophical Issues in Adventure Education.” Kendal. Hunt, Iowa.

16. Gelter, H. (2007) “Friluftsliv as slow experience within the postmodern experience society.”

17. Henderson, B &Vikander, N. (2007) “Nature first: Outdoor life the friluftsliv way.”Natural heritage books. Ontario,          Canada. 37-47.

18. Barnes, P. (2004) ‘Debate and Cliché: A Philosophy for Outdoor Education?’ in P. Barnes

and B. Sharp (eds.), The RHP Companion to Outdoor Education, Russell House, Dorset,

8-13.

19. Gill, T. 2007. Growing up in a risk adverse society. London : Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation

20. Mortlock, C. (2009) “The Spirit of Adventure.” Outdoor Integrity Publishing, Kendal.

21. Mortlock, C. (2013) “Values in Nature.” Lecture given at the Lindley Festival for Outdoor

Education, 23rd February.

22. Piaget, J. (1973) “To Understand is to Invent: The Future of Education.” Grossman, New

           York.