What to do in Sheffield

[Ogri the trog]

Robin, John - thanks for your comments - I'll try to post such that my intention doesn't get confused by lack of voice.
Sarah was/is a brilliant leader, enthusiastic, articulate and down to earth, we had some challenging times when I stumbled on theoretical elements, but nothing has detracted from my intentions. We were a class of 14, 3 of whom were male and the class was considered to be "male heavy". I had a minor loss of faith in thinking that the use of tools contradicted industy practice, but soon realised that Forest Schools merely want to broaden the views of young people and keep them safe in the presence of sharps, rather than teach them how to use the tools in the industrialy acceptable manner.
In order to pass on my knowledge, I know that I'll have to rethink what I'm doing. When I come across a problem, I have become used to thinking - "how can I overcome this problem?" - it is my lone approach which worked for me in industry but seems the polar oposite of the ethics of forest schools. What I need to be able to convey is "How can I involve others in my reasoning, such that they are better able to progress if they reach a similar situation in the future." Its not that the psych-side of teaching frightens me, it is just another way of thinking that I am unused to laying out so formally. The pedagogical method you mention is something that I'll need to study. Reasoning why I position my body like so and why I hold the tool in this way rather than that - will help my learning too.
It is curious as you say that men are so lacking in Forest Schools as the traditional view is of a Woodsman rather than a Woodswoman. It is certainly a journey that I'm looking forward to, I will not be put off by lack of understanding in a small area, and the knowledge is bound to come as soon as I can get amongst it.
Please feel free to share my ramblings with Sarah, I hope she doesn't see me as a PITA that I might have seemed at some points We ended the course on amiable terms, though I wish there was more time to be in the presence of people like her and yourself.
Thanks for taking the time to reply as I value all comments that encourage me onward - I really must get some time in soon, I know I'll enjoy it when it happens.

ATB

Ogri the trog

 

[Fallow Way]

From personal experinece of doing the course, yes there is a lot to take in. There were portions I had difficulty understanding so stuck my hand up and asked the questions and left knowing what I needed to know.

I think it is very easy to disregard the thoeretical side however, as Forest Schools is not there to teach outdoor skills, it is there to use the process of learning and using those skills for social, emotional and personal development, which would require and understanding of psychological theory and how to utilise and apply it in a long term programme.

For example, how can I employ accelerated learning, idetifying scheme and working to them or multiple intelligences, if I have not taken the time to study them? Am I really doing what is best by the learners if I have not?

Also there is an important decision, to use Forest Schools, or not to. Using Bushcraft to build self esteem for someone is fantastic and is as valid as anything else in this world which does something similar, but it is not Forest Schools. That is not to say Forest Schools is better, but it has core principles and subjects, which if you are not employing, can you really be doing Forest Schools?

I can understand Robin`s view on disempowering, but personally I feel that everyone takes responsibility for their own learning. Sarah will probably tell you that I sat there the first couple of days with a big old frown on my face trying to get to grips with it as it was such a shift out of my comfort zone into the theory realm. I viewed myself as the most unlikely of people to understand, but I just stuck at it, asked things I did not know and it clicked.

Others had a completely different reaction, very very comfortable with the theory side, but out of their depth (they initially perceived themselves to be) in terms of working outdoors.

There is at its core both the practial elements and the theortical element, which only together can it really deliver the potential of Forest Schools.

I think the course is fantastic, things are delivered in plain english and those elements which have no plain english translation, can be re-interprited and explained in a number of ways relevent to the student. I do feel, and I am not leveling this at Pete, just as a general obervation, as though the issue revolves around people attending without fully understanding what it is that is invovled. I am working towards putting on taster days where it is expressly discussed in detail all of the various elements. There is a general notion of Forest Schools floating around which is not always accurate, or people have seen a session and seen what practically goes on, but unaware of all the work going on in the background.

 

[Fallow Way]

Orig,

you posted while I was here there and everywhere typing up my post at the same time

I am glad you feel that way, yes there are challenged and new ways of thicking, but nothing beyond or more complex that what most people are capable of when they spend a bit of time.

Best quote I heard about Forest Schools is that it is not about how much wood you cut, but the way in which you cut it.

 

[robin wood]

ahh Gwasshopper in cutting the wood is not the woodcutter also fashioned.


Favourite quote on educational practice, perhaps more relevant to SATS than forest schools "you don't fatten a pig by weighing it"

 

[Fallow Way]

"you don't fatten a pig by weighing it"

my new favourite quote of ALL TIME

 

[DoctorSpoon]

Sorry to be chipping into this debate late, but I’ve been lecturing this morning! I advise everyone to be deeply suspicious of any ‘psychological theory’ of education. Such theories are inevitably gross over-simplifications of some complex academic argument that once published the academic has moved on from and is working on the next thing.

‘Learning styles’ are a fine case in point. There is now a multi-million pound industry built up around evaluating students learning styles and training teachers how to teach to different learning styles. I delved deeply into the statistics behind it all for my PhD and dropped it all because it was so dodgy. Their original observation that different people have preferences for learning things in different ways was sound, but there is simply no evidence that by teaching to people’s learning styles they will perform any better.

It is useful to understand the differences between learners and to deliver a range of material to be delivered in different ways, but the better all students become at developing all their senses the more rounded they will become and the easier it will be for them to get on in the real world.

I’ll get off my soap box now …

 

[John Fenna]

Very good points indeed!
If you only reinforce strengths then the person does not develop all their abilities.
Works for me!

 

[Fallow Way]

Again, looking at the context in which Forest School is used,

It is not a long term apporach to developing alternative learning styles. What it does do is identify those avenues through which the learner naturally learns easiest and employs them during the programme. Assessing if a learner is a Visual, Auditory or Kinesthetic learner can and has served to engage that person considerably more than by ignoring it.

"It is useful to understand the differences between learners and to deliver a range of material to be delivered in different ways" - thank you, you have proved the point of what Forest School training tries to acheive.

I use learning styles as part of my every day work and by identifying an auditory learner, I can adapt my delivery to them, with a kinesthetic, I know how to introduce a new skill.

Forest Schools is concerned not so much with developing their learning style, but using it to develop other aspects, in fact generally some sort of weakness, poor communication skills, low self esteem etc.

 

[John Fenna]

Why not call them "a watcher", " a listener", "a doer" then those who have not done the advanced English course can understand you?

 

[Fallow Way]

or, if someone doesn’t know what they are, ask, that is how I learnt.
How do you propose we establish which words everyone understands and which ones we cant use?

This topic is about Forest Schools and so using terminology which is used in Forest Schools in likely if the discussion requires it. Much the same as bushcraft terminology being used on the forum...its a given assumption everyone understands them, but when someone does not, they ask.

Terminology is rife, as long as you use it to be specific in your references, I dont see the problem. I myself dont like the smart-**** for the sake of it crowd.

 

[John Fenna]

Fair enough - your game ,your rules...

 

[Fallow Way]

my game? my rules??????

 

[Ogri the trog]

Hang on fellah's,
I could do with a few more positive vibes coming out of here!

John, watcher, listener and doer are great descriptions of visual, auditory and kinesthetic (wow I remembered how to spell it without looking it up!) - I was hoping to pick it up through context but now I don't have to.

I can see that there is a need for big word gobbledegook, as that is the language used by those who hold the purse-strings and hence who control whether any project proceeds or falls flat before the word "Go!"

Thanks for all your input, I'll probably have a plethora more questions once we get into the new year and I can find a placement to further my ambitions.

ATB

Ogri the trog

 

[John Fenna]

What I mean is if this is the terminology used in the environment you are working in then all those in that environment need to use the same terminology so that you all play the game to a common bank of reference points.
When I was studying psycology (very short course) and coaching techniques I became conversant with these and other terms for learning styles.
Not everyone reading this thread may understand the terms, which is why I asked if using common language terminology for clarifdication might not be possible.
This is not to deride the use of this terminology in an environment where the terms are readily understood by al concerned - all discrete groupings use their jargons.

 

[DoctorSpoon]

"It is useful to understand the differences between learners and to deliver a range of material to be delivered in different ways" - thank you, you have proved the point of what Forest School training tries to acheive.

I use learning styles as part of my every day work and by identifying an auditory learner, I can adapt my delivery to them, with a kinesthetic, I know how to introduce a new skill.

That is not what I meant!I am sure you are a good teacher who is sensitive to your learners needs, but I feel you should know the fundamental theory learning styles are based on is deeply flawed. I studied it in depth during my PhD and it would have been very convenient for me to use it, but I cut it entirely out of my thesis in the end because it just doesn’t hold water.

Briefly … learning styles originated with an academic called David Kolb, they became very popular but have recently had criticism aimed at them from other academics in the educational world. In recent papers Kolb himself has acknowledged that the research focussed on extreme cases that don’t reflect reality, people who strongly represent any of the four learning styles are rare, so he has made a new grid of nine learning styles to also represent those who’s preferences lie in between the extremes. He then looked at what he called the adapted flexibility of learners, their ability to work in styles away from their main preferences. He tried to show that the more balanced a learner was the more flexible they were, but the results were shaky. I rummaged deeply through is statistics and they are pretty inconclusive.

As so many people have pinned so much on the learning style theory they have quietly overlooked this latest research and are still selling the theory that it is best to adapt teaching to learners individual needs. Kolb is making the best of it but I think he is squirming.

My advice as one who both studies learning theory and teaches craft skills - trust your instinct. Learners are individuals, they don’t conform to some neat theory. As you teach, watch your learner, view their actions as revealing the meaning they have constructed for the guidance you have given. Watch, reflect and modify your guidance until you and your learner understand each other.

 

[Fallow Way]

Misunderstanding of what I am referring to as learning styles,

I am familiar with Kolb, I too have found his work difficult at times to take on board when you start researching the theory more (i studied A level psychology, nothing compared to you obviously, but I have some sort of grounding, albeit a shaky one )

By learning styles I am referring to VAK learning styles rather than Kolb`s experimental learning theory.

For everyone else

Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic - very basically the senses through which you learn best, through looking, hearing or doing. There is also olfactory and gustatory however these are not widely used to teach within most contexts.

Kolb is more complicated than that and too much to type here. ( http://www.businessballs.com/kolblearningstyles.htm)

 

[DoctorSpoon]

VAK is primarily a simplified version of Kolb's theory. Newcastle University conducted a major review in 2004 and identified 50 or more different learning style models - they concluded that all were highly questionable and there was little evidence that teaching to learning styles provided any advantage.

The University's report is here http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/PDF/1543.pdf if you're interested.

 

[Mikey P]

If you're still looking for something to do in Sheffield, you could go down to the Leadmill, see a good band, get w******d, and forget you'd ever started this thread.

 

[DoctorSpoon]

and Wednesday night you get four bands for £4 down the Plug, but you need to be w******d to listen to them!

 

[spamel]

What is this VAK monkey business? The way we teach in the forces is by EDIP. Anything can be taught using this simple process, from something as simple as putting up a basha or polishing your boots to operating a tank. Explanation, Demonstration, Imitation, Practise. Even the thickest soldier can be taught complicated systems on a vehicle using this process, I know because I was once that instructor and I had some really thick students! They all went on to be good operators.