Green School Grounds as Sites for Outdoor Learning: Barriers and Opportunities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In their review of evidence-based research entitled A Review of Research on Outdoor Learning, Rickinson et al. (2004) identify five key constraints that limit the amount of outdoor learning. This paper explores whether green school grounds might be a location where these constraints could be minimised. Specifically, it reports on a study that sought to investigate the use of green school grounds as sites for outdoor learning, to identify barriers that impede such use, and to examine how these barriers differ from those cited in Rickinson et al.’s review. A mixed method approach was used: (1) 149 questionnaires were completed by administrators, teachers, and parents associated with 45 school ground greening initiatives in a Canadian school board; (2) 21 follow-up interviews were completed at five of the schools. Study participants reported that green school grounds are used regularly for teaching some subjects, notably science and physical education, but considerably less for teaching language arts, mathematics, and geography. They also identified a series of barriers that limit the amount of outdoor learning and these are compared to those identified by Rickinson et al. (2004). This paper concludes with a discussion of how the opportunities for teaching and learning on green school grounds can be more fully maximised.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it