Wilderness Schooling: A controlled trial of the impact of an outdoor education programme on attainment outcomes in primary school pupils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gaps in education attainment between high and low achieving children in the primary school years are frequently evidenced in educational reports. Linked to social disadvantage, these gaps have detrimental long‐term effects on learning. There is a need to close the gap in attainment by addressing barriers to learning and offering alternative contexts for education. There is increasing evidence for beneficial impacts of education delivered outdoors, yet most programmes are un‐structured, and evidence is anecdotal and lacks experimental rigour. In addition, there is a wealth of social‐emotional outcomes reported yet little in the way of educational attainment outcomes. The current study explores the educational impact of a structured curriculum‐based outdoor learning programme for primary school children: ‘Wilderness Schooling’. A matched‐groups design: Wilderness Schooling (n=223) and conventional schooling (n=217), was used to compare attainment data in English reading, English writing and maths, collected at three time‐points: Pre‐ (T1) and post‐intervention (T2) and at a 6‐week follow up (T3). Data show that children in the Wilderness Schooling group significantly improved their attainment in all three subjects compared to controls. Trajectories of impact indicated attainment continued to increase from baseline in the following weeks after the intervention concluded. These results allow the case to be made for the core curriculum to be conducted outdoors to improve children's learning. However, it is important to consider that there are likely to be various components of the intervention that could form a theory of change essential to reported outcomes.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".