Journeys to Far-Away Places: Wrestling with the Sustainability of Outdoor Education in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Over 35 years ago, the Brundtland Report entitled Our Common Future shed light on the impacts of human behavior on the environment and raised global awareness about sustainability. Since then, sustainability has become a prominent issue influencing most spheres of life including outdoor education (OE). Purpose: This inquiry seeks to identify the necessary conditions for justifying OE travel to far-away places. Methodology: We investigated this question using practitioner inquiry and thematic analysis. Findings: The authors believe some far-away journeys can be justified and recommend that these journeys are guided by featuring learning objectives that are best learned in specific far-away places; maintaining strong connections to the students’ everyday lives; including high levels of student involvement in sustainability-related decisions; and through providing novel and unexpected experiences that are unlikely to occur locally. Finally, we believe there is a case to be made for longer rather than shorter journeys. Implications: We caution against developing a binary which pits local OE against journeys to far-away places. Rather, both local and far-away journeys have an important role to play in OE programs that aim to build a world that is more socially and environmentally just.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".