var textForPages = ["","","HANA SVOBODOVÁ                                                OUTDOOR EDUCATION                                                 IN GEOGRAPHY:                                                           A SPECIFIC                            EDUCATIONAL STRATEGY","","HANA SVOBODOVÁ                                                      HANA SVOBODOVÁ                                                OUTDOOR EDUCATION                                                 IN GEOGRAPHY:                                                           A SPECIFIC                            EDUCATIONAL STRATEGY                                                               MASARYK UNIVERSITY PRESS                                                                        BRNO 2019","KATALOGIZACE V KNIZE - NÁRODNÍ KNIHOVNA ČR              Svobodová, Hana, 1982-             Outdoor education in geography: a specific educational strategy / Hana Svobodová. --             First edition. -- Brno: Masaryk University Press, 2019. -- 1 online zdroj             České resumé             Obsahuje bibliografii, bibliografické odkazy a rejstřík              ISBN 978-80-210-9522-9 (online ; pdf)             * 37.091.33/.39 * 37.091.214 * 91 * 796.012.6 * 37.012 * 373.3 * (437.3) * (048.8)             – 2016-2018             – terénní vyučování             – vzdělávací programy -- Česko             – zeměpis             – pohybová aktivita             – pedagogický výzkum -- Česko -- 2011-2020             – základní školy -- Česko             – monografie             37.09 - Organizace výuky a vzdělávání [22]               Reviewers:             assoc. prof. dr. Dagmar Popjaková, Ph.D., Matej Bel University, Banská Bystrica,             Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Geography and Geology             dr. Mojca Ilc Klun, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of Geography                Acknowledgement             This work was supported by a Czech Science Foundation, project 16-00695S Fieldwork as             a powerful learning strategy. Partial materials from the projects supported by a Faculty of             Education Grant (MUNI/A/0946/2015 The Use of Outdoor Education at Elementary Schools             as Specific Learning Strategy), the Fund for the Development of Masaryk University (MUNI/             FR/0881/2016 Topics for Outdoor Education) and Technology Agency of the Czech Republic             (TJ01000127 Fieldwork Education System for Elementary Schools) where the author of the             book was a member of the team were used as well. The translation and proofreading of the             work were supported from the project No. CZ.02.3.68/0.0/0.0/16_038/0006952 Rozvoj procesu             pregraduálního vzdělávání na PdF MU: důkladnou přípravou k dobré praxi (3P).              © 2019 Masaryk University Press              ISBN 978-80-210-9522-9             ISBN 978-80-210-9521-2 (brož. vazba)             https://doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.M210-9522-2019                   BY    NC                 BY       ND ND             CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Crea�ve Commons A�ribu�on-NonCommercial-NoDeriva�ves 4.0","CONTENT                    INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................9              1      THE CONCEPT OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP                      WITH THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM .....................................................13                 1.1  The term “outdoor education” ...............................................................13                1.2  Aims of outdoor education in the school curriculum .........................15                1.3  Anchoring of outdoor education in learning strategies ....................18                1.4  Integration of outdoor education in the current Czech curriculum ...19                  1.4.1  Educational system in the Czech Republic .........................................19                  1.4.2  Outdoor education in the Czech curriculum ......................................22                   1.4.3  Links between outdoor education and key competencies ................ 26                  1.4.4  Relation of outdoor education to cross-curricular subjects ................32                  1.4.5  The benefits of outdoor education to physical activity development  ...33                1.5  Organisation of outdoor education .....................................................34                   1.5.1   Phases of outdoor education ............................................................34                  1.5.2   Outdoor education aids  ...................................................................36                  1.5.3   Health and safety conditions of outdoor education ..........................37              2     CHANGES IN OUTDOOR EDUCATION .............................................. 41                2.1  Origins of outdoor education ...............................................................41                2.2  Current strategy of outdoor education .............................................43                 2.3   Definitions of partial forms of outdoor education in context of                         Czech education .....................................................................................47                  2.3.1  Excursion ......................................................................................... 48                   2.3.2  (Didactic) walk ................................................................................. 49                  2.3.3  Outdoor exercise ..............................................................................52                  2.3.4  (School) trip ......................................................................................53","2.3.5  School in the countryside..................................................................53                   2.3.6  Course ..............................................................................................54                  2.3.7  (School) package tour .......................................................................55                  2.3.8  Education on school grounds ............................................................55                  2.3.9  Inquiry-based forms of outdoor education ........................................56                 2.4   Approaches to outdoor education realisation....................................57                  2.4.1  Content aspect .................................................................................57                  2.4.2  Time aspect ......................................................................................61                  2.4.3  Localisation aspect .......................................................................... 62                  2.4.4  Organisational aspect ......................................................................63              3    SUGGESTIONS FOR OUTDOOR EDUCATION FOR ELEMENTARY                    SCHOOLS ........................................................................................... 65                3.1  Type tasks for geographical outdoor education .................................70                3.2   The case study – complex task for outdoor education ........................74                  3.2.1  Preparation of a model geographical case study ...............................76                   3.2.2  Assignment of model geographical case study .................................82                  3.2.3  Solution and assessment of a model case study ............................... 84              4      RESEARCH INTO OUTDOOR EDUCATION AS A POWERFUL                     EDUCATIONAL STRATEGY – METHODOLOGY .................................. 85                4.1  Research need .........................................................................................85                 4.2  The aim of the research ......................................................................... 88                4.3  Research design ..................................................................................... 88                  4.3.1   Content analysis of the school educational programmes ................. 90                  4.3.2  Structured interviews with teachers .................................................93                   4.3.3  Questionnaire survey with pupils ..................................................... 99                  4.3.4  Questionnaire survey with parents .................................................100                  4.3.5  Triangulation of results ...................................................................101                  4.3.6  Measurement of the pupils’ physical activity ..................................102","5    RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH ............................................................105                5.1  Anchoring of outdoor education in school educational                        programmes ..........................................................................................105                5.2   Outdoor education from the perspective of                        elementary school teachers ...............................................................116                   5.2.1   Implementation of outdoor education by the teacher and the school ... 118                  5.2.2   Prerequisites and barriers to the advancement of outdoor education ... 125                  5.2.3 Promoting outdoor education .........................................................134                  5.2.4   Teachers´ assessment of the outdoor education outcomes ............. 135                5.3   Outdoor education from the perspective of pupils ...........................136                   5.3.1   Results of a questionnaire survey with pupils of grades 5 and 6 .......136                  5.3.2   Results of a questionnaire survey with pupils of grades 8 and 9 ......144                5.4    Outdoor education from the perspective of parents ....................... 151                5.5   Triangulation of results ....................................................................153                   5.5.1    Comparing the SEPs content analysis to the outcomes of                               interviews with teachers ................................................................153                  5.5.2    Comparing the teachers’, pupils’ and parents’ views of                               outdoor education .........................................................................154                5.6    Benefits of outdoor education for the development of                          the pupils’ physical activity ................................................................160             6 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................167              CONCLUSION ........................................................................................173             RESUME.................................................................................................177             RESOURCES ..........................................................................................179             LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................191              LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................193             LIST OF TABLES .....................................................................................195             INDEX ....................................................................................................197","I would like to thank Eduard Hofmann, a colleague from the Department of Geography, Faculty             of Educacion, Masaryk University that he has brought me to the topic of outdoor education.             Thanks also to other members of the Department of Geography who address the theme of             outdoor education, whether, concerning theory or practice, namely, it is Radek Durna, Darina             Mísařová, Petr Knecht and Tereza Češková.             At the same time as this monograph, the Concept of Outdoor Education for the Elementary             School (Svobodová, Mísařová, Durna, Češková, \& Hofmann, 2019) was developed, in which             a number of pieces of knowledge from this book were used.","INTRODUCTION                                Using the real world is the way learning has happened for 99.9% of human                      existence, only in the last hundred years have we put it in a little box called                                                                       a classroom.                                             Will Nixon, Letting Nature Shape Childhood                Outdoor education refers to a learning format that has long been seen as a very             powerful learning strategy for understanding today’s world. Its objective is to give a             practical and usable dimension to the matter being taught. It is specific to a variety             of natural and social science disciplines. In the Czech school curriculum, the format             is well established in teaching geography and biology and in physical education.             As irreplaceable as it may be seen to be within the educational system, the attempts             at comprehensively incorporating outdoor education in tuition at all levels and             all types of schools have so far failed in certain states (such as Czechia, Slovakia,             Slovenia... – see, for example, Vlček et al., 2016). Indeed, outdoor education places             great demands not only on teachers and pupils but also on school management and             parents. For teachers who are accustomed to their dominant classroom role, outdoor             education represents a significant obstacle as they can no longer assess their pupils             on their achievement only, but rather on the overall course of the outdoor education             activity as the tuition is of an open-ended type.              The publication presented is based on the findings obtained from the project             16-00695S  Fieldwork as a powerful learning strategy, which was supported by             the Czech Science Foundation. The project aimed to analyse the benefits of outdoor             education in teaching geography and developing the motoric competencies of             pupils at elementary  schools. The same aim is pursued in this book and is based                              1             on two key assumptions: (1) Outdoor education contributes to the development of             all the key competencies of pupils listed in the Framework Educational Programme                  1       The term “elementary education” is used as a superior term of primary and lower secondary             education as ISCED, 2011 defines it. Sometimes the term “elementary” is translated from the Czech             language also as “basic” education; however, the author does not use this term.                                                 9","for Elementary Education in the Czech Republic and to the linking of theoretical             and practical knowledge. (2) Outdoor education contributes to the development of             natural motoric activity and a healthier lifestyle of pupils.             Although the book approaches outdoor education as a learning format that may be             implemented in the tuition of all subjects, some of its parts are focused explicitly on             outdoor education in geography education, which deals mainly with the interaction             of humans and nature. In other words, geography integrates knowledge from both             natural and social sciences. It is also characteristic for geography that it deals with             space and spatiality, i.e. the landscape that surrounds us, its history, its presence and             the prognosis of its further development. While a chemist or a physicist needs a real             laboratory for his work, for a geographer, the landscape itself is both a laboratory             and a living textbook. As Marada (2006, p. 2) notes: “If we intend to use the landscape             without destroying it, we should actively try to get to know it.”              The publication aims to promote outdoor education as a strong teaching strategy,             to describe its links to the school curriculum, and to offer teachers a helping hand in             developing the concept of outdoor education. All of this is based on exploring the             benefits of outdoor education in teaching and promoting physical activity, which is             a natural part of it, from the point of view of pupils, and finding out about the attitudes             of teachers and parents to outdoor education.              The publication is divided into two sections. The first section deals with outdoor             education as a specific educational strategy. It analyses how outdoor education is             established in the Czech school curriculum, outlining the steps necessary for outdoor             education to be implemented, in terms of preparation of both the teachers and             pupils. At the same time, the section describes the transformations of outdoor             education and compares the current state of outdoor education abroad and in the             Czech Republic, including a description of the most common forms of outdoor             education applied currently in Czech schools. In the conclusion, this section provides             specific recommendations for the development of an outdoor education concept             for elementary schools. This part, among others, presents a model preparation for             outdoor education. It provides specific guidelines for how to implement outdoor             education for supporting both problem-solving tasks and pupils’ physical activity.              The second part of the publication is devoted to outdoor education research as             a strong educational strategy. First, the research needs and the research aim are             described, including the methods used. Then, the results of the research, conducted             in cooperation with elementary school teachers, pupils of a model elementary school             and their parents, are presented in detail.                                                     10","In  addition  to  addressing  the  professional  objectives,  the  publication  also             aims to contribute to the discussion on the current state of implementation of             outdoor education in the Czech setting. It is well known – and it will be pointed             out on multiple occasions in the publication – that although outdoor education is             a powerful educational strategy, it often seems difficult to show its power in the             Czech school setting.              The publication is intended for both professionals and the teachers’ community,             who may be inspired in preparing their own outdoor education projects and in             incorporating outdoor education in the comprehensive system of elementary school             education. The author of book hopes all readers consider the book as a valuable source             of information and ideas to ponder not only in the context of outdoor education but             in the context of education in general.                                                                                              11","","1                 THE CONCEPT OF OUTDOOR                  EDUCATION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP                        WITH THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM                                       You can discover more in an hour of play than you can in a lifetime                                                                    of conversation.                                                                   Unknown author                 1.1    THE TERM “OUTDOOR EDUCATION”                                                             2             In professional literature the term “outdoor education ” is often combined with             outdoor learning/teaching or  fieldwork (see for example Biddulph, Lambert,             \& Balderstone, 2015; Kent, Gilbertson, \& Hunt, 1997; Lambert \& Reiss, 2014; Ofsted,             2011; Oost, De Vries, \& van der Schee, 2011, or Rickinson et al., 2004). Lambert             and  Reiss  (2014)  state  that  fieldwork  can  be  understood  as  any  other  part  of             the curriculum, including both leaving the space of the classical school classroom             and activities leading towards accomplishment of the educational and upbringing             goals through first-hand experiences, and hand-on experience (Nicol, 2007), using             the phenomenon of education in the open air (outdoors). We agree with the opinion             of the above-quoted authors who consider outdoor education in the “real world” as             an essential part of science education, as it develops the skills needed for grasping             the very essence of this area of human/student/pupil inquiry. Outdoor education             is similarly seen as an integral part of science education for example by Kent et al.             (1997), who believe that outdoor education is not only effective but also a very             pleasant part of education for all participants to the educational process. The role of             outdoor education in the sense of a strong teaching strategy is also pointed out by                2       Outdoor education consists of “outdoor learning“ on the pupil´s side, and “outdoor teaching“             on the teacher´s side. Fieldwork is a particular field activity included in the superior category of “outdoor             education“.                                                 13","Dutch authors (Oost, De Vries, \& van der Schee, 2011), who define outdoor education             as an implementation of educational activities in the outdoor setting, connected             with particular curriculum contents. Oost, De Vries and van der Schee (2011) identify             themselves with the opinions of Rickinson et al. (2004), who say that well thought-out             and sensibly implemented outdoor education, included after (or before) the relevant             classroom theme, provides pupils with many new opportunities for development             of their knowledge and skills, as well as adding value to their everyday classroom             experience. All  of  the  above-mentioned  reasons  support  the  idea  of  frequent             incorporation of outdoor education into the curricula.              In Czech literature, outdoor education is described in Řezníčková (2008, p. 10), who             points out the lack of clarity regarding the very term and offers other concepts:             education organised in the (urban/rural) environment, field education, fieldwork,             field exercises, excursions, educational walks or geographic laboratories. Činčera and             Holec (2016) presented a comprehensive overview of outdoor education in formal             education, drawing upon an analysis of over 70 studies dealing with the impact of             outdoor education programmes in formal education on pupil knowledge, attitudes,             skills, convictions and behaviour.               In Slovakia, which was formerly a part of a common country with the Czechia and             thus had a common educational system, a study into the effectiveness of outdoor             education was undertaken, for example, by Kvasničák, Prokop and Pištová (2005)             and Kvasničák (2013), who refer to the concept as experiential field education and             classify the activity under informal education. Basic outdoor education activity –             observation – was described in detail by another Slovak author (Mazúrek, 1984).              Although the Czech educational system includes outdoor education, see e.g, the             educational  areas  of  the  Framework  Educational  Programme  for  Elementary             Education (hereinafter FEP EE) relating to Biology (Empirical exploration of nature)             and Geography (Field geographic education, practice and application), the concept             has yet to be defined in precise terms in Czech literature. Therefore, we define it             based on the definition of Hofmann (2003) as:                   Outdoor education is an ‘umbrella’ concept for multiple forms of teaching, with                   the common feature of being undertaken outdoors, outside of school buildings.                   Outdoor education can take on a variety of organisational forms, from didactic walks,                   excursions and field exercises to field research. If outdoor education should have                   any benefits for pupils, they must be actively performing activities such as collecting                   and processing information from primary and secondary sources, using the research                   methods and aids of individual scientific disciplines. (p. 7)                                                    14","We support the idea that if any form of outdoor education is to be beneficial for             the pupils, they have to be active during the whole session (i.e. perform an activity             such as observation, measurement etc.) and not to be a mere passive recipient of             information conveyed by the teacher. It further needs to be noted that some authors             (Oláhová \& Nemčíková, 2009; Turčová, Martin, \& Neuman, 2005) include in outdoor             education also teaching in an educational institution other than school (for example             the municipal council, a museum, a gallery, an industrial or agricultural plant, etc.).             In this case, we would like to point out that in addition to the distinction between             classroom and outdoor education there is also a possible distinction between teaching             in the “real” and “artificial” environment outside the school building. According to             Škoda and Doulík (2011, p. 39) in the real-life environment the pupils can observe             or study real phenomena (natural, anthropogenic) on real object examples or real             processes (deforestation, landslides, water pollution, suburbanisation, etc.). On the             other hand, in the artificial environment they often only come across figures or models             more or less effectively representing the above-mentioned phenomena.              The concept of “indoor” learning in a real environment (a manufacturing plant, an             office, a library) seems to be closer to fieldwork than learning in the artificial (school)             environment because it offers the option of direct observation of selected phenomena             (see above).              Outdoor education denotes not only an organisational form of education (from the             point of view of the setting in which the education takes place, see for instance             Průcha, Walterová, \& Mareš, 2013), but also a powerful teaching strategy (Lambert,             \& Balderstone, 2010; Gilbertson et al., 2006), which conveys a more comprehensive             understanding of the real world. Gilbertson et al. (2006) also notes that when             undergoing outdoor education, pupils must step out of the comfort zone they             are accustomed to from classroom education, which gives the educational process             a new dimension.               1.2      AIMS OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN THE SCHOOL                    CURRICULUM               The aims of outdoor education must, first and foremost, be based on the general             educational aims of each specific subject. For geography, one of the most important             aims is to convey to pupils a real understanding of the world, nature and society,             including the evolution patterns in nature and society at a particular point in time and             in a particular place, an understanding of the relationships and ties existing in nature             and society. The mission of cognitive education is to cast light upon the principles                                                  15","of geographical analysis and synthesis and generalisation and the study of small             and large areas. Education should help develop the pupil’s geographic and logical             reasoning. Moral education shapes the morality and volition and attitudes of pupils             during geography classes and, along with education for patriotism, humanism and             international cooperation, it presents to the pupils the world that immediately             surrounds them, their homeland and cooperation with other countries of the world. In             work education, pupils are taught to use and control maps, magnetic compasses, GPS             and other devices, etc. Affective and aesthetic education teaches pupils to explore             nature and the creative work of people. As a particular objective of geography, there             is environmental education, which, in this case, involves a comprehensive use of the             interactions between nature and society. Geography teaches pupils to understand             the world around them and orientate themselves in it (Šupka, Hofmann, \& Rux, 1993,             adapted). Many of these aims are reflected in the aims and tuition of other subjects,             not only those related to natural sciences.              According to Lambert and Balderstone (2010, p. 281), the main purpose of outdoor             education is to drag pupils directly into the educational process, increasing their             motivation for learning. However, the aim is not to teach new knowledge to the pupils.             Outdoor education should deepen the knowledge already acquired and convey to             pupils a clearer understanding of the phenomena and events occurring around             them. Scott, Fuller and Gaskin (2006) add that the inclusion of outdoor education             in the curriculum should help contextualise the subject theory and develop subject-             specific skills in a real-life setting.              These general objectives are elaborated upon by the specific objectives of outdoor             education laid out for individual subjects, which, according to Řezníčková (2008),             involve the following in particular:                       –  Practising the skills related to the collection, sorting and use of information.                       –  Drawing experience from actual research and acquiring basic habits                      necessary for independent work, problem solving and organisation of                      one’s research.                        –  Applying  the  knowledge  acquired  from  theoretical  tuition  to  solve                      practical problems.              These objectives should also include the formulation of conclusions based on pupils’             own research.              However,  outdoor  education  also  elaborates  upon  many  specific  educational             objectives that lead to the gradual advancement of geographic thinking (see Table 1).                                                    16","TABLE 1             KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ATTITUDES THAT CAN BE PRACTISED IN OUTDOOR EDUCATION                         relationships (people – the environment);                         systems (interactions between different components of the environment);                         environmental protection (the need to protect the environment);                         place (each place has undergone specific development and has an unmistakable                         character);                         change (the present state has its roots in the past);                         conflict (we live in a world full of conflicts that people try to solve in various ways);                         planning (the impact of the changes we intended to make on the environment must                         also be taken into account);                         inequality – class-related, racial (present all over the world along with the uneven                         distribution of power and wealth);                         political power (individuals and groups of people can influence the situation at home                         and in the world);                         relative position (this may refer, for example, to distance and direction from another              KNOWLEDGE  known place);                         migration (people move between states and even within individual countries);                         concentration/dispersion (each area has its own attractions);                         networks, nodes (for example, a transport link between locations within a specific                         area);                         behaviour (attitudes, values, and behaviour of the people that make certain                         decisions);                         scale/distance (different situations can be viewed from different angles);                         similarity/differences (there are many differences between people, for example,                         ethnic, social, cultural, and, on the other hand, people are similar in that they need                         love, friendship);                         prediction (it is possible and even necessary to anticipate certain spatial changes                         and processes);                         economic development (there are apparent differences in the state of economic                         development everywhere);                         collection of information (collecting data from field research, collecting data from                         secondary sources – books, magazines, statistical yearbooks, the Internet, etc.);                         information processing (transforming the data acquired into charts, sketches, maps,                         plans, working with text, creative writing, artistic and design work, spatial design...);                         interpretation of information (data interpretation using charts, diagrams,              SKILLS     cartograms, sketches, maps, atlases, plans, photographs, aerial and satellite                         images, etc.);                         assessment (getting a feel for certain life roles, using games, inducing various                         situations, making decisions, group and pair discussions);                         synthesis (research and its application to plausible situations, conclusions                         and recommendations);                                                 17","to inequality within society;                         to the quality of life of an individual;                         to justice and law;                         to the quality of the environment;              ATTITUDES                         to the need for change;                         to the impact of global changes on the life of individuals;                         to the accountability of the contemporary society to future generations;                         to listening to the opinions of others;             Source: Greasley et al. (1987), own adjustment.                1.3      ANCHORING OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN LEARNING                    STRATEGIES              From the point of view of the learning theories promoted today, outdoor education             can rely upon situated learning theories (cf. Lave \& Wenger, 1991). At the end of             the 1980s, these theories were at the very heart of the shift in dominant paradigms             in  educational  psychology,  which  saw  a  shift  from  cognitivism  towards  weak             constructivism, especially situated cognition. The reason for the paradigm shift was             that school education often contributed to deepening the issue of inert knowledge             (this term refers to the knowledge the pupil has already acquired but is unable to apply             in challenging situations). Numerous pieces of research have shown that knowledge             is most efficiently formed in modelling authentic life situations as it results from             an individual’s activity, the context and the culture in which it is developed and used             (Brown, Collins, \& Duguid, 1989).             Situated learning theories prefer learning that is theoretically robust on the one hand             and applied to practical settings or to settings that are close to practice on the other.             The aim is for the pupils not only to have contextually delimited knowledge but             also to be able to use the knowledge in situations outside the school setting (see             Minaříková, 2011, pp. 47–48).              The situated learning theory was elaborated upon, for methodological purposes,             among others, in the anchored instruction theory (for details see CTGV, 1990;             Bransford, Brown, \& Cocking, 1999; Love, 2005 and others). The aim is to make             pupils more familiar with the conditions in which the knowledge acquired at school             can be used. Years of experimental verification showed that anchored instruction             makes pupils more able to address problem-solving tasks autonomously, and to think             and to develop their knowledge and skills (CTGV, 1990). The “anchor” in anchored             instruction represents an environment that is close to everyday authentic life             situations. In this way, anchored instruction activates the pupils’ attention and their             previous knowledge.                                                 18","Taking the aims of natural science education into account, it seems beneficial for             pupils to experience authentic problem-oriented situations in the form of authentic             outdoor education situated in and around the school. This is why the term place-             based teaching/learning is used in this context. This concept has been introduced in             the Czech setting roughly over the last 10–15 years, primarily thanks to the initiative of             centres for environmental education. As noted by Činčera and Holec (2016), in terms             of methodology, it mainly relies upon project teaching/learning and service learning –             activities geared towards specific assistance to a given locality. As a result, pupils learn             to independently explore the local community and, where appropriate, take action to             address its problems. Outdoor education may be applied to all stages of tuition – for             example, during the initial joint mapping of local issues, data collection and the final             presentation of community project outcomes (Duffin, Powers, \& Tremblay, 2004;             Smith, 2007; Gruenewald, 2008). Locally anchored instruction programmes typically             target a wide range of pupil competencies and are specifically designed to strengthen             their relationship to the locality.              Generally speaking, the issue of outdoor education, its methodology and anchoring in             learning theories is gradually evolving and is very broad, and any attempt to describe             it will necessarily be somewhat reductionist.              1.4      INTEGRATION OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION                    IN THE CURRENT CZECH CURRICULUM               1.4.1   EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC              The system of education in the Czech Republic stems from the Education Act which             has designed a multi-level system of educational programmes that are created at             state and school level since 2004.             The main document which defines the principles of curriculum policy is the National             Education Development Programme in the Czech Republic, the White Paper (Kotásek             et al., 2001). It is a system project shaping the starting point of ideas, general plans             and development programmes which are to be decisive for the development of             the system of education in the medium-term horizon. In the National Education             Development Programme, educational objectives have been elaborated as proposed             by the Education Act No. 561/2004 Coll., which defines the main areas of education,             the content of education and the means necessary to achieve these objectives             (Framework Educational Programmes, 2005). The state level further consists of             Framework Educational Programmes (FEPs), which were created by the Research             Institute of Pedagogy and approved by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports.             The FEPs are created for individual fields of education and define the compulsory             contents, scope and conditions of education (Hofmann, Svobodová, \& Knecht, 2017).                                                  19","A two-level system of curriculum documents in which the state level and the             school level were distinguished was introduced (see figure 1). While the state-level             curriculum was represented by the Framework Educational Programmes (FEPs),             the school-level curriculum was formulated in the School Educational Programmes             (SEPs). The implementation of the state curriculum at school level is represented by             the development of School Educational Programmes (SEPs).              The education process takes place in educational facilities which, based on the             international standard classification of education, is classified under the following             levels:              International Standard Classification of Education – ISCED 2011 (the levels the book             deals with are highlighted in bold):                     0 –  Early childhood education (early childhood educational development;                       Programmes designed for children below the age of 3);                     0 –  Early childhood Education (pre-primary education; from age 3 to the start                       of primary education)                     1 –  Primary education (level 1 of primary education; grade 1–5; usual age                       in the Czechia 6–10);                    2 – Lower secondary education (grade 6–9 ; age 11–14);                                                        3                    3 –  Upper secondary education (grade 10–13 of Secondary School such as                       Grammar school or other types of school; age 15–18);                    4 – Post-secondary non-tertiary education (marginally used in the Czechia);                    5 – Short-cycle tertiary education (marginally used in the Czechia);                     6 – Bachelor or equivalent;                    7 – Master or equivalent;                    8 – Doctoral or equivalent.                        3       An elementary education in the Czechia has two levels – in the English language called primary             and lower secondary education. With respect to specifics of the Czech educational system, the author uses             these terms: “lower stage of elementary school” for grades 1–5 and “upper stage of elementary school”             for grades 6–9.                                                 20","FIGURE 1. THE SYSTEM OF CURRICULAR DOCUMENTS IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC (WHITE BOX) IN             RELATION TO THE DIMENSION OF LEARNING OUTCOMES (GREY BOX).             Source: based on the Framework Educational Programme for Preschool Education, 2016 (adjusted by             the author, 2018).             Diagram: FEP PE – Framework Educational Programme for Preschool Education, FEP EE – Framework             Educational Programme for Elementary Education and Appendix to the Framework Education Programme             for Elementary Education Regulating the Education of Pupils with Mild Mental Retardation (FEP – EE             MMR); FEP SGE – Framework Educational Programme for Secondary General Education (Grammar             Schools); FEP STVT – Framework Educational Programmes for Secondary Technical and Vocational             Training. * The other FEPs – other framework educational programmes which are also delimited by the             Education Act – Framework Educational Programme for Basic Art Education, Framework Educational             Programme for Language Education, and others.                The FEP for elementary education defines the educational contents which are divided             into nine educational areas. Each area consists of subjects which are interlinked.             The educational areas in the FEP for elementary education are the following:                     1.  Language  and  Language Communication  (educational  fields Czech                      language and literature, Foreign languages).                    2. Mathematics and its Application.                     3. Information and Communications Technology.                                                  21","4. People and their World .                                         4                    5. People and Society (educational fields History, Civics).                     6.  People  and  Nature  (educational  fields  Physics, Chemistry,  Biology,                      Geography).                     7. Art and Culture (educational fields Music Education, Art Education).                    8.  People  and  Health  (educational  fields  Health  Education,  Physical                      Education).                    9. People and the World of Work.               Elementary education is divided into level 1 (lower stage of elementary education)             and level 2 (upper stage of elementary education). Level one lasts for five years             (grade 1–5), and is attended by pupils at elementary schools. Level one is directly             followed by level two which completes the compulsory school attendance. It lasts             for four years (grade 6–9) and can take place at an elementary school, grammar             school or a conservatory. In this book, we use the term lower and upper stage of             elementary school.              1.4.2    OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN THE CZECH CURRICULUM              Outdoor education is already taken account for in the Framework Educational             Programme designed for lower elementary education, especially with regard to the             “People and their World” educational area (Table 2), which aims to lay the foundations             of life and social sciences. In this, it is recommended that as much use as possible             be made of the location where children go to school (the school neighbourhood).             This, for example, involves geographic topics associated with finding one’s way in the             landscape. Both the life and social science bases then include other elements such             as practical observations and simple measurements done outdoors, such as weather             monitoring and phenological observations. Pupils are also taught to record them in field             diaries, sketches, herbals, etc. Pupils also experience outdoor education during their             physical education and health education lessons, which may involve staying outdoors,             for example during outdoor games or various types of summer and winter tourism             activities. Long-term forms of these activities also offer vast opportunities for applying             outdoor education, such as the school in the countryside. It depends on the teachers             as to how they incorporate all these activities into the School Educational Programme.                   4       The only educational area designed only for the lower stage of elementary education.                                                 22","TABLE 2             ANCHORING OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN FRAMEWORK EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR             ELEMENTARY EDUCATION FOR THE LOWER STAGE OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION – SPECIFIC             PARTS OF THE EDUCATIONAL AREA “PEOPLE AND THEIR WORLD”               PLACE WHERE WE LIVE              Expected outcomes              the pupil shall:              •   Cycle 1: distinguish natural and man-made elements in the surrounding area and express their               aesthetic values and diversity in various ways.              •   Cycle 2: identify the cardinal points in nature as well as use a map, be able to navigate him/her               way around using them and observe the rules for safety of activity and sleeping in the open.              •   Cycle 2: find the typical regional characteristics of nature, settlement, economy and culture; make               a simple assessment of their importance in terms of nature, history, politics, administration and               ownership.              DIVERSITY OF NATURE              Expected outcomes              the pupil shall:              •   Cycle 1: observe, describe and compare visible changes in nature in the individual seasons of the               year.              •   Cycle 2: study basic communities in selected localities of regions, explain the principal mutual               relations between organisms, and identify shared and different features in the adaptation of               organisms to the environment.              PEOPLE AND THEIR HEALTH              Expected outcomes              the pupil shall:              •   Cycle 1: manage to apply the basic safety rules applicable to road users and act in such a way as               not to threaten their own health and the health of others.              •   Cycle 2: manage to employ effective modes of behaviour in situations that pose a threat to               health and in model situations simulating emergencies; be capable of perceiving the traffic               situation, correctly evaluating it and drawing appropriate conclusions for their own behaviour as a               pedestrian and a cyclist.             Source: Framework Educational Programme for Elementary Education (2016, pp. 44–50).               Outdoor education is also quite well established within the individual educational             areas set out in the FEP EE for the upper stage of elementary education and in the FEP             for grammar schools. In the “People and Society” educational area, the teacher             may, for example, include visits to museums, castles and châteaus as part of history             education, and they may organise various surveys, at the school location, as part             of civic education. The specific educational fields that relate directly to outdoor             education are anchored in the FEP EE, namely in the “People and Nature” educational             area for two subjects – Biology and Geography and in the “People and Health”             educational area for Physical Education (see tables 3, 4, 5).                                                     23","TABLE 3             ANCHORING OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN THE FRAMEWORK EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMME             FOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION FOR BIOLOGY EDUCATION               EMPIRICAL EXPLORATION OF NATURE              Expected outcomes              the pupil shall:              •   apply empirical methods of exploring nature;              •   observe the basic safety rules of work and conduct when becoming acquainted with animate               and inanimate nature.             Source: Framework Educational Programme for Elementary Education (2016, pp. 70–75).               TABLE 4             ANCHORING OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN THE FRAMEWORK EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMME             FOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION FOR GEOGRAPHY EDUCATION              FIELD GEOGRAPHIC EDUCATION, PRACTICE AND APPLICATION              Expected outcomes              the pupil shall:              •   master the basics of practical topography and orientation in the field;              •   apply practical methods in the field when observing, depicting and assessing the landscape;              •   apply the principles of safe movement and stay outdoors in practice, apply the principles of safe               conduct and emergency behaviour in model situations.             Source: Framework Educational Programme for Elementary Education (2016, pp. 75–80).               TABLE 5             ANCHORING OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN THE FRAMEWORK EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMME             FOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION FOR PHYSICAL EDUCATION              ACTIVITIES AFFECTING HEALTH              Expected outcomes              the pupil shall:              •   behave appropriately and safely even in less familiar environments of sports grounds, nature,               traffic; anticipate possible sources of injury and adapt his/her activities accordingly.              ACTIVITIES ENCOURAGING THE LEARNING OF EXERCISE ACTIVITIES              •   fulfil basic Olympic ideals in the school environment – fair competition, assistance to               the handicapped, respecting the opposite sex, nature preservation during sports;              •   organise simple tournaments, contests and hiking events on the school level on his/her own               and as part of a team; co-referee the games and competitions being learnt.             Source: Framework Educational Programme for Elementary Education (2016, pp. 96–100).                                                         24","5             In the FEP for grammar schools , where natural sciences enjoy a prominent position,             outdoor biology education is not assigned any  educational areas or expected             outcome. The expected outcomes for outdoor geography education are indicated             in Table 6, while for some of them, outdoor education is not explicitly expressed but             is rather implied in specific outcomes.              TABLE 6             ANCHORING OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN THE FRAMEWORK EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMME             FOR SECONDARY GENERAL EDUCATION (GRAMMAR SCHOOLS) FOR GEOGRAPHY EDUCATION              GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION AND OUTDOOR EDUCATION              Expected outcomes              the pupil shall:              •   use the available cartographic products and other geographic data and information sources in               printed and electronic form to address geographical issues;              •   find their way in the outdoor environment using maps;              •   use geographical, topographic and cartographic terminology in an informed manner;              •   create and use their own mental schemes and mental maps to find their way in a particular territory              •   read, interpret and compile simple charts and tables, analyse and interpret numerical geographic               data.             Source:  Framework Educational Programme for Secondary General Education (Grammar Schools; 2007,                  pp. 34–39).               Also, outdoor education may find a wide range of applications in physical education and             health education. As part of physical education (see Table 7) this mainly involves outdoor             stays, camps, and summer and winter training courses. During all these activities             the pupils either consciously or inadvertently/“automatically” use large portions             of the knowledge obtained from other subjects, such as map reading, identifying             poisonous plants or fungi, protecting themselves from weather changes. Attention is             paid to effective and safe behaviour while outdoor and in an unfamiliar environment.               TABLE 7             ANCHORING OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN THE FRAMEWORK EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMME             FOR SECONDARY GENERAL EDUCATION (GRAMMAR SCHOOLS) FOR PHYSICAL EDUCATION              ACTIVITIES PROMOTING PHYSICAL LEARNING              Expected outcomes              the pupil shall:              •   be capable of organising (in cooperation with other pupils) class- or school-wide tournaments,               competitions, tourist events and contribute to their implementation.             Source:  Framework Educational Programme for Secondary General Education (Grammar Schools; 2007,                  p. 62).                5       At other secondary schools, natural science (biology and geography) lessons are represented less             than at grammar schools, which makes the possibilities for organising outdoor education relatively small.                                                 25","One of the inherent shortcomings in Framework Educational Programmes may be             perceived in their being created in an isolated manner in terms of specific subjects as             well as specific educational levels. In fact, each educational area is created by a team             of experts in the given field, but the function of a “horizontal and vertical integrator”             for the educational areas is missing. It is negatively reflected in the continuity of             the anticipated outcomes in all educational areas the Framework Educational             Programmes cover. This becomes clear if Tables 4 and 6 are compared. Outdoor             geography education is assigned under a different thematic area heading. While in             the FEP EE the heading is “Field Geographic Education, Practice and Application”,             in the FEP SGE, it is “Geographic Information and Outdoor Education”. For physical             education, the educational area heading for primary and secondary grammar schools             is the same. In both cases, however, unlike for biology, which is not represented here             at all, certain progress may be observed in the curriculum for specific activities.              In conclusion, it should be stressed once again that the FEP EE and FEP SGE only             form a framework for the creation of the school curriculum. It is left entirely to the             teachers how they will transform the FEP into the SEP and actual classroom activity,             e.g., how many lessons will be allocated to short-term outdoor education, how many             days will be devoted to medium- and long-term outdoor education, what the specific             content is and what activities will be conducted with pupils.              1.4.3      LINKS BETWEEN OUTDOOR EDUCATION AND                    KEY COMPETENCIES              In addition to the above, outdoor education inherently contributes to the fulfilment             of pupils’ key competencies. Assuming, as the starting point, the categories defined             by the FEP EE and further specified in the manual published by the Educational             Research Institute (Bělecký et al., 2007), it can be argued that outdoor education has             the potential to develop key competencies, which means the following in particular             in education:                       –  knowledge acquisition (pupils look for and sort information and use it                      effectively in practical life);                        –  conceptualisation  (pupils  work  with  signs  and  symbols  which  they                      combine into larger units, creating more complex views of natural, social                      and cultural phenomena);                       –  pupil exploration (pupils autonomously observe and experiment and                      compare the results, critically assessing and drawing conclusions which                      they may use in the future from them);                       – metacognition, learning management and motivation.                                                   26","Outdoor education also provides pupils with sufficient space to develop problem-             solving competencies, which also form the basis for the development of learning             competencies and especially enhance the principles of critical thinking. During             outdoor education, pupils are left to choose the proper ways of solving problems.             To solve a problem, they employ logical, mathematical and empirical approaches.             Pupils have an opportunity to verify in practice the correctness of the solution they             have come up with and, if proven true, use the solution to address other problem             situations (Musilová, 2016, p. 26).              For geography, the principles of critical thinking may be narrowed down to thinking             specific for geography referred to as geographic thinking (Hynek \& Hynek, 2004;             Jackson, 2006; Karkdijk, van der Schee, \& Admiraal, 2013 and others). The power             of geographic thinking is described in A different view... (2009, p. 9): “Thinking             geographically is a uniquely powerful way of seeing the world. While it does not             provide a blueprint (...) that is why we should focus on geography’s grammar as well             as on its endless vocabulary. That is the power of thinking geographically.”              Similarly, the principles of critical thinking can be applied to the teaching of other             natural science subjects. The links between individual natural science subjects             are shown in Figure 2. The figure shows that even in a broader sense, geography             is  a  complex  subject  which  deals  with  the  whole  landscape  sphere  and  uses             the knowledge obtained from other scientific disciplines of biology, physics and             chemistry in exploring the landscape.             It is precisely for its complexity that geography is often accused of “stealing” from             other scientific disciplines. We believe that this is not the case and that today the             contrary is true. Geography may be regarded as an integrator of the individual             subjects. Above all, geographers have to know what to look for in other disciplines             and what extent of knowledge and skills they need to borrow from them in order to             come up with optimal solutions to problems that exist in the actual landscape.             Geography also has an irreplaceable place for understanding the present and the             future world. Thus, it must be complemented by knowledge from social sciences.             Educational subjects or mother tongue and literature, film or theory, can all show             the way in forming pupils’ attitudes. Equally important is the interconnection of             knowledge and skills in various forms of outdoor education carried out to strengthen             natural science knowledge and skills and in coordination with physical, health-related             and social activities.                                                          27","FIGURE 2. THE POSITION OF GEOGRAPHY IN THE NATURAL SCIENCE SYSTEM.             Source: Kolejka (2008), translated.              An even wider view of the interdisciplinarity and complexity of outdoor education             is  proposed  by  Priest’s  model  of  outdoor  education  (Priest,  1986  as  cited             in Gilbertson et al., 2006, p. 5). The model shows outdoor education as “a method             of teaching and learning that reinforces a direct, multisensory experience unfolding             in an outdoor setting and uses an integrated approach to learning that encompasses             the natural environment, the community and the individual implanted in them.             Through outdoor stays, outdoor education seeks to increase the physical, affective,             cognitive, social and spiritual level of an individual. (...) To feel the sun, the wind             and the rain or to watch wildlife (...) amounts, for many people in today’s urban             environment, to a new experience. (...) Seeing a bison at the zoo will evoke feelings             different from those evoked by seeing a herd of buffaloes grazing on the prairie...”              Critical thinking is also at the heart of the advancement of specific skills that are             developed through outdoor education. According to Řezníčková (2008), these skills             can be divided into five categories (see Figure 3): (1) asking questions, (2) obtaining             information, (3) organising information, (4) analysing information, (5) answering             questions.                                                       28","FIGURE 3. (GEOGRAPHIC) EXPLORATION MODEL.             Source: Malone, Palmer, \& Voigt (2002).               The aim of outdoor education based on critical thinking is to teach pupils to apply their             knowledge in practice with the understanding that the world is constantly changing.             This mode of thinking allows pupils to organise information on the contemporary             world that facilitates understanding of the world.              Marada (2006) mentions another benefit of outdoor education: “Outdoors, pupils             come into direct contact with the phenomena, concepts and processes they are             being taught, which is not only illustrative, “genuine”, but also highly motivating.             This greatly enhances the effectiveness of learning – pupils’ experiences from “real”             research improve the retention of knowledge and skills.             The problem- and research-based concept of outdoor education usually confronts             pupils with educational aims that involve higher intellectual demands: the aims is not             only to memorise “ready-made” knowledge, but rather to identify problems, propose             solutions to problems and assess various solution scenarios. If pupils educated             outdoors are prompted to pursue an independent activity, the learning efficiency             is further enhanced because, as J. A. Komenský says, we remember better what we             do ourselves.”              The development of other key competencies through outdoor education is very well             described in the School Educational Programme of Dr. Mareš Elementary School in             Znojmo, the full text of which is as follows:                   Learning competency: The teacher assigns topics of essays to pupils and the latter are                   supposed to identify, collect, process, sort and assess geographical information data                   in relevant information sources – on the Internet, on the radio, on TV, in specialised                   encyclopaedias and magazines. They link the items of information obtained to                   knowledge  acquired  in  other  educational  fields,  so  that  the pupils  may  create                   a more wholesome picture of the links between the natural and social environment,                                                   29","between nature and human activity. The teacher demonstrates how to handle various                   orientation and topographical aids (magnetic compass, compass), the globe, plans,                   maps, atlases, timetables, charts, and statistical data.                   Problem-solving competency: With their pupils, the teacher endeavours to identify                   and name identical, similar and different features of geographic objects, phenomena                   and processes, and they jointly draw relevant conclusions. They single out major local,                   regional and global issues of the natural and social environments, discuss them and                   endeavour to find appropriate solutions to the problems.                   Communication competency: The teacher asks the pupils to formulate hypotheses,                   name problems or express their own opinions on specific topics related to the natural                   and social environments, pupils indicate the facts coming from their assessments,                   come up with their own opinions, use available information and communication                   tools. The teacher analyses the opinions of the pupils, leads them to formulate                   their arguments appropriately, and they collaborate to solve problems and tasks.                   The teacher executes and facilitates a controlled dialogue with the pupils; the pupils                   express their views and opinions in successive logical steps.                   Social and personal competency: The teacher assigns work tasks within the group, the                   pupils assume their roles and identify with them; they work together as a group,                   cultivating a positive relationship to work, a responsible approach to their work                   and others, accountability for the outcomes of their activities, and they accept, discuss                   and rectify the opinions of others. They evaluate the results of the group and individual                   activities, induce self-criticism, and pupils understand the need for effective cooperation.                   Civic competency: The teacher explains, clarifies and justifies to pupils the need                   for  natural  and  environmental  protection,  and  the  pupils  take  an  interest  in                   the environment that surrounds them, appreciate the beauty of nature and historical                   and cultural landmarks, feel civic responsibility for preserving the environment and                   sustainable life for future generations. The teacher teaches the pupils how to find their                   way and move in an outdoor setting and urbanised landscape and how to act safely                   and protect themselves in emergencies. The teacher presents facts and arguments                   in favour of forming attitudes and values that respect the equality of all people,                   demonstrate democratic approaches to solving social problems; pupils explore                   the traditions, customs and cultures of people in different continents and areas.                   Professional competency: The teacher supervises pupils to make sure they work safely                   with aids, tools, devices and materials while using them both in the classroom and                   outdoors, and that they adhere to the stipulated rules of work activities. The teacher                   informs their pupils on the existence and spreading of modern communications,                   transport  and  production  technologies  that  are  closely  related  to  orientation,                   movement and staying outdoors, to travel, to the distribution of production and                   other operations in the environment, to the protection of the natural and living                   environment, and these are all discussed with the pupils. The teacher evaluates                   positively the systematic work of the pupils.                                                         30","Enhancing the learning process, communication and cooperation through outdoor             education from the students´ and teachers´ point of view is also documented by the             below-mentioned statements from geography and physical education teachers from             the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Denmark (for details see Vlček, Resnik-Planinc et al.,             2016). At the same time, their positive impact on real life has been confirmed.              Learning process:                   “By being outdoors, students can feel the nature, smell it, touch it, and not only see                   it from the classroom.”                   “As a teacher you can describe landscape from a different point of view.”                   “Working in a more holistic way such as projects within school work.”                   “Be being active. Students can observe the landscape in a different, more active way.”                   “Students work outside and study at the same time.”                   “Fieldwork = reasons and consequences.”                   “To stimulate learning.”                   “Learning by doing.”                   “Learn to work in an interdisciplinary way.”                   “Active approach to teaching (both students and teachers).”                   “Learning through other means than usual.”                   “Better explanation and understanding of a problem.”                   “Movement promotes learning.”                   “Education in a real environment.”                   “Convert theoretical knowledge into practice.”                   “Learning with (all) senses.”             Real life:                   “Understanding the world we live in.”                   “Complex development of students.”                   “Linking knowledge and skills from different subjects and their application in practice.”                   “Care for an open, clean, less polluted environment in the future.”                   “The combination might give a better picture of why, how and what to do in nature                   in a more sustainable way.”              Communication and cooperation:                   “Better communication and cooperation between students.”                   “Enhancing team work.”                   “More fun.”                                                      31","1.4.4     RELATION OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION                    TO CROSS-CURRICULAR SUBJECTS              Outdoor education is closely linked to interdisciplinary cooperation. In Framework             Educational Programmes, this is addressed in two ways. The first combines individual             subjects into educational areas, while the further strengthening of interdisciplinary             cooperation is represented by cross-curricular subjects, which include the following,             with the indication of their links to outdoor education:                   Environmental education: “Environmental education” is a link between the different                   forms of outdoor education. Environmental education is characterised as an educational                   activity that leads individuals to understand the complexity of the relationship between                   people and the environment, i.e. to understand the need for a gradual transition to                   sustainable development of society, and to recognise the meaning of accountability                   for the actions of a society as well as an individual. It leads individuals to take an active                   part in the preservation and formation of the environment and influences the lifestyle                   and values of pupils in the interest of sustainability of development of the human                   civilisation. (Metodika…, n. d.)                   Education towards thinking in European and global contexts: The connection                   between outdoor education and this cross-curricular subject may be seen in the                   interlinking of solutions to local and global development issues. Giddens (2013) notes                   in this context that “the concurrence of the globalisation processes and local contexts                   often leads to empowerment rather than to the decline of local and regional cultures.”                   The pupils should be aware of those consequences as well.                   Moral, character and social education: Outdoor education helps develop the skills                   needed for teamwork, develops organisational skills, work planning, timing and the                   habits that are necessary for autonomous work performance and independent living,                   promotes and develops pupils’ social integration, develops pupil-teacher interaction,                   stimulates and encourages enthusiasm for learning in concordance with the principles                   of lifelong learning. (Marada, 2006)                   Civic education for democracy: Actively identifying the problems existing at the place                   where pupils live positively shapes their attitudes and respect for the environment.                   Thus, outdoor education has a significant educational aspect. (Marada, 2006)                   Multicultural education: Outdoor  education  carried  out  through  foreign  trips                   contributes to understanding the diversity of individual cultures.                   Media education: Outdoor education is capable of developing communication                   and expressive skills through an increased need for communication. When working                   on specific natural science tasks, such as sound mapping (noise, birds singing), outdoor                   education may also contribute to the handling of more complex interdisciplinary tasks                   related to media education or information and communication technologies.                                                     32","1.4.5       THE BENEFITS OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION TO PHYSICAL                    ACTIVITY DEVELOPMENT              Movement is an integral part of human life and one of the important needs of each             child (pupil). Neumann (2000, p. 24) notes that “we live at a time when physical             fitness of the population is decreasing, and motoric activity is replaced by passive             ways of entertainment” (for example playing computer games, watching TV, or taking             children to school by car). An international study conducted by HBSC comparing the             physical activity of schoolchildren aged 11, 13 and 15 in Czechia, Slovakia, Poland,             Hungary and Ukraine (Madarasová Gecková et al., 2016) showed that more and             more European pupils suffered from a lack of movement, and similarly it has been             proved that the prevalence of childhood obesity has increased in the UK (Lobstein,             James, \& Cole, 2003) and the USA (Lee, Stodden, \& Gao, 2016; Lobstein \& Jackson-             Leach, 2007). Since a hypokinetic lifestyle prevails among children (and in society             as a whole), teachers should do more to promote the pupils’ healthy development             (Mužík \& Krejčí, 1997). Lack of movement, or hypokinesia, is observed among both             children and adults and its manifestations are not only physical but also psychological.             These include impulsiveness, irritability, low concentration, increased restlessness             and aggression. Due to the current lifestyle of many children and adults, the need             to promote a positive attitude towards movement and a healthy lifestyle in pupils is             more pressing than ever before. Physical activity helps maintain physical and mental             balance, leads to increased fitness and performance, causes mental and emotional             relaxation, reduces tension and eliminates anxiety or depression and also affects             the intellectual performance of an individual (Horká \& Hromádka, 2010).              Mužík and Krejčí (1997) recommend 30 minutes of low intensity movement activity             a day, to which 30 minutes of medium intensity movement should be added at least             three times a week. As compared to Mužík and Krejčí, the demands of Sigmund and             Sigmundová (2011) for the daily movement activity of early school age children are             significantly higher. In their opinion, the medium intensity daily movement activity             of children should be three times longer, i.e. 90 minutes. Strong and Malina et al.             (2005) recommend at least 60 minutes per day of moderate to vigorous intensity             physical activity.             There are several strategies to promote higher physical activity intensity. Steele             et al. (2009) speaks about promoting physical activity during weekdays after school             and weekends. We focus on increasing physical activity during school time, as this             time can take up 1/6 to 1/3 of the day of the pupil (not including sleeping). Wareham,             van Sluijs and Ekelund (2005) claim that when “examining the most effective             school-based interventions, it appears that such interventions are indeed limited             to structured activity through predominantly physical education classes”. However,             physical activity can to a large extent be incorporated into the teaching of most             subjects as well as the school’s overall operations. Sitting at the school desk for a long                                                  33","time is considered inconsistent with the natural development of a child’s organism.             Some schools compensate for this by allowing pupils to move around during breaks,             and some teachers combine their tuition with physical activity. However, all teachers             need to be encouraged to combine their tuition with physical activity and their ability             to implement this idea must be cultivated (Mužík \& Krejčí, 1997).              If we pass over the physical education itself, which is a compulsory subject, physical             activity  may  first  and  foremost  be  incorporated  into  tuition  through  outdoor             education, since movement is a natural part of it. This was confirmed by the authors’             own measurements (see chapter 5.6), on the basis of which it can be stated that             outdoor education may contribute to the development of natural physical             activity and, by inference, to a healthier lifestyle for pupils. Compared to physical             education, another indisputable advantage of outdoor education involves the transfer             of discipline-oriented content of education to pupils.               1.5    ORGANISATION OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION              1.5.1    PHASES OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION              As stated above, outdoor education is challenging both in terms of the work of the             teacher and the work of pupils. Organising any outdoor education requires a wide             range of planning skills. For teachers and pupils, this process, in essence, involves             a preparatory, implementation and final stage. A similar division can be found             with other authors who deal with outdoor education (Carbaugh \& Hastings, 1992;             Laws, 1989; Schwartz-Barcott, Patterson, Lusardi, \& Farmer, 2002 and others).              Teacher’s work                   The preparatory stage includes preparation of the content of the particular outdoor                   education event, but also the incorporation of outdoor education and individual forms                                                                             6                   into the school educational programme and subsequently into the thematic plan . This                   also involves setting out objectives for the outdoor education event so that they match                   the anticipated outcomes of the FEP and SEP. As far as short-term forms of outdoor                   education are concerned, this mainly involves preparing aids or worksheets. For long-                   term forms of outdoor education, and especially for research-oriented education                   (e.g. case studies or problem-solving tasks), the preparation is much longer. It includes                   terrain reconnaissance and the creation of more complex work material for individual                   stages of the tuition. This may take several days of the teachers’ spare time because                6       A thematic plan is an organisational tool for the teacher, in which a time plan is compiled for             the subject concerned. It contains, in particular, the name of the subject, the name of the teacher, the time             allocation, a timetable for the school half-year or year, the evaluation rules, the required textbooks or             other teaching aids. Subject matter based on superior curricular materials is compiled for specific lessons             (Malach, 2003, p. 94).                                                 34","not everything can be done sitting at a desk. A very important part of this stage is                   also the correct timing of the outdoor education activity due to the level of maturity                   and experience of the pupils in these forms of education and an appropriate approach                   to motivation.                   In short, in the preparatory phase the teacher should think about:                           •   What will the focus of outdoor education be?                           •   What are the learning objectives?                            •   Where will the outdoor education take place?                           •   How many students will be involved?                           •   What will the students do?                           •   How long will it take?                            •   What will the preparatory work be?                           •   What will the follow-up work be?                           •   What will the learning outcomes be?                   From the teacher’s perspective, the preparatory stage also includes informing                   the school head teacher and the parents (a letter to the parents containing information                   on the purpose of the outdoor education, costs, equipment, duration of the event and                   the places and times of departure and arrival). It must ensure the safety of tuition                   and the number of accompanying teachers. Some forms of outdoor education                   involve the transport of pupils to the place where the educational event is to take                   place and the provision of catering.                   The implementation stage should in most cases include supervision and counselling                   regarding the preparatory, implementation and final stages for the pupils in the school                   and outdoors depending on the selected form of outdoor education.                   The final stage should in particular include, on the teacher’s part, a reflection on                   the tuition carried out. The evaluation may take the form of a discussion with the pupils                   or a short questionnaire survey (to find out what the pupils liked/disliked, what they had                   problems with, whether they would like to repeat this method of instruction, or not).              Pupils’ work                   The preparatory stage mainly includes theoretical preparation for outdoor education,                   and  it  takes  place  directly  at  school.  It  is  usually  introduced  by  the  teacher’s                   motivational speech, followed by familiarisation with the places to be visited and the                   goals of the outdoor education event. It includes the preparation of documents for the                   actual activities and involvement in the organisation of the tuition. Pupils acquire the                   skills they will need when working outdoors. A short form of outdoor education may be                   incorporated here, taking place in the vicinity of the school or on the school grounds,                   involving primarily training and automating skills related, for example, to cartography                   (distance estimation, map orientation using various aids, familiarisation with GPS                   work, creation of a topographic sketch etc.).                                                 35","The implementation stage consists of the actual fieldwork, where pupils address the                   tasks assigned to them, either on their own or in groups. Specific results are recorded                   in prepared worksheets. This stage may also include the processing of results from                   the data obtained, which will also continue in the school.                   Final evaluation stage. At this stage, pupils should present their results using various                   forms, such as posters, PowerPoint or other presentations, films or final reports, all                   with a commentary. After the overall completion of the outdoor education activity,                   pupils should provide feedback to the teacher.              1.5.2    OUTDOOR EDUCATION AIDS              Quality delivery of outdoor education will require specific equipment being used in             tuition. The equipment includes various gadgets, aids, but also methodology sheets             and consumables.              For geography outdoor education, basic maps, thematic maps of various scales (soil,             geological maps), aerial photographs, orienteering maps, magnetic compasses, GPS             stations and dustpans are essential for the pupils’ work. In addition, soil drills or             probes, portable weather stations or various measuring instruments (conductivity             meter, hydrological propeller, sound level meter... – this depends on the equipment             of the school concerned) may also come in handy.              For biology outdoor education, equipment for the collection and determination             of plants and animals should be available – i.e. test tubes (small plastic vessels)             and identification keys, binoculars, tweezers, pipettes, inspect collection vessels,             exhaustors, strainers, suction pumps, nets, binocular magnifiers, microscopes,             formaldehyde...             Chemistry aids include boxes with chemical materials that contain components for             the assembly of a mobile lab.             For outdoor physics education, a pedometer, a rope, a band, a map or a distance             gauge may be used, and, where so agreed, astronomical binoculars or other more             complex equipment may be presented.              For all subjects, methodological materials prepared in advance must be available –             worksheets, maps covering the area where the outdoor education is to take place, and             basic literature. For spare time activities during long-term forms of outdoor education,             it is advisable to have equipment for sports and leisure (sports aids, games) ready.              The list of material equipment may seem mundane, yet, for example, the processing             and updating of a learning map will require a lot of work and substantial financial             resources, and some aids are relatively costly. Outdoor education equipment also             needs to be replenished on an ongoing basis and updated for methodological             materials and maps.                                                 36","With the advancement of mobile technologies (phones, tablets), new ways have             been created to improve fieldwork, also thanks to the fact that these technologies             are currently accessible to (almost) all pupils. Modern technologies provide significant             benefits for fieldwork in terms of collecting and processing data. While until recently             the only available technology for many was the single-serving GPS (Global Positioning             System), which, as noted by Martin (2006, pp. 141–142), enhances the understanding             of the real world, current mobile technologies significantly broaden the range of             applications used in outdoor education. Data obtained from GPS can be used to             spatially present and analyse geographic information using Google Earth or another             map server. However, current applications are capable of much more. All modern             mobile devices have a video recorder, a camera, and a variety of applications to             obtain the necessary information. Digital and electronic devices can be used to collect             environmental data such as light, temperature and humidity measurements when             examining the microclimate at a specific location, noise intensity and slope may be             measured, and plant identification keys may be used.             Mobile devices and available software applications can also be used during the final             stage of outdoor education to work with data and facilitate its effective presentation             and analysis. Another advantage involves the facilitation of multiple access for data             opening and sharing (Holmes \& Walker, 2006, p. 203), both among pupils and teachers.             1.5.3    HEALTH AND SAFETY CONDITIONS OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION              When  implementing  outdoor  education,  the  teacher  assumes  a  great  deal  of             responsibility, and the safety risks inherent in this form of education are much higher             than those present in the classroom setting. This is one of the reasons why teachers             often refuse to organise their lessons outside school. This is understandable given the             increased risk of accidents and other unpredictable situations (Musilová, 2016, p. 16).             However, outdoor education is an educational requirement formulated in the FEP EE             and an inherent part of natural sciences education, so the aforementioned risks need             to be introduced in school education. However, the positive fact is that during outdoor             education pupils assume a certain responsibility for their actions and their work.             From the legal point of view, outdoor education denotes any educational event where             the pupils are educated outside the establishment listed in the register of schools                                    7                                                                    8             and school establishments.  Therefore, specific legal regulations  apply to each             event organised outside a school establishment. Hofmann, Korvas and Poláček (2009)             also stress the need to adhere to the strict safety criteria set out in the school’s               7       See Section 144/1 of Act No. 561/2004 Coll., on preschool, primary, secondary and higher             vocational and other education (Education Act).             8       For a list of applicable legal regulations, see Svobodová, H., Mísařová, D., Durna, R., Češková, T.,             \& Hofmann, E. (2019). Koncepce terénní výuky pro základní školy na příkladu námětů pro krátkodobou             a střednědobou terenní výuku předmětů Člověk a jeho svět a Zeměpis. Brno: Munipress.                                                 37","internal regulations. These  internal  school  regulations  may  include  various             directives or guidelines promulgated by the principal and governing the realisation             of outdoor education.              The legal responsibility and obligations from a teacher’s point of view in relation             to health and safety require that outdoor education is managed and organised             at the highest possible level. Preparation must not be underestimated, and time             distribution needs to be considered. A necessary step to ensure the safety of pupils             is the teacher’s duty to inform their pupils of work and health safety and the rules             of outdoor education. Some of the issues that need to be addressed when planning             outdoor education include:                       –  the timing of outdoor education events – in relation to the school-wide                      calendar of duties and the place where the education is to take place;                       –  risk assessment (resulting from the place where the outdoor education                      event takes place and the activities to be carried out by pupils);                       – providing other necessary assurances to parents by a specified deadline.                       – ensuring transport;                       – planning, preparation and development of the learning process;                       – assign team positions (selecting the cooperating teachers);                        –  deciding how the group of pupils will be organised and how pupils with                      special needs will be taken care of.              While planning outdoor education nowadays, teachers should keep in mind also the             “emerging issue” of the pupils’ decreasing physical condition. In addition, increased             incidence of allergies and the hazards present in the outdoor environment, such as             ticks or other insects, must be taken into account.              The aim of the risk assessment is to predict, minimise and manage the potential risks             for all involved (Holmes \& Walker, 2006; Little \& Wyver, 2008). Once the estimates             and assessment of potential risks are complete, measures to eliminate or control such             risks follow. Hazard is anything that can reasonably be expected to cause damage             or harm, while risk is the likelihood, however low or high, that anyone involved             in the outdoor education activity will suffer any harm as a result of such hazards.             The following must be taken into account as part of the risk assessment (according             to Bland, Chambers, Donert, \& Thomas, 1996):                       – specific hazards present at the site concerned;                       – weather conditions;                       – age and experience of the group;                        – the presence of pupils with specific needs.                                                 38","When assessing the risks present at the outdoor education site, it is necessary to             assess whether the risks are acceptable and whether they can be reduced.             However, the purpose of safety instructions and work with risks is not to prevent             the pupils from doing anything or from moving freely. Outdoor education calls             for certain moral and social maturity in pupils. The pupils must fully adhere to the             teacher’s instructions and should not disturb the instruction by behaving or acting             inappropriately. Pupils must assume a certain amount of responsibility for their             movement in the outdoor setting. If they are given a certain amount of freedom             and freedom of movement by their teacher, they will be more perceptive to their             safety, since they usually spend their spare time outdoors, near slopes, roads or in             the city. We also conduct outdoor education to teach pupils how to overcome and             manage the risks in real life.              Overwhelmed by the desired success and the requirement for security, which form             integral parts of preparation of each outdoor education event, we could easily forget             about the role of the teacher. The role is important in terms of the teacher’s behaviour,             approach and relationship to the pupils. It depends on communication skills, approach             to the matter being taught, knowledge and the very understanding of what the             teacher should do.              It should be realised that during outdoor education, the teacher spends the entire day             with the pupils, sometimes even several days, and becomes their “guide” in a certain             sense of that word. For example, the teacher:                       – controls the position and movement of the group;                       –  controls the relationships between the pupils and between the pupils and                      the teacher;                       – retains attention and motivation in challenging situations;                       –  ensures the pupils are properly dressed and equipped with regard to                      the prevailing conditions;                       – ensures cooperation among the pupils;                       –  maintains a balance between the pupils’ space and their experiences, but                      also offers support and encouragement.              It should be noted that whenever a teacher organises outdoor education with             pupils, he or she is responsible for the decisions and the implications those decisions             may have.                                                       39","","2                         CHANGES IN OUTDOOR                                                            EDUCATION                               Challenge is what makes men. It will be the end when men stop looking for                                                                    new challenges.                                                                  Sir Edmund Hillary                2.1    ORIGINS OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION              It is unclear where exactly the true beginnings of outdoor education lie. Already the             early hominids were the originators of outdoor education. Homo sapien young spent             an inordinate amount of time being “trained” to live in the world. For at least several             million years, virtually all of these years of learning and training was conducted in the             outdoors. Only recently were permanent walls constructed – dramatically in the last             100 years in Western civilization. Members of modern Western societies have become             collectively “shielded” from natural living and challenges, rhythms and observations             of nature. There remains an instinctual need to re-kindle our inbuilt sensitivities             to nature (Kellert \& Wilson, 1995). Thus, outdoor activities, outdoor recreation,             and outdoor education serve a psycho-evolutionary need within homo sapiens to             collectively maintain some form of psychological and physical contact with natural             processes and environments which are relatively untouched by the post-industrial             21  century human lifestyle (Neill, 2007).               st             Modern outdoor education owes its beginnings to separate initiatives. In the late             nineteenth century and early twentieth century, organised camping could be seen             in Europe, the UK, the US, Australia, and New Zealand.              Similarly, it is possible to connect the development of interest in staying in natural             surroundings  with  the  establishment  of  scouting.  The  Scouting  movement,             established in 1907 by Robert Baden-Powell, employs non-formal education with an             emphasis on practical outdoor activities. A further opportunity for outdoor education             has been offered by forest nurseries, whose origin can be located in Denmark.  9                 9       Practical Outdoor Skills. Retrieved from http://www2.isu.edu/outdoor/Syllabus_PracticalSkills.html                                                41","Key outdoor education pioneers include Kurt Hahn, a German educator who founded             schools which emphasise community service, craftsmanship skills, physical skills, and             outdoor expeditions. The second half of the twentieth century saw a rapid growth of             outdoor education in all sectors (state, voluntary, and commercial) in Anglo-Saxon             countries with an ever-widening range of client groups and applications. The outdoor             setting was used to train leaders for outdoor programmes and other settings including             training every new US astronaut and in the US Naval Academy. 10             The various themes crystalise the essence of resident outdoor education as practised             in the United States from 1930–1980 and highlight the impact of this curriculum             innovation on American education. Analysing the impact that resident outdoor             education has had on educational philosophy and practice, two aspects of outdoor             education are prominent herein. The first is that there is a need for direct contact             with the environment, that some learning makes a deeper impact and is retained             longer when a concept or an object is discovered, observed, sensed, and interpreted             in the natural setting. The second aspect addresses learning to live with our fellow             creatures (Hammerman, 1980).              Already in this pioneering time of outdoor education, the first relevant definitions of             outdoor education were developed. In the 1950s, one of the definitions of outdoor             education was formulated as follows: “outdoor education is education in, about and             for the outdoors” (Donaldson \& Donaldson, 1958, p. 63). This definition says the place,             the topic, and the purpose of outdoor education (Ford 1986, p. 4). Although this             definition has been cited a number of times, in practice it was doubtful, particularly             because it did not contain everything that outdoor education could contain.             Priest (1986, p. 13) therefore offered a wider definition in the 1980s: “outdoor             education is an experiential process of learning by doing, which takes place primarily             through exposure to the out-of-doors. In outdoor education, the emphasis on the             subject of learning is placed on relationships: relationships concerning people and             natural resources.” Priest based this definition on six main points. Outdoor education:                     1. is a method for learning;                    2. is experiential;                     3. takes place primarily in the outdoors;                    4. requires the use of all senses and domains;                    5. is based on interdisciplinary curriculum matter;                    6. is a matter of relationships involving people and natural resources.                10     Outdoor education. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outdoor_education                                                 42","The following definition (Scott, Fuller, \& Gaskin, 2006) puts an emphasis on the             environment in which outdoor education takes place, as it serves as a source for             learning: “Fieldwork as that formal process of study of the environment that takes             place outside the classroom and that uses the environment as a learning resource.”              These  definitions  are  neither  final  nor  exhaustive;  however,  an  overview  of             the definitions is available in Neill (2008).              2.2    CURRENT STRATEGY OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION               As mentioned in the introductory part, outdoor education refers to a form of education             that has long been seen as a very powerful learning strategy for understanding             today’s world. It is specific for a number of disciplines of natural science (in particular             geography and biology) and social science (e.g. history). Outdoor education is based             upon the belief that people are at their most essential level when outdoors. We             remember that we are part of a greater ecosystem and are not as bound by social             customs and norms (Outdoor Education, 2015).              Its position within the educational system of a number of countries is indispensable.             With respect to the implementation of outdoor education, Australia and Scandinavia             have the leading position. In the Czech Republic, its application within the educational             system of all grades and types of school has not been very successful yet.             Over the past 50 years, the teaching strategies of outdoor education have evolved             from traditional field trips, through field research based on hypothesis testing to             inquiry-driven learning, which reflects different views on teaching and learning             (see Figure 4). This change was inspired by critics of the original outdoor education             formats (excursions, field trips) especially due to the fact that these forms had been             considered as unsuitable with respect to pedagogical methods (Kent, Gilbertson,             \& Hunt, 1997). One strategy of outdoor education is in the way that the teacher             and student play different roles in it: the teacher’s role changes from an omniscient             knowledge provider to a manager or coach and the role of the student varies from             the traditional consumer of information to an active learning person. Both the roles             of teacher and student are mutually balanced, either more focused on teacher             leadership, or more focused on student work (In Oost, De Vries, \& van der Schee,             2011, p. 311).                                                            43","FIGURE 4. TENTATIVE VIEW OF ROLES OF TEACHER AND STUDENT IN DIFFERENT OUTDOOR             EDUCATION STRATEGIES.             Source: Oost, De Vries, \& van der Schee (2011). The figure is published with the copyright permission of             the owner © Taylor \& Francis.              Appropriately led outdoor education thus may connect various activation methods             purposefully with heuristic and problem-solving methods as the leading ones.             When applying these methods, pupils are put in a certain problematic situation,             a problematic task which is to be solved. This teaching by means of independent             discovery corresponds fully to the needs of today’s society, which emphasises the             need to develop creativity, a creative and independent way of thinking and pupils’             activities. On  the  way  to  awareness,  the  teacher  becomes  the  pupil’s  partner             and advisor, thus the teacher is put in a position differing from that of traditional             education, i.e. the role of “provider of knowledge” is changed to the “role of a partner,             coach”.             The essence of the problem-solving method is the not providing pupils with knowledge             but leading them to help them derive new pieces of knowledge through their own             thinking or with the help of their teacher. Problem-solving education connects the             pupils’ active research (discovering) activity with the adoption of pieces of knowledge,             pupils’ work is organised considering the set pedagogical and educational goals             and the problem-solving principle.” (Machmutov, 1975). Ford (1986, p. 8) adds that             outdoor education: “teaches people how to make choices based on facts”.                                                 44","Despite the fact that the scheme (Figure 4) is based on research in the field of outdoor             education for secondary schools in the Netherlands, it is also very suitable for the             use of various outdoor education formats in individual grades of schools in the Czech             Republic. If pupils and students go through well-outlined outdoor education at all             school grades from the beginning at grade 1 of elementary school where they practise             basic activites such as observing or sketching, later do more complex activities such as             mapping, during their studies at grammar schools they should be able of independent             work and research based on outdoor activities (enquiry, problem solving).              However, outdoor education brings out the necessity to overcome a whole series of             organisational, safety or methodical obstacles; it may not come as a surprise that,             as mentioned on several occasions, it remains the domain of the most courageous             educators (Smrtová, Zadabal, \& Kovaříková, 2012). Moreover, the Education Act             puts teachers from Czech schools in the role of persons responsible for the creative             approach of directing education, and also in the position of curriculum creators.             Teachers  are  put  in  the  situation  where  they  must  transform  the  Framework             Educational Programme to the level of the School Educational Programme. This             is the task performed in other “developed countries” by pedagogical research             institutes. Due to this fact, Czech teachers have even less time to innovate their             educational approach.              Despite the aforementioned situation, the Framework Educational Programme             concept contributes to the development of outdoor education as one of the FEP             priorities comprises the strict usage of interdisciplinary relationships and integration             of individual subjects. Outdoor education, which is the integral part of various             subjects, is the most suitable educational form serving to fulfil interdisciplinary             relationships.  It  leads  to  the  cooperation  of  teachers  of  various  educational             disciplines. Therefore, when applying outdoor education in the Czech Republic,             the ones who matter particularly with respect to how all activities are transformed             in the school educational programme, thematic plan, and “comprehensive concept             of outdoor education”, which will be reflected in all educational disciplines, are the             teachers themselves.              The prerequisites to strengthen the role of outdoor education seem to be sufficient             within the Czech educational curriculum. However, outdoor education is based on             a “traditional approach”  and the character of its application has been overcome                                  11             in the majority of schools where the main forms are excursions, trips, and other             activities, where pupils solely act as observers and information recipients.                 11      The main forms of outdoor education in the Czech schools were analysed in Svobodová,             Mísařová, \& Hofmann (2016); Hofmann, Svobodová, \& Mísařová (2016) and are described in chapter 5.1             in this publication.                                                 45","If some progressive trends are reflected in the school curriculum anyway, these are             more or less implemented intuitively by individual teachers, since they lack space to             be able to verify these innovations. For a number of teachers, it remains difficult to             surpass the educational stereotypes which they are accustomed to, where the pupils             are put in a position of passive consumers of textbook pieces of knowledge selected             by teachers concerning the world we live in. This fact has not been improved even             by implementing the two-grade curriculum. After over a decade, discussions are             starting to be held concerning an innovation (revision) of a wider scope with respect             to the Framework Educational Programme. The reason for the innovation of the             obligatory documents is not only their obvious obsolescence, but also the fact that the             extensive research and testing undertaken within the scope of teaching the individual             disciplines has shown the failure to accept the idea of a two-grade curriculum by the             majority of teachers (for example Straková, 2013).              The aforementioned progressive trends are being manifested very slowly when             outlining the SEP of various schools in the Czech Republic – for more details see             chapter 5.1, as opposed to some countries where outdoor education has been             considered an integral part of the realised and attained curriculum for decades. The             changes in the outdoor education approach in Great Britain with respect to activities             are summarised by Kent, Gilbertson and Hunt (1997) in the following table.              TABLE 8             CHANGING APPROACHES TO OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN THE UK FROM 1950 TO 1985              Period  Approach              1950    TRADITIONAL “LOOK-SEE” OR “COOK´S TOUR” FIELD COURSES                      •   observation and descriptive (thematic guided walks);                      •   “landscape”-based or centred “sight-seeing” visits to specific sites of interest;              1960    •   passive student participation.              1970    “NEW” GEOGRAPHY – 1960s “REVOLUTION”                      Problem-orientated, problem-based fieldwork                      •   inductive and deductive approaches (positivist) hypothesis generation and testing,                        data collection and statistical analysis, interpretation and report writing;                      •   detailed scales, often carried out in a small area;              1980    •   active student participation although often staff-led.              1985    TRANSFERABLE SKILLS                      Problem-orientated fieldwork still dominant but introduction of transferable skill                      element                      •   project design skills;                      •   organisational skills;                      •   leadership skills;                      •   group skills;                      •   active student participation but emphasis switches from staff-led to student-led                        projects.             Source: Kent, Gilbertson and Hunt (1997), adjusted by author.                                                  46","With respect to Czech elementary schools, the current state or the contents of             outdoor education are approximately equivalent to the development in Great Britain             in the 60s and 70s. The “traditional” format of outdoor education, where the pupils             acted solely as recipients, was then changed to the format offering the pupils active             participation in education. There might be a variety of reasons for this state – from             the barrier formed by the political system up to 1989, to the teachers’ insufficient             qualification to implement the outdoor education, administrative, and safety matters             to the monetary costs. Individual barriers to outdoor education implementation in             the Czech Republic are described in more detail in chapter 5.2.2.              2.3     DEFINITIONS OF PARTIAL FORMS OF OUTDOOR                    EDUCATION IN CONTEXT OF CZECH EDUCATION              If we connect the idea of outdoor education development with the development             of interest in staying outdoors, in the Czech Republic it goes back to the beginning             of the 19th century. As a date of historical significance may be considered the year             1888, when the Czech Tourist Club was established. There were various reasons for             the establishment of the Club – from the expansion of a nationalist idea and efforts             to strengthen tourism across the borders to the organisation of fundamental tourism             activities, trip and lecture organisation and inspiring interest in travelling (according             to Vystoupil, Šauer et al. 2011).              As the partial predecessor of Czech outdoor education may be considered civil             defence education (more likely meaning “adventure outdoor education” as defined by             Uhls, et al., 2014; or Kraft \& Sakofs, 1985, for instance). Miroslav Tyrš, who elaborated             a plan of national civil defence education already in the 1870s, is considered to be             its founder. However, civil defence education was not implemented in schools as an             independent discipline. Its elements were manifested most significantly in school             physical education, e.g. by adapting order-maintenance exercises of a military             character  and,  as regards  geography,  by incorporating  topics  associated  with             topography, survival skills, and first aid. During World War I, physical education             at secondary schools also included military training. Upon the establishment of             Czechoslovakia, there were votes for implementing compulsory civil defence education             of the population resulting in a reference in the Conscription Act 193/1920 on Physical             Education of the Youth before Conscription. In the 1930s, the conscription matter was             becoming more urgent, and by the proceeds of the Ministry of Education and National             Awareness of 1 February 1934, civil defence education was implemented in secondary             schools and pedagogical institutes. In 1937, Act No. 184 on Civil Defence Education             of all Citizens was adopted, concerning pupils of all schools. Upon the establishment             of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, civil defence education was annulled.             After the year 1948, as a reaction to the political situation those days, compulsory             civil defence education at schools was regulated by Act No. 92 of 2 November 1951,             on Civil Defence Education, and later on by Act No. 73 of 23 June 1973, on Civil Defence             Education. After the year 1989, civil defence education disappeared from schools.                                                 47","Thus, the term outdoor education cannot be found in specialised Czech literature             published in the past. Apart from civil defence education, more specific terms are             used, such as excursion (Turkota, 1980; Wahla, 1973, 1983), walk (Turkota, 1980;             Machyček, Kuhnlová, \& Papík, 1985; Tichý, 1965) or package tour (Tichý, 1965).             Even in today’s Czech literature (meaning as of the beginning of the 90s and the             turn of the millennium), there is no unified definition of outdoor education  or its                                                                           12             individual formats. Thus, the following text brings a summary of usable definitions             concerning the individual formats of outdoor education applied primarily in Czech             schools.  Because the definitions below describe the concept of individual forms of                   13             outdoor education in the Czech Republic, they are based primarily on available Czech             literature. Critical comments are added.              2.3.1    EXCURSION              The definition of excursion appears in various dictionaries and outdoor-focused             teaching publications. We would like to mention Mojžíšek’s definition (1959, p. 5):             “Excursion is an organisational form of learning of the educational and pedagogical             process where we leave the classroom or study room and take pupils outdoors, to             an enterprise, museum, and so on. Its organisation differs from a common lesson”,             as this definition is generally applicable to all disciplines up to the present. The term             excursion is also briefly defined by Kujal (1965, pp. 20–23): “Excursion is a means of             connecting school with life”. Průcha, Walterová and Mareš (2013) defines the term as             follows: “Group visit to a significant or interesting place or facility of a recognisable             target. It is an organisational form of education taking place outside the school             environment,  it  has  a  direct  relation  to  the  education  contents:  it  illustrates,             supplements, expands the pupil’s experience.” As regards the newer definitions             reflecting the connection of teaching and today’s world problems, we may state             Dvořan’s definition (2008, p. 21), who claims that excursions “put students face to face             with real problems and help them connect global problems with the problems of the             location they live in or observe.” Miller (2001) provides a very detailed specification of             excursion, out of which it arises that an excursion is a form of education taking place as             supervised observation under the original operational conditions of such environment,             which would be onerous to present otherwise to pupils or which the teacher wishes             to present to pupils in order to improve their theoretical knowledge and confront             them with the practical experience. For instance, we may recommend an excursion             to a professional weather station, laboratory or testing stations, research institutes,             agricultural or industrial enterprises, etc.                12      Hofmann’s definition (1999, 2003), which serves as the basis of this publication as well, may             be considered as one of the first definitions of outdoor education.             13      Within the project of the Czech Science Foundation called “Fieldwork as a powerful learning             strategy”, an analysis of applied forms of outdoor education in selected Czech schools was performed and             incorporated in this publication in Chapter 2.3.                                                48","The definitions above are generally applicable for any discipline, and it is evident             from them that with individual authors the term “excursion” differs significantly.             Wahla (1983, p. 38) defines the term excursion already focused on the geography             discipline as “organisational form of education the aim of which is a study walk,             visit of significant places, cultural institutions, production enterprises, locations,             tour, travelling with more thorough awareness of the countryside, estates, roads,             manufactures, culture”. Wahla (1973) divides geographical excursions according to the             environment, contents, and classification in the teaching process. He provides various             natures of geographical excursions, such as a geographic walk (short excursion             lasting up to 1–2 hours in a natural environment close to the school facilities) and             geographic observation, which is considered to be a short-term study of selected             products of nature or operations taking place in the field, in museums, at exhibitions,             etc. Wahla (1973, p. 81) further provides another type of excursion, such as geographic             trips, which are considered as “half-day, all-day or multiday trips in the countryside             where pupils observe individual geographical phenomena and actions and take             various measurements”, and geographic tours, which consist in multiday excursions             of a complex character.              Another view of excursion division is provided by Grác (1967), who defines complex             excursions, which connect various educational fields by their contents. Above all, in             the text, the author mentions the connection of biology with geography and history.              Therefore, generally, the aforementioned authors consider excursions to be learning             outside the classroom. The difference between the individual definitions may be             explained by means of Řehák’s definition of excursion (1965, p. 232), when he             accurately emphasises that excursions “are not trips”, but “systematically prepared             lessons of methodological sophistication, fitting into the syllabus, taking place in the             countryside or at enterprises or museums. They are practical exercises taking place             in the outdoors”. This interconnection and usefulness is missed out by a number of             definitions – mainly Wahla (1973, 1983 – see above), who interchanges the meaning of             excursion for the meaning of a walk or trip. In order to distinguish between excursions             and other forms of outdoor education, we will not use the excursion link to nature.             Instead, we work with outdoor exercise or trips (see below).             2.3.2    (DIDACTIC) WALK              In  outdoor-focused  teaching  publications  dedicated  to  teaching  at  the  lower             stage of elementary school the terms excursion, walk or themed walk appear to             be parallell. For instance, Musilová, Hradil, \& Šupka (1979) and Podroužek (2003)             distinguish between the terms excursion and (themed) walk. They consider walk             as teaching outdoors, outside the school facilities, led by the teacher. According to             them, an excursion then means a visit to a specific facility, such as a planetarium,             museum, the zoo or botanical garden where teaching is taken over by an expert of                                                  49","the given facility. Other authors, such as Navrátilová (1983) or Fabiánková (1996)             do not strictly distinguish between these terms. Fabiánková (1996) defines a walk             as short-term teaching outside the classroom which takes place most frequently             within one teaching unit, i.e. within 45 minutes, or longer when various disciplines             are interconnected appropriately (e.g. with physical education or art classes). A more             detailed distinction is only defined by Podroužek (2003), who distinguishes between             mono-themed walks (following a certain phenomenon or object) and phenological             walks focused on getting to know the outdoors in a given season. At the same time,             this author uses the term “complex walks” similarly to Fabiánková (1996), as they             fulfil educational targets of multiple disciplines. As opposed to that, Musilová, Hradil,             \& Šupka (1979) denotes complex walks as the opposite to a mono-themed walk,             i.e. focused on observing several phenomena or products of nature concurrently.              As it is obvious, the majority of authors named do not distinguish much between             the terms excursion and walk. If there is some distinguishing, it concerns the time             perspective, where the term walk is used for short-term events taking 1–2 hours,             while excursions may take up to several days, which is incorrect. An excursion can             also take 1–2 hours.             According to Wahla (1983, p. 169), a walk is “an organisational form of geography             teaching stipulated by curricula. As regards walks, a regional principle is applied.             In  a  given  location  (countryside),  pupils  perceive,  observe,  analyse,  describe,             characterise, and evaluate geographical objects and phenomena. They perform             practical tasks, elaborate simple graphic works (sketches), perceive spatial elements             of the countryside (shape, size, plasticity...)”. According to Machyček, Kuhnlová,             Papík (1985, p. 122), walks “enable the awareness of natural, social, and production             environment. Pupils receive pieces of knowledge concerning the countryside, they             learn to understand the connection, relation, and rules of the geographic sphere.             Walks also fulfil the role of teaching aesthetics”. Turkota (1980, p. 117), similarly to             Wahla (1983), defines walks as an organisational form of teaching, organised in the             outdoors in short periods (1.5–3 hours)”. Tichý (1965, p. 88) uses the terms walk as             well as the term tour, interchanging these terms frequently. He defines in more detail             the term “walk” as “teaching geography close to the school facilities in the period of             one up to a few hours”.              A very simple distinguishing of walks and excursions is presented by Dvořan (2008,             p. 20) who claims that whereas an excursion is mainly focused on learning, a walk             may be more relaxing in nature. The difference between these terms is depicted             in Figure 5.                                                        50","FIGURE 5. DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE TERMS “WALK” AND “EXCURSION” ACCORDING TO             PREVAILING CONTENT.             Source: Dvořan (2008, s. 20), adjusted by author.              The definition of walk by Hublová (2014) explains that (didactic) walks take place in             the countryside or following cultural and historical objects and sights. The description             also defines that the issue of walks is their low attractiveness concerning what children             can see, get to know or experience during the walks compared to what they acquire             from the media, TV, and videos in a more attractive way. That is why it is necessary             to improve the attractiveness of the activities and methods offered with respect to             the topic. From the didactic perspective, the classic way where during the walks the             teacher adds information concerning interesting facts is not considered to be greatly             efficient. Efficiency is not granted even when children draw objects outdoors.              It is added afterwards that an elaborated and well-prepared didactic walk has a big             chance to raise a child’s interest and improve his or her perception and awareness.             By means of walks, lessons may be supplemented by specific live information that             helps raise interest in information potentially subsequent – general and theoretical.             Raising interest in watching the world around us and in perceiving may be also             gained by usage of cameras (not a traditional way), paper view finders, GPS devices,             field-glasses or binoculars, and magnifying glasses, devices recording sounds, or             interesting natural history tools.              Hublová also claims that during walks a teacher should especially enliven associations             already memorised by children with respect to the theme of the walk and connect             more senses. If a teacher manages to connect activities of an informal character with             tasks requiring the connection of more than one sense, he or she may manage to             lodge the pieces of knowledge associated with the walk in the long-term memory             more easily and more permanently.              With respect to their length, according to Hublová, a typical walk should not last             more than 1 or 2 teaching units, except for walks following significant elements             of the nature and history of regional or trans-regional significance and such walks             should be realised only sporadically. Concerning interdisciplinary relationships, walks             and art overlap nearly every time. The discipline of national history and geography                                                  51","includes walking guided by a map, elaboration of plans, maps, and records. At the             same time, sometimes it is suitable to include physical activities and games. Activities             which are interesting, yet hardly practised, include the ones connected to sound             perception subsequently applicable in music and art lessons. It is also not hard to             imagine the connection of walks with taking the fundamentals for compositions,             such as interviews, news reports, geographical sketches, and other connections to             the Czech language.             The aforementioned definitions of walk emphasise the pupil’s activity more than             the definition of excursion. However, neither of them states that a walk may take             place in a municipality and not only in the countryside/nature. As opposed to that,             the focus on history, culture, and sights is slightly overestimated. Outdoor education             offers countless other topics which may be discussed. At the same time, neither of             the definitions connects the activities with physical activity.             With all definitions of the walk, the purpose of the walk should be mainly to practise             basic activities in the field especially for the lower stage (from grade 1 onwards)             pupils, such as observation and description of natural and social phenomena,             landscape orientation and recording of observed phenomena. Due to the nature of             the walk, we understand it rather as a short-term organisational form of teaching in             the neighbourhood of the school.             2.3.3    OUTDOOR EXERCISE              In order to provide another organisational form of teaching geography connected with             outdoor education, Wahla (1973, p. 82) uses the term practical outdoor work, where             “pupils perform various practical tasks geographical in nature under the supervision             of the teacher”.             Another perspective and terminology can be found in the works of Dvořák (1982), who             use the term exercise in nature. This may be divided into three types: (1) observing             the countryside (short walks or walks of a large group of pupils focused on observation,             concerning investigative, descriptive or revealing observation); (2) determination of             products of nature (based on revealing observation where indications are provided             in  order  to  determine  the  products  of  nature,  a  record  is  made  continuously,             and observed facts are drawn); (3) ecological exercise in the nature (the most             demanding type of at least half-day duration where pupils should fulfil as many             separate tasks as possible).              Compared to a walk or excursion, the active work of the pupils should be paramount,             and the teacher goes into the role of coordinator of activities. The focus of his work             lies in selecting a site and thoroughly preparing the content of fieldwork, including             setting educational aims and sub-activities of pupils that lead to these aims.                                                  52","2.3.4    (SCHOOL) TRIP              A trip is defined in a very simple manner by Dvořan (2008, p. 20): “Walks that last for             several days are trips.”              Švec (1995) describes a trip as an organisational form of education, which is mainly             relaxing and recreational. It is undertaken at the end of the school year. It mainly             fulfils educational targets. Its preparation consists of the teacher’s preparation, pupils’             preparation, and thorough organisational security measures. Even pupils themselves             may contribute to the trip preparation.             Although we agree that trips have a relaxing character in many schools, we believe             that a school trip is also a good opportunity to include activities for strengthening             social relationships, develop discipline knowledge and skills. During a school trip,             it is possible for pupils to perform similar activities as during walks, excursions or             field training.              2.3.5    SCHOOL IN THE COUNTRYSIDE              Traditionally, the definition of school in nature was perceived in two ways – “the             facility” or “the education”.              Originally, schools in the countryside were organised in the Czech Republic as             rehabilitation events with the aim of pupils living in territories with aggravated             environmental conditions recovering. Schools in the countryside were significant             for  children  with  respect  to  their  medical  and  educational  character.  Medical             and recreational significance consists in the fact that pupils spend a substantial part             of the day in a healthy natural environment and they become hardy. Sufficiency of             physical activity in the fresh air improves their fitness level. Through the selection and             wide range of activities, this form of outdoor education contributes to the satisfaction             of social needs, it develops creativity, and supports the pupils’ independence; pupils             learn to help and tolerate each other. The educational and pedagogical significance             consists in the fact that pupils get to know a new environment, they become aware             of it, get to know new places, natural ecosystems and organisms living there. The             sensory perception of nature is improved, an appropriate relationship between the             pupils and the environment is developed, including the perception of aesthetics and             ethics (according to Hublová 2014; MEYS Act No. 395/1991 Coll. on School Recovery             Facilities – currently no longer applicable with no adequate substitution). Štoček             (2011, p. 147) adds that “the term school in the countryside is associated with the             term recovery event, which was an organised stay of children up to the age of 15 for             a period longer than 5 days, the purpose of which is to improve the children’s health,             their fitness level or to acquire specific knowledge or skills.”                                                    53","The third, current perception of school in the countryside is no longer solely associated             with recovery stays for pupils living in territories with aggravated environmental             conditions. Schools from all Czech regions typically attend schools in the countryside;             these may concern stays during the whole school year. The contribution of schools in             the countryside to the educational process is unequivocally the fact that pupils spend             longer periods outside the school facility and without their families. Therefore, more             time can be spent on concentrated outdoor education, interdisciplinary cooperation             and the development of the pupils’ natural physical activities.              2.3.6    COURSE             According to their contents, courses may be divided as follows:                       – adaptation courses;                       – sports training courses;                       – professional courses.              An adaptation  course is a very sophisticated  course  combining  elements  of             adventure and experiential education. The programme realisation is typically ensured             by instructors.             An adaptation course serves to weld a group of individuals together in order to             make the team stronger; it is a targeted and sophisticated elimination of specific             undesirable expressions within such a team, where it is not necessary for the majority             of the team members to know each other from the past.             In the school environment, adaptation courses are applied to a group of pupils (a class),             for instance, when transferring from the lower to the upper stage of elementary             school or when transferring from elementary to secondary school. An adaptation             course should always be run outside the familiar environment, pupils should be             pulled out of everyday situations of their everyday behaviour in order to enable that             even details of their conduct are shown. These details should be monitored by their             pedagogical supervisor.             The contents of sports training courses consist in acquisition and perfection of             physical skills in nature, education concerning the significance of physical activities             such as prevention of lifestyle diseases and on the regenerative effects of physical             activities in the outdoors. Sports training may be organised in winter (such as downhill             or cross-country skiing, snowboarding) as well as in the warmer seasons (walking             courses, water sports, cycling, skiing, and other courses).             Professional courses may be organised with a focus on any professional knowledge             and skills. When focusing on education, these courses may include, for instance,             professional courses for teachers – in our case for teachers of geography focused on             outdoor education, case study processing, etc.                                                  54","With respect to all courses, the application of interdisciplinary cooperation should             be automatic. For instance, during the adaptation courses and sports training course             pupils use their geographical skills (location recognition, map-reading, finding their             way around...); as opposed to which, during professional-focused courses pupils use             their physical skills. These links, however, have entered neither into the definitions of             courses nor the other forms of outdoor education mentioned above.              2.3.7    (SCHOOL) PACKAGE TOUR             The general meaning of a package tour is the organised participation of a group of             people travelling over a certain route, following a programme elaborated in advance             with a specific aim concerning awareness, recreation or education. Depending             on the focus, trips can be divided into cognitive, residential and theme-oriented             (e.g. with a foreign language). The precise definition of the package tour is defined             in Section 2522 (1) of the Civil Code  , as follows. “A package tour is a set of tourist                                          14             services if it is organised for more than twenty-four hours or if it includes an overnight             stay and contains at least two of the following: (a) accommodation, (b) transport,             (c) other tourist services not ancillary to transport or accommodation and accounting             for a significant proportion of the package of the services offered.”             The publication of the Ministry of Regional Development (NE x Opravněné podnikání             v cestovním ruchu, n.d.) states that a package tour is considered as such if repeatedly             organised and offered for purchase (more places are sold to third parties for a price             exceeding the direct costs per person). Furthermore, on page 11 it is provided that:             “A package tour is not considered a package tour if a school organises the stays             of their pupils for a price covering the direct costs related to it (i.e. excluding the             overhead costs and wages of the teachers/tutors within their standard workload).”              From this perspective, package tours may only be considered as school package             tours if the school does not organise them on its own, where at least some activities             related thereto (transportation, programme, accommodation) are performed by             external entities.              2.3.8    EDUCATION ON SCHOOL GROUNDS              School grounds are plots of land owned by the educational institution, or the             municipality where the institution is located. These may include a garden, playground,             outdoor classroom, geopark or any area for teaching pupils. School grounds may             be used for teaching topics which could also be taught in a standard classroom, but             the pupils’ outdoor stay offers possibilities to acquire new incentives to think about             as well as the pupils’ real experience.                 14     See https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2012-89                                                55","In teaching geography, special significance is given to a geographical plot. It has             a multi-purpose usage. It can be used for the performance of various practical             exercises concerning mathematical geography and cartography, such as distance             measurement and measuring scale calculation, orientation and map/plan-reading,             measurement of meteorological or other characteristics. A plot is a place where pupils             are explained more complex parts of geography, where they practise these, and gain             necessary habits and skills in handling various devices. When the weather is good,             a well-situated plot of land may serve as a classroom (Turkota, 1980).              2.3.9    INQUIRY-BASED FORMS OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION              Apart from the aforementioned forms of outdoor education which are commonly             practised in the Czech Republic, there are also other forms of outdoor education not             as common in the Czech environment, mainly due to certain historical deep-rooted             customs of the Czech school system. These include outdoor education based on the             pupils’ own “research”. As Scott, Fuller and Gaskin (2006) claim, the common factor             of these forms of outdoor education is “seeing what things actually look like in the             flesh”. Definitions of these forms are provided according to Job et al. (1999) as cited             in Caton (2006).              Field research based on hypothesis testing entered the geography education in             the 1970s and emerged from the application of field (e.g. geographical, biological)             theory or the generalised model of a real situation in a small area. During this type             of outdoor education, pupils create hypotheses which they verify through their own             data collection.             Similarly, geographical inquiry engages students in the process of identifying,             formulating and asking questions. Students are then supported in the gathering of             appropriate data (quantitative or qualitative) to answer key questions. Geographical             questions, issues or problems are identified, ideally from students’ own experience             in the field. Findings are evaluated, and the implications applied to the wider world             and personal decisions where appropriate.             Discovery fieldwork allows students to discover their own interests in a landscape             as well as to develop their own focus of study and methods of investigation. It             encourages self-confidence and self-motivation by putting students in control of their             learning. The teacher assumes the role of animator, allowing students to follow their             own route through a landscape. When students ask questions, these are countered             with further questions to encourage deeper thinking. A discussion then identifies             themes for further investigation in small groups.             Job at al. (1999, p. 65) adds the benefits of these forms of outdoor education:             “By learning first hand in the field, students will benefit in a wide variety of ways, but             the choice of the fieldwork approach will undoubtedly channel learning in a particular                                                  56","direction. For example, if field research is used, it can be expected that the main             outcomes will include learning how to use research procedures and developing             skills of data collection and analysis. Similarly, inquiry fieldwork is likely to develop             decision-making skills and help students to form geographical questions.”              In comparison with some of the aforementioned forms of outdoor education which             are implemented in Czech schools, it is evident that inquiry or discovery fieldwork             enables pupils to get more involved in outdoor education. They support the pupils’             own activity (asking questions, seeking answers through their own primary data             collection,  through  targeted  observation,  measurements,  investigation)  and             encourage pupils to solve problems. It constitutes a challenge for Czech schools and             teachers aiming to apply these outdoor education forms more frequently.              An example of complex preparation for inquiry-oriented outdoor education is             provided in the chapter 3.2.              2.4      APPROACHES TO OUTDOOR EDUCATION                    REALISATION              Approaches to outdoor education depend on various factors. The key factor is the             content of outdoor education – i.e. which part of the curriculum is practised and             deepened by means of outdoor education. Furthermore, according to the content,             it is necessary to set the duration of outdoor education as well as the location where             it is to take place. Last but not least, the teacher must set the organisation of the             outdoor education with respect to the involvement of the pupils. All this must be             planned for each stage of outdoor education. Even though the individual aspects             are described separately in the following text, they do not exist separately – they             always create a complex whole.              2.4.1 CONTENT ASPECT              Similarly to Machyček, Kühnlová and Papík (1985) many authors engaged in the             didactics of geography divide the types of outdoor education according to the content             into themed and complex/integrated outdoor education.              Themed outdoor education is generally associated with one topic monitoring,             whether it is geographical, biological or historical. With respect to geography or             biology, this may concern, for instance, a walk, excursion or outdoor exercise,             within the scope of which pupils collect primary data (by making sketches, taking             photographs, measurements...), learn to read a map, locate the position of posts, etc.             Complex outdoor education includes acquiring pieces of knowledge of several             parts of the given discipline. Most frequently, complex outdoor education concerns                                                 57","pieces of knowledge from multiple disciplines of human activity, and at school this             concerns interdisciplinary cooperation. A complex topic connecting these fields             includes environmental themes, or decision-making processes in the countryside             implemented through projects or case studies. Overall, complex outdoor education             usually lasts for more than one or two hours.              Complex outdoor education may also include sport training courses (summer and             winter ones). This involves physical activities connected to staying in the outdoors.             As Trávníček (2007) claims, pupils, as well as teachers, should realise the importance             of arousing children’s permanent interest in physical activities not only in the             school grounds, but also in their leisure time, and to motivate them to integrate             physical activities into their daily routine. They are aware of the fact that geography             teaching combined with physical activities contributes to a healthy lifestyle. That             is why the courses involve mainly activities which correspond to these aims. For             instance, the fundamentals of tourism and staying outdoors (including awareness             of safety measures, monitoring the weather or selection of a suitable place for             camping), games and physical activities in the countryside, the fundamentals of             cycle-touring, watermanship, camping, orientation outdoors, etc. These activities,             as well as any other outdoor activities, are interdisciplinary, such as walking, cycle-             touring, and orientation in the countryside by means of maps for orienteering. When             hiking or cycle-touring pupils learn how to plan their routes, use maps, and develop             various topographic skills, including the usage of modern technology. Geographical             characteristics of a visited location provide answers to questions, such as: Where             is it? What is it like in there? Visiting local historical places is also associated with             interdisciplinary connections to history. Playing in the meadows, in the forest or by             the water is related to biology. During outdoor education, physical activities therefore             use the aforementioned disciplines.              Activities creating the contents of a winter training course not only bear the character             of a ski training course, but all that is also connected to orientation and physical             activity in the winter. Students become familiarised with the specific mountain             environment. Above all, physical activities in these locations are connected to             downhill skiing, although cross-country skiing or snowshoe usage is also practised.             Once again, the course takes place in a specific location which has been developed             historically and has specific conditions. Geographical or biological characteristics may             be used during this type of education by means of evening activities (quizzing, games,             presentation-making concerning specific topics, etc.). Also, physics has its place there             – the elements and various water phases, atmospheric physics, etc. With respect to             the environment, this concerns, for instance, winter tourism in a specific location.             Winter courses thus attempt to offer their pupils a complex set of activities primarily             associated with physical activities and emphasising interdisciplinary connections.                                                    58","Integrated outdoor education is the most specific form of outdoor education. The             term “integrated outdoor education” is defined by Průcha, Walterová and Mareš in the             Dictionary of Pedagogy (2013) as education implementing interdisciplinary relations             and connections of theoretical activities with practical ones in the following forms:             (1) integrated disciplines or courses, (2) modules or topics classified as part of multiple             disciplines, (3) projects connecting pieces of knowledge from multiple disciplines with             practical experience and productive activities, (4) integration days where the entire             school focuses on one common topic. Another definition of integrated education             is provided by Humphrey, Post and Ellis (1981), in whose opinion it is a means of             education where children look into their knowledge of various disciplines associated             with their environment in a certain way. They learn to find out about connections,             relationships, complex views of various issues, phenomena. Peterssen (In Korvas             \& Cacek, 2009) defines integrated education as a concentrated, theme-oriented             joint form of education where multiple disciplines take part equally. Individual topics             integrate their contributions with respect to central topics and a superior aim.             As it emerges from the aforementioned, integrated outdoor education is demanding             with respect to its contents as well as with respect to staffing, since it involves             teachers of geography, biology, chemistry, physics, history, physical education,             possibly supplemented also by art teachers and teachers of other disciplines. We             must note that integrated education approached by all involved persons should             supplement the normal curriculum, it should not eliminate it or replace it. We perceive             integrated education as an interconnection of curriculum contents of various subjects             in a single thematic educational unit aiming to provide comprehensive knowledge             useful for practical life (adjusted according to Podroužek 2002). Integrated outdoor             education also involves various physical activities. It is a non-structured as well             as structured movement performed for the purposes of various forms of outdoor             research. It is applied, for instance, in data gathering (e.g. taking water samples).             When performing this activity, neither pupils nor students realise that they need to             walk somewhere, take their shoes off, take samples from various places, and bring             them to the laboratory for analysis.              For the purposes of the project “Outdoor Education as a Strong Teaching Strategy”             another classification of outdoor education was created according to the focus –             see Figure 6. According to this classification, outdoor education may be focused             on discipline skills (focus on the curriculum of individual disciplines), locomotion             skills (sports training course), and interpersonal relationships (adaptation and             teambuilding courses). For definitions of partial forms of outdoor education see             chapter 2.3.                                                       59","FIGURE 6. DIVISION OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION ACCORDING TO ITS FOCUS.             Source: author.              Another classification of (outdoor) education arises from the theoretical concept of             Slavík, Janík, Najvar and Knecht (2017), where we can describe outdoor education as             an independent discipline; however, its content is interdisciplinary if the cooperation             of two disciplines is considered, or transdisciplinary if outdoor education exceeds             the interdisciplinary dimensions (see table 7).                         Disciplinary         Interdisciplinary    Transdisciplinary                 FIGURE 7. CLASSIFICATION OF EDUCATION FROM DISCIPLINARY TO INTERDISCIPLINARY AND             TRANSDISCIPLINARY.             Source: author.              Dyment and Potter (2015), Potter and Dyment (2016) ask the following questions:             “Is outdoor education a discipline? Can ‘nature’ alone be enough of a worldview or             paradigm to warrant outdoor education being a stand-alone discipline?” According             to these authors, outdoor education as a prospective discipline is the role, power             and potential of the natural environment and the relationships between humans             and nature that stand to be formed. Nature does underpin and define the learning             area of outdoor education, and it carries enough weight in research and practices to             warrant being the “worldview/paradigm”, so nature needs to be situated far more             centrally in the pedagogy and outcomes of outdoor practices. The authors see signs             of this happening with calls for more place-responsive pedagogies and sustainability             to  infiltrate  and  underpin  the  outdoor  education  arena. They  also  encourage             practitioners to embrace this worldview and to frame nature and its powerful role             more centrally in the curriculum and pedagogy of outdoor learning.              Outdoor education may be thus approached as an independent discipline with regard             to its methodology. Its contents, however, exceed the boundaries of a separate             discipline, so we speak about an interdisciplinary concept of outdoor education.                                                 60","Interdisciplinarity or interdisciplinary cooperation emerged as a serious challenge to             disciplinarity in the 1980s and is one of the main discussion topics for professionals in             pedagogical and didactic fields today. Jacobs (1989, p. 8) describes it as “a knowledge             view and curriculum approach that consciously applies methodology and language             from more than one discipline to combine a central theme, topic, issue, problem, or             work”. Similarly, Klein and Newell (1996, p. 3) see interdisciplinarity as the “process             of answering a question, solving a problem, or addressing a topic that is too broad             or complex to be dealt with adequately by a single discipline or profession’ and that,             whatever the context, ‘interdisciplinary studies draw on disciplinary perspectives             and integrate their insights through the construction of a more comprehensive             perspective”.              This concept of interdisciplinarity can be applied to outdoor education with a             dominant focus on one school subject (in this case geography) with the support of             physical activity, which as an unstructured form is always part of outdoor education.              Transdisciplinarity connotes a research strategy that crosses many disciplinary             boundaries to create a holistic approach. It applies to research efforts focused on             problems that cross the boundaries of two or more disciplines. The transdisciplinary             concept of outdoor education can be identified with the concept of integrated             outdoor education, which constitutes an “interconnected” model, ideally linked to             disciplinary and interdisciplinary activities. Integrated outdoor education may be             perceived within the meaning of interconnection of curricula of various disciplines             in one themed teaching complex aiming to acquire complex knowledge useful in             practical life (adjusted according to Podroužek, 2002).             The strength of the interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach may be viewed             especially in the support of pupil thinking in connections as well as the geography             role as integrator of partial disciplines – as stated in a quotation from students             of pedagogy: “life is not monodisciplinary” (...) “interdisciplinary cooperation is             extremely important (...) pupils receive information in context and are able to connect             knowledge from multiple fields” (...) “in co-operation is power”.              2.4.2 TIME ASPECT             From the time perspective, outdoor education may be divided into short-term,             medium-term, and long-term.             Short-term  outdoor  education  takes  place  in  the  immediate  surroundings  of             the school, e.g. on school grounds, which should be modified in order to accommodate             outdoor education. It may partially include a weather station, designated local             meridian, sandpit for relief modelling, arboretum, geopark, and so on. The teaching             in these grounds may take 1–2 teaching units. Within this meaning, Wilczyńska-             Wołoszyn (2003) does not define school grounds or geographical grounds, but she             calls this environment a geographical laboratory defined as a territory less than                                                 61","500 m away from the school building, reachable within a 7-minute walk and used             for geographical task assignments. The distance is defined deliberately in order to             enable the elaboration of assigned tasks within one teaching unit.              Medium-term outdoor education involves education typically lasting one school             day. This may include, for instance, themed walks to the school neighbourhood             serving especially as an introduction to other forms of outdoor education, such as             outdoor exercise, outdoor research with the focus on problem-solving, etc. One-             day forms frequently involve excursions to various enterprises, museums, historical             sights, exhibitions, etc.              Long-term outdoor education may last for two or more days and may include school             trips, schools in the countryside as well as specialised forms of outdoor education with             a focus on natural science, social science, physical or adaptation courses.             2.4.3    LOCALISATION ASPECT              With respect to localisation (place of realisation), outdoor education may take place:                       –  in school grounds (school garden, school playground, school outdoor                      laboratory, outdoor workroom in the school grounds, outdoor classroom,                      gazebo, geographical field);                       –  in the rural environment (environment of rural municipalities, castles,                      chateaux, forests, meadows...);                        –  in  the  urban  environment  (most  frequently,  for  instance,  museums                      offering teaching programmes, planetarium, the zoo or an environment                      of the city/municipality/city quarter);                        – in the countryside close to the countryside (e.g. conservation areas);                       – in the modified countryside (e.g. extracted quarries).              It is evident that certain activities may take place similarly in the urban or rural             environment if an imprecisely called “urban” environment is in fact any municipality             where there is a certain type of housing development, transportation infrastructure             or production or non-production activities.              At the same time, many environmental centres and training facilities have their seats             in towns  where educational activities are organised for schools; however, branches                    15             are located in the rural or in the suburban environment. Castles, chateaux, museums,             biotopes may be situated in the urban as well as in the rural environment.                15      In the Czech Republic e.g. Lipka – School Facility for Environmental Education, Rezekvítek and             many others.                                                62","FIGURE 8. THE FOUR-ZONE OUTDOOR EDUCATION MODEL.             Source: Svobodová et al. (2019), adopted from Beames, Higgins and Nicol (2012, s. 6).              Note. The model depicts the increasing distance of the work area of outdoor education from the             school (which constitutes the imaginary centre of the circles) in various forms of outdoor education             (SY – schoolyard, MU – municipality and surroundings, DE – a day-long excursion, CO – longterm outdoor             course). On the right, the model is linked to the concept of the different duration of outdoor education,             depending on the chosen location and form of education.               In general, one of the decisive factors in choosing the place where outdoor education             is to be carried out is time. Shorter forms of outdoor education usually take place near             school, as opposed to long-term forms which take place in more distant localities,             as shown in figure 8.              2.4.4    ORGANISATIONAL ASPECT              With respect to organisational aspect and strategy selection, outdoor education may             be divided as follows:                   Prepared and led by the teacher – this includes, for instance, walks where the route                   is determined and proposed by the teacher, who provides commentaries during the                   course of the walks concerning the surrounding countryside; however, this may also                   concern themed walks where pupils perform certain tasks upon instructions of the                   teacher, or it concerns excursions or visits to museums or natural parks etc. It typically                   involves young pupils of the lower stage of elementary school.                   Prepared and led by the pupils together with the teacher – this case may involve                   outdoor research within the scope of outdoor exercise prepared by the pupils together                   with the teacher, who only supervises the whole activity and possibly assists the pupils.                                                 63","It mainly concerns older pupils from lower secondary school or grammar school                   students, who already know the principles of work and movement outdoors from                   previous outdoor education.                   Prepared and led by the pupils supported by their teacher – this may involve agreed,                   inquiry-based outdoor education where pupils are presented with a problem and                   they have to determine how and by means of which aids the given problem should                   be solved. Pupils may also select the problem themselves. This mainly involves pupils                   who have long-term experience with outdoor education, i.e. lower secondary schools                   or grammar schools. However, inquiry-based forms of outdoor education are more                   and more frequently included in the curriculum of primary schools.                                                                                                   64","3             SUGGESTIONS FOR OUTDOOR                           EDUCATION FOR ELEMENTARY                                                                SCHOOLS                                  Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.                                                                   Benjamin Franklin                Generally, educational concept is a concept which approaches formal and procedural             aspects  of  education,  in  the  pedagogical  situation  reflecting  the  selection  of             educational aims, contents, conditions, principles, organisational forms, means,             and  methods,  and  with  respect  to  the  relationship  between  a  teacher  and             a student reflecting in education (Petty, 1996; Průcha, 1992; Kratochvíl, Solfronk,             \& Urbánek, 2002).             The aim of  outdoor  education  is  to  find  answers  to  questions  in  the  real             environment. This takes place by working with primary and secondary data             sources. During the preparation stage of outdoor education, which typically takes             place in the classroom, pupils work with secondary data sources – they analyse             available information (data, schemes, graphs, maps...). During the realisation stage,             which takes place outdoors, pupils usually collect their own primary data (notes from             observation, measurements of various quantities, results from interviews or surveys,             etc.), which they process, analyse, interpret, and evaluate in the final stage (either             outdoors or in the classroom) – they perform a synthesis of primary and secondary             data (see table 9).             The  cross-sectional  activity  of  geography  outdoor  education  usually  involves             cartographic skills, where at the preparation stage the pupil uses existing maps to             acquire the necessary data of the model territory where, subsequently, the realisation             stage of the outdoor education takes place. At this stage, not only the pupils know             how to get directions from a map, but they are also capable of creating their own             map or at least designating a route in an existing map, designating the recorded             quantities or mapping the ground usage.                                                   65","TABLE 9             KEY ASPECTS OF INDIVIDUAL STAGES OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION                            Preparation stage   Realisation stage  Final stage              Setting       classroom           outdoor            classroom/outdoor               Data          secondary           primary            secondary + primary              Activity      analysis            collection         synthesis              Cartographic skills  existing map reading,   existing map reading,   own map creation                            analysis and        analysis, interpretation /   and interpretation                            interpretation      own map creation              Source: author.              To prevent the ordering of outdoor education among other forms of education from             being random (with only minimum links to other forms of education or none of them),             it is desirable that the following principles are adhered to when creating the concept.                    •   Outdoor education links to the curriculum of previous school grades                      and the curriculum progress.             The individual forms of outdoor education (see Table 10) should be included in the             syllabus of the individual grades of elementary education according to the learning             progress scheme (Bruner, 1960; or on an example of cartography skills Mrázková,             2013), for continuous improvement of the pupils´ skills and competencies, both             in horizontal and vertical terms.              Horizontal classification expresses the difficulty progress of individual activities,             i.e. as of the beginning of the school year the teacher includes forms of outdoor             education which help the pupils carry out simple activities and gradually includes             activities which are more difficult and complex. With respect to vertical classification,             we have in mind the curriculum links between individual grades and practising of             activities learned before. In the lower grades, the outdoor education activities should             be simple, defined by the teacher. Later, these activities should require the use of             knowledge acquired in the previous course of education and increased independence             of the pupil. In the final stage, the pupil should be able to work independently             outdoors, and the teacher´s role should be rather to check and advise. The pupil´s             role is thus transformed from the traditional consumer of information to an actively             learning individual. Both roles, of the teacher and the student, must be balanced,             hence either the leading role of the teacher prevails, or the activity is more student-             work-oriented. (In Oost, De Vries, \& van der Schee, 2011, p. 311)                                                     66","TABLE 10             ACTIVITIES DEFINING BASIC FORMS OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION AND THEIR DIFFICULTY             PROGRESSION                            Level 1:      Level 2: observation +                            observation   elementary exploration   Level 3: exploration              Difficulty level  approach  approach            approach               Form of outdoor   walk/excursion  outdoor exercise  inquiry-based outdoor              education                                       education              Pupil´s activity  limited   medium              extensive              Teacher´s activity  extensive  medium           limited              Activities:   observation;  observation;        observation;                            asking targeted   asking targeted   asking targeted                            questions;    questions;          questions;                            field log keeping   field log keeping   field log keeping                            (recording);  (recording);        (recording);                            photo (video)   photo (video)     photo (video)                            documentation;  documentation;    documentation;                                          orientation;        orientation;                                          description;        description;                                          drawing (sketching);  drawing (sketching);                                                              collection of data/material;                                                              measurement;                                                              analysis;                                                              mapping;                                                              inquiry (questionnaire);                                                              evaluation.             Source: author.             Note 1. Bold lettering marks cross-sectional activities shared by all forms of outdoor education.             Note 2: More complex and longer-term forms of outdoor education may include thematically narrower and             shorter-term forms of outdoor education. E.g. part of outdoor exercise can be a walk. It is important that             all forms of outdoor education have set learning aims so that someone does not consider, for example,             a walk just as relaxation.                     •  Links of outdoor education to knowledge acquired in the course of                     previous years of education and to learning progress.              The connection of outdoor education and class work can achieve more effective             knowledge fixation, for more details see for example Činčera and Holec (2016);             Kvasničák (2013); Rickinson et al. (2004). The connection of outdoor education and             class work also follows from the overall organisation of outdoor education, comprising             three basic stages: preparation – in the classroom as part of the standard teaching             process; realisation – outdoor stage, and final – can be done outdoors and followed             by a classroom discussion and subsequent teaching process.                                                  67","•   Connections of various forms of outdoor education from the temporal                      point of view.             The author worked with her own classification of outdoor education with regard             to its duration: short-term forms of outdoor education are held in the immediate             surroundings of the school, usually on the school plot/garden or in an outdoor             classroom/laboratory and do not exceed the time of two successive lessons.              Medium-term  forms  of  outdoor  education  are  usually  implemented  in  the             surroundings of the school or within the territory of the municipality the school is             situated in. This category includes excursions to factories and visits to educational             institutions. Their duration may exceed the time reserved for school lessons as there             is the additional time of travel to the place of the activity and back. These activities             usually cover one school day.              Long-term forms of outdoor education cover two and more days and often include             spending a night or more out of home. Thus, the teaching process can cover more             days in a concentrated form (intensive course) or stages, if the subject of interest is,             for example, long-term observation or measurement of a particular phenomenon.             In the case of long-term outdoor education, the concept requires from its preparation             and implementation to make use of skills, habits and experience obtained from the             practice of the individual activities within short- and medium-term forms of outdoor             education. The focus of the pupils´ activities performed in the course of long-term             outdoor education should be above all on inquiry-based education, see for example             Karvánková,  Popjaková, Vančura  and  Mládek  (2017)  or  Samková,  Hošpesová,             Roubíček and Tichá (2015) implemented through independent or group work.             Complex and long-term forms of outdoor education may include thematically             narrowed and shorter forms of outdoor education. For example, field exercise may             include a walk or excursion. The most important thing is that all forms of outdoor             education must have defined learning objectives so that the pupils do not consider             an excursion a mere relaxation.                     •  Interconnection of current topics with outdoor education in various                     types of landscape.              Another classification criterion of outdoor education is through the characteristics             of the area/territory where the education is provided. The most general classification             distinguishes between outdoor education in rural or urban landscapes (Řezníčková,             2008).              Rural landscape is further divided into (Jelínek \& Kysučan, 2014) close to nature             (deciduous/mixed  forest,  meadow,  pasture)  and  more  or  less  cultural  (spruce             monoculture, agricultural field). The strongly anthropogenic urban landscape is                                                  68","represented for the purpose of outdoor education either by the whole territory of             the settlement or by its selected part (for example a city quarter, industrial premises,             brownfields, a park).                    •  Interconnection of outdoor education implemented in individual school                     subjects.             Outdoor education has great potential with respect to interdisciplinary education.             In order to implement it with the greatest impact on the pupil, it should be cross-             linked among individual school subjects that should supplement each other. Teachers             should, therefore, cooperate on the outdoor education preparation already when             outlining the SEP and themed plans. The uutdoor education concept must emerge             then from a thorough analysis of the potential of an internal and external school             environment, from its material and personnel capacity and focus/specialisation of             the school.             In order to enable efficient and conceptual implementation of outdoor education in             individual grades, school subjects, and during the school year, the role of an outdoor             education coordinator should be established at the school (similarly to the existing             role of environmental education coordinator or educational visits coordinator).                   The outdoor education coordinator should be a well-trained expert in the integration                   of outdoor education at elementary schools. The coordinator’s work consists of                   organisation, coordination, and contents guarantee of individual forms of outdoor                   education at the school where he or she is working.             The outdoor education coordinator should ensure that the planned outdoor education             meets the aforementioned five points as follows:                       –  communicates  and  cooperates  with  individual  teachers  at  school                      when preparing the individual forms of outdoor education and their                      incorporation in the SEP and the themed plan;                       –  coordinates and records the terms and the framework contents of the                      forms of outdoor education implemented;                        –  provides consultations and professional as well as administrative support                      to  teachers  during  the  preparation  and  implementation  of  outdoor                      education (e.g. ensuring safety, parental awareness, notification of the                      school management and other teachers etc.);                       –  ensures that the outdoor education concept complies with other school                      documentation (e.g. school programme of environmental education),                       –  seeks options and opportunities for a reasonable outdoor education close                      to the school facility as well as in remote areas;                                                    69","–  contacts organisations which could externally provide some forms of                      outdoor education;                       – ensures and makes evidence of aids for outdoor education;                       – informs the parents and cooperates with them;                        –  presents the course and outcomes of outdoor education to the public                      (e.g. through a website, Facebook, notice board), cooperates with the                      municipality.             For the activity of the outdoor education coordinator, it is necessary that other school             workers cooperate and especially that the school management provides support.             Therefore, it is important for the coordinator to be officially appointed by the             head teacher. In order to implement successful and conceptual outdoor education,             a “workgroup” for outdoor education may be created at the school if necessary.               3.1      TYPE TASKS FOR GEOGRAPHICAL OUTDOOR                    EDUCATION              While according to Papáček (2010) the methods and various teaching tasks in the             outdoor education of natural sciences have already been relatively well elaborated             abroad (see, for example, Abell, 2000), in Czech education, as has been stated several             times, the methods are still fairly new (Papáček, 2010, Petr, 2010 etc.) and they have             not yet been analysed in detail, not even in terms of individual subjects, let alone their             links to other subjects (in this case, integration with PE).             In foreign geography, the concept of outdoor education has already been elaborated             on by Hindle (1993), Healey and Roberts (2004), Healey (2005), and others. Outdoor             education  that  allows  pupils  to  work  in  a  real  setting  with  properly  selected             curriculum items leads to a more effective understanding of the subject matter             (deep learning – Drummer et al., 2008; Hill \& Woodland 2002; Hope 2009; Kent,             Gilbertson, \& Hunt 1997) and harbours considerable potential as regards making             natural sciences more attractive to pupils (Papáček, 2010; Stuchlíková, 2010, etc.).             In the various forms of its internal management by the teacher, (Eastwell, 2009;             Stuchlíková, 2010), outdoor education is also linked to the use of modern scientific             processes, autonomous identification of environmental issues, handling of data             and literary sources directly in the field, advancement of the pupils’ communication             skills, etc., i.e. those competencies that Czech pupils are lacking the most according             to PISA surveys (Czesaná et al., 2009; Bičík, 2009). Practically oriented outdoor             education may also help tackle the issue of a lack of practical demonstrations and             experiments in lessons, or insufficient development of the pupils’ instrumental skills             (“hands-on activities”), as well as the issue of the tuition not being sufficiently                                                  70","focused on problems facing the pupils in their everyday lives. Therefore, a modern             educational school of thought is being presented, the application of which will allow             for an increase in pupils’ motivation and engagement as well as an advance in their             critical thinking, creativity and problem-solving abilities.              In Czech education, the concept of practical outdoor geography lessons combined             with the use of activating methods of problem learning has been present for quite             some time now, but it did not have sufficient methodological underpinnings, which             may lead teachers to persevere with more traditional and less demanding forms of             outdoor education. This trend is further enhanced by the poor formulation of expected             outcomes for Field Geography Education, Practice and Applications thematic unit; see             Table 4 . The concept generically conceived in the FEP EE leaves teachers with but                   16             few suggestions for designing their own outdoor lessons. In addition, there has been             a lack of relevant research on geography education in the Czech Republic, confirming             the contribution of practical outdoor education to geography, both for geography             itself and for the pupils’ healthy lifestyle (connection with PE).              In order to come up with a functional concept of outdoor education, the teacher             should have a portfolio of activities prepared, ranging from basic activities related             to the training of skills and techniques combined with outdoor data collection up to             projects or case studies. Depending on the nature of the activities, they must also             select a place, which may include variously adapted plots within the school’s premises,             or a place remote from the school. The planning of activities for outdoor education             does not have to be difficult if teachers include a column in their class lesson plans             where they indicate notes on outdoor education (see Table 12 – item “Suggestions             for outdoor education”), i.e., where they put down notes on the relationship between             the subject matter discussed and outdoor education. All activities then have a direct             link to classroom-based lessons. After a certain period, for example, after a quarter             of a year, they review the activities eligible for being practised outdoors and plan             a specific form of outdoor lessons for these activities. These activities must respect             the following principles:                    16      Subject matter:             (1) field exercises in and observations of the local landscape, geographical field trips – orientation points,             phenomena, tools and aids; location, determining primary and secondary cardinal directions, navigation             using maps and the azimuth, estimating distance and height of objects in the field; simple panoramic             sketches of the landscape, location diagrams, diagrammatic sketch of route, evaluation of natural             phenomena and indicators;             (2) human safety in case of threats to life and health – natural disasters; measures, conduct during natural             disasters using example situations                                                 71","– Determine the year to which the given outdoor education form is suited.                        –  Set specific objectives and outcomes of the lessons, i.e. plan all the                      outdoor and classroom-based activities associated with the tuition.                       –  Specify the necessary aids required for the given outdoor education form                      (see Table 12).              In this way, teachers can gradually implement all forms of outdoor education into             the SEP and the thematic plan.              Table 11 presents proposed typified activities that show, using the selected subject             matter of traffic, how outdoor activities may be both vertically and horizontally             integrated into tuition. Horizontal integration expresses the various levels of difficulty             for individual activities, i.e. less experienced pupils can begin with lower-difficulty             activities before they gradually move to the more complex, or the more complex             activities may be assigned to more talented pupils. The vertical division expresses             the continuity of the curriculum between lower and upper elementary school stages             and between individual grades.              TABLE 11             EXAMPLE OF TYPES OF ACTIVITIES FOR OUTDOOR EDUCATION ON THE EXAMPLE OF             THE TOPIC “TRAFFIC” AND THEIR HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL PROGRESS                                          Level 2: Observation +                        Level 1: Observation   elementary exploration              Approach  approach         approach             Level 3: Exploration approach              Grade:    Lower grade of elementary school               Educational              area/unit:  PEOPLE AND THEIR WORLD / PEOPLE AND HEALTH – Cycle 1              Form/topic:  Fieldwork on a traffic   Fieldwork evaluating road   –                        playground       safety around the school              Partial aims:  The pupil demonstrates   The pupil and the teacher walk   –                        the knowledge of   over the nearest pedestrian                        traffic regulations and   crossings around the school                        the principles of safe   and consider their pros and                        movement on the road.  cons.              Outcomes:  Worksheet with traced   Assessment of risks and   –                        traffic signs and rules.  safety features at pedestrian                                         crossings in the vicinity of the                                         school.               Aids:     Worksheet.       Map of the school             –                                         surroundings with marked                                         pros and cons (risks).                                                  72","Grade:    Upper grade of elementary school               Educational              area/unit:  GEOGRAPHY / THE CZECH REPUBLIC               Form/topic:      –         Field research “Traffic Census”  Field research “Traffic Census”              Partial aims:    –         The pupil collects primary   The pupil collects primary                                         data – the number of different   data – the number of different                                         types of vehicles at a defined   types of vehicles at a defined                                         location in the surroundings   location in the surroundings of                                         of the school.      the school.                                         The pupil adheres to the   The pupil adheres to the                                         principles of safe movement   principles of safe movement                                         during data collection.  during data collection.                                         The pupil chooses a suitable   The pupil chooses a suitable                                         method of representing all   method of representing all                                         the collected primary data   collected primary data on the                                         in the map (pupils in groups   map (pupils in groups make                                         make a synthesis of the   the synthesis of the collected                                         collected data from individual   data from individual sites into                                         sites into a complex map).  a complex map).                                         The pupil assesses transport   The pupil assesses transport                                         safety in the locality from   safety in the locality from                                         different views of users   different views of users                                         (pedestrian, bicycle rider,   (pedestrian, bicycle rider, car                                         car driver) including a SWOT   driver) including the SWOT                                         analysis of the site.  analysis of the site.                                                             In the case of a negative safety                                                             assessment, the pupil proposes                                                             measures to eliminate the risk.                                                             The pupil assesses the impact                                                             of transport on the                                                             environment and suggests                                                             ways to reduce the negative                                                             impact of transport on the                                                             environment in the community.              Outcomes:  –               Map with collected data,   Map with collected data,                                         SWOT analysis.       SWOT analysis.                                                              List of measures to eliminate                                                              the risk.              Aids:     –                Map of the school    Map of the school                                         surroundings, crayons.  surroundings, writing                                                              accessories, crayons.              Source: author, published in Svobodová et al. (2019, p. 56, 68).                                                         73","3.2      THE CASE STUDY – COMPLEX TASK FOR OUTDOOR                    EDUCATION               The case study concerns a complex form of outdoor education comprising all             partial activities performed during simpler (partial) forms of outdoor education             (see Table 10), which leads the pupils towards their own research activity. Given its             complexity and low frequency, its implementation in Czech schools (see chapter 5.1)             will be described in detail from the theoretical and practical perspectives in the form             of preparation for lessons.              The creation of the case study is a highly specific form of short- to medium-term             interdisciplinary outdoor education focused on field research. In social sciences,             a case study is defined as “a detailed study of single or several cases” with a collection             of “a large amount of data on one or several individuals” (Hendl, 2012, p. 102).             A case study is a qualitative research method mainly because it examines certain             phenomena in depth within the actual context, which is convenient especially if the             border between the phenomenon and its context is not very clear. In general, we             can say that a case study examines two types of phenomena. It is either the most             frequently occurring phenomenon or, conversely, an extraordinary phenomenon,             which deviates from the standard. Since focusing on a case study makes it possible             for scholars to compile a nuanced, holistic, and detailed analysis of a selected place,             group, or process, it is especially useful for doing qualitative, theoretical research             (Hardwick, 2009). For the teaching of geography, we can define a case study, which             presents real situations for research in much greater detail, in the following way:                   In the teaching of geography, a case study is a special case of problem-oriented                   education, which is a complex method interconnecting all activities of the partial forms                   of outdoor education (collection, sorting, interpretation and evaluation of information                   from various sources directly in the field). It can interconnect partial geographical                   disciplines (physical and socio-economical geography with the support of cartography                   and GIS) while using the knowledge in the other discipines (concretely, according to                   the task of the study), thus leading to a synthesis of the detected findings.              As regards the concept of geography, we can regard this approach as complex             (complex geography) (see figure 9), as it connects all the geographical and related             disciplines including cartography and GIS concerning school education. Kolejka (2014)             argues that geography as a discipline must also respond to the current events in the             world and be useful in everyday life. Then it can be referred to as useful geography.                                                          74","Cartography                                            and GIS                            Physical                            Human                         Geography                           Geography                                                COMPLEX                                          GEOGRAPHY                 FIGURE 9. GEOGRAPHY AS A COMPLEX.             Source: Svobodová, Durna, Pernica and Hofmann (2018), translated.              We believe that outdoor education supports the concept of useful geography             and complex geography including the development of all key competencies and             at the same time incorporates an added value in the form of enhanced physical             activity of the pupils.             At present, when a lot of information is openly available, it is not necessary that the             pupils should remember many facts. They should be able to find the relevant sources             and work with them. However, this is not so easy. The process of school teaching in             the Czech Republic still frequently cannot ensure that the pupils learn to work with             information, not only define it or enumerate it. An important factor in this sense is the             pupils processing the information and developing the pupils’ analytical and synthetic             thinking. The implementation of case studies or other problem-oriented tasks should             guide the pupils in deciding which tools from one or more objects they should use             in their solution. The teacher can offer less experienced pupils a glossary of terms             (and methods) related to the resolved issue. However, case studies in the teaching             of geography may not have a single correct solution; they have an open end. This can             lead to problems with the assessment of individual pupils’ involvement in the solution             of case studies. In the Czech Republic, the teachers tend to assess the result, being             focused on the performance, not the process leading to its achievement. This can be             one of the barriers in the development of this teaching form.                                                       75","3.2.1    PREPARATION OF A MODEL GEOGRAPHICAL CASE STUDY               A case study is a suitable teaching form and method of mediating the solution             of a particular situation to the pupils in the environment in which they are living.             It is “strongly anchored teaching” that helps the pupils cope with the pitfalls of             everyday life by means of geographical education. The foreign equivalents are             the terms “powerful knowledge” or “powerful teaching” (Hopkins, 2000; Tejeda             \& Santamaría, 2010).              Introduction of case studies into school education entails certain risks, but many of             them can be prevented by the pupils’ education. Solutions of case studies, mainly             from the local environment, require certain experience connected with short-term             outdoor education. Another significant moment is its implementation into the milieu             of the school curriculum, in the case of the Czech Republic, its inclusion into the             school syllabi. This requires the teacher’s experience in the planning and preparation             of the lesson. Another important aspect for its implementation is the specification             of measurable objectives of the teaching so that the teacher can defend this form             of teaching. This skill is particularly important in the milieu of the geographical             curriculum at elementary and secondary schools because of its excessive contextual             dimensionality. To sum it up, a case study requires teachers’ grasp not only of the             methodology of outdoor education in data collection and data collection from other             sources but also their realisation of what will be achieved by dealing with a particular             situation in the pupils’ further knowledge, skills and attitudes. The case study is in             fact only a tool in thematic education. It concerns solution of a particular topic largely             by application of geographical tools, the use of which the pupils practice in context.             Through their examples, pupils can do a large amount of geographical schoolwork             in a context, which they do not manage in the standard approach.              The following text will introduce a case study on the potential reopening of a ski slope             in Brno. This case study can be applied not only in Brno but in any other area (with             potential modification to the local conditions). In addition to the particular situations             arising from the environment, the pupils will learn to ask geographical questions             and look for appropriate answers, using the existing knowledge and skills acquired             during the study of geography. The pupils/students thus have an opportunity to             apply knowledge acquired during the study directly in a particular field case, without             which the teaching of geography resembles chemistry teaching without laboratory             experiments.             When planning a case study (like the planning of any other lesson), the teacher             must bear in mind that a case study has several phases, as they were described in             chapter 1.5.1.                                                     76","The implementation of a case study comes at the end of the year when the pupils             have gone through other partial forms of outdoor education and are able to use the             methods of field research from previous outdoor education. After implementation,             the pupils should be able to:                     1. Ask geographic questions from disciplines that relate to the actual task.                    2. Search for answers in various sources of information.                    3. Work with various research methods including field research.                    4. Process the results and draw conclusions.               TABLE 12             PREPARATION AND SCENARIO OF THE CASE STUDY              Grade:   Thematic area of the FEP EE:   Topic:              8, 9    Geographic information, data   Restoration of the ski slope in the Wilson forest                      sources, cartography and                      topography;              Time:                      A natural image of the Earth;   At least 5 lessons divided as follows:                      The social and economic   Preparation phase – 1 lesson, introduction to the                      environment;             task, preparation of aids.                      The natural environment;  Fieldwork – 2 lessons, reconnaissance of the                      The Czech Republic;      terrain, processing of assigned tasks in the field,                      Geographical fieldwork, practice   creation of photo documentation.                      and application.         Processing of final outcomes, discussion – 2                                               lessons (it is necessary to count with the time for                                               moving to the site, see the scenario).               Expected outcomes (FEP EE, 2016, p. 75–80):              Student, pupil:              •   organise and properly assess geographic information and sources of data from available               cartographic products and guides, graphs, diagrams, statistics and other information sources;              •  knowledgeably apply geographic, topographic and cartographic terminology;              •  properly assess geographic objects, phenomena and processes in the landscape…;              •  identify and compare natural phenomena, their interrelations and conditionality…;              •  compare the prerequisites and main factors for the territorial distribution of economic activities;              •   using selected examples, identify important impacts and risks of natural and social impacts on the               environment;              •   assess, at the appropriate level, natural, economic and cultural relations within the local region,               possibilities for further development;              •  define and locate the region in which they live…;              •  master the basics of practical topography and orientation in the field;              •   apply practical approaches in the field for the observation, depiction and assessment of               the landscape;              •  observe fundamental safety rules for being in the open nature….                                                      77","Skills:                          Suggestion for outdoor education:              •   collecting information, sorting, processing   This activity is applied to a specific location,               and evaluating information;     but it is possible to use similar sites (the need              •  comparison of different information sources;  for slopes) in another region or to use the              •   interpretation of their own observations,   methodology to develop an opinion on another               presentation of the results of observation;  phenomenon.              •   creation of a questionnaire for a structured   It is suitable for realisation in both urban and rural               interview;                      landscapes; it can be used in different seasons.              •   creating conclusions based on their own               observations and geographic questions;              •   reading, analysing, interpreting and creating               a map;              •  practical use of mathematical operations;              •  drawing a slope profile;              •  photographic documentation, sketching.              The main aim:              Drafting an opinion on restoring the slopes in the Wilson Forest. The opinion will be supported by              analytical and mapping data obtained from fieldwork. Drawing up an opinion should show how to              use geographic knowledge and skills in the decision-making process.              Partial aims (through the preparation of a report for the city council, supported by the elaborated              documents and subsequent interpretation, the pupils will learn):              •   to ask geographic questions in relation to the locality;              •   to distinguish/recognise the basic shapes of the relief;              •   to mark the area of interest on a map (slope area, slope top and heel, landscaping, ski lift, snow               cannons, parking, access roads, etc.);              •   to defend the placement of drawn elements on a map;              •   to calculate the area (of the ski slope, forest);              •   measure the slope, orientation and approximate time of slope sinking;              •   assess the climatic conditions of the site;              •   to create a chart for recording meteorological indicators;              •   draw a slope profile;              •   to describe in their own words the positive and negative aspects of human intervention in the               landscape (building of the slope);              •   to describe in their own words the natural and human impacts in the landscape (restoration of the               slopes);              •   to describe in their own words the natural and societal impacts of human intervention in the               landscape (rehabilitation of the slopes);              •   to present the results of their own work in front of the group;              •   to formulate the conclusions of their own work.              Syllabus of topic/inclusion in a wider   Cross-curricular links:              context:                         Mathematics, Czech language, history,              It interconnects the thematic areas mentioned   art, physical education, information and              in the introduction of the table. The activity   communication technologies, foreign language,              is suitable for pupils of the higher grade of   civic education.              elementary school (there is an opportunity for              cross-curricular links) and for the students of              high school and grammar school.                                                    78","Aids:                            Classroom preparation:              Paper A4 format or bigger on a hard pad, ruler,   Classroom, computer with Internet access (not              protractor, pencil, crayons, camera, GPS,   necessary), desks that connect up to 2 for group              compass, clear note papers, map data, PC with   work;              internet connection and printer (not required).  terrain – urban/rural landscape with a suitably                                               selected slope.              Individual approach:              It is recommended to work in a group. Partial tasks in the field can be handled individually/by pairs.              In the final phase, it is recommended to work again in the group-discussion of the results found              in the field, writing conclusions for the final report for the council and creating the resulting map              outcomes.              Groups: Differentiated (boys with girls), the group is represented by students with excellent and not              so good study results. For pupils with specific requirements, escorts, or appropriate compensatory              aids, must be provided.              LESSON SCENARIO               Pupils´ activity               Time   Teacher´s activity                                             (min)              Lesson 1 – in the classroom              Greeting. Listening to the teacher‘s   5  Greeting. Administrative (start of class).              instructions.               Getting to know the project theme.   10  The teacher motivates the pupils by              Reading “Getting started information   reading the “introductory information              about the ski slope in Wilson Forest” or   about the ski slope in Wilson Forest” or              listening to the teacher‘s story about the   briefly talks about the chosen location,              location.                            justifies its choice / asking the pupils:                                                   whether they have already heard and have                                                   some information about the location and                                                   planned slopes, given location, whether                                                   they have ever been there.               Listening to the assignment and goal of   5  Emphasises the goal and outcomes of              the project.                         the project.              Division into groups            5    Choose a suitable method for dividing                                                   pupils into groups.              Studying project assignment and map   10  He/she distributes task assignment groups              data.                                and informs pupils of available map                                                   material.               Preparing aids for fieldwork.   10   Passes through the class, answering any                                                   questions.                                                        79","Lesson 2 and 3 – fieldwork              Pupils move from school to a place of   10  Before leaving the school building, he/              interest under the supervision of a teacher,   she reminds students of the rules of safe              adhere to rules of safe movement.    movement in the field and warns of any                                                   risks on the transfer route.                                                   He/she supervises the safe transfer of                                                   pupils from school to the locality of                                                   interest.              Pupils listen to the teacher, they look at   10  Upon arriving at the locality, he/she              the site. They prepare aids (papers, pencils,   presents the pupils with the territory and              pads, phones...).                    esmphasises the extent and boundaries of                                                   the territory where the pupils will move.                                                   He or she repeats the tasks that are                                                   waiting for pupils in a given location – see                                                   assignments.               Pupils work independently or in groups   45  He or she checks the individual or group              under the supervision of the teacher   work of pupils, helps them solve problems,              according to instructions given.     supervises pupils‘ safety. Watching time.              Pupils prepare to return to school, pack   10  He/she briefly reflects on the work on the              up aids.                             site and informs pupils about follow-up                                                   work at school; invites pupils to prepare for                                                   the return to school.              They move back to school, talk to   10  He/she supervises the safe transfer of              a teacher or to one another.         pupils back to school and analyses their                                                   impressions of their activities.              Lesson 4 – in the classroom              Pupils divide into working groups. They   5  Greetings, administrative (class entry),              listen to the teacher‘s instructions.  introduction to fieldwork (for example, to                                                   project a picture).              In groups, they work on the assigned tasks.   40  He/she checks the pupils‘ work and is              They use the aids (see above), and work   available to the pupils for any questions.              on their data from the terrain, the photos   He or she checks the time, alerts in              taken from the ground, the computer, the   advance to the missing end of processing.              internet, etc.                                                                80","Lesson 5 – in the classroom                                              5    Greetings, administrative (class entry),                                                   introduction to fieldwork (for example, to                                                   project a picture).              Together they discuss the information they   25  He/she checks the pupils‘ work and is              have found. They resolve individual tasks,   available to the pupils for any questions.              use their processed materials and map   He or she checks the time, alerts in              data for answering the questions.    advance to the missing end of processing.                                                   He/she acts as a moderator, inviting                                                   pupils to discuss the information they                                                   have received. The teacher asks questions                                                   about the assignment, always inviting                                                   a particular group to answer.                                                   •   Summarise positives and negatives of                                                     the construction of the slope.                                                   •   Specify what landscaping adjustments                                                     would have to be made when restoring                                                     the slope.                                                   •   Assess climatic conditions.                                                   •   Find out what natural and social impacts                                                     should the have the slope restoration?               They submit a report to the city council   10  He or she receives from the groups a report              together with maps. They expose the   for the city council together with the maps.              outcomes as described in the classroom or   He or she supervises the realisation of the              the school corridor.                 exhibition of works.               They evaluate the actions performed.  5  He/she conducts the discussion with                                                   pupils, and they evaluate all the activities                                                   carried out together.              Evaluation of the pupil‘s activities during tuition:              In particular, the active approach to the assigned tasks, the quality of the outcome materials and the              level of presentation of the outcomes during the final discussion are evaluated.              Assessment of tuition – self-reflection of the teacher:              After completing the lesson, think about your role in teaching. Evaluate the pros and cons that              occurred during the lessons. Record suggestions for possible alterations. Also, evaluate the              suitability of the chosen area for the next teaching and behaviour of pupils during work on different              parts of the project. Have you encountered specific issues when visiting a new environment? Did              some pupils have qualities that you usually do not notice in class?             Source: Svobodová, Durna, Pernica and Hofmann (2018, n.p.), translated.                                                            81","3.2.2    ASSIGNMENT OF MODEL GEOGRAPHICAL CASE STUDY       17              The city of Brno is thinking about restoring its ski slope. However, it does not have             enough data (geographic, economic, technical) to make a decision.              The aim and outcome of the activities will be processing data for a decision-making             process in Brno City with the help of geographic knowledge and skills.              The City gave the following instructions:             The ski slope should be open year-round. In summer you can ski on artificial turf on             brushes. In winter, the same surface will have artificial snow. In the morning in winter             the ski slope is used for school skiing, afternoon ski groups and the public.              Slope parameters: width 50 m, landscaping of the slope from the base is necessary             (necessary to ensure a safe range) up to the top, for beginners it is necessary to build             an alternative route to the ski slope with a gentler inclination. A ski lift will be built by             the slope.              Task 1 – Evaluation of site suitability in terms of restoring the slopes                    –    Find out what the requirements are for ensuring the operation of the ski                     slope in summer and winter.                    –  Draw a plan of the slope and the necessary landscaping on the map.                     –    Select and justify the choice of location for the start and finish of the cable                     car route and its management.                     –    Predict and justify the selection of sites for parking cars in the lower                     and upper part of the slope, mark the parking lots on the map including                     the recommended roads.             Task 2 – Technical and economic renewal requirements of the slope                     –    Select the best location for the placement of the snow cannons. At the                     same time work out the possibilities for the supply of drinking water from                     the Svratka river.                     –    Calculate the area of the slope, which must be irrigated and on which it is                     necessary to place brushes.                     –    Specify what building or other modifications need to be done to create the                     slope from the top to the base of the slope.                17      Adopted from Hofmann and Svobodová (2017, pp. 115–128).                                                 82","Task 3 – Natural prerequisites for restoring the slope                     –  Measure the inclination of the slope, its orientation, duration of insolation.                     –    Evaluate climatic conditions over the past five years using available data                     from the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute. Please justify the selection                     of the indicators and their development.                    –    On the basis of maps or your own fieldwork, draw a precise profile of                     the slope in the terrain and propose and justify the deployment of five                     sensors to monitor the weather on the slopes.                     –    Prepare the table into which the values of the meteorological parameters                     will be recorded.              Task 4 –  Impact of restoring a slope on ski slope surroundings and the environment                    –    On the map mark the place in Wilson’s Wood where people are most often                     present.                    –    Evaluate whether the restoration of the slope will affect the movement of                     people in the park. On the map, mark any place of conflict and explain the                     reasons for the conflict.                     –  Calculate what area of the forest will become a “victim” of the slope.                     –    Try to assess what impact restoring the slope will have on the activities of                     the surrounding slopes (especially housing, but also others).              Outcome:                    –    Create a report for the Brno City Council, where you do (not) recommend                     reopening the ski slope. Support your recommendation with the processed                     materials.                     –  Summarise the positive and negative aspects of building the slope.                    –  Specify what terrain work would have to be done if the slope was restored.                     –  Assess the climatic conditions.                    –  Specify the natural and social impacts of slope restoration.                     –  Provide all arguments using maps, sketches or other graphics.                                                      83","3.2.3    SOLUTION AND ASSESSMENT OF A MODEL CASE STUDY              The students first work in the classroom with different sources of information. They             study written and map data from the Internet (articles, maps, data, i.e. secondary             sources). They prepare suitable materials from these for fieldwork, followed by further             fieldwork and data processing. The basis of the fieldwork is their own observations.             Important elements are observed and consequently should be marked on the maps –             preferably detailed, printed black and white topographic maps, so that the colour             substrate does not collide with the marked elements).             The actual proposals of the students follow – e.g. on the surface of the slope, its             routing (steeper slope or a milder variant), design of the space for parking, placement             of sensors for measuring temperature and so on. It is important that students             substantiate their decisions with relevant facts.             An important element which can be created in the processing of case studies is all             kinds of sketches.  Sketches can be classified as non-verbal elements that can be                            18             used in teaching. It is expected that non-verbal elements – among which we can also             include views of the countryside – speak for themselves, i.e. an automatic clarity is             expected. Therefore, it is important to use non-verbal elements in teaching – pupils             should be taught to work with nonverbal elements (according to Janko, 2012, p. 25),             not only read but also process and work further with the displayed information.             As stated by Maňák (1994, p. 54–55), it is desirable to develop the skills of the             students so that they are aware of the links between the display and the displayed             object and are able to realise the retroactive transitions between them, which in             the perception of the landscape is extremely important.             A  wide  range  of  geographic  research  methods  and  work  with  qualitative  and             quantitative data and cartographic skills are also practised. Assessing the fulfilment of             tasks requires a certain amount of experience from the teacher, especially openness.             No suggestion based on relevant data, fieldwork, and assessment of the situation is             wrong. The pupil must, however, move within predetermined limits – to use the space             and research tools and to propose real (technical and technological) solutions. If the             pupil exceeds the given limit, the teacher must explain the problem in the design             of the solution. A case study helps bring classroom instruction into the real world             (Fuller et al., 2006) and helps strengthen students’ understanding of geographical             terminology and processes (Job et al., 1999): Undertaking case studies has a number             of other pros, which, however, the following statement summarises:                   Well, it’s the laboratory isn’t it? You can’t prove things without actually doing some                   concrete data collection and analysis. It brings everything to life. (Clifford School,                   geography teacher)                18      Sketches in the teaching of geography were described in more detail in Hofmann and             Svobodová (2013) or Bláha and Hátle (2014).                                                84","4                   RESEARCH INTO OUTDOOR                               EDUCATION AS A POWERFUL                                  EDUCATIONAL STRATEGY –                                                     METHODOLOGY                                                Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.                                                                 Theodore Roosevelt                This part of the book is devoted to presenting the aims of the research carried out,             followed by a description of the research methodology. The results of the research             are divided into two parts: (a) evaluating the benefits of the outdoor education             from the point of view of teachers, pupils and parents; (b) evaluating the benefits             of outdoor education for the development of pupils’ physical activity. Research             within the Czech Science Foundation 16-00695S on Fieldwork as a powerful learning             strategy was carried out in the years 2016–2018 at the Department of Geography of             the Pedagogical Faculty of Masaryk University.               4.1    RESEARCH NEED             In the Czech Republic, looking for research in the area of outdoor education will be             relatively difficult. The focus of this research lies primarily in research in the area             of professional didactics. The disadvantage is its border focus on the boundaries             of the field itself and pedagogical-psychological disciplines. It has its drawbacks,             especially in searching for the results of publications, which focus on the issues of             research in didactics. Their contributions are often “hosted” in various professional             journals or are published in conference proceedings or as separate works of various             types (monographs, chapters in books, methodical publications, textbooks, etc.),             see Řezníčková (2015). Research in geography didactics and in the area of curricula             was particularly paralysed by the collapse of the Research Institute of Education and             consequently also is not developed in the National Institute of Education. Unlike                                                  85","the situation in many foreign countries, outdoor education is anchored in state             documents (see chapter 1.4.2). However, there is not an awareness of the inclusion             of outdoor education in school educational programmes and of its actual conception             and implementation in elementary schools. This research applies only to the study             of Knecht and Hofmann (2013) – The Problem of Placing Geographic Curriculum in             School Educational Programmes. Only marginally, its influence on physical activity             and a healthy lifestyle was dealt with by Korvas (2009).             A broader interdisciplinary view of outdoor education is provided by a meta-analysis by             the authors Činčera and Holec (2016). It summarises the effects of outdoor education             on the pupils’ knowledge, attitudes, skills, beliefs and behaviours on the basis of             a study of more than 70 essays, mostly from abroad. It becomes apparent that while in             countries other than the Czech Republic, outdoor education receives proper attention             in the actual teaching process as well as the research and publicising activities,             in the Czech Republic, there are relatively few authors concerned with this issue.              Research from abroad in the sphere of outdoor education is focused on the following             areas:                    –    identifying the experience of pupils with outdoor education including both                     the cognitive and affective development of pupils (Crompton \& Sellar, 1981;                     Eaton, 2000; Mygind, 2007);                     –    the  impact  of  outdoor  educational  activities  for  teaching  and  pupils                     (Bogner, 2002; Borić \& Škugor, 2014; Cachelin, Paisley, \& Blanchard, 2009;                     Fox \& Avramidis, 2003);                     –    identifying the factors that hinder the the implementation of outdoor                     education (Polley \& Pickett, 2003; Remington \& Legge, 2017; Waite, 2009;                     Zink \& Boyes, 2006);                     –    identifying the factors that can facilitate the implementation of outdoor                     education (Dillon et al., 2006; Orion, 1993);                      –    identifying the classification of outdoor education to different grades and                     types of schools (Brookes, 2002; Horwood, 2002; Lugg, 1998);                     –    identifying the implications of research for future outdoor education in                     schools (Boss, 1999; Lugg, 2007; Neill, 2002).              Most of these studies took place in the late 1990s and early this century. Studies             were conducted with the intention of getting outdoor education into education             programmes, such as the full form of compulsory education at elementary and             secondary schools. Elsewhere in recent years, outdoor education research has                                                 86","shifted from the search for sustainable approaches to the site through outdoor and             environmental education to active citizenship education (Brown, 2014; Gearon,             2014; Hill, 2012) and to cooperation with positive psychology (“for some, the mere             experience of being in the outdoor environment may be a big leap out of their             “comfort zone” (...) thus they may change some behaviours in order to cope and             better conform” – Berman \& Davis-Berman, 2005, p. 8).             As already mentioned in chapter 1.4, the conditions for application of outdoor             education are sufficient at present in the Czech educational curriculum, and outdoor             education is implemented at some schools in various forms. However, we cannot             ignore the fact that for the teacher, outdoor education entails overcoming many             professional, organizational, safety, but also methodological obstacles (Waite, 2009;             Yang, Wang, Xu, \& Deng, 2014).              The measurement and assessment of the contribution of outdoor education to the             pupils’ development of natural physical activity face similar problems as the research             on outdoor education in the Czech Republic. This issue has been described in the             Czech Republic only partially in papers by Korvas (2005) and Hofmann and Korvas             (2008),  which,  however,  did  not  deal  with  measurements  in  various  types  of             activities typical for integrated geographical outdoor education as did our research.             A positive effect of outdoor education on the pupils’ physical activity in comparison             with classroom education has not been proved so far. The absence of sophisticated             (i.e. more indicators than used in Korvas (2005), using more advanced measuring             instruments) measurement of pupils’ physical activity and its comparison in various             types of education requires more research.             This  issue  has  not  even  been  addressed  in  other  countries. Although  papers             evaluating, for example, the physical activity of children have been processed             (e.g. Steele et al., 2009; Wareham, van Sluijs, \& Ekelund, 2005), even in the school             environment (Fairclough, Beighle, Erwin, \& Ridgers, 2012; Strong, Malina et al.,             2005), no essay has been found that evaluates contributions of outdoor education in             relation to the development of attitudes to physical activity and a healthy lifestyle.             At the time when the physical fitness of pupils is decreasing from an early age             compared to previous years, and the share of obese children is rising, it is necessary             to reflect on the incorporation of physical activity even to the time spent in school.             The solution to this issue will probably become increasingly important and necessary             in the future. One of the possibilities where the school can partially contribute to             the development of physical activity is more frequent incorporation of short-term,             medium-term and long-term outdoor education. During well-considered outdoor             education, the pupils perform natural non-structured physical activity (walking,             running, cycling), simultaneously deepening their knowledge, skills and attitudes to             the various subjects and using the inter-subject relations to a great extent.                                                  87","4.2    THE AIM OF THE RESEARCH               With regard to the above-mentioned need for research, the aim of the project             is to analyse the benefits of outdoor education for teaching geography and             the development of motor skills of elementary school pupils.             This aim is achieved by the partial aims:               Partial aim 1: Analyse the anchoring of outdoor education (with a focus on teaching             the subject of geography) in selected school educational programmes (SEPs) in the             lower and upper stages of elementary schools.              Partial aim 2: Find out the extent to which outdoor education is implemented at             elementary schools.              Partial  aim  3:  Find  out  the  attitudes  of  teachers,  pupils  and  their  parents             to the implementation of outdoor education at elementary school.             Partial aim 4: Measure the benefits of outdoor education to the development of             the pupils’ physical activity in the model elementary school.             The specified partial aims are based on the following assumptions:                     1.   The outdoor education is conceived non-conceptionally in elementary                      schools; the individual forms of outdoor education do not follow up                      on each with other or supplement each other as regards the formal                      and process perspectives.                    2.   Anchoring  of  outdoor  education  in  the  school  curriculum  does  not                      correspond to the real implementation of outdoor education.                    3.   The pupils and the parents perceive outdoor education more positively                      than education in the classroom as regards the development of key                      competencies.                     4.   Implementation of outdoor education contributes to higher physical                      activity than habitual teaching, including physical education.              4.3    RESEARCH DESIGN               The research proceeded was divided into three main phases, which differed in             the nature of the research activity and the applied research procedures.              The first (preparatory) phase was devoted to the formation of the theoretical             background of the project and the description of formal and processual aspects of             outdoor education. The second phase (realisation) was comprised of four partial                                                 88","activities – (1) content analysis of the school educational programmes and “on-site”             research (2) with the teachers (3), pupils and (4) their parents. When working with the             pupils, their physical activity was measured during a teaching day in the classroom,             a teaching day in the classroom with the inclusion of physical education and during             a day-long outdoor educational day. Each of the below-mentioned parts underwent             pilot testing before the “sharp” implementation. The final phase of the research             consisted of triangulation of the achieved results and a draft concept of outdoor             education for elementary schools. A detailed research design is shown in the figure 10.                 Preparatory   phase (desk   research)  literature review  description of formal   the creation of theoretical                        theoretical                                                                and methodological                                          and processual                       background,                                                              background to implement                                         aspects of outdoor                                                                 the realisation phase                                            education                     SEP content analysis  coding   quantitative and   an analysis of the                  step 1  categorical system,   piloting  qualitative data   anchoring of the outdoor                       (creation of the                                                                education in curricular                         coding)     modification  processing      evaluation and                                                                   documents                                       piloting                        structured               Realisation phase (desk research / on-site research)  step 2  step 3  survey with pupils  modification  qualitative data   research findings                                                                  interpretation of                       interviews with                                                  processing                                                                 research findings                        teachers                       questionnaire                                                                  evaluation and                                       piloting                                                 quantitative and                                                                 interpretation of                                                  qualitative data                      + physical activity                                     modification                                                   processing                       measurement                                                                  evaluation and                                      piloting                       questionnaire                  step 4  survey with parents   modification  quantitative and   research findings                                                                 interpretation of                                                 qualitative data                                                   processing                Final phase  (desk research)  conclusions and proposal   achieved  results                                                                  triangulation of                                           of the conception of                                          outdoor education at                                           elementary schools             FIGURE 10. RESEARCH DESIGN.             Source: author.                                                89","4.3.1      CONTENT ANALYSIS OF THE SCHOOL EDUCATIONAL                    PROGRAMMES              The first part of the research focused on the anchorage of outdoor education in the             school curricula using the method of content analysis. By this method, the observed             facts were assigned to a smaller number of categories. The aggregation of all             categories used within certain research creates a categorical system. This chapter             describes the applied categorical system in detail and specifies certain limitations             of the applied method.              The content analysis was implemented for 50 intentionally selected school curricula             of complete elementary schools (grades 1 to 9) and the lower grades of eight-year             grammar schools (grades 1 to 4 at these are parallel to grades 6 to 9 at an elementary             school) in the South-Moravian and South-Bohemian Regions.              The intentional selection was carried out with regard to the fact that the research             project included two research sites – from the South-Moravian and the South-             Bohemian Regions. The first criterion was thus selection of schools from these                                                                               19             two regions in the Czech Republic. Given the number of research team members ,             the number of schools was chosen as follows: 40 schools from the South-Moravian             Region  (i.e.  according  to  the  Register  of Schools  and  Educational  Facilities ,                                                                               20             8.2 % from the total of 486 elementary schools in the region) and 10 from the South-             Bohemian Region (i.e. 3.8% from the total of 261 elementary schools in the region);             in total, the researched sample concerned 50 school educational programmes .                                                                               21             The choice of schools from the two regions was also to find out if the curricula differ             in various regions. The Czech School Inspectorate declares in its Thematic Report             (2012, p. 9)  that “some schools approached the creation of the SEP as a formality,                      22             literarily copying entire passages from the FEP EE. Such a procedure documents             a misunderstanding of the principles of two-stage curricula and the sense of creating             their own SEP. The Czech School Inspectorate also witnessed copying of parts of             other SEPs, which may have disrupted compliance with the principles of their             creation and approval. For many reasons (e.g. personal, financial or qualification),             many schools chose this way as a simpler solution to problems connected with             an excessive administrative load, which was a characteristic feature of the given             phase of the curricular reform.”                19      Four members of the research project 16-00695S Fieldwork as a powerful learning strategy on             which this book is based were from the South-Moravian region and one from the South-Bohemian region.             20     Register of schools and educational facilities. (n. d.) Retrieved from https://profa.uiv.cz/rejskol/             21     Note The scope of the individual school curricula is always several hundred pages; 500 or more             pages of text is not unusual.             22     Thematic report. Analysis of school curricula for basic education for the period of 2007–2011.             (2012). Prague: Czech School Inspectorate. Retrieved from http://www.csicr.cz/getattachment/81ecf1bd-             9e36-4298-817a-3fc2ecc6198c                                                 90","FIGURE 11. SCHOOLS IN THE SOUTH-MORAVIAN AND SOUTH-BOHEMIAN REGIONS IN WHICH             SEPS WERE ANALYSED.             Source: author, ArcČR 500.              The second selection criterion involved the balanced distribution of selected schools             within the individual districts in both regions – see Figure 11. The third parameter             concerned representation of urban and “rural” schools (39x town, 3x small town,             8x village). The intentional selection reflected the fact that the schools implemented                                        23             outdoor education in some form . In these schools, the research team detected             whether  they  had  a  freely  available  school  curriculum  on  the  school  website.             If the school curriculum was available, the school was included in the selection             and the subsequent analysis. If the school curriculum was not available, another             school was found based on the specified parameters. The selection comprised             complete elementary schools with grades 1 to 9 (39 schools) and the lower grades             of eight-year grammar schools (11 schools) to allow comparison of the subject matter,             conceptuality and difficulty of the outdoor education. Also, the size of the school,             i.e. the number of classes in the individual years, was taken into account (see Table 13).             The content analysis of the SEPs included 32 criteria of which 13 were identification             criteria: (1) name of the school, (2) region of the school, (3) district of the school,             (4) address of the school, (5) school website, (6) head teacher, (7) contact teacher,             (8) type of the school, (9) number of classes in the lower stage, (10) number of classes             in the upper stage, (11) total number of pupils, (12) availability of the curriculum on             the school website, (13) website link to the SEP.                23      Given the necessary subsequent cooperation, it concerned Faculty of Education training schools             or schools cooperating with a Faculty or a Department of Geography.                                                 91","TABLE 13             NUMBER OF CLASSES IN THE LOWER AND UPPER STAGES OF THE ANALYSED ELEMENTARY             SCHOOLS                              Number of classes                             Lower grade (1–5) of elementary   Upper grade (6–9) of elementary             Number of classes  school                school / lower grade of grammar school             3                           1                         0             4                           0                         17             5 and more                 38                        33             Not relavant (8-year             grammar school)            11                         –             Total sum                  50                        50             Source: content analysis of SEPs.              The number of classes differs in the individual schools. In the lower stage, there were             three or fewer classes only in one case (a small rural school) and in the upper stage,             there was only one class per year in 17 schools. These schools can thus be regarded             as rather small. There were five or more classes per year in 38 schools in the lower             stage and 33 in the upper stage.              The next four criteria examined whether and to what extent outdoor education             was mentioned in the SEP in the general perspective and whether and how it was             anchored in the curriculum. In syllabi, the questions were focused on implementation             of outdoor education as regards the form, time, space, integration of the subjects and             implementation of outdoor education in the cross-curricular subjects and projects             of the school. The questions in the questionnaire were partially closed (YES/NO             answers), semi-closed (choice of an option with a supplementing comment) and open             where it was necessary to write the person’s own comment.             The assessed parameters were selected according to the contextual, chronological,             localisation and organisational perspectives. The level of the analysis, i.e. the             individual concepts (categories), was specified and between them, the words,             phrases and themes were included. This was followed by a proposal of the coding,             i.e. specification of the units in the partial categories with clarification of the scope             of the individual concepts. The existence and frequency of the words or phrases were             recorded. For example, if the subject in the SEP was described as “the education             proceeds with the application of various forms and methods depending on the nature             of the subject matter – frontal teaching, group work, projects, papers, geographical             field trips” and subsequently an outcome for the given subject defined as “pupils are             capable of basic orientation in the terrain using a compass and a map”, the following             codes were assigned: inclusion in the SEP – yes, as regards the subject – subject-             oriented outdoor education, as regards the time – short-term outdoor education,             as regards the space – an environment of a municipality or school plot (which stems                                                  92","from the short-term nature of the activity and the knowledge of this context by the             coding person), as regards the organization (form) – an outdoor exercise/a walk             (here it cannot be clearly defined; the orientation is more the content of a walk or an             outdoor exercise). In this way, the entire SEP of the given school was coded and finally             evaluated to find out if the outdoor education in the school SEP was presented as             a comprehensive concept both in the YES/NO evaluation and in the brief comment.              4.3.2    STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS WITH TEACHERS              The second phase of the research validated the results obtained in the first phase             (content analysis of the SEP) by means of structured interviews with the teachers of             the lower and upper stages of elementary school and the lower stage of one grammar             school. The formal content of the SEP does not always reflect the reality in the given             school, so they resorted to triangulation (Creswell \& Clark, 2011; Hendl, 2012).             Because of the time required for the interviews and their qualitative assessment,             ten model elementary schools were selected (see Table 14). These schools stated in             their SEP (in the first phase of the research) various forms of outdoor education as             regards time. The schools were also selected because their SEP indicated that outdoor             education was represented to a different extent. Either “little” (mentioned minimally             and very generally – e.g. “the school arranges domestic and foreign field trips, ski             courses, sports courses”), “medium” (hints of outdoor education in almost all subjects             taught and the listed activities are more concrete – e.g. observations during the             science classes), or “a lot” (outdoor education such as field training courses, ecological             stays, projects connected with being in the open, etc.). This selection was to ensure             that the given school implemented outdoor education and the “little/medium/much”             corresponded with the incorporation of outdoor education into the lessons.              Nine of the selected schools are located in the South-Moravian Region, and one             school in the South-Bohemian Region. From the researched schools, nine are             complete nine-grade schools and one is an eight-year grammar school, so it does not             include the primary stage. Three schools can be referred to as low-capacity schools.             These schools have only a single class in the upper stage of each year, the mentioned             grammar school also has a single class in the lower years, while the other schools             always have a larger number of classes per year, which corresponds to a larger             number of teachers.              The largest of the researched schools is a school in the Znojmo district with 816 pupils             and 42 teachers. The smallest is an elementary school in the Vyškov district with             203 pupils and 13 teachers. The average number of pupils per class in the lower stage             is between 17 and 29. The lowest average number of pupils per class in the upper             stage is 16; the largest average number of pupils per class is 33 in case of the grammar             school and 28 in the case of the elementary school. The given figures are related to             the school year 2015/2016. Detailed information about the schools is given in Table 14.                                                  93","TABLE 14             IDENTIFICATION OF SCHOOLS WHERE STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS WITH TEACHERS TOOK PLACE                                 Elementary   Elementary   Elementary   Elementary   Elementary                                 school –   school –   school –   school –   school –              District of the school   Znojmo   J. Hradec   Vyškov   Vyškov   Hodonín              headquarters       district  district  district 1*  district 2  district              Location           urban     urban     rural    rural     urban                                 complete   complete   complete   complete   complete                                 9-year elem.  9-year elem.  9-year elem.  9-year elem.  9-year elem.              Type of school     school    school    school   school    school              Number of classes in lower   22  8        5         7        10              grades (grade 1–5)              Number of pupils in lower   517  188      96       139       224              grades              The average number of   20      24        19        20       22              pupils in the class (lower              grade)              Number of teachers     20       10        7         5        12              in lower grade              Number of classes in upper   13  8        4         4         8              grades (grade 6–9)              Number of pupils in upper   299  150      68        64       194              grades              The average number of   23      19        17        16       24              pupils in the class (upper              grade)              Number of teachers     22       11        6         8        16              in upper grades              Is any form of outdoor   YES    YES      YES       YES       YES              education mentioned in              the SEP?              To what extent is     much     much      little   medium   medium                outoor education in SEP              mentioned?              Is outdoor education   NO       NO       YES       NO       no plan              mentioned in the SEP                                       included              section “Curriculum plan”?              Is outdoor education   YES      YES      YES       YES       no              mentioned in the SEP                                      curriculum              section “Curriculum”?                                      included              Is outdoor education in   YES   NO       YES       NO        NO              the SEP presented as a              comprehensive concept?                                                    94","Elementary   Elementary   Elementary   Elementary   Grammar                                 school –   school –   school –   school –   school –              District of the school   Brno-city   Brno-country  Brno-city   Blansko   Brno-country              headquarters       district 1  district  district 2  district  district              Location           urban     urban     urban    semiurban  urban                                 complete   complete   complete   complete   8-year                                 9-year elem.  9-year elem.  9-year elem.  9-year elem.  grammar              Type of school     school    school    school   school    school              Number of classes in lower              grades (grade 1–5)  14       19        12       6         not relevant              Number of pupils in lower              grades             402       422       266      103       –              The average number of              pupils in the class (lower              grade)             29        22        22       17        –              Number of teachers in              lower grades       18        22        13       7         –              Number of classes in upper              grade (grade 6–9)  11        13        8        4         4              Number of pupils in upper              grades             304       320       196      72        132              The average number of              pupils in the class (upper              grade)             28        25        25       18        33              Number of teachers              in upper grades    20        23        15       8         16              Is any form of outdoor              education mentioned              in SEP?            YES       YES       YES      YES       YES              To what extent is outdoor              education in the SEP              mentioned?         medium    medium    much     much      much              Is outdoor education              mentioned in the SEP              section “Curriculum plan”?  NO  NO     NO       NO        NO              Is outdoor education              mentioned in the SEP              section “Curriculum”?  YES   YES       YES      YES       YES              Is outdoor education in              the SEP presented as a              comprehensive concept?  NO   NO        NO       NO        NO             Source: structured interviews with teachers.             * data on the elementary school where the questionnaire survey with pupils and parents was carried out,             and measurement of pupils’ physical activity was done.                                                  95","The individual schools were contacted by email sent to the headmaster who was             acquainted with the objective of the research and asked for the recommendation of             suitable lower and upper stage teachers for the interview. Thanks to the preliminary             selection, none of the teachers refused the interviews.              The interviews were carried out on the sample of 18 teachers of nine elementary             schools in the South-Moravian and South-Bohemian Regions and one teacher of             the lower grade of the grammar school (therefore, the total number is 19 teachers             and not 20). From the total number of 18 elementary school teachers, nine teach the             lower stage (see table 15) and nine the upper stage (table 16).             The average age of the teachers was 42, but it varied from 28 to 58 years of age.             The lengths of the interviewed teachers’ experience moved from less than one             year (a starting teacher who taught the first year) to the longest of 32 years. All             the teachers in the lower stage have completed their qualification to teach at the             given type of school. In the second stage, the completed qualification corresponded             with the subjects taught; five teachers had a qualification for geography, which they             taught, three teachers had a combined qualification with biology, and two teachers             had a combined qualification for history and another subject. Nine teachers out of             the 15 interviewed teachers participated in the creation or revision of the SEP.                                                                                    96","Age               creation                             Teaching                                 Teaching                                           TABLE 16                           qualification                                      Teacher code                       Subjects taught                 Share in the SEP                               experience length           * SEP coordinator                                 4                                                                     25                                   28                                                                        48                                      A2                                                     No                 No                                                                          A1                    chem.                           geogr.                     geogr.-                             biology-                       biology-                                                               social science                                                                 lower grade +                                                             Czech, English,                                                           maths, biology,                                   35                                 11                                      B2                 Yes                                                                     21                                                                        47                                                                          B1                             civics-                                                     Yes                       geogr.                           geogr.                                                         active.             Source: structured interviews with teachers.                                                                 lower grade                                                           music, work                                 21                                   45                                      C2                 Yes                                                             all except arts,                    activ.                                                                     32                                                                        51                       biology-                                                                          C1                                                     Yes                             biology-PE                     PE-working                                   58                                                                 lower grade                                      D2                                 NA                 Yes                                                         arts, PE, work                                                             Czech, maths,                    geogr.                                                           biology, music,                     Russin-                       history-                         German                           Russian-                             history-                                                                     15                                                                        40                                                                          D1                                                     No                                 9                                   31                                      E2                                                               + English                 No                                                             all subjects                                                                 lower grade                             maths-                       maths-                     biology                           biology                                                                          E1                                                                        29                                                     No                                                                     < 1                                                               + PE                                         CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERVIEWED UPPER GRADE TEACHERS (GRADES 6–9)                                   43                                 15                                      F2                 Yes                                                                 lower grade                             geogr.-                       geogr.-                                                           music, geogr.                           biology-                                                             Czech, maths,                     biology-ICT                         geology-ICT                                                                     32                                                                        57                                                                          F1                                                     No                                   56                                 32                                      G2                 Yes *                       lower                             maths-                                                             all subjects                           biology                    seminar                                                                 lower grade                     grade, envi.                                                                        47                                                                     22                                                                          G1                                                     No                                   37                                 11                                      H2                 Yes                           history                       physics                                                             all subjects                             physics-                                                                 lower grade                                                                     31                                                                        56                                                                          H1                                                     No                                 6                                      I2                                   30                 No                             geogr.-                       geogr.-                     biology                           biology                                                             all subjects                                                                 lower grade                                                                          I1                                                                        35                                                                     10                                                     No                                      J2                                   54                                 30                 Yes                           geogr.                                                             all subjects                       PE-geogr.                                                                 lower grade                             biology-PE-                                              97  Source: structured interviews with teachers.  creation  Share on SEP   active.  history, arts  subjects  Taught  qualification  Teaching   experience length  Teaching   Age  Teacher code  CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERVIEWED LOWER GRADE TEACHERS (GRADES 1–5)  TABLE 15","TABLE 17             TRANSFORMATION OF INTEREST TOPICS RESULTING FROM THE SEP CONTENT ANALYSIS             INTO THE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE STRUCTURED INTERVIEW               Transformation into the structure of   Area of interest following from the SEP content analysis              the questionnaire              Part A: School and teacher   – It serves to identify and correlate the ways of implementing              identification data        outdoor education with the length of teaching experience                                         of the teacher or their subject orientation.              Part B: Implementation of outdoor   –  Selection of topics for outdoor education.              education by a teacher, school  – Forms of outdoor education undertaken.                                        –  Indicative length of time required for the course.                                        –  Interdisciplinarity.                                        –  Continuity of outdoor education.                                        –  Consistency of the outdoor education concept.              Part C: Prerequisites and barriers   – Barriers to outdoor education.              for the development of outdoor              education              Part D: Promotion of outdoor   –  This was not surveyed in the SEP analysis, but by looking              education                  for information on implemented forms of outdoor                                         education on model school websites.              Part E: Assessment of outdoor   –  Teacher feedback.              education – feedback             Source: structured interviews with teachers.              The questionnaire for the structured interview contained five key A–E sections             reflecting topics specified after the SEP content analysis – see Table 17.              At some schools, the interview proceeded separately for the lower and upper stage             teachers; at some schools all the teachers were interviewed together, always with             regard to the time they had available; at some schools, up to four people participated             in the interview (the lower and upper stage teachers together and other teachers             of various subjects). If more than one teacher attended the interview, the format             could be considered as a “group discussion”, where physical barriers were eliminated             (the school colleagues know each other well and often regard the interview as an             opportunity to discuss the teaching with each other) and the participants revealed             their attitudes, opinions, thoughts and experience more readily in front of the             unknown interviewer (Hendl 2012, p. 182).              The interviews proceeded in offices of the model schools and were recorded by a voice             recorder after the interviewees’ consent. At the beginning, the aim of the interview             and the term outdoor education were described to the teachers. On average,             the interviews lasted for 60 minutes per school. Questions 16a and 16b, where the             teachers were to particularise the use of individual forms of outdoor education in             the individual years as regards the time, space, objectives, classwork and the length                                                  98","of the lesson, were sent to the teachers in advance because of the time which they             required. Subsequently, the audio recordings were transcribed into text form in literal             transcription, coded and analysed. The main objective of the thematic analysis was             to ensure that its outcomes were related to the specified partial aim 2 and that these             findings were comprehensively provable in the collected data, or that they stemmed             from the data (Silverman 2005).             As  Hendl  (2012,  p.  173)  argues:  “the  basic  purpose  of  this  type  of  interview             (i.e. structured interview) is the highest possible minimisation of the interviewer’s             effect on the quality of the interview. (…) This type of interview is suitable if there is no             opportunity to repeat it.” Each respondent was thus asked the same questions exactly             in the same order (Hay, 2010). At the beginning, most of the questions were formulated             as closed, where the teachers could give only YES/NO answers and subsequently,             they were required to explain this answer and dwell on the theme through an open             question. The purpose of the “division” of the questions into closed and open was to             ensure quantitative assessment of the first part of the question (the number of YES/             NO answers) and subsequent simpler categorisation of the open questions. In two             questions in the C section, the respondents were offered two closed questions with             a choice of options or an option to give their own answer. One question at the end of             the questionnaire contained a scale where the interviewees did an evaluation from 1 to             5 where 1 was the lowest and 5 the highest. This question was assessed by calculation             of a weighted arithmetic average (for details, see Chapter 5.5.2).             The structured  interviews  with  19  teachers  allowed  deeper  penetration  into             the researched anchorage of outdoor education into the SEP and especially into the             educational reality.              4.3.3    QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY WITH PUPILS              The questionnaire survey concerning pupils’ attitudes to outdoor education was taken             in the model school on the basis of results of the content analysis of the SEP, which             showed that the school had a conceptually conceived outdoor education, which             was largely confirmed also by the structured interviews with the lower and upper             grade teachers. At the same time, the school was willing to cooperate in measuring             the pupils’ physical activity.              The questionnaire survey was carried out with pupils of grade 5 (n = 22), grade 6 (n = 8),             grade 8 (n = 14) and grade 9 (n = 17) in the school year 2016/2017. The completion of             the questionnaire was preceded by a one-day long outdoor education trip with grades             5 and 8 pupils, where physical activity was measured. Pupils from grades 6 and 9             were selected as a control group. The pupils in the specified grades had one lesson             to complete the questionnaire, i.e. 45 minutes; however, most of them completed             it in 20–30 minutes.                                                  99","The questionnaire for the grade 5 and 6 pupils contained 37/38 questions (grade 5/6).             The questionnaire for grade 8, who had outdoor education immediately before the             questionnaire survey, contained 38 questions; for grade 9, who did not have outdoor             education, it had 33 questions. The first six identification questions were identical for             all classes. The questions examined the pupils’ gender, age, class, height, weight and             their marks in the subject People and their World (in the case of grade 5) or geography             (the other grades) at the end of the first term. Pupils who attended outdoor education                                                                                24             also filled in if they wore a measuring sensor of physical activity during the education             or not.             While the pupils from grades 5 and 8 filled out the questionnaire immediately after             the outdoor education, the pupils from grades 6 and 9 had a delay of one year             after this education – they did not have any other day-long outdoor education this             school year. The questionnaire for grades 5 and 6 was identical except for three             questions on the outdoor education in grade 5; there were two extra questions on             the measurement by the accelerometer. The questionnaire for grades 8 and 9 was             also similar. The questionnaires contained variously formulated closed questions with             a choice of YES/NO options or a choice from a selection of options, through scale             questions (yes – rather yes – rather no – no) to open questions, which required the             pupils’ own formulation. There were three specific questions on the development of             cartographic skills, which concerned reading a map and plotting on a map.              18 scale questions at the end of the questionnaire were common to all classes. They             aimed at finding the pupils’ opinions on physical activity and outdoor education. The             survey also aimed to find out whether outdoor education promoted better memory of             the subject matter (learning by doing, activity-based learning, deep learning – Biggs,             1999; Entwistle \& Ramsden, 1983). These questions were evaluated by a weighted             arithmetic average, which allowed comparison of the results with similar answers             from the teachers and subsequently the parents. Not all of these 18 questions are             evaluated in this book; only those that relate to outdoor education were selected.              4.3.4    QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY WITH PARENTS              The last phase of the research, the aim of which was to obtain opinions on outdoor             education, was a questionnaire survey with the pupils’ parents in the classes of the             model schools which participated in the questionnaire survey and measurement             of physical activity with the pupils. The pupils’ parents (n = 114) evaluated, like             the teachers and pupils in the previous phases of the research, the benefits of outdoor             education on the development of key competencies of their children.                 24     The available number of ActiGraph measuring sensors was only 10, while the number of pupils             in the class was always higher.                                                100","The questionnaire, which was given to the parents by their children, sought to find out             the parents’ opinions on the effect of outdoor education on their children, the benefits             of this form of education and whether this form of education presented a barrier for             their children. The questionnaire was brief so that the parents were not discouraged             by long completion. The questionnaire had five questions. Two questions were closed,             dichotomic (YES/NO), and in case of the YES answer it was possible to add open             answer. Two other questions were closed with a choice of answers. The last question             offered an evaluation on a five-grade scale. It was identical with one of the questions             to the teachers and concerned the benefit of outdoor education in the individual             areas of the development.             4.3.5    TRIANGULATION OF RESULTS              The method of triangulation (Creswell \& Clark, 2011; Hendl, 2012) was used to validate             the results of the methods (content analysis, structured interviews and questionnaire             survey) and remove the weaknesses of the individual methods – see figure 12.              Methodological triangulation (Graham, 2005) was applied in order to compare             the results of the content analysis of the SEPs and the results of the structural             interviews with the teachers – in particular triangulation between the methods             which were subsequently applied to compare selected segments of the results of             the questionnaire survey with the pupils and parents. It is therefore triangulation             based on the collection of data from various groups of persons (Adami \& Kiger, 2005).             The triangulation method was used sequentially (Veisová, 2009), so that the results             of the content analysis of the SEPs served as a starting point for the formulation of             questions for the structured interviews with teachers. Subsequently, the outcomes             of the interviews with the teachers served as a starting point for the formulation of             questions for the questionnaire survey with the pupils and the parents. The outcomes             were then formulated on the basis of a comparison of both types of research. There             was an effort to give similar questions to all of the three groups – teachers, pupils             and parents, so that they could be evaluated in the same way.                                                      ?                                SEPs content analysis            structured interviews             FIGURE 12. SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATION OF THE TRIANGULATION METHOD.             Note: the applied methods of data collection in the foreground with thinly outlined different angles             of perspective to the issue (obtained through the optics of different methods) and in the background             the new finding (?), which is constructed by means of triangulation. Source: Svobodová, Durna, Mísařová             and Hofmann (2019).                                               101","4.3.6    MEASUREMENT OF THE PUPILS’ PHYSICAL ACTIVITY               Pupils of grades 5 and 8 of an elementary school where outdoor education is used             regularly in the individual grades took part in the measurement of physical activity.             The outdoor education proceeded naturally under the leadership of the teacher who             the pupils are used to. The attending researcher only ensured the correct adjustment             and installation of sensors for the measurement of physical activity. The physical             load of the pupils was monitored by wGT3X-BT accelerometers in combination with             the Polar chest strap. The outcomes were evaluated by the ActiLife application.             The selectable number of pupils for the measurement was limited by the amount             of ActiGraph monitoring devices to ten pupils in grade 5. These ten probands were             dispersed among the pupils by application of a stratified selection. The group was             divided into two groups so that the selected group contained an even distribution of             boys and girls, i.e. five boys and five girls. The pupils’ ages ranged between 9 and 11.              At the beginning of the research, the pupils provided information on their weight             (kg), height (cm) and age. This information was important for correct adjustment of             the measuring devices and evaluation of ideal weight by means of the Body Mass             Index (BMI).              Ten participants were instructed to wear the monitor on an elastic waistband on             their right hips during the session. Activity data was stored at 10-second intervals.             During data processing and evaluation, we worked with hourly averages of the             measured data.              From the functions that the accelerometer can measure, we concentrated on             the energy consumed in kcal and the metabolic outcome in MET, where 1 MET             is the ratio of the metabolic work rate to the resting metabolic rate. One MET is             defined as 1 kcal/kg/hour and is roughly equivalent to the energy cost of sitting             quietly. For example: the energy cost of playing rugby is 8.3 METS, which means             you use 8.3 times more energy than if you were to sit quietly and rest (Mackenzie,             2003). Depending on the value of the measured METs, based on Frömel, Novosad             and Svozil (1999) we divide physical activity into activity with:                       – light intensity: < 3.0 METs;                       – moderate intensity: 3.0–6.0 METs;                       – vigorous intensity: > 6.0 METs.              For each pupil, the number of kilocalories and the metabolic expenditure were             recorded in the MET units for the same time interval, i.e. four hours over three days             with different forms of lessons. The measurement during standard lessons in the             classroom, which last for 45 minutes, also included breaks (3 × 10 and 1 × 20 minutes).                                                   102","As we are aware of a certain limitation of the research, i.e. the different level of             physical activity on various days and with various types of outdoor education,             we carried out control measurement with grade 8 pupils at the same school. The             representation of girls (9) and boys (1) in the assessed sample was uneven as there             were only two boys in the class.              The measurement was similar for the grade 5 pupils. The evaluation in both grades             involved four lessons in the classroom without physical education, four lessons with             one (grade 5) or two PE lessons (grade 8) and four lessons of outdoor education;             however, the pupils of grades 5 and 8 completed a different route with different tasks.             For all pupils, the mass index (BMI) was calculated on the basis of the data provided.             We are aware that the simple value of BMI is not very useful for assessment of weight             status of children and youth, so we adapted the method of BMI percentile, which is             more suitable for children and adolescents due to fluctuations in height, weight, and             body composition that occur in the growth stages. BMI percentile tends to be a more             sensitive tool to the change in weight status of growing children and adolescents.             (Hoelscher, Kirk, Ritchie, \& Cunningham-Sabo, 2013; Price, Cohen, Pribis, \& Cerami,             2017) For Czech children, weight status is determined using BMI age and sex norm-                                                                     th             referenced values derived from a nation-wide survey. Using the 6  Nation-wide                                   th             Anthropological Survey (6  NAS) (Kobzová et al., 2006) growth charts, obesity is                                                               th                                                                       th                              th             defined as a BMI ≥ 97  percentile and overweight is BMI ≥ 90  and < 97  percentile                                             25                                                                       th             and the zone at risk of being overweight  is defined as BMI > 75  and < 90  percentile.                                                               th             The  proportional  zone  (normal  weight  for  a  specific  age)  lies  between                   th                           th                                                           th             the ≥ 25 and ≤ 75 percentile, and slim is defined as < 25 percentile. Values below             the 3  percentile indicate very severely underweight. The author is aware that BMI                 rd             percentile limit values may differ among the other authors, so we use these values             only in the Czech anthropo-socio-cultural context. We choose the above-described             method to inform about the weight status (WS) of the probands. The weight status             is based on BMI percentile calculated for each proband as it is in Table 18.             Pupils/probands are labelled by the number of worn ActiGraph devices (first column             of the table). The column BMI percentile (BMI P) contains information on whether             the BMI value of probands lies directly on the edge of the interval (single number) or             if the value lies in the interval of the value range.                    25      If BMI percentile is sited in the buffer zone (between proportional and overweight).                                                103","TABLE 18             BMI PERCENTILE AND WEIGHT STATUS OF GRADE 5 AND 8 PROBANDS ACCORDING TO                 TH             THE 6  NAS METHODOLOGY              Grade 5                          Grade 8              P5  AGE  SEX  BMI  BMI P  WS     P8   AGE  SEX  BMI  BMI P  WS              1   9    M   14.7  10–25  slim   1    13   F    18.0  25–50  proportional              2   10   M   15.8  25  proportional  2  13  F   18.8  25–50  proportional              3   9    M   16.4  50  proportional  3  13  F   17.3  25–50  proportional              4   9    M   15.2  25  proportional  4  13  F   16.5  10–25  slim              5   9    M   21.3  97  overweight  5  13   F    20.8  75  at risk              6   10   F   16.9  25–50  proportional  6  14  F  19.5  50  proportional              7   9    F   21.4  97–99  obese  7    14   M    24.1  90–97  overweight              8   10   F   16.6  25–50  proportional  8  14  F  19.5  50  proportional                                     prop. /at      13        22.6  90  at risk              9   9    F   18.1  75            9         F                                     risk              10  11   F   19.5  75–90  at risk  10  13  F    18.4  25–50  proportional             Legend: P5, P8 – proband of grade 5 and 8; BMI P – BMI percentile (specific to the age of probands);             WS – weight status (according to the 6  NAS).                                      th              The actiGraph accelerometer is also capable of processing sedentary analysis. In our             case, we focused on the total length of sedentary bouts, i. e. the total sedentary time             in minutes detected during four hours of education. Results of the sedentary analysis             are, as well as the physical activity measurement, compared for three different forms             of education by pupils of grades 5 and 8.             Limitation of physical activity measurement during outdoor education               Besides the above-mentioned limitation caused by the different level of physical             activity on various days and the types of outdoor education, we are aware of another             limit. The ActiGraph is primarily designed for measuring physical activity of adults. For             the school children, we had to manually modify the length of the chest strap. Still, the             values were not recorded in all the ten-second intervals. On average, the percentage             of the successfully measured data oscillates over 75%. For the groups of the measured             data, the level of the significance of the data p was calculated. In all cases, it equals             p > 0.20, which means that the differences between the measured data are not             significant and can be used for further analysis.                                                       104","5                  RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH                                The best teachers are those who show you where to look but don´t tell you                                                                       what to see.                                                                 Alexandra K. Trenfor                 5.1     ANCHORING OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN SCHOOL                    EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMES               Each school is obliged to create its own SEP according to the principles of the FEP,             which are relatively free. The schools can thus determine what will be taught in the             individual grades and to what extent.              The first step in the content analysis of the SEPs  was to detect if the individual SEPs                                                   26             were up to date, which varied in the model schools. The oldest SEP was ten years             old, while another eight SEPs had not been updated for nine years. 18 schools had             created or updated their SEPs three years ago, nine schools two years ago and four             schools only one year ago. In five cases, the age of the SEP could not be identified             (see figure 13). The average validity of 45 SEPs where the validity was provided was             four years.                    0%    10%   20%    30%   40%   50%   60%    70%   80%   90%   100%                    1 year  2 years  3 years  4 years  6 years  7 years  9 years  10 years  NA              FIGURE 13. THE AGE OF THE ANALYSED 50 SEPS. 27             Source: SEPs content analysis.                26      The methodology was described in detail in chapter 4.3.             27      The novelty of the analysed SEPs is described to the year 2016.                                                105","All of the analysed SEPs mentioned outdoor education directly (for example as             landscape observation) or indirectly (for example work with maps). The extent             of outdoor education application in SEPs was assessed subjectively. In 12 SEPs             outdoor education was widely represented (mentioned in more than one subject             and connection with other activities, such as field practice, environmental training,             field-activity-related projects, etc.) In 18 SEPs the extent of outdoor education was             average, and in 20 SEPs outdoor education was mentioned only marginally.             For coordination of outdoor education and optimisation of its system the following             aspects are relevant: whether outdoor education is presented in the SEP as a unified             (teaching) concept, i.e. whether the individual forms of outdoor education in the given             subject are interconnected and developed systematically, whether there are inter-             subject relations or a unified long-term system in outdoor education. The performed             analysis shows that outdoor education is not conceived like this in the vast majority             of the model schools. In 40 cases outdoor education is not presented as a coherent             concept: only nine SEPs seem to grasp outdoor education conceptually, with one             case impossible to judge because of lack of information about any forms of outdoor             education in the SEP.             A similar proportion of answers also appeared in the next question, which examined if             outdoor education was mentioned in the part of curricula referred to as the syllabus.             Only in 13 cases was outdoor education mentioned in the syllabus, while in 36 cases,             there was no mention. In one case, the section “syllabus” was not even identified in             the school curriculum.              If outdoor education was mentioned in the syllabus, we subsequently examined in             which educational area the outdoor education was specified. The sum of the given             answers is 42, not 50, because it was possible to give more than one option at the             same time.              In the lower stage of the elementary school, outdoor education is represented 9 times             in the educational area People and Their World, which is the sole sphere conceived             only for the lower stage of elementary education.             Out of the other educational areas where also particular subjects belonging to the             educational area were represented, People and Nature and People and Health were             represented 12 times. The educational area People and their World was represented             nine times and People and the World of Work was represented three times. In six other             cases, outdoor education was represented elsewhere than in the educational area,             for example in the form of a project, in after-school care or in courses (see figure 14).                                                      106","Other (project,                          school club, course                              etc.); 6                       Man and His                                                              World; 9                      Man and the                  World of Work; 3                                                                         Man and Nature;                   Man and Health;                                    12                       12                FIGURE 14. THE OCCURRENCE OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL AREAS IN THE             “SYLLABUS” OF SEPS (N = 42).             Source: SEPs content analysis.              Outdoor education is mentioned much more frequently in the SEP part referred to as             the course of study. Outdoor education is mentioned in 49 cases out of 50, although             in one SEP, the course of study was not found (see figure 15). In the courses of study,             outdoor education was most often identified in the educational sphere People and             Nature, i.e. geography (46 cases) and biology (41 cases). In the educational area             People and Their World, outdoor education was identified in all 39 analysed SEPs of             complete elementary schools, i.e. all schools with the lower stage, as this educational             area is conceived only for the lower stage.              In the educational area People and Health, which incorporates the subjects of health             education and physical education, outdoor education was identified in 27 cases. Here,             the outdoor education mostly appears in the form of sports courses, but also rambling             and staying in the countryside.             In 21 cases, outdoor education was mentioned in the educational area People and the             World of Work (often in the subjects of work activities or practical activities). These             forms most frequently involved work in the school plot/garden, a guided tour or             staying in the countryside. It was not possible to determine closer in which subjects             the outdoor education was directly incorporated, which is why educational areas             are given.                                                 107","Outdoor education further appeared in the subjects of history (32 cases), the Czech             language (22 cases), physics (twelve cases), civics (eleven cases) and chemistry (nine             cases). Apart from a few exceptions, these cases were most frequently in the form             of an excursion (visits to the cinema and theatre, museums, libraries, etc.). Other             subjects with identified outdoor education are art (22 cases) and music education             (9 cases), which concerned visits to exhibitions and concerts, but also open-air ainting.             However, the analysed courses of study also included other subjects where some             form of outdoor education was indicated – most frequently a trip without closer             specification. These cases concerned the compulsory subjects: mathematics (four             cases) and a foreign language (four cases) and a number of optional subjects (mostly             focused on nature or sports activities), which, however, often appeared individually             only in a particular SEP (e.g. regional geography, environmental practices, physical             activities, sports games, seminar on history, ecological education, natural science             practices, regional history etc.).                  50               Number of occurrences  35                 45                 40                 30                 25                 20                 15                 10                  5                  0                         FIGURE 15. THE OCCURRENCE OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL AREAS/SUBJECTS             IN THE “COURSE OF STUDY” OF SEPS (N = 49).             Source: SEPs content analysis.             Note: light colour indicates a subject taught only in the lower stage of the elementary school.                                                         108","With regard to the location, outdoor education is most often presented in the SEPs             (37 cases, see figure 16) as teaching in the urban area where the school is located.             In 32 cases the mentioned location of outdoor education was the countryside – rural             environment – and the school grounds. In ten cases the location of outdoor education             was not precisely specified. If other locations of outdoor education organised by the             school were mentioned, they were included in the “other” option. In 17 cases the             SEPs mentioned various excursions, courses (including sports) or visits to institutions             offering programmes for schoolchildren. In four cases the SEPs mentioned residential             outdoor school or environmental stays or a trip abroad, and in two cases sports             facilities (swimming pool, playground, etc.).                 40                                     other:              Number of occurrences  35                  30                25                20                15                10                  5                 0                     urban    rural   school    not    external  foreign  sport facility*                   environment environment  ground  determined institutions*  country*                                                at all             FIGURE 16. PLACE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IDENTIFIED IN 50 SEPS.             Source: SEPs content analysis.             * not determined if urban/rural               From the temporal point of view, the analysed SEPs mostly identified outdoor             education as a short-term activity (35 cases, see figure 17) lasting for 1–2 lessons and             including, for example, work on the school ground or visits of exhibitions, museums             etc. There were also 32 cases of long-term outdoor education lasting for two and more             days, and usually taking the form of sports courses, school trips or stays in learning/             environmental centres. The medium-term outdoor education (represented by several             hours of outdoor education, but no longer than one day) was mentioned in 24 cases.             This shows that nearly half of the model schools succeed in implementing all forms             (from the temporal point of view) of outdoor education. The results can also point             to the fact that it is quite difficult to allocate a whole school day for one subject or             an integrated teaching block of several subjects, as is shown by the relatively low                                                109","proportion of medium-term forms of outdoor education. In 16 cases the length of             outdoor education events could not be assessed as many SEPs do not specify the             time allocated for the individual activities and the time required must be estimated             on the basis of the activity type, which may take from several hours to several days,             for example in the case of projects, depending on the event organisation.                   40                Number of occurrences  35                   30                 25                  20                 15                  10                  5                   0                        short-term     mid-term       long-term    not possible to                        (1–2 lessons)   (1 day)     (2 and more days)  determine              FIGURE 17. LENGTH OF IMPLEMENTATION OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IDENTIFIED IN 50 SEPS.             Source: SEPs content analysis.               The correlation of the time and space aspects of outdoor education makes it logical             that short-term outdoor education takes place in areas close to the school, which are             accessible within one to two lessons. Therefore, the short-term outdoor education             mostly concerns work on the school plot or outdoor education in the municipal             environment. The medium-term forms are applied the least. As regards the place,             the municipal (urban/rural) environment prevails (i.e. villages, but also towns or urban             districts); short-term one-day trips usually occur in the rural environment (i.e. rural             landscape). The environment of a village/open landscape clearly prevails in long-             term forms of outdoor education such as various field trips. The indicated facts are             illustrated in the time-space matrix – Figure 18.                                                          110","school in nature                  rural/landscape  didactic walk        school trip                                                                   course                                                             package tour                                excursion                                             outdoor exercise                                 didactic walk               ENVIRONMENT  urban/municipal  excursion  school trip                                                            package tour                                    outdoor exercise                       school ground  school grounds  excursion                                  outdoor exercise                           education on                             short-term          mid-term           long-term                                               TIME               FIGURE 18. A TIME-SPACE MATRIX OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION FORMS. 28             Source: author.               The previous presumption of subject integration is confirmed by the inclusion of             outdoor education from a subject point of view. In 29 cases SEPs included disciplinary                                                                                29             as well as integrated forms of outdoor education, whereas in another 20 cases only             disciplinary-related outdoor education was mentioned. There was only one case             mentioned of fully integrated outdoor education – see figure 19.                28      Forms of outdoor education were defined in chapter 3.3.             29      Outdoor education in this form is exclusively reserved for biology or geography outdoor             education.                                                111","Number of occurrences  30                 25                  20                 15                 10                  5                   0                          integrated          disciplinary  integrated and disciplinary              FIGURE 19. INTER/SUBJECT-ORIENTED OUTDOOR EDUCATION IDENTIFIED IN 50 SEPS.             Source: SEPs content analysis.               Outdoor education appeared in the analysed SEPs in various forms (see Figure 20).             There are no binding standardised identifications for these forms. Each school uses             its own conventional names. The analysed SEPs revealed certain identical names of             outdoor education forms or forms showing a certain level of similarity (of name and             therefore probably also content). Thus, possible definitions of the below-mentioned             forms of outdoor education were given in chapter 2.3.              The most frequent term used in the analysed SEPs was excursion (49 of the 50             analysed schools). This term included activities such as visits to museums, libraries,             exhibitions, theatre performances or film shows, planetariums, zoos, etc. These             forms do not represent outdoor education according to our definition with active             participation of pupils, though. Excursion as a teaching form was mentioned in the             context of many different subjects (for example Czech language, music education, art             education, primary science, etc.) but the SEPs rarely mentioned where the excursion             would take place, which theme it was related to and in which form it was prescribed.              The second most frequently mentioned form of outdoor education was a walk             (45 cases), which occurs in individual SEPs with different names:                       – walk with observation;                       – walk in the countryside;                       – geographical walk with observation;                       – field walk;                       – natural science walk;                       – educational walk.                                                   112","Another frequent outdoor education activity, like the previous form named differently             in different SEPs, was outdoor/field exercise (mentioned in 36 cases). In the analysed             SEPs these names were found:                       – outdoor education;                       – practical exercise in field/in the countryside;                       – field practice;                       – field work;                       – field geographical education;                       – integrated field education;                       – work in a field;                       – natural science outdoor education;                       – education in field/in nature.              The SEPs further identified relatively clear categories such as school trip (34 cases),             school in the countryside (eight cases), adaptation/introductory stay/course             (four cases).              Another large group was represented by outdoor sporting activities, where two             categories were defined: sports courses/stays, with long-term teaching expectations             (multiple days of a stay out of home). These sports courses appeared in 23 SEPs and             included skiing practice, summer sports practice (water sports, cycling, etc.) or health             stays, and other sports activities (14 cases), including short-term sporting activities             in the following forms: fieldwork, stay in the nature, rambling, marching exercises,             games in the open air, swimming practice, skating, sledging etc.             The schools that are focused on language education and support student study             exchanges and other forms of cooperation with foreign schools often had in their             SEPs a foreign excursion/study trip (six cases).             The form of work on the school plot/in the school garden, mostly included in practical             activity lessons, was identified in seven schools. For the sake of completeness traffic             education which was implemented in a traffic playground (three cases) must be             mentioned. None of the schools mentioned other learning activities on the school             plot, as defined for example already in 1980 by Papík (p. 217) – in geography,             which included for example measurement of wind strength and direction, weather             observation, distance measurement, etc.                                                        113","50               Number of occurrences  40                 45                 35                 30                 25                 20                 15                 10                  5                  0                      FIGURE 20. IMPLEMENTED FORMS OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IDENTIFIED IN 50 SEPS.             Source: SEPs content analysis.              Incorporation of outdoor education into cross-curricular subjects is relatively             interesting (figure 21). Incorporation of outdoor education into cross-curricular             subjects was identified in 28 cases. By contrast, in 15 cases, outdoor education was             not incorporated into the cross-curricular subjects, and in five cases, incorporation             of outdoor education into the cross-curricular subjects could not be judged.              When looking at incorporation of outdoor education into the particular cross-curricular             subject, it is clear that outdoor education can be incorporated into all cross-curricular             subjects. The  most  represented  topic  is  Environmental  Education  –  26  x,  then             Moral, Character and Social Education – 16 x. The other cross-curricular subjects are             represented significantly less frequently.                                                                  114","30                Number of occurrences  25                    20                   15                   10                    5                    0                           FIGURE 21. INCORPORATION OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION INTO CROSS-CURRICULAR SUBJECTS             IDENTIFIED IN THE 50 SEPS.             Source: SEPs content analysis.               Outdoor education was very frequently present in school projects – 38 schools             (i.e. more than ¾ of the schools) out of the total 50 use outdoor education in the             implementation of projects (see figure 22). The projects usually concerned variously             focused environmental projects of the schools.                                                                   115","NO; 6                                                                Not possible to                                                              determine; 6                                    YES; 38                FIGURE 22. THE USE OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN SCHOOL PROJECTS IDENTIFIED IN 50 SEPS.             Source: SEPs content analysis.               5.2      OUTDOOR EDUCATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF                    ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS              The  first  part  of  the  structured  interview  with  the  teachers  concerned  the             identification of the school and the interviewed teacher. Before the interviews,             “external characteristics” of the schools were created in the model schools, which             involved an analysis of the school grounds and their immediate surroundings – see             Figure 23. The purpose was to become familiar with the environment of the school as             such – its location within the municipality and the ownership and vicinity of grounds             for outdoor education. At the same time, the websites of individual schools were             analysed to find out whether outdoor education was promoted.              With this partial knowledge of the location and the already known activities regarding             outdoor education from the SEP content analysis, the interview could be more             focused on particular activities in particular places.                                                             116","Viewpoint                                                                               Play-                                                 School   ground                                                 premises                                                    with                                         School                                                   internal                                        orchard                                                    atrium                    Křtiny Castle              Complex incl.               Pilgrimage              Church of the               Virgin Mary                    FIGURE 23. THE LOCALISATION OF THE SCHOOL IN THE KŘTINY MUNICIPALITY AND LOCATIONS             FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SHORT-TERM OUTDOOR EDUCATION.             Source: www.mapy.cz/s/catupalamu                                                      117","5.2.1      IMPLEMENTATION OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION BY THE TEACHER                    AND THE SCHOOL              The second part of the questionnaire contained 15 questions – always with the             opening YES/NO option and then a subsequent comment. The evaluations for             the lower and upper stage are provided separately.              The first question concerned the implemented forms of outdoor education. The             person with the widest overview of the implemented forms of outdoor education is             most frequently the deputy headteacher (two in the lower stage, four in the upper             stage) or the headteacher. In three cases, the EEPA coordinator  has an overview                                                                  30             in the upper stage. According to the teachers‘ answers, there is also a general overview             of the forms of outdoor education in the SEP, or in the course of study (one case             in the lower stage, one case in the upper stage). Some schools have a monthly course             of study, one school a weekly course of study. In one school, members of the subject             commission have an overview of the outdoor education, and in one case, there is             a “plan of events”; in one case, all forms of outdoor education were summarised in             the school’s annual report (however, only after implementation of the events).             As is apparent from the interviews, some teachers regard a comprehensive concept             of outdoor education to be what is indicated in the SEP or in the EEPA plan where             the annual repetitive school events are listed. However, according to an analysis             of the SEPs, the other forms of outdoor education (especially the short-term) are             not indicated. This can suggest the fact that although in some cases the teachers             indicated that they had a comprehensive concept of outdoor education in the school,             it is not entirely true. In certain cases, an annual (weekly) syllabus or an overview of             the subject commission are regarded as a comprehensive concept.             In small schools, communication among teachers regarding the implementation             of outdoor education can proceed more easily as regards integration of the topics             of the lessons or exchange of the lessons for outdoor education. In large schools,             it is more difficult to coordinate these issues and have a comprehensive concept.             One of the teachers indicated that “there is no general conceptual methodology –             recommendations for outdoor education”.              Some schools have an “outdoor education concept” arranged with an external body             (e.g. Lipka ) or choose events based on what is currently on offer from external                      31             bodies (e.g. Planetarium).                  30      Environmental Education and Public Awareness.             31      Lipka is an educational institution for environmental training.                                                118","Most of the schools’ subjects for the interview have no formulation of the hourly             allowance of the individual forms of outdoor education in the course of the school             studies. Seven of the nine lower stage teachers and six of the ten upper stage teachers             gave a negative answer. However, the answers suggest that the enumeration             concerns hourly or daily allowance for long-term forms of outdoor education,             which are annually repeated. When asked a concrete question regarding the hourly             allowance of outdoor education, one of the teachers indicated “a week is indicated             there, a week-long trip”.              One school did not support outdoor education, and if the teachers implement it,             they do it voluntarily. One of the teachers said that for a starting teacher (in this             case, four years of experience), it may be difficult to incorporate outdoor education             into the curriculum.              All of the interviews de facto showed that the teachers speak of long-term outdoor             education (courses,  trips)  and  school  projects  rather  than  outdoor  education             incorporated directly into the hourly allowance of the individual subjects.             For the question whether the teachers use various forms of outdoor education in the             subject that they teach, all of the interviewed lower and upper stage teachers gave             affirmative answers. One of the upper stage teachers indicates that good weather is             an important factor. For short-term outdoor education, it is also important that the             teacher and the pupils can relocate within 45 minutes. To achieve this, school grounds             or municipal parks are used. Within standard lessons, there is no time for longer-term             outdoor education with worksheets, for example.              The forms of outdoor education in this question concerning the lower stage included             trips, guided tours, excursions, natural scientific and local historical activities in             the field (orientation in the landscape, orientation on a map, plotting a simple             plan or draft) or exercises in the countryside. The schools are also engaged in             programmes in cooperation with external subjects (free-time centres, the town,             the fire brigade...). In contrast to the upper stage, the lower stage teachers have             the advantage of teaching all subjects, so that they can connect them. The outdoor             activities can thus merge with several subjects.              The upper stage teachers indicated the forms of outdoor education as for example             projects and walks within geography lessons (determination of an azimuth, work             with a map in integration with IT), in history lessons e.g. visits to museums, regional             excursion (a cave – prehistory, a church, ossuary, Creek valley), in biology lessons             collecting insects in the garden and establishing herbaria (educational walks –             collection of leaves, observations of animals and beetles), but also visits to hospitals,             long-term care hospitals, rescue teams, first-aid, and collection and analysis of rocks             within a marching exercise, photographing within IT lessons and skiing and canoeing             where association with physics is mentioned. One of the interviewees indicated that                                                119","during language lessons, no forms of outdoor education can be implemented because             of lack of time. The interviewer argued that it can be achieved, for example, in the             form of a walk in a foreign language. “Well, in the Russian language, I would not do             very much, because they are just beginning (...) I am happy if they learn to read and             write (...) in two years.”              The  previous  answers  indicate  that  only  a  few  teachers  (and  schools)  have             a comprehensive concept of outdoor education. In the first case, four lower stage             teachers who indicated that they had a comprehensive concept supplemented             their statement by the fact that the concept was determined by thematic plans             for the individual grades. In the second case it was indicated that forms of outdoor             education which had a concept were those that were annually repeated (guided tours,             exhibitions, schools in the countryside, ecological programmes). This is the way we             can understand most of the other lower stage teachers who indicated that they had             a certain conception. The school in Podomí municipality, where the teachers have             really created a comprehensive conception after several meetings and supported it             with a jointly created portfolio for outdoor education, is an exception.              Five of the upper stage teachers indicated that they had a comprehensive conception             of outdoor education. Nonetheless, the answers suggest, even more than in the lower             stage, that it is a conception of long-planned forms of outdoor education. One of the             teachers who had answered that he had a comprehensive conception subsequently             proved that he had a certain vision: “In grade 6, we start with physical geography.             We can go out in front of the school with the children and dig into the ground, but             the children arrive inappropriately dressed in January, for example, so we are out             in May and June and go through the schoolwork in a gazebo in the internal courtyard             and in the rest of the lesson, the pupils verify it in practice...”             One of the teachers who had given a negative answer sees no possibility in the             creation of a comprehensive conception although she tries to interconnect the topics             and continue in the older curriculum, but “the only time when I can say that it             continues is working with a compass in grade 6 when we start, and then we continue             in grade 9 in regional geography, where we build upon it”.              Cooperation in various forms of outdoor education with teachers of other subjects             seems  easier  in  the  lower  stage  (seven  answers  out  of  nine).  Here,  however,             the answers can be interpreted in three ways: (1) The lower stage teacher teaches             all the subjects in the class. Thus, they follow up themselves and do not need to             cooperate with other teachers (in this case, which was indicated three times, however,             the teachers gave the answer NO because the question was directed to cooperatation             with other teachers). (2) Teachers who cooperate only when ensuring supervision and             safety of outdoor education during relocations, for example to an observatory, training             course or school in the countryside (here again, only the answer NO was given – one                                                 120","case). According to one of the interviewees, the problem is agreement among the             teachers: “outdoor education within the lessons – we only go individually; it is too             difficult to make an arrangement”. (3) Teachers cooperate on projects in the lower             stage or within the whole school (e.g. Earth Day – three cases). One of the teachers             commented on the cooperation as follows: “We plan a week in the countryside,             a skiing course or a field trip within the year (…) so we combine the classes or at least             arrange it so that all pupils in the year can complete it – we let each other know. (...)             The planning is collective, also because of invoicing.”              In  the  upper  stage,  only  four  teachers  indicated  that  they  cooperated  in             the implementation of some forms of outdoor education. All the teachers indicated             a model case of cooperation. In three cases, the cooperation involved a short-term             or medium-term form of outdoor education. In the first case, it was a one-day             “field trip” to the Moravian Sahara where a few teachers participated, and each             of them professionally covered one part of the trip (history, biology and geography             + interconnection with the physical education). In one school, the cooperation of             a few teachers on a project was abandoned due to concerns about the safety of pupils.             It was an “established” project, which had been repeatedly implemented for more             than seven years. Also here, teachers of history, geography and biology participated             in the teaching. In the third case, in addition to the relatively common cooperation             between the history, geography and biology teachers, other teachers were also             indicated – foreign language teachers (a trip to Vienna and Dresden), Czech language             teachers (trips to the theatre, visits to the town library), civic education teachers (visits             to the town councillors’ session), work activities teachers (e.g. a share of children in             the creation of a meteorological station, info-panels in the school garden), music             teachers (planting of a peace tree accompanied with music) and PE teachers (run             through the castle park, Olympic run). In the last case, cooperation is mentioned             between teachers in organising a school in the countryside, adaptation stays, tourist             events and ski courses where teachers of various qualifications take turns.              All of the interviewed lower and upper stage teachers indicated that they had some             method of choosing the topics for outdoor education. An overwhelming majority of             teachers of both stages indicated that the topics of outdoor education were related             to the currently taught matter, which is anchored in the SEP or thematic plan (eight             in the lower stage, and eight in the upper stage). The topics of the outdoor education             are  of  course  related  to  the  teachers’  qualifications  and  personal  preferences             (“everyone does what is close to them”) and possibilities of the region (regional             customs and traditions, environmental themes). In the other answers, there was             a relation to external bodies which offer themes for outdoor education – one case in             each stage. In this case, good experience with these subjects is an important factor.             One answer indicates that the teacher chooses the topics for outdoor education where             he thinks that it will give them (the pupils) more in the field than in the classroom.             Another teacher argues that it is important to “engage the pupils in a particular action                                                121","strategy”. One of the upper stage teachers commented that when choosing the topics             for outdoor education, it is particularly important to “try and make it more varied             to the pupils and show them that it works in practice, that they do not learn it only             to memorise it, but that it can come in useful later, somewhere in their lives”. Also             here, the importance of the weather is mentioned – field trips are more frequent in             the spring and autumn, and less in winter.             All of the interviewed lower stage and upper stage teachers make preparations for             outdoor education. In some schools, it is collective work, especially if it concerns             “integrated” outdoor education, which passes through several subjects. In the case             of subject-oriented outdoor education, the given teacher makes the preparations             him-  or  herself.  Some  teachers  emphasised  precise  preparation  for  outdoor             education, as “in the classroom I can always improvise but outdoors, if I give them             incorrect data in the station, I cannot take it back”. Some teachers used worksheets,             whose role they described both in relation to the pupils (structured requirements of             the teacher) and in relation to themselves (outcome of the teaching process). One             of the teachers added that every activity must have a focus and a clear objective, so             the pupils do not think that outdoor education is just a walk outside. The lower stage             elementary level teachers added that outdoor education should be entertaining for             the younger pupils, could have a plotline and could be a game, which is motivating             for the pupils.              Some schools had a portfolio of outdoor education, containing a set of worksheets,             maps and other aids. The teachers further emphasised that knowledge of the             place was necessary for outdoor education planning. If possible, they consider it             important to walk through the selected locality beforehand (for example to find out             the occurrence of plants for herbarium building or to carry out checks for orienteering).             If this is not possible (for example because of the distance), it is necessary to “find             out all circumstances of the particular lesson so that it can be fully exploited (...)             to eliminate the situation when we return from a trip having missed an interesting             place only because I was not aware of it”. In the case of all-day outdoor education,             a time schedule should be prepared beforehand. Minimum preparation of the teacher             is needed in the case of outdoor education organised in cooperation with an external             subject. An interesting opinion of an upper stage teacher indicates “I pay no particular             attention to it (...) my lessons are based on activities so that it does not matter whether             we are indoors or outdoors (...) the preparation is de facto identical.” However, he             referred to just one lesson of outdoor education in the school grounds.             The lower and upper stage teachers mostly choose the topics from real life for some             forms of outdoor education. Only one lower stage teacher and two upper stage             teachers do not choose topics from real life for their lessons. The most common topics             come from the school surroundings – the town, region. In smaller municipalities,             the school is more connected with the life of the municipality, and the pupils                                                 122","participate in cultural and other events in the municipality. Sometimes pupils are             concerned with themes that arise from the life of the municipality – e.g. history versus             the present, nature protection, elections or solutions to problems in the municipality,             which they can present at the local government, for example. It is important that the             pupils should understand the importance of the topic and the regional issues and seek             solutions to the problems. A teacher of the Dačice school enumerated what the pupils             can do in the town within outdoor education: “For example, cleaning the surroundings             of the river or collecting the rubbish around the school, a questionnaire survey among             the citizens regarding the cleanliness of our town, measurement of aerosols in the             atmosphere in various parts of the town, creation of an educational path around the             river, regular measurement of transparency, temperature and pH of the river water,             visits to waste disposal sites and wastewater treatment plants, observation of falling             leaves and development of buds on the trees in the school garden, measurement             of air or soil temperature in various areas of the school garden, outdoor trips with             experts to natural monuments, the fauna and flora in the school garden, geocaching             in the school surroundings and in the town (or part of school trips), participation             in roundtables organised by the town (the current issues and events in the town,             potential statements and proposals of the youth).”             The  interview  further  showed  that  most  lower  stage  elementary  teachers  (6)             and all higher-level teachers (10) felt certain limitations in the outdoor education             preparation. These limitations differed between the two elementary school stages.             In the lower stage, the limitations seem less significant – parents’ reluctance to             finance the outdoor education, or socially disadvantaged families. Another statement             comments on provision of the pupils’ safety where another teacher is necessary             for supervision in a standard class, the weather, reluctance of the pupils to go             outdoors connected with pupil misbehaviour and low physical condition (“the new-             time handicap”; Inchley et al., 2016). Another problem is the class composition with             a disabled pupil in a wheelchair, for whom outdoor education is not practicable.             The next factor is the greater difficulty of the preparation (which is not assessed by             the school management in any way) and certain time limits. In one case, the absence             of an outdoor classroom was mentioned.              At  the  upper  elementary  stage,  the  most  significant  limitation  was  seen  in             the 45-minute lesson length. If a teacher wants to allocate more than one lesson for             an outdoor activity (where the class needs to travel to the locality of outdoor education             and back to school), there is the already mentioned problem of communication             with other teachers and difficulties in lesson swaps. Another significant issue is             the administrative side and safety of outdoor education. In addition to the assurance             of another supervising teacher, long-term forms often also require parental consent.             One of the teachers also noted that in the case of an all-day or multi-day outdoor             education the break supervision must also be swapped. In the case of medium- and             long-term forms of outdoor education replacement of the missed subject lessons must                                                123","also be considered. One statement from one of the teachers is considered especially             serious as, in the context of his school, he said that “the lessons taught outdoors             are not counted as lessons taught (!), and so the teacher then has, for example, to             substitute for another teacher for free”. Moreover, that even applies in the case when             the teacher returns with his/her pupils from an outdoor activity late at night or the             activity lasts for several days. In the case of some events, lack of pupils´ interest is             another problem (e.g. skiing; this fact may be related to the reluctance of parents to             invest money in this course). According to some teachers, the pupils´ unwillingness             is rather represented by their unwillingness to move.              Most of the researched schools have basic aids for outdoor education. Interestingly,             one lower stage teacher replied that they had no chance to borrow the necessary             aids, while the upper stage teacher at the same school said the opposite. In just one             school, both teachers replied that they had no chance to borrow the means; one             teacher added that he provided the things from his own finances. The other teachers             included compasses and maps as the most available aids. Some schools have other             things such as magnifying glasses, ecological backpacks, an archive of worksheets             (portfolio), sports equipment, a Pasco measuring system (which, however, is not             used because of the time requirements), nets, strainers, binoculars, microscopes,             laminated maps, first-aid kits, GPS. One school indicated that it cooperates with             a centre where this equipment can be rented and that they have asked the Integrated             Regional Operating Programme of the EU for equipment for an experimental science             classroom, which also includes equipment for outdoor education.              Outdoor education is implemented in most of the schools also within the informal             curriculum. In the lower stage, it most frequently involves after-school care or other             interest clubs and sports days/games. In the upper stage, it involves interest clubs             or occasional excursions. The GLOBE club in the Dačice school focuses on field             and research education in the school and town surroundings especially in the area             of meteorology, pedology, phenology and hydrology. There is a beekeeping club             in the school garden.             Except for one upper stage, all schools make use of the teaching programmes             provided by other organisations. In the South-Moravian Region, where nine of the ten             researched schools are located, especially Lipka and its centres (Jezírko, Kamenná...)             are used, although some schools are abandoning it because the capacity is full long             before the courses are run. The Brno Planetarium or the zoo (Brno, Vyškov) appeared             several times. The schools also frequently use the local (municipal) and regional             institutes because of the availability and low financial requirements for the pupils –             e.g. libraries, museums, municipal forests or free-time centres.             Almost all the schools (with two exceptions) also use various forms of outdoor             education within school events. It is most frequently the Earth Day (mentioned                                                 124","six times in this question, but also the previous questions). The individual schools,             however, also organise other events such as a Day without Cars, Garden Party, the             Grade 5 Pupil’s Day, UNESCO Day, Day of Pre-Medical Help, Children’s Day, Civil             Defence Day, Grade 1 Pupils’ Jobs... The other events include adaptation stays,             multiple-day trips/excursions – Czech as well as foreign, sports events (ski course).             In some cases, these events are organised by pupils from the higher grades for pupils             of the lower grades; sometimes the parents are involved.             5.2.2     PREREQUISITES AND BARRIERS TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF                    OUTDOOR EDUCATION              The third part of the questionnaire focused on prerequisites and barriers to the             advancement of outdoor education. Firstly, teachers were asked to choose those from             the list of the prerequisites and barriers offered they thought involved motivating or             limiting factors in their school environment. They also had the opportunity to add             their own views, thus broadening the range of prerequisites and barriers. The other             items in this part of the questionnaire were YES/NO questions only, with the possibility             to provide any comments.             The prerequisites to outdoor education were divided into six predefined categories             (a–f), from which the teachers could choose any number of answers. For teachers             who felt like adding anything, there was the seventh option, an open answer.                     a) School location             For the first item, the respondents could indicate the advantages provided by             the school’s location in terms of outdoor education. All teachers in the sample             surveyed consider their school’s location suitable for outdoor education, naming             both local characteristics (garden, proximity to a forest or a river, rural environment,             etc.) and regional characteristics (e.g. closeness of the regional capital) among             the advantages.                    b) School grounds              Schools usually have outdoor spaces suitable for outdoor education. This concerns             school gardens, biotope school gardens, outdoor classrooms, natural classrooms,             etc. One  of  the  schools  had  an  orchard  on  its school  grounds  with  a  beehive             and information boards. However, the perception of these spaces by the teacher in             terms of their being suited to outdoor education may be rather subjective, or at least             this is our assessment based on a case that actually occurred: despite the fact that             there was a garden, a nature trail with models of space formations, respondents from             this school indicated “the school ground is not available” for this item.                                                   125","Some schools that do not have similar facilities are at least discussing the option             and planning on establishing them.                    c) Programmes or aids offered by non-school external entities              It can be said that schools may benefit from a wide array of programmes or aids             offered by non-school external entities.             The teachers are aware of the programmes of regional external establishments, and             some of them actively keep abreast with the current possibilities and the programmes             proposed by local institutions (Planetarium, zoo, Municipal Woods and others). While             at some schools, teachers tend to be better informed by “their superiors”, at others             they need to actively search for options.                     d) Approach by the school management             School management usually supports, or at least tolerates, activities related to             outdoor education. There have also been instances where the support provided by             the management to teachers is minimal or where such support was suspended with             the arrival of a new head teacher. In such cases, the teachers often mentioned in their             responses that they were forced to abandon a portion of the activities they formerly             engaged in (under the old management).                    e) Cooperation with the parents              Teachers have reported good experience in cooperating with parents and the             general public on common events organised by the school. It should be noted that             the parents’ cooperation in relation to this item was especially positively evaluated             in terms of social events with the involvement of pupils, teachers, parents and the             public. However, for excursions, walks or trips, some teachers still encounter opinions             such as: “Where are you going again, you should be learning”, although these are             rather exceptional now. In certain events, parents themselves take an active part in             tuition, “organising natural science walks.”                     f) Anchoring of the outdoor education in SEP and the thematic plan             The schools to be surveyed were selected following a prior SEP analysis which             singled out such schools that had outdoor education included in their SEP. Still,             a portion of (lower and upper elementary school) teachers said it was not the case.             Therefore, it can be assumed that either the SEP does not correspond to the reality             of the teaching process at the given school, or the teachers did not cooperate on             the development of the SEP and are therefore not familiar with it.                                                     126","g) Other              As regards the other outdoor education options, the teachers had the following             to say:                   Preparation  of  the  outdoor  classroom,  trips  and  exchange  stays  for  pupils,                   organisational skills of the people in charge, teachers’ keenness, I don’t know what                   else, I may have my own opinion on that, but having been here for only two months,                   I have no idea whether we have a garden. (!)              Trips as an outdoor education opportunity were named multiple times, similarly             to the preparation of the outdoor classroom. One teacher said that “he is keen on             implementing outdoor education – truly a basic pre-requisite to its existence”. Another             teacher said: “I really do not know why the teacher should answer this.” This shows             a relatively negative attitude to outdoor education and hands over the responsibility             to the school management.              The purpose of the other question was to establish barriers to outdoor education.             Here, the teachers could select an arbitrary number of options out of 16 categories             offered, and they could also add their own barriers.                    a) No barriers              None of the teachers selected this option. It can, therefore, be assumed that there             are some barriers at schools that make it difficult for teachers to implement outdoor             education.                     b) Uncertainty in the knowledge of and experience in the region             This obstacle was selected by one teacher only (a lower stage teacher). Teachers,             therefore, do not feel the problem lies in lack of knowledge about the school’s location             and its wider neighbourhood, including across different age categories (or lengths of             teaching experience).                    c)  Lack of information resources on the place/region of implementation of                      outdoor education             Again, one teacher only (an upper elementary school teacher, EEPA coordinator)             identified lack of information resources as a barrier to outdoor education. However,             the interview revealed that they did not actively look for the resources themselves             (“if only they could be distributed, ideally by e-mail...”) and expected other workplaces             to develop the required activity. Teachers are well familiar with and have access to             enough information on the region.                                                     127","d) Uncertainty and inexperience in implementing outdoor education              Some teachers face uncertainty and inexperience in outdoor education both at the             lower stage (“this is certainly the case for the lower elementary school level, because             nobody does these kinds of thing there”) and at the upper elementary stage (“yes,             we would have to be the pioneers...”).                     e)  Lack  of  support  methodology  resources  for  the  preparation  and                      implementation of outdoor education              This item was singled out as a barrier by eight out of 19 teachers surveyed (five out             of nine lower elementary school teachers and three out of ten upper elementary             school teachers). One of the teachers remarked: “Methodology is missing as a whole,             not only in terms of individual excursions, a wholesome methodology is needed to             tell us where we need to get better…” While the above-mentioned point (c) shows             that teachers have sufficient information on their surroundings, point (e) shows that             a sizeable portion of them have no idea how they could effectively benefit from             these resources while preparing outdoor education and they call for methodology             guides: “there is not a single publication…”or “it’s everyone for themselves”. The last             statement highlights another issue, namely the unwillingness of individual teachers             to share the results of their work with colleagues (due to concerns related to know-             how theft). This implies that the continuous use of even well-executed school outdoor             education programmes is often abandoned as it is not passed on to newly arriving             teachers on a continuous basis.                    f) Lack of motivation              Barring a few exceptions, teachers do not perceive serious problems with their             motivation  to  implement  outdoor  education. Some  of  them  link  the  issue  of             motivation to finances: “The degree of motivation in the education sector is generally             low; obviously, it is impossible to incentivise people with money only, but where             finances are limited, the other possibilities also become rather scarce”. This is well-             founded as it appears that teachers are not adequately compensated for (especially             long-term) outdoor education (winter sport courses, school in the countryside, etc.).             At the same time, society and the law require that teachers assume full responsibility             for their pupils – participants. According to one view, we encountered “one must             be a little green…”, which seems to rather highlight a misconception of the term             itself on the part of the teacher, who seems to confuse outdoor education with             environmental education.                    g) Expecting a poor result              The interviews showed that the teachers tend to view the outcomes of outdoor             education rather positively. Out of 18 surveyed, three teachers stated that they             expected poor results for outdoor education. This statement offered by specific             teachers, however, directly contradicts their responses to other questions of the                                                128","questionnaire (as verified in the transcriptions of the interviews). This discrepancy             may be due to their subjective assessment of outdoor education and, by inference,             caused by their expectation of a “poor result”. Most teachers rejected this option.                                                                               32                    h) An inappropriate environment for outdoor education             The fact that only one teacher (an elementary school located in a city centre) marked             this option seems to imply that teachers are aware of, or at least think about, sites             and locations suitable for outdoor education. It should be noted here that under our             concept of outdoor education the lessons do not necessarily have to take place in             the woods, but they can also be in built-up areas (case studies, urban planning, etc.).                     i) Lack of time to prepare for outdoor education             This represents the second most significant obstacle identified by a total of eleven             teachers out of 19 (five out of nine lower elementary teachers and six out of ten upper             elementary teachers). At the same time, some strong opposition has been expressed             to this barrier, see “nonsense” (a lower elementary school teacher). Some teachers             who have been practising outdoor education for years do not see this as a pressing             issue (they had made their preparations already), in sharp contrast to those who are             only at the beginning of their teaching careers, making a decision as to whether or             not they should take up outdoor education.                     j) Lack of time to carry out outdoor education during the school year             A dominant obstacle to outdoor education (marked by 13 teachers) out of the sample             surveyed (19). This barrier is fatal for the upper elementary school stage, where the             fast changing of short teaching units only allows for short-term of outdoor education             to be conceived, and only if a number of demanding conditions are met (swapping             lessons with a colleague, swapping break supervision with a colleague, administration             of said changes, resistance of the management, clashes of opinion with parents, etc.).             The frequent “lack of anchoring” of outdoor education in reporting the teachers’ work             amounts to a significant problem. Some have confessed that they face difficulties in             having outdoor education recognised as full-fledged lessons and they have to replace             the lessons spent outdoors with unpaid substitute lessons. This is a massive deterrent             and has a fatal impact on the advance of outdoor education at schools. Teachers at the             lower stage of elementary schools welcome the freedom of teaching, which allows             them to be their own bosses. This way, they can organise their own lessons to meet             their expectations, making flexible use of seasonal phenomena or good weather.                  32      At this point, consideration should be given to methodology assistance on the way of             approaching the assessment of outdoor education as a wholesome process, rather than as an assessment of             the anticipated results, which may vary tremendously despite the enormous investment of the participants             in the education programme thus conceived.                                               129","k)  An unwillingness of colleagues to contribute to the preparation and                      implementation of outdoor education             This barrier is encountered both at the lower and upper elementary school stages,             although in varying forms. As has been described above, at the lower elementary             school level, the problem predominantly involves a mutual transfer of know-how             and methodology approaches to outdoor education. At the upper elementary school             level, the problem instead involves time management of the lessons and coming to             an agreement with other colleagues. There is another problem, which has already             been hinted at in the previous part (see chapter Suggestions for outdoor education             for elementary schools). The outdoor education for the two elementary school stages             does not link to each other concept-wise, with teachers failing to keep each other             sufficiently informed on the outcomes (if any) generated by the education they have             undertaken. To cite but a few of the teachers’ views: “time is a factor, especially in             terms of the schedule, overtime problems at the workplace”, but also “we do not             know, we have never tried it…”                     l) Lack of financial resources              The third strongest category (ten out of 19 teachers) concerns the financing of             outdoor education. Five lower and five upper elementary school teachers marked             finances as an obstacle. This points to a relatively one-sided concept of outdoor             education on the part of elementary school teachers. Outdoor education continues             to be strongly perceived as lessons that the pupils have to travel far to, and that has             to be paid for, or as education organised by a third party for a charge (educational             programmes offered by external educational centres). Such activities face hardship             especially with the parents of certain pupils, whose financial situation is unstable             or who confuse outdoor education with mere trips and do not pay attention to the             educational and instructive dimension of outdoor work. We found this suggestion             by an upper elementary school teacher intriguing: “and fare is not so cheap either,             so if the regional authorities came up with a support scheme, it might all be more             meaningful, all the things that could be put in place here (meaning a truly substantial             fare reduction for organised school outings) (...) it happens ever more frequently             that people are on the social – I do not want to say – bottom (...), but even the fare             is a problem to them, let alone an entrance fee…” Moreover, our experience tells us             that the costs associated with outdoor education may be minimised with the use of             the school’s own or public grounds in the vicinity of the school (including in towns),             the school’s own aids which the pupils usually have on them (e.g. smartphones)             according to the BYOD principle  or using freely distributed outdoor education tips.                                       33                 33      Bring Your Own Device.                                                130","m  ) Lack of support from the school management              This option has not been marked by any lower elementary school teacher; compared             to two upper elementary school teachers who identified with this point. This may             point to what has already been noted earlier, namely that lower elementary school             teachers enjoy a greater degree of freedom in organising their lessons (in the positive             sense of the word) and do not face many of the problems described under point (k).             School management generally does not hinder the teachers’ outdoor initiatives             and tries to promote them within the constraints of their possibilities. In one case,             the teacher’s view was related to a recent replacement of the school’s head teacher,             who was not as open to supporting outdoor education as his forerunner.                     n) Lack of administrative support by the school management             One lower elementary school teacher only marked this option. The teachers may             have failed to entirely understand the meaning of this item.                    o) Lack of interest on the part of pupils              This option was singled out by two teachers in each elementary school stage.             Confronted with their replies in the part of the questionnaire that sought to evaluate             the effects of outdoor education and judging by the responses, this may involve             a marginal sample of pupils – trouble makers generally tough to motivate in classes             anyway. It may also be due to inadequately selected or poorly assigned tasks,             “Motivation is missing once I find out that the pupils are not interested (…) they             were asked to take photos of brownfields (...) they brought aerial photographs…”                    p) Potential hazards during outdoor education              A relatively significant barrier that was singled out by eight (four for each stage)             out of 19 teachers. There were realistic views of teaching practitioners saying that             “the hazard is always there, but that is hardly a barrier, the (teacher) can never,             in the real world, prevent anything from happening (...) while walking, they are             undisciplined, and it is complicated to even pick a route from one place to another…”             Potential hazards lurk just about anywhere, and it is not advisable to isolate children             from the outdoor environment. The teachers’ testimonies also imply that minor             concerns should not discourage good intentions, see “in such a case, we could not             do anything…” It is taken for granted that safety and health at work rules must be             adhered to on a consistent basis.                     q) Other, specify              A total of four (two per stage) teachers indicated further potential obstacles to             implementing outdoor education. These include:                                                  131","“Large number of pupils; I would prefer a group of 5–10 pupils for outdoor education”                   a biology teacher noted that when working with instruments, it is unrealistic to ensure                   the rotation of all pupils (with a number of 20 or more children in the class) in the given                   time allowance for the teaching unit (this is the upper stage).                    “Children’s fitness.” The teachers view the trends linked to decreasing physical fitness                   of children negatively, “some of them cannot even walk that far.”                   “Allergies.” Teachers should make sure they are familiar with details on the children’s                   state of health, which is hardly a novelty.                   “Unwillingness to read the SEP.”                   “Bad manners of pupils.”              The next question sought to establish whether the teachers’ university courses had             prepared them well for leading outdoor lessons with pupils.              Twelve teachers (6+6) responded positively, i.e., that their university studies in some             way prepared them for realising outdoor education with pupils. Some teachers could             only recollect that they completed “some excursions at the university”, while others             were more specific, speaking of botanical, zoological and historical excursions (Telč,             Brussels, Romania, Slovenia). One teacher added that she “took a distance course,             which was more about knowledge and theory, while the practical part was missing...”             Then, however, she went on integrated field practice in Jedovnice, which “was the             only thing of any value, and it even made me choose the topic of my thesis in this             area”. The teachers mostly referred to the natural sciences and faculties of education,             at which they completed similar excursions; as for the Faculty of Arts, it has been             said that “there was nothing even remotely similar to this at the Faculty of Arts”             (History – Russian study combination). However, there was no resounding “agree”.             The teachers admit that “the general idea seems OK, but the deeper methodology             is inadequate (...) the assistant took us on an excursion without letting us know what             we should plan and how (...) I was, in essence, a trip participant, I knew nothing of the             organisation; there was no methodological underpinning to this...”              Seven teachers (3+4) noted that their university studies did not prepare them for             outdoor education at all, or that they did not recollect anything of that sort, “I have             forgotten about that a long time ago...” The above implies a research need for             exploration of the concept of outdoor education at university workplaces where             students are being prepared to become teachers.              Since outdoor education is continually evolving as a concept, teachers should be             trained regularly. Therefore, the next question was aimed at finding out whether             teachers had any support when it came to tips for, and the implementation of, outdoor             education under the Further Education of Pedagogical Workers scheme (FEPW). Then,             another question was raised as to where the teacher would welcome more knowledge             or skills relating to outdoor education in their professional growth.                                                 132","The distribution of responses to this issue was one of the most balanced for both             stages. Nine (4+5) teachers stated they were supported as regards suggestions for,             and the implementation of, outdoor education under the FEPW scheme, while ten             (5+5) stated that they were not.                   “The FEPW keeps being offered to us (...) I take advantage of the workshops organised                   by the Tereza association, which have proved themselves and are always outdoor-                   oriented; I have taken part in zoological and mycological excursions to the Highlands…”                   Some teachers experience trouble finding their way through the various programmes                   on offer; “I looked at them briefly, so, for instance, the centre for services to schools,                   they offer electronics, digitalisation, inclusion courses, but no outdoor education…”                   “Not for state seminars, maybe tips for visits to Lipka…”              Some teachers do not get offered FEPW courses at all, or they do not pay attention to             them. “No, no, no, not at all… I cannot remember anything, I think not, because there             were no courses like that on offer among the accredited courses.” The FEPW has even             been suspended by the management at one school: “This has been suspended now,             we have no training events to attend; the zoo a have offered us something very nice             recently, but because this has been suspended, we cannot go.” When asked by the             interviewer why this is so, the teacher replied: “we have no travelling money…, I got             an offer, but they turned it down due to the travel expenses”. This brings us back to             finances, this time from the viewpoint of the teacher (formerly, the issue was linked             to pupils or their parents).             All teachers surveyed would welcome further knowledge and skills relating to outdoor             education in their personal growth (“there can never be too much of this…”, “certainly             yes, I do not think we have achieved perfection yet…”). One teacher expressed the             following opinion: “I would welcome more resources, a course probably not.” He is             willing to work with a finished source of information, but not willing to go through             a training course. Some would, on the contrary, welcome a course, but time is a factor             that prevents them from doing that: “Yes, but when will I find the time?”, “Yes, the             geography department organises trips, but those take place on Fridays and Saturdays,             which does not work for me due to my work…” One teacher was somewhat reluctant             due to her rich long experience… “My response here would be that I do not know”;             “I do not want to brag but I have gathered some experience (I have been a teacher             for 30 years), but I am not saying that I could not learn something new, I definitely             could, but when you have been in the education sector for so long, and you keep             going to training events, all of them start to merge after a while…” Younger teachers             welcome such opportunities without hesitations. Again, the issue of “collegiality”             among teachers resurfaced: “The problem is that some teachers do not want to leave             their positions, share their ideas and experience…”                                                    133","5.2.3    PROMOTING OUTDOOR EDUCATION              Part four of the questionnaire only contained two questions seeking to establish             whether and in what way outdoor education is anchored in the School Rules and how             it is promoted (both internally, and in relation to the public). The teachers respond             with YES/NO and may add their own comments.             The teachers typically refer to the anchoring of outdoor education in the School Rules             in relation to those points of the rules that regulate the pupils’ behaviour during those             school events that take place outside the class and school grounds. Out of those             surveyed, 16 (7 + 9) teachers responded that outdoor education is anchored in their             School Rules, namely as follows:                   Of course the School Rules apply both within the school and outside of it (during                   classes, on trips, etc., author’s note), the same rules apply as those applicable within                   the school’s premises, safety instruction, the safety is similar for all school events.              One teacher provided an exhaustive explanation:                   The  School  Rules  contain  rules  for  gathering  pupils  out  of  school,  teachers’                   responsibility for the safety and health of the pupils, times, provision of information                   to parents. They also contain rules for raising financial contributions… the obligation                   of pupils to follow traffic rules, adhere to the teachers’ instructions, to report any                   injuries, instruction of pupils on safety before each event…              Teachers may, therefore, find provisions in the School Rules that relate to outdoor             education, especially as regards the protection of the pupils’ health and adherence             to the rules in place at the given school.              Three teachers stated that outdoor education was not anchored in their School Rules.             One teacher specifically added to this: “I expressly asked the head teacher about this             because I experienced a great deal of uncertainty in this and could not find anything.             The head teacher told me that the agenda had been pushed into out-of-school             activities…” It should be noted that many teachers stated that out-of-school activities             are governed by the provisions of the School Rules and based their answers on that.              At all the model schools, outdoor education was presented both internally and to the             public. The most frequent forms of promotion today include presentations of school             events on the school’s website, or on Facebook (articles, galleries, videos); this form             was mentioned by all the teachers surveyed (19). Another fairly frequent method             involves school presentations in local and municipal newsletters; some schools             publish their own school magazine, while others have abandoned this practice: “We             do not publish a school magazine at the time being, but in the past, there has been             a school magazine, but now, I am not aware if it is being run by anyone...” Further             publicity is provided by notice boards, either within the school’s premises, or in public             spaces: “We operate one more notice board on the street...”; one intriguing form of                                                 134","publicity at one of the schools involves “public presentations of projects pursued by             the eighth, ninth and seventh grades here at the Municipal house” (with members             of the general public and municipal representatives in attendance.).             5.2.4     TEACHERS´ ASSESSMENT OF THE OUTDOOR EDUCATION                    OUTCOMES             Part five of the questionnaire sought to establish how outdoor education is assessed.             Seven out of the nine questions in total were YES/NO questions with an option to add             a comment. One of the questions was a multiple-choice question, and for another,             the teachers were asked to come up with a rating on a scale from 1 to 5, 1 being             the lowest and 5 being the highest score. For the evaluation of the scale question see             chapter 5.5.2, where the result is compared to the assessment of a similar question             asked to pupils and parents.              All the teachers surveyed confirmed they were perceptive to the impacts outdoor             education has on the pupils. In 13 instances (out of 19), the teachers stated that the             pupils enjoyed outdoor education more than the traditional classroom tuition. The             answer that pupils do not enjoy outdoor education appeared in one case. A frequently             added answer is that pupils find outdoor education appealing and fun because it             is unusual, brings variety, and motivates and stimulates them. In three cases,             the teachers said that this was an individual matter – some pupils enjoy outdoor             education, but some do not.              With one exception, all teachers also assess their pupils during the actual outdoor             lessons. They use a  specific evaluation tool. The most commonly used tool is             a worksheet (in six cases) or one of the oral methods (discussions, verbal appraisal,             interview, etc.). The responses also reveal that the teachers only acknowledge             progress or achievement during outdoor lessons in some cases, depending on the             circumstances. A reward-based method was reported in one case.              Outdoor education is evaluated again at the close of each lesson (in 18 out of 19 cases).             Here again, the responses reveal that oral appraisal methods are mostly preferred –             a discussion, a collective oral appraisal or final summary. The additional responses             imply that account is taken of what is (or was) the objective of the outdoor education,             which also determines its final appraisal. The testing/grading method was also reported             (in two cases). One teacher said he integrated the knowledge or skills acquired through             outdoor education in other subjects, in verbal assignments, in looking for solutions             to problem-solving tasks, etc. It should also be noted that according to the teachers,             the appraisal should be uplifting, appreciative of the pupils’ outdoor efforts.              Except for one case, all of the teachers surveyed confirmed they used a diagnostic             tool to obtain feedback from their pupils. The most frequently used tools include             an interview (5), verbal evaluation (3) or test (3). In other cases, a questionnaire,                                                 135","a report, a poster, a Powerpoint presentation, worksheets, voting, the free writing             method, a protocol, self-assessment, anonymous messages, sketches or map outlines             were used, with artistic activities, such as painting, used at the lower elementary             school level.             In the last two questions, the teachers were asked to assess whether they believe             outdoor education promotes a deeper, faster, or more permanent understanding of             the subject matter discussed. The responses regarding the depth of understanding             are  unequivocal. All  of  the  teachers  surveyed  agreed  that  outdoor  education             facilitates a deeper understanding of the topic discussed. To cite from the comments:             “Geography is best taught outdoors, as, in the classroom setting, the tuition lacks             emotion.” Teachers feel that the deeper understanding is due to the perception by             more than one sense at once, thanks to learning by experience, the acquisition of             practical skills, learning in contexts, experiencing practical application, etc. When             it comes to the assessment of the speed or permanence of understanding of the             topic, most answers include a comment such as: “I do not know” or “I cannot assess             this objectively” (four out of 19 answers). In three cases, the teachers stated that             this was a case-by-case matter: i.e. the process of understanding may be faster or             more lasting for some while for others, it is not. One answer was negative, with no             further comment.             The  next  question,  namely  whether  the  teachers  feel  that  outdoor  education             contributes  to  the  greater  motoric  activity  of  pupils,  the  answer  “agree”  was             unequivocal again (18 out of 19). The additional answers reveal that the very fact             that in outdoor education one has to move from one place to another in itself means             greater motoric activity compared to sitting in a classroom. One of the answers was             “cannot be objectively assessed”.             As for the question of whether the pupils may use the experience obtained in outdoor             education in other educational subjects or life situations, the teachers’ response             was a clear yes. In three cases the answer included a contention that the experience             was that of establishing and improving relationships, getting to know fellow pupils,             group bonding, etc. Other comments included, “pupils develop their ability to orient             themselves outdoors”, “they formulate their attitude to nature and the region”,             and “they acquire the rules of navigation outdoors”.                                                              136","5.3      OUTDOOR EDUCATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE                    OF PUPILS               5.3.1      RESULTS OF A QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY WITH PUPILS                    OF GRADES 5 AND 6             Part one of the questionnaires for grade 5 and 6 pupils concerned identification data             of the pupils. In grade 5, a total of 22 pupils were tested, including 16 girls and six             boys. Eighteen of the pupils were 11 years old, three of them were 10 years old and             one of them was 12 years old. In grade 6, eight pupils took part in the test, of which             four were girls and four were boys, and seven pupils were 12 years old, and one was             11 years old.             The next questions for the grade 5 pupils concerned the actual outdoor education             the pupils completed. Grade 6 pupils had completed similar outdoor education a year             before. The total length of the route completed by the pupils during the outdoor             education was 12.75 km. The first question concerned an estimate of the distance             the pupils completed during the outdoor education. The average variance compared             to the actual distance was 3.70 km for grade 5 and 3.25 for grade 6. Eight 5th grade             pupils managed to estimate the distance within 2 km of the actual length. An extreme             variance (7 km and more) was reported for a total of five grade 5 pupils.             Other free questions were scale based (see figures 24 and 25). The purpose of the             first question was to identify whether the pupils drew the route they were taking             during the outdoor education on the map . A total of 16 grade 5 pupils and two                                                34             grade 6 pupils responded positively to this question (agree, somewhat agree), five             grade 5 pupils and two grade 6 pupils did not manage to draw the route (they tried             to at first, but because they had trouble finding their way on the map due to a lack             of time, they abandoned the drawing later on). Four pupils did not even attempt to             indicate the route on the map.             Another scale-based question concerned the perception of the pupils of the landscape             surrounding them during the outdoor education. During the outdoor education,             the pupils were encouraged by the teacher to observe the forest, plants, etc.; so             a positive answer was expected for this question. A total of 21 grade 5 pupils and             four grade 6 pupils answered positively. Three pupils responded that they did not             take heed of the landscape around them while indicating the route. Two pupils did             not comment on the question at all.                 34      The teacher called this form of outdoor education “expedition”. This is because she wants to             motivate pupils that it is something interesting and exciting.                                                137","I think I learned more on the expedition than in the                           classroom                    When marking the route, I also observed the                           landscape around               During the expedition, I marked passed  route on the                            map                                              0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%                                                 yes  rather yes  rather no  no             FIGURE 24. ASSESSMENT OF PUPILS’ ACTIVITIES DURING OUTDOOR EDUCATION – GRADE 5.             Source: questionnaire survey with pupils of the model school.                   I think I  learned more on the expedition than in the                           classroom                   When marking the route, I  also observed the                          landscape around              During the expedition, I marked passed  route on the                            map                                              0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%                                               yes  rather yes  rather no  no              FIGURE 25. ASSESSMENT OF PUPILS’ ACTIVITIES DURING OUTDOOR EDUCATION – GRADE 6.             Source: questionnaire survey with pupils of the model school.               The last scale-based question in this part of the questionnaire sought to establish             whether the pupils thought they learnt more during the outdoor education than             during regular classroom lessons. Nineteen grade 5 pupils responded positively             (12 pupils agreed, seven pupils somewhat agreed) as did 7 grade 6 pupils. Three pupils             believe they learn more in the classroom than during an expedition (two grade 5             pupils and one grade 6 pupil).              The next question looked into the pupils’ view of outdoor education. Here, the             pupils were left to choose out of multiple choices (figure 26). The most frequent             response was that outdoor education presents the pupils with an opportunity to             learn something new (orientation with a map and GPS, information from educational             boards, etc.). The option was singled out by 18 grade 5 pupils and four of the grade 6                                                138","pupils. Other response options (four grade 5 pupils indicated a different response             than any of those offered to them) expressed the opinion that outdoor education             provides them with an opportunity to be with their friends, feel at ease or experience             a fun form of tuition, or that they regard outdoor education as a kind of a trip during             which they can learn something.              An open question follows, asking the pupils to write down the three most important             things they learnt or memorised in the outdoor education (figure 27). When we             evaluated the number of responses, then 20 pupils of both grades fully answered             the question (i.e. wrote all three things). Four pupils only filled out two things, two             pupils put down one answer only, and four pupils did not put down a single thing they             learnt (memorised) in the outdoor education.              The responses were put into categories as for their common features and the six             most frequently recurring items were singled out. The most frequent response             among the 5th grade pupils (seven responses) was that they had learned how to             behave in a protected landscape area (the items indicated here included things such             as “do not pick up flowers”, “protect nature”, “adhere to the rules of the protected             landscape area”, etc.). Six pupils reported they had learnt to work with a map (map             orientation, indicating a route on a map) and the same number of them reported             that they had learnt some local names (e.g. Valley of Snowflakes, Rakovec Valley,             Poslík spring, Three spruces). The most prevalent response among the grade 6 pupils             (four pupils in total) was that they had learnt to identify plants (some said they had             learnt several plant names), three pupils reported they had learnt what to do when             outdoors (“stay with the rest of the class”, “do not run”, “listen”, etc.). As for the more             sporadically occurring responses, the following may be added to the list: “next time             bring a sufficient quantity of something to drink”, “listen to the sounds of the forest”,             “various myths”, doing “experiments”, etc.                Grade 5                Grade 6                    0%    10%  20%   30%   40%   50%  60%   70%   80%  90%   100%                  a few hours I spent outside                  supplementing of teaching when I practice what I learned at school (working with a map etc.)                  an opportunity to learn something new (orientation with GPS, information from educational boards etc.)                  another answer             FIGURE 26. THE PERCEPTION OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION BY PUPILS OF GRADES 5 AND 6.             Source: questionnaire survey with pupils of the model school.                                                 139","Grade 5                Grade 6                     0%   10%   20%   30%   40%  50%   60%   70%   80%   90%  100%                       to behave in the countryside (in the PLA)  to know the plants                       to cooperate in groups   to use a map                       to gain topographical knowledge  to behave outdoors             FIGURE 27. THE MOST IMPORTANT SKILLS THAT PUPILS OF THE GRADE 5 AND 6 LEARNED             OUTDOORS.             Source: questionnaire survey with pupils of the model school.              The next question, identical for grades 5 and 6, focused on identifying the forest             shown in a picture (figure 28) and was complemented with a question relating to             the growth of herbs in the given forest (in what forest will more herbs grow and why?;             table 19). Of the grade 5 pupils, all but two correctly answered that the forest was             deciduous and coniferous. Two pupils got the answer wrong – instead of a deciduous             forest, they said oak forest and mixed forest, and instead of a coniferous forest, they             said a dark and spruce forest. All grade 6 pupils except one successfully identified             the correct type of forest.                              FIGURE 28. PHOTOS OF THE FOREST WHERE THE PUPILS WERE SUPPOSED TO DECIDE WHAT             HERBS THERE ARE.             Source: Google Images.                                                     140","TABLE 19             THE OPINIONS OF PUPILS OF THE GRADES 5 AND 6, WHETHER HERBACEOUS PLANTS THRIVE             IN A DECIDUOUS/CONIFEROUS FOREST                       deciduous                      Do herbaceous plants thrive well here?  Why do herbaceous plants thrive well                                                    here?                      correct   wrong     unanswered  correct   wrong   unanswered              Grade 5  16       2         4         17        3         2               Grade 6  7        0         1         3         1         4                      coniferous                      Do herbaceous plants thrive well here?  Why do herbaceous plants thrive well                                                    here?                      correct   wrong     unanswered  correct   wrong   unanswered              Grade 5  18       4         0         12        9         1               Grade 6  2        1         5         2         1         5             Source: questionnaire survey with pupils of the model school.              The question whether herbs are likely to thrive in a deciduous forest (the correct             answer is yes), was answered correctly by 16 grade 5 pupils and seven grade 6 pupils             and the correct reason (more space, more sunlight, more moisture) was identified             by 17 fifth graders and three sixth graders. For the coniferous forest, the correct             answer was that herbs do not thrive there (due to less space, less sunlight and less             moisture). Eighteen fifth graders and two sixth graders answered the question             correctly. The correct reason was given by 12 fifth graders and two sixth graders.              The  next  question  was  different  for  grades  5  and  6. The  grade  5  pupils  had             a photograph taken during the outdoor education attached to their questionnaires,             and the pupils were asked three specific questions relating to the place shown on             the photograph. All the pupils correctly answered the sub-question which asked for             the name of the place they all went to see during the outdoor education. The second             sub-question concerned the name of the vanished village that was formerly located             there. The question was answered correctly by three pupils, and wrongly by eleven             pupils; eight pupils did not answer the question. The third sub-question concerned             the name of the Czech fairy-tale film that was filmed at the location. In total, 18 pupils             provided the correct answer; three of them got the answer wrong – see figure 29.                                                     141","Which perished village was here in the past?                                               Which Czech fairytale was filmed here?                                      correct  wrong  unanswered     correct  wrong  unanswered              FIGURE 29. ANSWERS OF GRADE 5 PUPILS RELATED TO THE STOP POINT DURING OUTDOOR             EDUCATION.             Source: questionnaire survey with pupils of the model school.              Instead of a photograph, the grade 6 pupils were presented with an aerial picture of             the village Ruprechtov, the starting point of the outdoor education. The questions             revolved around the windmill located in the village. The first task was to identify its             location on a map. All the pupils correctly identified the location of the windmill,             except for one, who did not identify the location at all. After that, the sixth graders             answered the question regarding the former purpose of the windmill and the material             that was processed there. All of the pupils got the answer right. The question regarding             the purpose the windmill serves today was answered correctly by two pupils, but             five pupils did not know its contemporary purpose, and one pupil did not answer             the question at all. The last question concerning the windmill sought to establish             whether the pupils knew any villages nearby where another windmill is located. Only             two pupils provided the correct name of another village (Ostrov u Macochy, Rudice).              The next question was again identical for both grades 5 and 6, revolving around             the origins of the names of the places the pupils went to during the outdoor education.             For “Rakovecké údolí”, only two of the sixth graders provided the correct answer             i.e. that the name was derived from the local Rakovec stream. Contrary to this almost             all of the pupils were able to infer the origin of the “Valley of Snowflakes“ name (with             only one pupil failing to provide an answer). The outdoor education took place during             the flowering season of the snowflake.             To answer the next three questions, the pupils worked with an inserted map.             The fifth graders were asked to indicate on the map the route they had taken during             the expedition. The sixth graders were asked to indicate the course of the Rakovec                                                 142","stream  on  the  map. The  routes  indicated  on  the  map  were  then  divided into             the following three categories according to the degree of accuracy: almost accurate,             partially accurate (along about a half of the route), and entirely inaccurate. Among             the grade 5 five pupils got the route almost entirely right, ten pupils indicated the             route with partial accuracy, and seven pupils did not manage to indicate the route at             all. Among the grade 6 pupils who were asked to indicate the course of the Rakovec             stream, only two pupils tried and got the course entirely wrong, while the others did             not make any marks on the map.              The next question involving the use of a map concerned the indication of the place             known under the local name “The Main Rock”. The pupils went to see this place during             their outdoor education. The question was evaluated by how much the course             indicated on the map was off the actual course of the place concerned. Among             the grade 5 pupils, three managed to indicate the position precisely, seven pupils             were less than 1 km off the mark and eight pupils provided no answer at all. Among             the grade 6 pupils, one managed to get the location of “Hlavní skála” right, and             two pupils were less than 1 km off the mark; the remaining pupils did not provide             any indication.             The last task involving the map was to determine whether the altitude of “Hlavní             skála” was more or less than 500 m a.s.l. Among the grade 5 pupils, five of them got             the answer right (i.e., the altitude was less than 500 m), and 14 got it wrong. Among             the grade 6 pupils, three pupils got the answer right.             The last question relating to the expedition sought to establish what the pupils             found most and least entertaining during the outdoor education. Here, the pupils             had the chance to write freely. Some pupils gave multiple answers. The answers were             categorised. The most frequent answer with regard to what pupils liked about outdoor             education was that they did not have to sit on chairs but got to go out (15 answers             in total in both grades). The second most frequent answer was that the pupils learnt             new things about nature or got to know new places (13 answers in both grades).             Three pupils wrote that they liked that type of learning more because they get the             chance to see the things in real life. Similarly, three pupils liked the opportunity to             work in groups and communicate with one another. Also, a total of seven pupils found             outdoor education to be a form of entertainment. In the same question, the pupils             could say what they disliked about it. A negative assessment was only recorded for             three answers, two answers expressed that the pupils did not like crawling through             the bushes and one pupil did not like going up the hill (see figure 30 for details).                                                        143","Grade 5               Grade 6                    0%    10%  20%   30%   40%   50%  60%   70%   80%   90%  100%                               fun, more relaxed lessons                               communication, collaboration with classmates, teamwork                               learn more, see things alive                               learn new things about nature, get to know new places                               do not sit at desks, learn outdoors             FIGURE 30. WHAT PUPILS OF THE GRADES 5 AND 6 ENJOY MOST DURING OUTDOOR EDUCATION.             Source: questionnaire survey with pupils of the model school.               5.3.2      RESULTS OF A QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY WITH PUPILS OF                    GRADES 8 AND 9              Part one of the questionnaire sought to establish the pupils’ identification data.             In grade 8, a total of 14 pupils took part in the questionnaire survey, including twelve             girls and two boys. In grade 9, 17 pupils took part in the questionnaire survey, including             three girls and 14 boys.             For grade 8 pupils, who had gone through outdoor education, the questionnaire             included five specific questions relating to the Jedovnice – Rudice expedition,             which were not included in the questionnaire prepared for the grade 9 pupils.             These questions sought to establish whether the pupils were wearing a measuring             sensor, an estimated of the distance covered, whether the pupils always tried to use             the shortest route when handling GPS and how they perceived the landscape when             handling the GPS device. As for the last question, the pupils were asked to sketch             on the map the route they had taken during the expedition. These questions were             evaluated separately; each of the remaining questions will be compared between             the grade 8 and 9. Grade 9 did not take part in this outdoor education.             The  introductory  questions  were  devoted  to  the  actual  expedition  the  pupils             completed outdoors. The total length of the route completed by the grade 8 pupils             during the expedition was 4 km. The first task was that the pupils were asked to             indicate the length of the route they had taken. A total of six out of 14 pupils were             less than 1 km off the actual route length in their estimate. Others displayed a larger             variance, and three pupils even indicated that the route was 10 km long. On average,             the pupils were 2.8 km off the actual length of the route.                                                   144","After this, the grade 8 pupils were asked to indicate, using the agree – somewhat             agree – somewhat disagree – disagree scale, whether they always tried to establish the             shortest route when handling a GPS device (which may be problematic since various             unforeseeable obstacles may be encountered on the way). Five pupils “agreed” while             the remaining nine “somewhat agreed”.              Four out of five pupils who said they had always looked for the shortest route also             chose the “agree” option for the question asking whether they could pay attention             to the surrounding landscape while handling the GPS device. The remaining pupils             went with the “somewhat agree” option.              The next question was posed to grades 8 and 9, it was semi-closed and offered             a choice of four options, while the last option also gave the pupils an opportunity             to express themselves freely. The pupils could choose multiple options. The grade 8             pupils indicated 21 options in total, while the grade 9 pupils came up with 25 answers.             However, the difference in how outdoor education is viewed between the two grades             is relatively large. While the grade 8 pupils, whose outdoor education was organised             several weeks before the questionnaire survey, most frequently indicated the option             that they viewed outdoor education as a “couple of hours they could spend outside”             the grade 9 pupils who did not complete any outdoor education during the given             school year most frequently saw outdoor education as an “opportunity to learn             something new” (see figure 31 for details).                 Grade 8                Grade 9                    0%    10%  20%   30%   40%   50%  60%   70%   80%   90%  100%                  a few hours I spent outside                  supplementing of teaching when I practice what I learned at school (working with a map etc.)                  an opportunity to learn something new (orientation with GPS, information from educational boards etc.)                  another answer              FIGURE 31. THE PERCEPTION OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION BY PUPILS OF GRADES 8 AND 9.             Source: questionnaire survey with pupils of the model school.              The scale-based question sought to establish whether the pupils thought they             learnt more during the outdoor education than during regular classroom lessons.             The question was answered positively by ten eighth graders and nine ninth graders             (the “agree” and “somewhat agree” options). Two rather negative and two plain             negative answers were recorded for eighth graders. Among grade 9 pupils eight             rather negative but no plain negative answers were given – see figure 32.                                                145","Grade 8                  Grade 9                     0%    10%  20%   30%   40%   50%   60%  70%   80%   90%  100%                                     yes  rather yes  rather no  no             FIGURE 32. GRADE 8 AND 9 PUPILS’ OPINION ON OUTDOOR EDUCATION.             Source: questionnaire survey with pupils of the model school.              An open question followed, asking the pupils to write down the three most important             things they learnt or memorised in the outdoor education. In terms of the number             of answers, 11 out of 14 pupils in grade 8 and 10 out of 17 pupils in grade 9 provided             a full answer to the question, i.e. they put down all three things. The remaining three             eighth graders only provided one answer. Three of the ninth graders only provided             two answers, one pupil only indicated one answer and two pupils did not provide             any answer at all.             The answers were categorised by common features. The answers of the pupils of             the two grades reflect the nature of the outdoor education they completed. For             the grade 8 pupils who completed an outdoor education event in the Moravian             Karst region along the Jedovnice – Rudice trail just several weeks before filling out             the questionnaires, the most common answer was “working with a GPS device”             (16 times), the “pay attention to/observe the surrounding landscape” option appeared             six times and the “looking for information” option (the pupils drew information from             educational panels) appeared five times. The following answers were also recorded:             map orientation/working with a map (four times), cooperation and communication             with others (four times) and others.             For the grade 9 pupils, the part of the outdoor education that had the strongest             impact on them was related to the Dalešice water power plant and the Dukovany             nuclear power plant, since the most frequent answer given was that the pupils had             got to know how a power plant works (five times), and the answer that the pupils             had acquired specific skills necessary to remain outdoors (e.g. to build a tent, ration             out food supplies, avoid swamps, etc., nine times) was also frequent. The “map             orientation/working with a map” option was chosen by five pupils, and the “working             with tools” (most often the compass) appeared four times. Among the less frequently             used options, there was cooperation with others (three times), paying attention             to/observing the landscape (three times), and working with GPS (two times).                                                146","FIGURE 33. PHOTOS WHERE THE PUPILS OF GRADE 8 AND 9 WERE SUPPOSED TO DECIDE IF IT             WAS A KARST PHENOMENON OR NOT.             Source: Google Images.               For the next questions, the pupils attending both of the grades under review were             asked to decide whether the presented photos showed a karst phenomenon, or not             and if so, to identify it.              A karst phenomenon was pictured in three of the four images: a rock wall (top left),             a sinkhole (top right) and a sink (bottom right). The fourth picture shows sandstone             cliffs (bottom left) – see figure 33.              As for the first picture (a rock wall), three incorrect answers were given by pupils both             in grades 8 and 9 (although in grade 8, there were 14 pupils answering the question             compared to only 17 pupils in grade 9). In grade 8, only three pupils managed to             identify the correct type of the karst phenomenon pictured – two answers were             “a rock”, which may pass as the right answer. The pupils passed this formation on             their expedition, but were not familiar with the specific type.              The picture showing a sinkhole was correctly identified by only six out of the 14 eighth             graders (one pupil provided no answer at all) and seven out of the 17 ninth graders.             One grade 8 pupil attempted to identify the design of the karst formation, writing it             was a “hole”. In grade 9, seven pupils attempted to identify the type of karst formation             pictured, of which five correctly indicated that it was a sinkhole, another pupil wrote                                                147","it was a “depression” and the other answers were wrong. It should be noted that the             pupils did not see this particular phenomenon during the expedition, but several             specimens may be seen around the municipality where the school is located.             Eight grade 8 pupils and ten grade 9 pupils correctly wrote that the formation in the             third picture – a sandstone cliff – was not a karst formation. None of the grade 8 pupils             attempted to determine the exact type. All five of the ninth graders who went with             an open answer gave the correct type of formation.              The last picture showing the Rudice sink was correctly identified by most 8th and 9th             grade pupils. The eighth graders had seen this place during their expedition several             weeks before taking the questionnaire survey, and 13 answers provided were correct;             moreover, nine of the ten open answers indicated that it was a sink. The ninth graders             who did not go to the place produced two incorrect answers. Seven pupils in total             attempted to identify the type of the formation, and five pupils correctly wrote it             was a sink.              The differences in the answers given by the eighth and ninth graders were not             significant in any way. It was only with the fourth picture – the Rudice sink – that             the pupils who had visited the place as part of their outdoor education remembered             the exact phenomenon better (see table 20 for details).              TABLE 20             THE DECISION  OF PUPILS  OF  GRADES 8  AND 9 REGARDING  WHETHER THE KARST             PHENOMENON IS IN THE PICTURE OR NOT                       The picture is a karst phenomenon   The picture is a karst phenomenon                      (a rock wall)                 (a sinkhole)                      correct   wrong     unanswered  correct  wrong    unanswered              Grade 8  11       3         0         6         7         1               Grade 9  14       3         0         7         10        0                      The picture is not a karst phenomenon   The picture is a karst phenomenon                      (sandstone cliffs)            (a sink)                      correct   wrong     unanswered  correct  wrong    unanswered              Grade 8  8        4         2         13        0         1              Grade 9  10       7         0         15        2         0              Source: questionnaire survey with pupils of the model school.                                                      148","The next question was again identical for both grades 8 and 9, revolving around the             origins of the names of the places the eighth graders went to see during the expedition.                                                      35             The names of the towns were Jedovnice and Rudice . The eighth graders acquired the             information during their expedition; the ninth graders could only guess, presuming             they did not know the answer from sources other than the expedition. Only six of             the 14 eighth graders managed to get the answer right (association with “poison”),             and among the ninth graders, only seven came up with the correct answer. However,             for Rudice, all eighth graders and 12 of the 17 ninth graders managed to answer             the question correctly; three other pupils indicated a wrong answer and the two             remaining pupils did not come up with any answer at all.             The eighth graders who had undergone the Jedovnice – Rudice expedition were             asked to draw on a map the route they had taken as part of the expedition. None of             the 14 pupils managed to draw the correct route. Six pupils managed to get the route at             least partially right, and the same number of them drew an incorrect route; two pupils             drew nothing – see figure 34. Each of the six pupils who managed to plot at least parts             of the route correctly got a mark 1  in geography at half-year; as part of their open                                         36             answers two of them wrote that they learnt to work with a map during the expedition.             The next map question involved plotting the point at which water enters the karst             underground – namely, the Rudice sink hole already referred to above, which the             eighth graders went to see as part of their expeditions. Among the eighth and ninth             graders, two pupils per grade managed to plot the correct point. Two eighth graders             and five ninth graders remained within the 1km tolerance. Paradoxically, the eighth             graders who completed the expedition were more likely not to plot any point on             the map, but, with only one exception, these were the pupils who were all unable to             plot the route in the previous question.                                  35      Jed = poison, ruda = ore.             36      Marks in Czech schools are 1 to 5, where 1 is the best mark, 5 the worst.                                                149","Grade 8                  Grade 9                     0%   10%   20%   30%   40%   50%  60%   70%   80%   90%  100%                          correct plotting  less than 1 km  1–2 km  3–5 km  not plotted             FIGURE 34. THE ACCURACY OF THE RUDICE SINK PLOTTING ON THE MAP BY GRADE 8             AND 9 PUPILS.             Source: questionnaire survey with pupils of the model school.              In the next open question, the pupils were asked to indicate what the point where             water enters the karst underground is called. It should be noted that the word was             indicated in the picture on which the pupils were asked to identify whether or not the             formation pictured was a karst phenomenon. Interestingly, two pupils who previously             could not name what they saw in the picture managed to indicate the name of the             place here. On the other hand, two other pupils who got the previous picture right             could not provide the correct answer here. Overall, eight eighth graders provided             the correct name of the place, while the rest did not indicate an answer. Out of the             ninth graders, only six managed to come up with the correct answer. Only one of             them provided the correct term although he did not manage to answer the question             relating to the previous picture correctly. The other seven pupils provided the wrong             answer, and the remaining four pupils did not provide any answer at all. Therefore,             this question once again reveals the recurring trend where the eighth graders who             had visited the very place remembered its name better, but they were not able to             plot its location on the map with more accuracy than their fellow pupils who had not             been to the place.             In the final open-ended question, the pupils were asked to say what they liked or             disliked about outdoor education (the expedition). Here, the pupils had the chance             to write freely. Some pupils gave multiple answers. The answers were categorised.             The categories of which there were three and more were evaluated (see the following             figure). The most frequent answer with regard to what pupils liked about outdoor             education was that they did not have to sit on chairs but got to go out (19 answers             in total in both grades). Eight pupils wrote that they found outdoor education             entertaining because it gives them an opportunity to communicate with their peers             more and because they learn more when they see the things live. The pupils also             appreciate that the lessons are more relaxed, that they acquire new experience or             that they enjoy working with the map – see figure 35.                                                150","Grade 8               Grade 9                    0%    10%  20%   30%   40%   50%  60%   70%   80%   90%  100%                                 fun, more relaxed lessons                                 communication, collaboration with classmates, teamwork                                 learn more, see things alive                                 learn new things about nature, get to know new places                                 do not sit at desks, learn outdoors                                 other             FIGURE 35. WHAT PUPILS OF THE GRADE 8 AND 9 ENJOY MOST DURING OUTDOOR EDUCATION.             Source: questionnaire survey with pupils of the model school.              In the same question, the pupils could say what, on the contrary, they disliked             about outdoor education. There were eight negative answers in total, three of them             claiming that the pupils did not like doing the tasks, one pupil wrote that they did             not like outdoor education when the weather is bad, one did not like working with             the GPS device, when the subject matter was too detailed and another one did not             like long walks and insects.                5.4      OUTDOOR EDUCATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE                    OF PARENTS              The parents of pupils attending the model school were given questionnaires to             assess the benefits the outdoor education event had brought to their children.             The survey showed how the parents (n = 114) viewed the effects outdoor education             had on their children. According to the parents, 83% of the children look forward             to outdoor education more than toward the traditional classroom-based tuition,             and 12% regard this type of tuition as identical to classroom-based lessons. 6% of the             parents surveyed were unable to assess the impacts outdoor education has on their             children. When asked whether they felt they were restricted in any way while planning             or organising an outdoor education event for their children, a total of 95% of the             parents responded that they were not restricted by anything, while six parents (5%)             considered the financial burden a possible restriction. The parents’ additional answers             referred to the benefits rather than the barriers of outdoor education: “more variety             in teaching”, “connecting theory and practice”, ”communication and cooperation”,             ”getting to know the countryside and places where they live”, etc.             The survey also sought to ascertain how often the parents go out to the countryside             with their children – see figure 36 for the results.                                                151","70               Number of occurrences  60                   50                  40                  30                 20                  10                   0                    very often (more than  often     occasionally     rarely                       once a week)   (once a week)  (once a month)               FIGURE 36. FREQUENCY OF PARENTING IN THE COUNTRYSIDEWITH CHILDREN.             Source: questionnaire with pupils’ parents of model elementary school.              More than half of the respondents (63 parents; 55.3%) answered that they take their             children to the countryside at least once a week. 30 parents (26.3%) only take             their children to nature once a month. Conversely, 19 (16.7%) of the parents take their             children to the countryside very often (more than once a week). Here, the location of             the school has to be considered: the model school is located in a small municipality             (with about 500 inhabitants) and receives pupils from the surrounding municipalities.             This implies that the parents do not have to travel far with their children to go to the             countryside, and therefore may be expected to take more frequent trips.             Relating the parents’ view of the benefits outdoor education may provide and the             frequency of the parents setting out to the countryside with their children, we can             assume that, if the parents take their children to the countryside more often, they             will regard outdoor education as more beneficial. The calculations  have shown                                                                     37             that those parents who take their children to the countryside less often tend to see             lower benefits for development in the given areas. However, the results are not             significant, the calculations were conducted on a small sample; if the sample were             more representative, it could turn out that the differences between the groups are             and will be significant, and we could then assume that the more often the parents             take their children to the the countryside, the greater benefits they see in individual             areas of development (knowledge, skills, attitudes and interpersonal relationships).                37      Kruskal Wallis test, p = 0.30.                                                152","Furthermore, the survey confirmed that the parents (95% of respondents) almost             unequivocally believe that outdoor education contributes to the increased physical             activity of children. The free answers of parents confirm this result. The importance of             outdoor education in connection with movement is seen in the fact that the children             “do not sit at the computer and on the Internet”, “are in the countrysideand fresh             air”, “walking is people’s natural and basic movement; schooling not only reduces it             but also replaces it with sitting down and fresh air”, or “children have little exercise             except for physical education, they sit with computers and their mobiles”.              5.5    TRIANGULATION OF RESULTS               5.5.1      COMPARING THE SEPS CONTENT ANALYSIS TO THE OUTCOMES                    OF INTERVIEWS WITH TEACHERS              An analysis of 50 SEPs showed that individual SEPs differed not only in the quality             of their content but also in the various types of outdoor education activities they             incorporated. While some SEPs contain a detailed account of the subject matter             including outdoor education, in essence others only serve as a mandatory document             each school is obliged to elaborate. In general, however, SEPs represent a document             entrenching the competencies related to individual subjects rather than describing             their content. The latter tends to be elaborated upon in each school’s annual             thematic plan.              Most SEPs speak of outdoor education in the introductory description of individual             subjects taught – explaining in specific terms that the tuition takes place outdoors,             in the countryside, at a traffic playground, employs museum tours and exhibitions,             excursions,  etc.  More  details  on  how  outdoor  education  is  incorporated into             the  subject  are  mostly  lacking.  If  the  method  of  incorporation  is  referenced,             the specific suggestions especially have to be looked for under links to the given             subject. At the lower elementary school stage this is under links to the People             and Their World and People and Health educational areas and at the upper elementary             school stage in the People and Nature educational area, where especially biology             and geography are represented.              Another important fact in terms of outdoor education is that for a number of             the expected outcomes and subject matter, it is impossible to ascertain in any             accurate terms whether or not outdoor education is actually implemented (and to             what extent), simply on the basis of an analysis of the SEP. The indicated activities             may be executed both in the classroom and outside.                                                     153","For some educational areas of the subject matter in geography and physical education,             however, specific subject matters and expected outcomes which expressly have to             be realised outside of school do appear in the FEP. However, the SEPs analysed             often fail to specify in greater detail any form of outdoor education for this subject             matter or the expected outcomes. Therefore, it can be assumed that the school             implements some form of outdoor education. More details are missing for certain             forms of outdoor education, especially for excursions, museum tours, etc. – where             the excursion should be, what subject matter it covers, in what grade it should be             undertaken, and, most importantly, what role the pupil and the teacher should play in             it and what objectives it should cover. Also, the SEPs analysed do not reveal the inter-             disciplinarity of outdoor education. An integrated concept of outdoor education             is primarily foreseen in projects (such as the Day of the Earth, Water Day, Day of             the Environment, Day Without Cars…), which the SEPs, unlike the schools’ websites,             do not mention. Many school websites (news sections, projects, teachers’ materials)             often show that the incorporation of outdoor education may be significantly higher             than the SEP implies.              Outdoor education is often extensively represented even in subjects where this is             not primarily anticipated, such as in mathematics, in order to render the subjects             more practice-oriented. However, whether the pupils actually go outdoors as part             of their maths classes cannot be ascertained from the SEP. Some tuition forms are             also present in optional subjects (ecology seminars, etc.), the preparatory class or             the school club.              More detailed information on the forms of outdoor education implemented was             only obtained upon conducting interviews with teachers, which, however, revealed,             as implied by the previous content analysis of the SEPs that most schools had not             put in place an actual concept of outdoor education, and the SEP only provided             the already established medium- to long-term forms of outdoor education.              5.5.2      COMPARING THE TEACHERS’, PUPILS’ AND PARENTS’ VIEWS OF                    OUTDOOR EDUCATION              The teacher              Nine lower stage elementary school teachers and ten upper stage elementary school             teachers were asked the following question: “What, in your opinion, is the biggest             benefit of outdoor education for pupils?” The teachers were asked about specific             categories, whether the pupils develop in terms of knowledge, skills, attitudes,             interpersonal relationships or other areas. The evaluation was assessed on a scale             from 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 the highest score. Nine (out of 19) teachers             rated all of the sub-categories. In other cases, they only commented on some of             the categories or did not provide a score, only a verbal comment.                                                 154","TABLE 21             BENEFITS OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION THROUGH TEACHERS’ VIEW                                                    Weighted arithmetic mean                                                    lower stage   upper stage  lower and                                                                        upper stage              Developing pupils´ knowledge          4.00      3.75      3.89              Developing pupils´ skills             4.60      3.83      4.21              Developing pupils´ attitudes (towards nature/region/  3.67  3.67  3.67              subject)              Developing pupils´ interpersonal relationships (pupil–  4.33  3.66  3.99              pupil, pupil–teacher…)              Average value of the outdoor education benefits – total  4.15  3.73  3.94              Source: interview with elementary school teachers, n = 19.              The question was evaluated (see Table 21) using weighted arithmetic mean calculated             for each category out of the total number of responses for that category according             to the following formula:                  where individual values are marked as x , x  to x , k is the number of different value                                                    k                                                2                                             1             variants of each feature, and the frequencies of occurrence of the individual values             (weighing) are marked as n , n  to n .                                   1  2   k             Lower elementary school teachers have identified the following benefits of outdoor             education. In their view, pupils undergo the most significant development in the area             of skills (4.60 points out of a maximum of 5.00 points), followed by interpersonal             relationships (4.33 points), knowledge (4.00 points) and attitudes (3.67 points). At the             upper elementary school stage teachers again assign the greatest significance to             skills (3.83 points) and knowledge development (3.75), followed by developments in             attitudes (3.67 points) and interpersonal relations (3.66 points).              In the last category, the teachers could add their own area of development. These             included the categories of exercise (three cases) and individual cases of arousing             interest, relaxation, change, and health.              A comparatively significant difference was observed in perceptions of the benefits             of outdoor education in individual categories between lower and upper elementary             school teachers. Lower elementary school teachers perceive the benefits of outdoor             education much more intensively in all areas than upper elementary school teachers.             The reason may be found in the additional parts of the conducted interviews – lower                                                155","elementary school teachers each teach an entire school day (year), and thus have             much more time for implementing outdoor education – they can dedicate a whole             day to it, combining schoolwork in a single integrated block. A fatal barrier at             upper elementary schools appears to be the lack of time for implementing outdoor             education during the school year. The rapid alternation of short teaching units only             allows for conceiving short-term and medium-term forms of outdoor education,             and only if many demanding conditions are met (swapping classes with a colleague,             swapping break supervision with a colleague, administration of said changes,             resistance from the management, clashes of opinion with parents, etc.). The frequent             “lack of anchoring” of outdoor education in reporting the teachers’ work amounts             to a significant problem. Some teachers have confessed they face difficulties having             outdoor education recognised as full-fledged lessons and have to replace the lessons             spent outdoors with unpaid substitute lessons. This is massively discouraging and has             a fatal impact on the advancement of outdoor education at schools. Teachers at lower             elementary schools welcome the freedom of teaching, where they are their “own             masters”. They can organise their own teaching to meet their ideas, making flexible             use of seasonal phenomena or good weather.              The pupils              Next, the views of the pupils of grades 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the model school were             surveyed. The grade selection was intentional – grade 5 is the last lower elementary             school grade where all teaching is conducted by a single teacher. It was the difference             between grades 5 and 6 that was surveyed in the first place; in grade 6, pupils begin             the upper elementary school stage and the tuition system changes, with individual             subjects being taught by different teachers. The intentional grade selection was also             related to the day-long outdoor education organised, referred to as “expedition”,             which grades 5 and 8 completed just before taking the questionnaire survey, unlike             the grade 6 and 9 pupils, who did so with a delay of one year. Grade 9 was tested as             it is the last year at a school characterised by strong dedication to intensive outdoor             education across the entire nine-year school attendance cycle.              The first of the questions below sought to establish how pupils view outdoor education.             The question was semi-closed, with four options, and allowed a free answer for the             last option. There was also the option to choose more than one answer; 22 of the 61             pupils made use of this, resulting in a total of 88 answers. However, the difference in             how outdoor education is viewed between the two grades is relatively large – results             are presented in the figure 37.              A total of 40 pupils (45.5% of all answers) marked the option “opportunity to learn             something new (working with GPS, information from the educational boards etc.)”,             with this option most often chosen by the grade 5 pupils (54.5%) and least often by             the grade 8 pupils (33.3%). For the grade eight pupils, the outdoor education mostly                                                 156","amounted to “a couple of hours I spent outside”. The option was marked by 42.9%             of the pupils. The eighth graders’ responses significantly coincided with a portion of             the teachers’ statements obtained from the interviews, namely that the pupils often             view outdoor education as a “tuition-free day, a trip” with no educational content.             22 pupils (25.0%) saw outdoor education as a “complement to normal tuition, where             I can practise what I’ve learnt at school (working with maps, etc.)”. In a comparison             between individual classes, the sixth and ninth graders were more likely to come             up with this option. A different response was provided by a total of six pupils, who             mentioned the following statements: “being with friends, feeling relaxed”, “a fun form             of learning”, “fun with friends”, “more like going on a trip and learning something             there”, or “not stuck in school, going out instead”.                                                                               %                                           0,0        20,0       40,0        60,0                            a few hours I spent outside                supplementing of teaching when I practise              what I learned at school (working with a map                           etc.)                 an opportunity to learn something new                 (orientation with GPS, information from                      educational boards etc.)                                   other answer                                                  Grade 5  Grade 6  Grade 8  Grade 9              FIGURE 37. THE PERCEPTION OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION BY PUPILS OF THE GRADE 5, 6, 8 AND 9             OF THE MODEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.             Source: questionnaire survey with pupils.               Similarly to the teachers’ attitudes, the attitudes of the grade 5, 6, 8 and 9 pupils             at the model school were recorded using a 5-stage scale. Similarly to the teachers’             responses, individual assessments were used to calculate the weighted arithmetic             mean value (with the weighting having been specified as follows: 5 for “agree”, 4 for             “somewhat agree”, 3 for “neither agree nor disagree”, 2 for “somewhat disagree”,             1 for “disagree”). For an overview of the pupils’ other views of outdoor education see             the summary in Table 22.                                                   157","TABLE 22             ATTITUDES TO OUTDOOR EDUCATION OF PUPILS AT GRADES 5, 6, 8 AND 9 OF THE MODEL             ELEMENTARY SCHOOL                                     Outdoor education is   During the expedition,   I would like more                                    more interesting to   I learned more than in   outdoor education                     I enjoy outdoor   me than education   the class (knowledge,   during the school                     education      in  the class   skills)        year              Grade 5  4.75         4.50            4.13           4.50              Grade 6  4.50         4.75            4.25           4.75              Grade 8  4.38         4.63            3.25           4.25              Grade 9  4.50         4.50            3.38           4.25              Total  4.50           4.63            3.75           4.50             Source: questionnaire survey with pupils.               Outdoor education seems to have been entertaining for all pupils of all grades, except             for one pupil. The “agree” option was chosen by an overwhelming 67.2% of pupils,             while 31.1% answered “somewhat agree”. The weighted arithmetic mean of all pupils’             answers for all grades was 4.5 out of the maximum possible value of 5.00. The highest             value of the weighted arithmetic mean was calculated for grade 5, namely 4.75.              Numbers/ratios similar to those recorded for the previous question were obtained in             response to the question as to whether learning outdoors, outside the classroom, is             more interesting to the pupils than learning at school. Only one grade 5 pupil provided             a negative answer, and another two grade 5 pupils chose the “somewhat disagree”             option. The same option was chosen by one grade 9 pupil. Overall, however, the pupils’             relationship to outdoor education appears to be positive – 72.1% of the pupils             responded “agree”, and the weighted average of all pupils’ answers was 4.63.             The pupils also feel that they learn more outdoors, outside the classroom, than they             learn at school. This view prevails among the grade 6 pupils (100% of the pupils chose             the “agree” or “somewhat agree” option); the fifth graders subscribe to this point of             view – with 73.9% indicating one of these two options. Conversely, the eighth graders             who completed the outdoor education event just a few days before the survey viewed             outdoor education less favourably (64.3%, the cold and windy weather may have             been a factor), while for the ninth graders, who did not undergo the expedition at all             before the survey, the percentage of pupils subscribing to this view was even lower             (56.3%). Overall, however, the predominant view for all grades is that pupils learn             more outside than in a traditional classroom setting – out of 61 of the pupils surveyed,             22 chose the “agree” option (36.1%), and 21 chose the “somewhat agree” option             (34.4%). Therefore, globally speaking, 43 out of 61 pupils (70.5%) have a positive             attitude towards outdoor education. The weighted arithmetic mean for all pupils of             all grades was only 3.75.                                                 158","When asked whether they wanted to see outdoor education included more frequently             during the school year, the pupils expressed an even keener relationship to this form             of teaching, despite the fact that in their answer to the question some pupils said             the learning process was not more efficient than in the classroom setting. What they             liked about learning outdoors was that they do not have to sit in the classroom as             they do during traditional (usually frontal) lessons. Six pupils “somewhat agreed”, one             for each of the grades 5 and 6, and two for each of the grades 8 and 9. The answer             “disagree” was not given in any case. The weighted arithmetic mean out of all             responses was 4.50.              The parents              Similarly to the teachers’ survey (see Table 21), the parents were asked to identify             what they thought the most significant benefit of outdoor education was (see             Table 23). The evaluation was again on a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest             and 5 being the highest score.             TABLE 23             BENEFITS OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION THROUGH PARENTS’ VIEW                                                                     Average              Developing pupils´ knowledge                          3.93              Developing pupils´ skills                             4.05               Developing pupils´ attitudes (towards nature/region/subject)  4.37              Developing pupils´ interpersonal relationships (pupil–pupil, pupil–teacher)  4.13              Average value of the outdoor education benefits – total  4.12             Source: questionnaire survey with pupils’ parents of model elementary school, n = 114.               The results showed that the greatest benefit of outdoor education as perceived             by the parents concerned pupil development in the area of attitudes (4.37 points),             followed by the development of interpersonal relationships (4.13 points) and skills,             while parents attributed the least importance (3.93 points) to pupil development             in the area of knowledge. When comparing the teachers’ and the parents’ views of             pupil development in the given areas (see Table 21 and Table 23), the parents saw             a greater benefit of outdoor education in all the areas of their children’s development             except for skills. The parents believe that the greatest benefit of outdoor education             is in the area of attitudes and interpersonal relationships. This result confirms, for             example, the research by Ford (1986) in that parents consider outdoor education             a type of recreation for their children rather than learning; they do not have a clear             idea that outdoor education can bring specific knowledge or skills as well. Conversely,                                                 159","teachers (see Table 21) see the greatest benefit of outdoor education in the area of             skills, because they are aware of the fact that specific skills cannot be obtained in any             other way than by illustrative teaching outdoors.              If we compare the results of the sequentially performed analyses, then the overall             result is the following:                     –    SEP content ≠ conception of outdoor education realised by teachers –                     SEP is mostly the document where not all forms of outdoor education are                     specified and if they are, not in detail (why, where, how long...). Usually,                     only the medium- and long-term forms of outdoor education which are                     repeated each school year are mentioned, while the short-term forms are                     not ordered conceptually. SEP is often some years old and cannot reflect                     the actual activities realised by teachers during the school year.                     –    Teacher´s  view  ≠  pupils´s  view  on  outdoor  education – teachers                     appreciate the pupil´s skills development while pupils report that outdoor                     education is interesting, but from all of the assessed areas, knowledge and                     skills are the least important for them.                    –    Teacher´s view ≠ parent´s view on outdoor education – teachers appreciate                     the  pupil´s  skills  development  while  the  parents  are  most  aware  of                     the pupil´s attitudes development.               5.6     BENEFITS OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION FOR THE                    DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUPILS’ PHYSICAL ACTIVITY               The recommended daily amount of received and spent energy naturally differs for             individual children. It depends on the age and gender of the child, physical activity,             health condition and the current stage of growth. Older children need more energy             and children who do sports regularly have a higher need of energy. A sporting             adolescent may need more energy than the parent with a sedentary job and passive             leisure activities.              Table 24 (according to the Dietary Guidelines 2015–2020) specifies the amount of             energy that the children should receive on average – girls and boys from 9 to 11 years             of age – which corresponds to the researched grade 5 pupils, and from 13 to 14 years             of age, which corresponds to the grade 8 pupils. The data from the ActiGraph             accelerometer captures the expenditure for energy. However, no information on             the average daily recommended energy expenditure of younger schoolchildren             was found because it is based on lifestyle (see above). For the subsequent analyses,             however, it is necessary to consider that the consumption of energy must be higher             than the expenditure (to ensure correct development of the organs and growth of             the child’s body).                                                160","TABLE 24             AVERAGE ESTIMATED CALORIES NEED PER DAY, BY AGE, SEX, AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY             LEVEL FOR PUPILS OF GRADE 5 (AGE 9–11 IN THE MODEL SCHOOL) AND GRADE 8 (AGE 13–14             IN THE MODEL SCHOOL)                                          Sedentary    Moderately active  Active              Grage / age  Gender        [a]          [b]           [c]                           Male          1667         1867          2133              Grade 5      Female        1467         1733          1933              Age 9–11                           Average       1567         1800          2033                           Male          2000         2300          2700              Grade 8      Female        1700         2000          2300              Age 13–14                           Average       1850         2150          2500             Source: Dietary Guidelines 2015–2020, own calculations.             [a] Sedentary means a lifestyle that includes only the physical activity of independent living.             [b] Moderately active means a lifestyle that includes physical activity equivalent to walking about 1.5 to             3 miles per day at 3 to 4 miles per hour, in addition to the activities of independent living.             [c] Active means a lifestyle that includes physical activity equivalent to walking more than 3 miles per day             at 3 to 4 miles per hour, in addition to the activities of independent living.              In our approach to the measurement, we found inspiration in a paper by Steele,             van Sluijs et al. (2009) who used the ActiGraph instrument when investigating             patterns of the children’s sedentary and vigorous physical activities throughout the             week and Fairclough, Beighle, Erwin and Ridgers (2012), who measured the patterns             of physical activity of variously active pupils during the school day.              The  results  of  the  measurements  of  the  grade  5  pupils’  physical  activity  by             the ActiGraph device (Table 25) show that on a standard teaching day without PE             (4 lessons), the average value of consumed energy is 23.806 kcal. On a teaching             day with PE, the average value of consumed energy is 57.227 kcal. During outdoor             education at the same time as classroom education, the average consumed energy             is 189.334 kcal, i.e. three times higher than a school day with PE and eight times             higher than without PE. Of course, the values of the boys and girls differed. Outdoor             education can thus very significantly contribute to the pupils’ consumption of energy.                                                             161","TABLE 25             THE AMOUNT OF CONSUMED ENERGY (KCAL) OF GRADE 5 PUPILS DURING FOUR LESSONS             OF VARIOUS TYPES OF EDUCATION                             Weight status   Education               Outdoor              Student (sex)                            Education with PE                            (see Table 18)  without PE              education              student 1 (M)  slim        27.117        41.711       157.456              student 2 (M)  proportional  22.965      84.447       266.275              student 3 (M)  proportional  21.045      32.856       136.660               student 4 (M)*  proportional  11.286     23.270       41.431              student 5 (M)  overweight  33.074        70.778       235.441              student 6 (F)  proportional  18.550      40.640       151.332              student 7 (F)  obese       11.100        74.025       199.620              student 8 (F)  proportional  41.116      82.842       199.511              student 9 (F)  prop./at risk  20.676     38.221       134.540              student 10 (F)  at risk    31.127        83.475       371.074               Average – male     –       23.097        50.612       167.453              Average – female   –       24.514        63.841       211.215              Average            –       23.806        57.227       189.334             Source: ActiGraph measurement, own calculations.             * The lower values of student 4 can be partly explained by incorrect measurement by the ActiGraph – for             details see limitations of the research.              The  results  of  the  grade  8  pupils’  measurements  (Table  26)  show  in  all  cases             a higher contribution to the daily consumption of calories than the grade 5 pupils.             The differences between the classes are given mainly by different activities of the             pupils during the individual types of lessons and individual biometric characteristics             of the pupils in grade 5 and 8.              On a typical school day without PE, the average value of consumed energy is 53.367             kcal. On a school day with PE, the average value of consumed energy is 110.588 kcal.             During outdoor education that took the same time unit (i.e. four hours) as classroom             education, the average consumed energy is 277.669 kcal, i.e. 2.5 times higher than             the school day with PE and 5 times higher than without PE.                                                     162","TABLE 26             THE AMOUNT OF CONSUMED ENERGY (KCAL) OF GRADE 8 PUPILS DURING FOUR LESSONS             OF VARIOUS TYPES OF EDUCATION                            Weight status  Education                 Outdoor              Student (sex)  (see Table 18)  without PE  Education with PE  education              student 1 (F)  proportional  47.940      130.320      403.870              student 2 (F)  proportional  70.971      71.878       241.360              student 3 (F)  proportional  30.303      49.188       205.811              student 4 (F)  slim        38.882        95.946       191.747              student 5 (F)  at risk     54.337        176.880      302.487              student 6 (F)  proportional  44.347      61.424       291.894               student 7 (M)  overweight  77.686        205.830      362.866              student 8 (F)  proportional  53.025      95.306       233.740              student 9 (F)  at risk     57.785        89.396       319.096              student 10 (F)  proportional  58.389     129.710      223.820              Average – male     –       77.686        205.830      362.866              Average – female   –       50.664        100.005      268.203              Average            –       53.367        110.588      277.669             Source: ActiGraph measurement, own calculations.               Accelerometers have also been used to determine the amount of time that children             spend in a sedentary way, again during different types of education.              It was proved that grade 5 and 8 pupils spend a school day without PE or outdoor             education mostly (more than 80% of the time) in a sedentary position – see Figure 38             and 39. They spend about 20% of the time doing light or moderate physical activity,             which roughly corresponds to the break periods when the pupils can move freely             (in total, 40 minutes out of the measured 240 minutes). On a school day with PE,             there is a higher proportion of time when the pupils have moderate physical activity             – approx. 15–20%. The share of light physical activity is similar to the day without PE,             i.e. approx. 10%. Compared with the school day without PE, the share of vigorous             physical activity is higher (approx. 3–5%).              A day of outdoor education has a very different proportion of various types of physical             activity. Although the sedentary type of activity still prevails in grade 8, in grade 5 it             is different – the moderate type of activity prevails. The vigorous type of activity is             represented by approx. 15% in both researched grades.                                                 163","Education without PE                   Education with PE                  Outdoor education                                0%      20%      40%      60%      80%      100%                        Sedentary  Light  Moderate   Vigorous   Very Vigorous              FIGURE 38. THE PORTION OF TIME SPENT ON DIFFERENT KINDS OF ACTIVITY FOR TEN PUPILS             OF GRADE 5 DURING FOUR LESSONS OF VARIOUS TYPES OF EDUCATION.             Source: ActiGraph measurement, own calculations.                  Education without PE                   Education with PE                  Outdoor education                                0%      20%      40%      60%      80%      100%                        Sedentary  Light  Moderate   Vigorous   Very Vigorous               FIGURE 39. THE PORTION OF TIME SPENT ON DIFFERENT KINDS OF ACTIVITY FOR TEN PUPILS             OF GRADE 8 DURING FOUR LESSONS OF VARIOUS TYPES OF EDUCATION             Source: ActiGraph measurement, own calculations              In general, the benefit of outdoor education as regards its contribution to daily             processing of calories and the sedentary analysis can be evaluated as more positive             than the habitual classes. If we compare one lesson of outdoor education with one             lesson of PE (see table 27), then the grade 8 pupils used up 48.16 kcal on average             during one PE lesson and 107.29 kcal during outdoor education; the grade 5 pupils             burned up 30.79 kcal during one PE lesson and 39.10 kcal during one lesson of outdoor             education. This information suggests that one lesson of outdoor education can have                                                 164","a slightly higher contribution to the pupils’ physical activity than a PE lesson. This can             be caused by specific conditions during particular lessons. In both cases of outdoor             learning, pupils had to be active (physically) during the whole session of a measured             period because they had to walk, observe, measure, etc. all the time. Although during             the PE lesson in grade 8 pupils played volleyball (and ran for their warm-up), there             were sometimes where the physical activity was lower (e.g. when active children             are performing an excellent game, while the less active ones are nearly standing still             and waiting). Of course, this can vary depending on the given sport and children’s             attitude to sport activities.              TABLE 27             COMPARISON OF ENERGY (KCAL) USED UP BY TEN 5TH GRADE PUPILS AND TEN 8TH GRADE             PUPILS DURING A LESSON OF PE AND OUTDOOR EDUCATION              Type of education          Grade 5    Grade 8              1 PE lesson – average      30.79      48.16              1 outdoor education lesson – average  39.10  107.29             Source: ActiGraph measurement, own calculations.                                                                                     165","","6                                            DISCUSSION                                     A child, more than anyone else, is a spontaneous observer of nature.                                                                   Maria Montessori                Limitations of research               Limitations of the research could be seen in three key aspects connected to the group             of elementary school pupils.              The first aspect is the limited sample of elementary school pupils with whom             the questionnaire survey and measurement of physical activity was undertaken             during their tuition. The number of pupils for the questionnaire school was limited by             the number of pupils at the model elementary school which was willing to cooperate.             The physical activity measurement was limited by the number of available ActiGraph             accelerometers.              The undisputed advantage of ActiGraph devices is to easily handle the devices,             including their settings, before measuring and downloading data after measurement.             However, a large number of inappropriately measured values can be considered             a second major problem when measuring the physical activity of elementary school             pupils. Despite the successful implementation of the  pilot measurement with             grammar school students where the proportion of ineligible values was relatively             low – 18.7%, or 7.0% when taking out one pupil with 76.9% inaccurate data, there was             another problem with pupils in elementary school when securing the chest straps,             which were too long for pupils of grades 5 and 6. Despite their operational shortening             (less than the shortest possible length), this problem is probably the cause of the             lower data representativity – 75.0% of the measured data. In general, the chest strap             is uncomfortable for younger children and can be replaced by more modern sensors             with a wrist pulse metre. The problem in replacing older devices with new ones,             however, is the very high cost of ActiGraph accelerometers.              Because of the high proportion of inaccurate data, it would be appropriate to repeat             the measurement of physical activity with the same sample of pupils. However,             this is not possible because it is not possible to include a similar form of outdoor                                                167","education for identical pupils in a limited period of research. That is why the available             measured data were used, and the measurement can be considered another pilot             measuring the pupils’ physical activity during the education process in the Czech             Republic. The author is aware that it will be necessary to collect more representative             data for deeper analysis.              Comparison with other research              It is difficult to assess the anchoring of outdoor education in curricular documents in             various education systems of different countries. An attempt to evaluate the anchoring             of outdoor education in Czechia, Slovenia and Denmark was conducted by Vlček et al.             (2016). Comparison with other countries has not yet been dealt with, but it is clear             from a number of papers that some countries implement outdoor school education             more often than in Czechia (see Becker, Humberstone, \& Schirp, 2018, for Great             Britain; Karppinen, 2012, for Finland; Gray \& Martin, 2012, for Australia; or Chuan             \& Poh, 2000, for Southeast Asia) and consider it an integral and irreplaceable part of             the school curriculum. The vague way of anchoring outdoor education in the Czech             curriculum is also reflected in the inconsistency of its definition and understanding             of the forms of outdoor education that, in addition, in Czechia, by their goals and             obsessions often do not correspond to the modem concept of outdoor education             (in Czechia a walk and excursion are the most commonly used forms of outdoor             education whereas in foreign curricula the dominant form is inquiry-based outdoor             education).              Also, some foreign authors mention the problem of the descriptiveness of fieldwork/             outdoor education (Philipsen \& Carbaugh, 1986). This is one of the criticised aspects             of outdoor education. Cook, Phillips and Holden (2006) add that the difference             between “field-work” and a “field-trip” have to be highlighted as a trip is just             a passive way of learning or “academic tourism”. That is also why we tried to explain             the differences between different forms of outdoor education. Unfortunately, while             in foreign countries this explanation went through 80s a90s of the 20th century, in the             Czech Republic it is at the beginning. Meanwhile, in progressive countries, outdoor             education is much further. Nowadays, it is focused on experiential outdoor education             which uses all senses of pupils (Howden, 2012; Martin \& Franc, 2017; Priest, 1986;             Roberts, 2012).             It is clear from the above that the current Czech curriculum reform has not met with             full understanding on the part of the teachers who, with the freedom the FEP gives             them, cannot cope with it. They continuously build upon long-outdated concepts of             (outdoor) education. For the creation of SEP, teachers were supposed to become full             co-authors of the school curriculum and to work together more closely in its design,             which should be reflected especially in the development of the modern concept             of outdoor education.                                                 168","However, it is clear from the SEP analysis that this did not happen in the case of             the most studied schools. This cannot be inferred from teachers’ lack of interest,             but rather that teachers do not have enough time and space to create a new             and progressive curriculum, including the modern concept of outdoor education,             which in many countries is the result of the work of ministries, national councils,             research institutes or other bodies (US, UK, Germany and others), not teachers.             But not in all countries. Authors from Singapore (Chang \& Ooi, 2008) argue that it             is not very clear how the actual fieldwork fits into the overall geography curriculum.             The place of outdoor education in the curriculum as whole or individual disciplines is             discussed in many studies (Hungerford, Peyton, \& Wilke, 1980; Lugg, 1998; Boyes,             2000). These studies serve as an example for the Czech curriculum.             The inclusion of outdoor education in the curriculum is based on the many positive             effects of outdoor education. Some authors, however, point to the negative aspects             of outdoor education or states like Hoffmann and Fetter (1975) that they did not find             considerable differences in learning between fieldwork and classwork, but found that             field-educated students were generally more motivated.              Some other authors are even criticising some aspects of outdoor education. All of             them claim that geography outdoor education is important, on the other hand, they             criticise some controversial aspects. One of the problems is a lack of confidence in             the analysis of and conclusions drawn from field data. This sentiment hinges on their             belief that the undisciplined procedures of fieldwork enable researchers, to a higher             degree than practitioners of other methodologies, to influence the very situations             they are studying, thereby flagrantly violating the canons of scientific objectivity             (Shaffir \& Stebbins, 2003, p. 10). Cicourel (1964, p. 39) comment this as following:             “Researchers in the social sciences are faced with a unique methodological problem:             the very conditions of their research constitute an important complex variable for             what passes as the findings of their investigations. (...) The activities of the investigator             play a crucial role in the data obtained.”              We are aware that outdoor education research has many pitfalls. Therefore, we             analysed 50 school educational programmes and verified the results of content             analysis by opinions of teachers to eliminate obtaining inappropriate data. Then             we investigated the situation at one model school, however in different grades,             to check the results. The pupils at this school are influenced by the positive attitude             of the school and their teachers to outdoor education. The situation at other schools             with other teachers could be completely different. We hope that our research could be             a valuable contribution to the discussion about the benefits of outdoor education.              A completely new attitude to the benefits of outdoor education in the Czech Republic             was the measurement of the physical activity of pupils during different types of             education. The theme of the development of pupils’ physical activity will undoubtedly                                                 169","become important in the future due to the increasing incidence of obesity. Already             nowadays many authors in different disciplines, such as medicine, physical and health             education, psychology, sociology or geography are interested in this topic (Hills,             King, \& Armstrong, 2007; Jakšić, Petrić, Štemberger, \& Blažević, 2018; Kahn et al.,             2002). In this respect, we see high potential in obtaining more data about Czech             pupils not only to analyse the movement activity more deeply but also to promote             the importance of outdoor education. Another alarming phenomenon that speaks for             the promoting of outdoor education is that children currently spend very little time             outdoors in general (České děti venku, 2016). Therefore, outdoor education can be             a non-violent form of natural physical activity.              Recommendations for next research             A Road Map for 21st Century Geography Education (Bednarz, Heffron, \& Huynh, 2013,             p. 38) recommends “more research on how fieldwork relates to student learning is             needed” and states that “future research should examine what conditions result             in a sustainable, positive field experience that produces demonstrable inquiry             and learning”.              The project “Fieldwork as a powerful learning strategy” was one of the first extensive             pieces of research on the implementation of outdoor education in the Czech Republic.             So far, only partial studies have been produced, summed up by Činčera and Holec             (2016) in their meta-analysis. Based on the study of more than 70 mainly foreign and             several Czech studies, the authors summarise the impact of field lessons on student             knowledge, attitudes, skills, beliefs and behaviour. In all these topics, research             can continue to deepen in the Czech environment. Some initiatives have not been             captured in professional literature and are more likely to be put into practice in the             form of practical methodologies, interactive materials or seminars. 38             Even the principles of carrying out outdoor education in the educational process have             not yet been elaborated for the Czech educational system. As a result of the finding             that teachers do not often place outdoor education conceptually (for example,             without linking it to classroom lessons, with little pupil activity), a Technology Agency             of the Czech Republic project entitled TJ01000127 “Fieldwork Education System for             Elementary Schools” was developed as a follow-up project to the above Czech Science             Foundation project. The aim of the follow-up project was to develop a proposal of             outdoor education conception that would serve as a guide for teachers to prepare             for outdoor education, taking into account the subjects of People and Their World             and Geography, both in terms of process and content. Through the Conception,             the benefits of outdoor education can be taught to teachers. Then, through outdoor                 38     E.g. https://ucimesevenku.cz/, http://badatele.cz/, https://globe-czech.cz/ and others                                                170","education, the teacher can provide a pupil with a certain view of the place where             they live and the attitudes of how to behave in such a place. The pupils should carry             these aspects to the future life.             The preparation of teachers for outdoor education, including the preparation of future             teachers during university studies, is another completely unexplored topic, except for             the contribution of Svobodová and Hofmann (2018). It turns out that students often             do not consider preparation for outdoor education sufficient (from the point of view of             methodology, information on safety and possible topics for implementation), which             can later be reflected in the unconceptual implementation of outdoor education in             the school curriculum. The preparation of teachers for interdisciplinarity of outdoor             education is also insufficient. Due to the growing demands of a newly-accepted             curriculum that should not be firmly bound to the boundaries of subjects designed             according to individual disciplines, and not limiting the development of general             competencies, more attention should be paid to inter-subject links; both in terms             of theory  and practice.                    39             The challenge for the Czech education system is the effective setting up of further             teacher education (FEPW). While studying at university, the student faces multi-             layered teaching of a range of disciplines without knowing what will be useful in             practice in future. During the course of the teaching practice in school, they often find             out about the teaching knowledge and skills they lack. And they often lack the ability             to implement useful outdoor education.             In the Czech environment, the contribution of outdoor education to the development             of pupils’ physical activity is also completely neglected. The outcomes of the project             “Fieldwork as a powerful learning strategy” in this respect can be considered as             a pilot, and it would be beneficial to continue measuring the pupils’ physical activity.             Given the increase in the number of obese people in the world, we can assume that             this topic will become more and more relevant in the future. If pupils learn to go to             the countryside regularly, they can be expected to behave sensitively in it and to             enjoy staying outdoors, even in later years of their lives.             A topic for further research is the processing of video studies of outdoor education.             Video studies are commonly performed in classroom lessons. However, they have not             yet been implemented outdoors. They may have a deeper insight into the realisation             of outdoor education, whether sensory, content or movement.                    39      A number of contributions have already been published in this field, the most recent being             the publication of the authors Slavík, Janík, Najvar and Knecht (2017).                                                171","Recommendations for school practice               Recommendations  for  school  practice  were  presented  in  chapter  3.  However,             the recommendations are no use while teachers look for reasons why not to implement             outdoor education. If they try to reason why they should do it, if they start to believe             in positive contributions for their pupils and for the whole education process, only             then will outdoor education become a powerful teaching and learning strategy.             Schools should, as far as possible, allow teachers to implement outdoor education             in all its forms. A school ground that most schools have in a certain form is usually             suitable for short-term forms of outdoor education. If the school does not own a school             ground, it is possible to use nearby parks, biotopes, but also the environment of the             municipality. In this way, pupils should be allowed to explore different environments.             As long as pupils are outdoors, teachers will see that the often-mentioned security             barrier will soon be broken down. Pupils can develop a range of skills outdoors that             it is not possible to develop in class, including care for their own safety. Moreover,             they will see the world around them directly and will not need to look at it through             texts in the textbook.             There are many methodological materials that are ready for use for outdoor education,             but as already been mentioned, outdoor education requires the courage of teachers             and also parents. Parents have to give teachers full confidence when teaching outside.             Outdoor education also requires the experience of the teacher gained through             practice. Sometimes the teacher has to improvise in outdoor education because the             landscape changes, pupils react differently than in the classroom, or an unexpected             situation can happen. The whole world around us is in constant motion. Therefore,             this offers many incentives for active cognitive development of pupils. Moreover, the             teacher should gradually give the pupils confidence and give them the opportunity             to participate in the preparation and the course of education. This will not only             strengthen the skills of pupils but also increase their motivation.              Recommendations for outdoor education could be many, but the personal experience             of both a teacher and a pupil are indispensable. Therefore, the main recommendation             is to teach outdoors.                       Their minds were not built to sit and be taught. They were built to explore,                    play and learn.                                                             Initiative “How we learn”.                                                     172","CONCLUSION                                 Give the pupils something to do, not something to learn; and the doing is                            of such a nature as to demand thinking; learning naturally results.                                                                        John Dewey                At the end of the publication, let us return to the beginnings of outdoor education.             As it was stated in the introduction “using the real world is the way learning has             happened for 99.9% of human existence, only in the last hundred years did we put             it in a little box called a classroom”. Separation of school education from direct             observation of natural and human processes in the landscape has made it difficult             for contemporary pupils to imagine a number of processes in the landscape. Pupils             are afraid to stay in the countryside, they watch TV, where they can see everything.             Also, many teachers nowadays still present geography and thus outdoor education             as a purely descriptive discipline rather than as a tool for cognition and a solution             to problems occurring in a real environment. However, geography and its integral             part – outdoor education – brings more than learning about the outdoors. Outdoor             education is a crucial ingredient for pupils’ development. As Scott, Fuller and Gaskin             (2006, p. 170) say, outdoor education represents: “learning opportunities that cannot             be replaced effectively”.              “Lack of connection with nature has become a valid concern for parents, educators,             health professionals and environmentalist alike” (Gray 2018, p. 146). Thus, the             publications are focused on introducing the concept of outdoor education from             the formal and processual side and also the experience of selected teachers, pupils and             parents with outdoor education, in both positive and negative terms. In conclusion,             we draw a summary of the different parts of the publication with reference to meeting             the research aims.              The interviews with teachers indicated that all schools perform some form of outdoor             education; less so where outdoor education is not a priority or where the teacher             does not have a positive attitude to it or does not know the school surroundings.             Nevertheless, it has been shown that both lower and upper elementary school             teachers believe that outdoor education promotes greater development of pupils’             skills and a deeper understanding of the topics at hand.                                                 173","However, the  SEPs,  as  fundamental  curricular  documents  for  each  school,             usually do not provide a comprehensive overview of all implemented forms of             outdoor education. Usually, only the repetitive forms (the long-term forms of outdoor             education), are indicated. Similarly, the SEPs usually do not include the hourly             allowances of the individual forms of outdoor education in the subjects. If the teachers             carry out short- or mid-term forms of outdoor education, they thematically tend to             be related to the currently taught curriculum. The topics for outdoor education most             frequently arise from the school surroundings – the municipality, the region. In smaller             municipalities, the school is closely related to the life of the municipality.              It is easier to specify a day for outdoor education in the lower stage because a single             teacher teaches all the subjects, which can mingle. In the upper stage, the teachers             tend to implement medium- or long-term forms of outdoor education (trips, courses)             because a short-term activity (e. g. didactic walks) presents an administrative             problem (safety, parents’ approval, exchange of lessons and supervisors, the need             for another teacher to supervise the pupils, lesson taught in the field is not regarded             as a taught lesson – a problem for the teacher) and the time – 45 minutes is usually             not enough to get to the area. Another barrier for implementation of outdoor             education is its preparation, which is more demanding than a standard lesson. Each             activity must have its own aim and clear objective to eliminate the pupils’ feeling             that the outdoor education is a mere relaxation. The knowledge of the environment             is also important.             In general, outdoor education requires very close cooperation of teachers but also             of teachers and pupils. The interview showed that both the evaluation and feedback             constituted an important component of outdoor education.              The benefits of outdoor education for pupils are hard to assess. No two outdoor             education events will be completely alike, even if organised for two different classes             on the same day and along the same route. Unlike classroom-based tuition, outdoor             education is strongly influenced by the season of the year in which it takes place –             in particular by weather, the occurrence of plants and animals, people the pupils may             encounter along the way and also by the pupils and the teacher themselves.              No distinct differences may be seen between the impacts outdoor education had             on the pupils who completed it just before the questionnaire survey and those who             completed it approximately one year before that. The effect of outdoor education on             the advancement of cartographic skills was minimal. Although the pupils worked with             a map or a GPS device during the outdoor education, most of them failed to plot the             route or pinpoint the highlights on the map later on. This is a reflection of the situation             where the pupils had not fully absorbed these activities because they do not regularly             practise them in classes (either outdoors or indoors). Most pupils maintain they learn             more outdoors than in class, although the results for some of the questions do not                                                 174","seem to corroborate it. Pupils find outdoor education more entertaining, especially             because they do not have to stay at their desks, and also because it gives them an             opportunity to learn something new (how to behave in the open, get to know plants,             topography, working with a map). However, some pupils continue to view outdoor             education only as time spent outside, and it is up to the teachers to change that             point of view.             Where a faster or more lasting acquisition of knowledge occurs may not be objectively             assessed, which often has individual implications. In any event, the teachers agreed             that outdoor education contributes to greater motoric activity of pupils and that             pupils may also use the experienced obtained from outdoor sessions in other subjects             or life situations.              Parents observe that the children look forward to outdoor education more than             towards the traditional classroom-based education, but they are unable to assess             clearly the impact outdoor education has on their children. They see the benefits of             outdoor education mainly in the area of attitudes and of course, increased physical             activity of children.              It is not possible to judge the development of key competencies. The results show             that all key competencies are developed by the outdoor education, but the teachers’,             pupils’ and parents’ views are different.             If the previous results of the research were hard to judge, the benefits of outdoor             education on pupils´ physical activity are very apparent. The summary of research on             the schoolchildren’s physical activity indicates that the time which the pupils spend at             school usually pays a very small contribution to the development of the pupils’ physical             activity. At a time when the physical fitness of pupils decreases from an early age in             comparison with previous years, the school should also look for options of contribution             to the pupils’ development in this area. One of the options where the school can             partially contribute to the development of physical activity is through more frequent             incorporation  of  outdoor  education  in  short-term  (1–2  lessons),  medium-term             (usually one day) and long-term (two or more days outside the school) forms. During             elaborated outdoor education, the pupils perform a natural non-structured activity             (walking, running, cycling), simultaneously deepening their knowledge and skills             without missing the curriculum.              Physical activity of pupils during outdoor education can be fully comparable with             activities which the pupils perform during physical education. This education,             however, has a limited time allowance. By comparison, outdoor education can be             incorporated into almost all subjects and thus also develop inter-subject relations –             naturally between physical education and the other subjects. Another benefit is             the fact that the pupils learn in the real environment within the natural scientific             subjects, which is a current trend (Adkins \& Simmons, 2002; Vlček et al., 2016).                                                175","The author is aware of the limitations of the presented research, and she is also aware             that conclusions cannot be generalised for the entire population. The next research             aim is to gain more robust data about outdoor education to describe more properly             the situation its implementation into educational process in the Czech Republic.             More complicated goal is to show the teachers the way how to implement outdoor             education not only into the curriculum but also in practice and real life.                                                                                                       176","RESUME                    Terénní výuka je výuková forma, která je už dlouhá léta považována za velmi silnou             výukovou strategii pro chápání dnešního světa. Jakkoliv se v případě terénní výuky             jedná o jejím nezastupitelném místě ve vzdělávacím systému, stále se ji v některých             českých  školách  nedaří  uplatňovat.  Klade  totiž  velké  nároky,  nejen  na  učitele             a žáky, ale i na vedení školy a rodiče. Pro učitele, kteří jsou zvyklí na dominantní             postavení ve vedení výuky, je terénní výuka velkou překážkou, protože je to výuka,             nelze hodnotit jen za dosažené výsledky, ale je nutné hodnotit celý její průběh. Je to             výuka s otevřeným koncem. Terénní výuce jako komplexu rovněž nebyla v českém             prostředí věnována dostatečná pozornost v oblasti výzkumu. Tato monografie se             tuto výzkumnou mezeru snažila aspoň částečně vyplnit.             Monografie si klade za úkol přiblížit terénní výuku jako silnou výukovou strategii,             popsat její vztah ke školnímu kurikulu a podat učitelům pomocnou ruku k vytvoření             koncepce terénní výuky. To vše je založeno na výzkumu přínosů terénní výuky pro             učení a rozvoj pohybové aktivity, která je její přirozenou součástí, z pohledu žáka             a zjištění postoje učitelů a rodičů k terénní výuce. Je nutné podotknout, že ačkoliv se             monografie věnuje terénní výuce jako způsobu výuky, který je možné implementovat             do výuky napříč všemi předměty, některé části publikace jsou zaměřeny na terénní             výuku zeměpisu, který se zabývá zejména interakcí člověka a přírody.             První část publikace pojednává o terénní výuce jako o specifické strategii učení. Je             analyzováno zakotvení terénní výuky v českém školním kurikulu, jsou nastíněny             kroky nezbytné pro její realizaci, ať už se jedná o přípravu samotného učitele nebo             žáků. Zároveň jsou popsány proměny terénní výuky a srovnán aktuální stav terénní             výuky v zahraničí a v České republice včetně popisu nejčastějších forem terénní výuky             uplatňovaných v současných českých školách. V závěru této části je představena             modelová příprava terénní výuky. Jedná se o určitý návod, jak terénní výuku realizovat             tak, aby podporovala jak řešení problémů, tak pohybovou aktivitu žáků.             Druhá  část  publikace  je  věnována  výzkumu  terénní  výuky  jako  silné  výukové             strategie. Nejprve je popsána výzkumná potřeba a cíl výzkumu včetně použitých             metod. Následně jsou detailně představeny výsledky výzkumu, který byl realizován             ve spolupráci s učiteli základních škol, žáky modelové základní školy a jejich rodiči.             V závěru publikace jsou uvedena konkrétní doporučení pro tvorbu koncepce terénní             výuky pro základní školy.                                                     177","","RESOURCES                   A different view. A manifesto from the Geographical Association. Sheffield: Geographical                  Association. Retrieved from: https://www.geography.org.uk/write/MediaUploads/                  Support%20and%20guidance/GA_ADVBookletFULL.pdf             Abell, S. K. (2000). International perspectives on science teacher education: An introduction.                  In S. K. Abell (Ed.), Science Teacher Education (pp. 3–6). Dordrecht: Springer.             Act No. 395/1991 Coll., on School Recovery Facilities.             Adami, M. F., \& Kiger, A. (2005). The use of triangulation for completeness purposes. Nurse                  Researcher (through 2013), 12(4), 19.             Adkins, C.,  \& Simmons,  B.  (2002).  Outdoor, experiential, and environmental education:                  converging or diverging approaches? Charleston, WV: ERIC Digest.             Beames, S., Higgins, P. J., \& Nicol, R. (2012). Learning outside the classroom: Theory and                  guidelines for practice. New York: Routledge.             Becker, P., Humberstone, B., \& Schirp, J. (2018). (Eds.). The changing world of outdoor learning                  in Europe. Oxon and New York: Routledge.             Bednarz, S. W., Heffron, S., \& Huynh, N. T. (Eds.). (2013). A road map for 21st century geography                  education: Geography education research (A report from the Geography Education                  Research Committee of the Road Map for 21st Century Geography Education Project).                  Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers.             Bělecký, Z., \& Hausenblas, O., Hučínová, L., Kabeláčová, I., Kargerová, J., Košťálová, H. ...                  Straková, J. (2007). Klíčové kompetence v základním vzdělávání. Praha: Výzkumný ústav                  pedagogický.             Berman, D. S., \& Davis-Berman, J. (2005). Positive psychology and outdoor education. Journal                  of Experiential Education, 28(1), 17–24.             Bičík, I. (2009). Zamyšlení nad proměnami českého vzdělávání. Geografické rozhledy, 19(1),                  24–25.             Biddulph,  M.,  Lambert,  D.,  \&  Balderstone,  D.  (2015).  Learning to teach geography in                  the secondary school: A companion to school experience. London: Routledge.             Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Society for Research                  into Higher Education and Open University Press.             Bláha, J. D., \& Hátle, J. (2014). Tvorba náčrtů a plánků ve výuce geografie. Geografické rozhledy                  24(4), 13–14.             Bland, K., Chambers, W., Donert, K., \& Thomas, T. (1996). Fieldwork in the School. In P. Bailey                  \& P. Fox (Eds.). Geography teachers‘ handbook (pp. 165–175). Sheffield: Geographical                  Association.             Bogner, F. X. (2002). The influence of a residential outdoor education programme to pupil’s                  environmental perception. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 17(1), 19–34.                                                  179","Borić, E., \& Škugor, A. (2014). Achieving students’ competencies through research-based                  outdoor science teaching. Croatian Journal of Education-Hrvatski Casopis Za Odgoj                  I Obrazovanje, 16(1), 149–164.             Boss, J. A. (1999). Outdoor education and the development of civic responsibility. Charleston, WV:                  ERIC Digest.             Boyes, M. (2000). The place of outdoor education in the health and physical education                  curriculum. New Zealand Physical Educator, 33(2), 75.             Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., \& Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience,                  and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.             Brookes, A. (2002). Lost in the Australian bush: Outdoor education as curriculum. Journal of                  Curriculum Studies, 34(4), 405–425.             Brown, J. S., Collins, A., \& Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.                  Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.             Brown, K. M. (2014). Spaces of play, spaces of responsibility: Creating dichotomous geographies                  of outdoor citizenship. Geoforum, 55, 22–32.             Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.             Cachelin, A., Paisley, K., \& Blanchard, A. (2009). Using significant life experience research to                  inform program evaluation: A case study of The Nature Conservancy’s Wings \& Water                  wetlands education program. Journal of Environmental Education, 40(2), 2–14.             Carbaugh, D., \& Hastings, S. O. (1992). A role for communication theory in ethnography and                  cultural analysis. Communication Theory, 2(2), 156–165.             Caton, D. (2006). Real world learning through geographical fieldwork. In D. Balderstone (Ed.).                  Secondary Geography Handbook (pp. 60–71). Sheffield: Geographical Association.             Cicourel, A. V. (1964). Method and measurement in sociology. New York: Free Press.             Cook, V. A., Phillips, D., \& Holden, J. (2006). Geography fieldwork in a ‘risk society’. Area, 38(4),                  413–420.             Creswell, J. W., \& Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Los                  Angeles: SAGE.             Crompton, J. L., \& Sellar, C. (1981). Do outdoor education experiences contribute to positive                  development in the affective domain? The Journal of Environmental Education, 12(4),                  21–29.             CTGV (The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt). (1990). Anchored instruction and its                  relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.             Czesaná, V., Matoušková, Z., Havlíčková, V., Šímová, Z., Kofroňová, O., Lapáček, M., ...                  Žáčková, H. (2009). Ročenka konkurenceschopnosti České republiky 2007–2008. Analýza.                  Část – kvalita lidských zdrojů. Praha: Národní observatoř zaměstnání a vzdělání NVF,                  Centrum výzkumu konkurenceschopnosti české ekonomiky.             Činčera, J., \& Holec, J. (2016). Outdoor education in formal education. Envigogika, 11(2), 1–19.             Dietary guidelines 2015–2020. Estimated calorie needs per day, by age, sex, and physical activity                  level. (n. d.). Retrieved from https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/                  appendix-2/             Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., \& Benefield, P. (2006).                  The value of outdoor learning: Evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere. School                  Science Review, 87(320), 107–111.                                               180","Donaldson, G. W., \& Donaldson, L. E. (1958). Outdoor education a definition. Journal of Health,                  Physical Education, Recreation, 29(5), 17–63.             Drummer, T. J., Cook, I. G., Parker, S. L., Barrett, G. A., \& Hull, A. P. (2008). Promoting                  and assessing ‘deep learning’ in geography fieldwork: An evaluation of reflective field                  diaries. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32(3), 459–479.             Duffin,  M.,  Powers,  A.,  \&  Tremblay,  G.  (2004).  Place-based education evaluation                  collaborative (PEEC): Report on cross-program research and other program evaluation                  activities 2003–2004. Swanzey: PEER Associat. Retrieved from http://www.seer.org/                  pages/research/PEEC%202004.pdf             Dvořák, F. (1982). Základy didaktiky biologie. Brno: UJEP.             Dvořan, S. (2008). Zeměpisné exkurze s environmentální tématikou pro 2. stupeň ZŠ. Liberec:                  Technická univerzita v Liberci, Fakulta pedagogická.             Dyment,  J.  E.,  \&  Potter, T. G.  (2015).  Is  outdoor  education  a  discipline?  Provocations                  and possibilities. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 15(3), 193–208.             Eastwell, P. (2009). Inquiry learning: Elements of confusion and frustration. The American                  Biology Teacher, 71(5), 263–266.             Eaton, D. (2000). Cognitive and affective learning in outdoor education (doctoral dissertation).                  Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto.             Entwistle, N., \& Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.             Fabiánková, B. (1996). Prvouka v 1.–3. ročníku základní školy. Brno: Paido.             Fairclough, S. J., Beighle, A., Erwin, H., \& Ridgers, N. D. (2012). School day segmented physical                  activity patterns of high and low active children. BMC Public Health, 12(1), 406.             Ford,  P.  (1986).  Outdoor Education: Definition and Philosophy. Las  Cruces, NM: ERIC                  Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.             Fox, P., \& Avramidis, E. (2003). An evaluation of an outdoor education programme for students                  with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties,                  8(4), 267–283.             Framework Educational Programme for Elementary Education. (2016). Praha: Ministerstvo                  školství mládeže a tělovýchovy.             Framework Educational Programme for Secondary General Education (Grammar Schools). (2007).                  Praha: Výzkumný ústav pedagogický v Praze.             Frömel, K., Novosad, J., \& Svozil, Z. (1999). Pohybová aktivita a sportovní zájmy mládeže.                  Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého.             Fuller, I. A. N., Edmondson, S., France, D., Higgitt, D., \& Ratinen, I. (2006). International                  perspectives on the effectiveness of geography fieldwork for learning. Journal of                  Geography in Higher Education, 30(1), 89–101.             Gearon, L. (Ed.). (2014). Learning to teach citizenship in the secondary school: A companion to                  school experience. London: Routledge.             Giddens, A. (2013). Sociologie. Praha: Argo.             Gilbertson, K., Bates, T., McLaughlin, T., \& Ewert, A. (2006). Outdoor education: Methods                  and strategies. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.             Google Images. (n. d). Retrieved from https://www.google.com/imghp?hl=EN             Grác, A. (1967). Aktuální problémy přírodopisného vyučování. Brno: Krajský pedagogický ústav.                                                181","Graham, R. W. (2005). Illustrating triangulation in mixed-methods nursing research. Nurse                  Researcher, 12(4), 7–18.             Gray, T. (2018). Outdoor learning: Not new, just newly important. Curriculum Perspectives,                  38(2), 145–149.             Gray, T., \& Martin, P. (2012). The role and place of outdoor education in the Australian National                  Curriculum. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 16(1), 39.             Greasley, B., Clammer, R., McLeod, P., \& Nicholls, R. (1987). Geography today. Teachers´                  resources. London: Harper Collins Publishers.             Gruenewald, D. A. (2008). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Environmental                  Education Research, 14(3), 308–324.             Hammerman, W. M. (1980). Fifty Years of resident outdoor education, 1930–1980: Its impact on                  american education. Martinsville, IND: American Camping Association.             Hardwick, S. W. (2009). Case study approach. In R. Kitchin \& N. Thrift (Eds.), International                  encyclopedia of human geography (pp. 441–445). Oxford: Elsevier.             Hay, I. (2010). Qualitative research methods in human geography. (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford                  University Press.             Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of                  inquiry-based learning. In R. Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the university: New relationships                  between research, scholarship and teaching (pp. 30–42). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/                  Open University Press.             Healey, M. J., \& Roberts, J. (Eds.). (2004). Engaging students in active learning: Case studies                  in geography, environment and related disciplines.  Cheltenham:  University  of                  Gloucestershire.             Hendl, J. (2012). Kvalitativní výzkum: základní teorie, metody a aplikace. (3. vyd.). Praha: Portál.             Hill, A. (2012). Developing approaches to outdoor education that promote sustainability                  education. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 16(1), 15.             Hill, J., \& Woodland, W. (2002). An evaluation of foreign fieldwork in promoting deep learning:                  A preliminary investigation. Assessment \& Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 539–555.             Hills, A. P., King, N. A., \& Armstrong, T. P. (2007). The contribution of physical activity                  and  sedentary  behaviours  to  the  growth  and  development  of  children  and                  adolescents. Sports Medicine, 37(6), 533–545.             Hindle, B. P. (1993). The ‘Project’: Putting student-controlled, small-group work and transferable                  skills at the core of a geography course. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 17(1),                  11–20.             Hoelscher, D. M., Kirk, S., Ritchie, L., \& Cunningham-Sabo, L. (2013). Position of the academy                  of nutrition and dietetics: Interventions for the prevention and treatment of pediatric                  overweight and obesity. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 113(10),                  1375–1394.             Hoffman, J. I., \& Fetter Jr, C. W. (1975). Field trip modules as complete substitutes for weekly                  introductory geology laboratories. Journal of Geological Education, 23(1), 18–19.             Hofmann, E. (2003). Integrované terénní vyučování. Brno: Paido.             Hofmann, E., \& Korvas,  P. (2008). Terénní výuka s pohybovými aktivitami.  Geographia                  Cassovensis, 2(1), 47–52.                                                182","Hofmann, E., \& Svobodová, H. (2013). Blending of old and new approaches in geographical                  education: A case study. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 53(53), 51–60.             Hofmann, E., \& Svobodová, H. (2017). Case studies in geography education as a powerful                  way of teaching geography. In P. Karvánková, D. Popjaková, M. Vančura, \& J. Mládek                  (Eds.), Current topics in Czech and Central European geography education (pp. 115–128).                  Heidelberg: Springer.             Hofmann, E., Korvas, P., \& Poláček, P. (2009). Multimediální učebnice pro terénní výuku. Brno:                  Masarykova univerzita. Retrieved from http://is.muni.cz/do/rect/el/estud/pedf/js09/                  teren/web/index.html             Hofmann, E., Svobodová, H., \& Knecht, P. (2017). Geography Curriculum in Czechia: Challenging                  Opportunities. In P. Karvánková, D. Popjaková, M. Vančura, \& J. Mládek (Eds.), Current                  topics in Czech and Central European geography education (pp. 15–32). Heidelberg:                  Springer.             Hofmann, E., Svobodová, H., \& Mísařová, D. (2016). Realizace terénní výuky očima učitelů.                  Geografické informácie, 20(2), 111–120.             Holmes, D., \& Walker, M. (2006). Planning geographical fieldwork. In D. Balderstone (Ed.),                  Secondary geography handbook (pp. 210–225). Sheffield: The Geographical Association.             Hope, M. (2009). The importance of direct experience: A philosophical defence of fieldwork                  in human geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(2), 169–182.             Hopkins, D. (2000). Powerful learning, powerful teaching and powerful schools. Journal of                  Educational Change, 1(2), 135–154.             Horká, H., \& Hromádka, Z. (2010). Pohybové aktivity pro zdraví v kontextu péče o životní                  prostředí. In E. Řehulka (Ed.), Výchova ke zdraví: Mezinárodní zkušenosti (pp. 265–279).                  Brno: Masarykova univerzita.             Horwood, B. (2002). The influence of outdoor education on curriculum integration: A case                  study. The Ontario Journal of Outdoor Education, 14(2), 6–12.             Howden, E. (2012). Outdoor experiential education: Learning through the body. New Directions                  for Adult and Continuing Education, 2012(134), 43–51.             Hublová, P. (2014). Škola v přírodě. Metodický portál RVP. Retrieved from http://wiki.rvp.cz/                  Knihovna/1.Pedagogicky_lexikon/S/%C5%A0kola_v_p%C5%99%C3%ADrod%C4%9B             Humphrey, A., Post, T., \& Ellis, A. (1981). Interdisciplinary methods: A thematic approach. Santa                  Monica: Goodyear Publishing Company.             Hungerford, H., Peyton, R. B., \& Wilke, R. J. (1980). Goals for curriculum development in                  environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 11(3), 42–47.             Hynek, A., \& Hynek, N. (2004). Geografické myšlení: Jádro současných geografií. In A. Wahla                  (Ed.), Geografie a proměny poznání geografické reality (pp. 68–77). Ostrava: Ostravská                  univerzita.             Chang, C.  H.,  \& Ooi, G.  L.  (2008).  Role  of  fieldwork  in  humanities  and  social  studies                  education. What the West can learn from the East. Asian Perspectives on the Psychology                  of Learning and Motivation. Research in Multicultural Education and International                  Perspectives Series, 7, 295–312.             Chuan, G. K., \& Poh, W. P. (2000). Status of fieldwork in the geography curriculum in Southeast                  Asia. In R. Gerber, \& G. K. Chuan (Eds.), Fieldwork in geography: Reflections, perspectives                  and actions (pp. 99–117). Dordrecht: Springer.                                                183","Inchley, J., Currie, D., Young, T., Samdal, O., Torsheim, T., Augustson, L., ... Barnekow, V.                  (Eds.). (2016). Growing up unequal: Gender and socioeconomic differences in young                  people’s health and well-being. Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study:                  International report from the 2013/2014 survey. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for                  Europe.             Jackson, P. (2006). Thinking geographically. Geography, 91(3), 199–204.             Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria:                  Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.             Jakšić, S., Petrić, V., Štemberger, V., \& Blažević, I. (2018). The prevalence and differences in                  the physical activity level in preschool-aged children. In H. Svobodová, \& P. Vlček                  (Eds.), Curriculum and teaching in physical education and geography: Interdisciplinary                  and international perspectives (pp. 77–83). Brno: Masaryk University.             Janko, T. (2012). Nonverbální prvky v učebnicích zeměpisu jako nástroj didaktické transformac.                  Brno: Masarykova univerzita, Pedagogická fakulta.             Jelínek, P., \& Kysučan, L. (2014). Venkov a krajina: Evropská krajina mezi venkovem a městem,                  mezi antikou a novověkem. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.             Job, D. (1999). New direction in geographical fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press/                  Queen Mary Westfield College.             Kahn, E. B., Ramsey, L. T., Brownson, R. C., Heath, G. W., Howze, E. H., Powell, K. E., ...                  \& Corso, P. (2002). The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity:                  A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22(4), 73–107.             Karkdijk, J., van der Schee, J., \& Admiraal, W. (2013). Effects of teaching with mysteries on                  students’ geographical thinking skills. International Research in Geographical and                  Environmental Education, 22(3), 183–190.             Karppinen, S. J. (2012). Outdoor adventure education in a formal education curriculum                  in Finland: Action research application. Journal of Adventure Education \& Outdoor                  Learning, 12(1), 41–62.             Karvánková, P., Popjaková, D., Vančura, M., \& Mládek, J. (Eds.). (2017). Current topics in Czech                  and Central European geography education. Heidelberg: Springer.             Kellert, S. R., \& Wilson, E. O. (Eds.). (1995). The biophilia hypothesis. Washington: Island Press.             Kent, M., Gilbertson, D. D., \& Hunt, C. O. (1997). Fieldwork in geography teaching: A critical                  review of the literature and approaches. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 21(3),                  313–332.             Klein, J. T., \& Newell, W. H. (1996). Advancing interdisciplinary studies. In J. G. Gaff \& J. Ratcliff                  (and associates) (Eds.), Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum (pp. 393–395).                  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.             Knecht,  P.,  \&  Hofmann,  E.  (2013).  K  problému  řazení  geografického  učiva  ve  školních                  vzdělávacích programech. Informace ČGS, 32(2), 13–25.             Kobzová, J., Vignerová, J., Bláha, P., Krejčovský, L., \& Riedlová, J. (2006). 6th nation-wide                  anthropological survey of children and adolescents 2001 Czech. Republic. Praha: PřF UK                  v Praze.             Kolejka, J. (2008). Návrh DSP Integrovaná přírodověda. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.                                                 184","Kolejka, J. (2014). Jak dál v geografickém vzdělávání talentované mládeže po iGEO 2013                  a nejen jí. In A. Ruda (Ed.), 21. středoevropská geografická konference Výzkum a výuka                  v geografickém vzdělávání (pp. 280–286). Brno: Masarykova univerzita.             Korvas, P. (2005). Intensity load and energy cost at the geographical terrain practice with sports                  activities. Acta Universitatis Matthiae Belii, Physical Education and sport, 6(6), 59–64.             Korvas, P. (2009). Integrovaná terénní výuka s pohybovými aktivitami (habilitation thesis). Brno:                  Fakulta sportovních studií Masarykovy univerzity.             Korvas, P., \& Cacek, J. (2009). Integrovaná výuka a tělesná výchova na základní škole. Brno:                  Masarykova univerzita.             Kotásek, J., \& Bacík, F. (Ed.). (2001). Národní program rozvoje vzdělávání v České republice: Bílá                  kniha/White paper. Praha: Ústav pro informace ve vzdělávání.             Kraft, R. J., \& Sakofs, M. (Eds.) (1985). The theory of experiential education. Boulder, CO:                  Association for Experiential Education.             Kratochvíl, M., Solfronk, J., \& Urbánek, P. (2002). Základy didaktiky: Studijní texty pro distanční                  stadium. Liberec: Technická univerzita.             Kujal, B. (1965). Pedagogický slovník. 1. vyd. sv. 2. Praha: SPN.             Kvasničák, R. (2013). Krátkodobý vplyv skúsenostného vyučovania v teréne na vedomosti žiakov                  o ekosystéme. Pedagogika, 63(2), 198–219.             Kvasničák, R., Prokop, P. \& Pištová, Z. (2005). Krátkodobý vplyv skúsenostného vyučovania                  v teréne na vedomosti a predstavy žiakov o ekosystéme. E-Pedagogium, 5(4), 28–36.             Lambert, D. \& Balderstone, D. (2010). Learning to teach geography in the secondary school.                  London: Routledge.             Lambert, D. \& Reiss, M. J. (2014). The place of fieldwork in geography and science qualifications.                  London: Institute of Education, University of London.             Lave, J., \& Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:                  Cambridge University Press.             Laws, K. (1989). Learning geography through fieldwork. In J. Fien, R. Gerber, \& P. Wilson (Eds.).                  The geography teacher’s guide to the classroom (pp. 104–117). Melbourne: Macmillan.             Lee, J. E., Stodden, D. F., \& Gao, Z. (2016). Young children’s energy expenditure and moderate-                  to-vigorous physical activity on weekdays and weekends. Journal of Physical Activity                  and Health, 13(9), 1013–1016.             Little, H., \& Wyver, S. (2008). Outdoor play: Does avoiding the risks reduce the benefits?                  Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(2), 33.             Lobstein, T. J., James, W. P. T., \& Cole, T. J. (2003). Increasing levels of excess weight among                  children in England. International journal of obesity, 27(9), 1136–1138.             Lobstein, T., \& Jackson-Leach, R. (2007). Child overweight and obesity in the USA: Prevalence                  rates according to IOTF definitions. Pediatric Obesity, 2(1), 62–64.             Love, M. S. (2005). Multimodality of learning through anchored instruction. Journal of                  Adolescent \& Adult Literacy, 48(4), 300–310.             Lugg,  A.  (1998).  Directions  in  outdoor  education  curriculum.  Journal of  Outdoor and                  Environmental Education, 4(1), 25–32.                                                  185","Lugg,  A.  (2007).  Developing  sustainability-literate  citizens  through  outdoor  learning:                  Possibilities for outdoor education in higher education. Journal of adventure education                  \& outdoor learning, 7(2), 97–112.             Madarasová Gecková, A. (Ed.) (2016). Mezinárodní zpráva o zdraví a životním stylu dětí a školáků                  na základě výzkumu studie Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children realizované v roce                  2014 Česká republika, Slovenská republika, Maďarsko, Ukrajina a Polsko. Olomouc:                  Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci.             Machmutov, M. I. (1975). Problemnoje obučenije. Moskva: Pedagogika.             Machyček, J., Kühnlová, H., \& Papík, M. (1985). Základy didaktiky geografie. Bratislava: SPN.             Malach, J. (2003). Základy didaktiky. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita v Ostravě.             Malone, L., Palmer, A. M., \& Voigt, C. L. (2002). Mapping our world: GIS lessons for educators.                  Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.             Maňák, J. (1994). Kapitoly z metodologie pedagogiky. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.             Mapy.cz. (n. d.). Retrieved from www.mapy.cz             Marada, M. (2006). Jak na výuku zeměpisu v terénu. Geografické rozhledy, 15(3), 2–5.             Martin, A., \& Franc, D. (2017). Outdoor and experiential learning: an holistic and creative approach                  to programme design. Oxon and New York: Routledge.             Martin, F. (2006). Using ICT to create better maps, Chapter 10. In D. Balderstone (Ed.),                  Secondary geography handbook (pp. 106–122). Sheffield: The Geographical Association.             Mazúrek, J. (1984). Metóda terénnych pozorovani vo vyučovani zemepisu na základnej a strednej                  škole. Martin: Osveta.             Mackenzie, B. (2003). METS. Retrieved from https://www.brianmac.co.uk/mets.htm             Metodika realizace environmentální výchovy v terénu. (n. d.). Ústí and Labem: UJEP. Retrieved from                  http://enviregion.pf.ujep.cz/exkurze/ucitele/data/metodika.pdf             Miller, I. (2001). Didaktika odborných předmětů – VI. Aplikace vhodných forem výuky v odborných                  předmětech: Učební text – učitelství odborných předmětů. Retrieved from http://miller.wz.cz/             Minaříková, E. (2011). Video v učitelském vzdělávání: vybrané zahraniční zkušenosti. In T. Janík,                  \& E. Minaříková, et al. (Eds.), Video v učitelském vzdělávání: teoretická východiska,                  aplikace, výzkum (pp. 47–74). Brno: Paido.             Mojžíšek, L. (1959). Exkurze v družinách mládeže. Praha: SPN.             Mrázková, K. (2013). Kartografické dovednosti ve výuce zeměpisu. Brno: Masarykova univerzita,                  Pedagogická fakulta.             Musilová, H., Hradil, F., \& Šupka, J. (1979). Přírodověda a vlastivěda na základní škole. Brno: UJEP.             Musilová, P. (2016). Terénní výuka ve vybrané lokalitě. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, Pedagogická                  fakulta.             Mužík, V., \& Krejčí, M. (1997). Tělesná výchova a zdraví. Olomouc: Hanex.             Mygind, E. (2007). A comparison between children’s physical activity levels at school and                  learning  in  an  outdoor  environment.  Journal of Adventure Education \& Outdoor                  Learning, 7(2), 161–176.             České děti venku: Reprezentativní výzkum, kde a jak tráví děti svůj čas. (2016). Nadace Proměny                  Karla Komárka. Retrieved from http://www.nadace-promeny.cz/cz/vyzkum.html                                                 186","Navrátilová, K. (1983). Didaktika vlastivědy a přírodovědy, 2. část. Nitra: Slovenské pedagogické                  nakladatelství.             NE x Oprávněné podnikání v cestovním ruchu. (n. d.) Praha: Ministry of Regional Development.                  Retrieved  from:  https://www.mmr.cz/getmedia/d45d7c51-6ec8-4b54-9d2b-                  5c36a6810be1/I-dil-NE-X-Opravnene-podnikani-v-cestovnim-ruch.pdf?ext=.pdf             Neill, J. (2007). History of outdoor education. Retrieved from http://wilderdom.com/History.html             Neill, J. (2008). What is outdoor education? Definition (Definitions). Retrieved from http://www.                  wilderdom.com/definitions/definitions.html             Neill, J. T. (2002). Meta-analytic research on the outcomes of outdoor education. New Hampshire:                  University of New Hampshire.             Neumann, J. (2000). Dobrodružné hry a cvičení v přírodě. Praha: Portál.             Outdoor Education.  (2015).  New  world  encyclopedia.  Retrieved  from  http://www.                  newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Outdoor_education             Nicol, R. (2007). Outdoor education: Research topic or universal value? Part Two. Journal Of                  Adventure Education And Outdoor Learning, 2(2), 85–99.             Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education). (2011). Geography: Learning to make a world of                  difference. Retrieved from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/geography-learning-                  make-world-of-difference             Oláhová, J., \& Nemčíková, M. (2009). Využitie exkurzie jako mimotriednej organizačnej                  formy na príklade navrhovaného náučného chodníka Remata. In D. Hübelová (Ed.),                  Geografické aspekty středoevropského prostoru, 1. díl. (pp. 197–203). Brno: Masarykova                  univerzita.             Oost, K., De Vries, B. \& van der Schee, J., A. (2011). Enquiry-driven fieldwork as a rich                  and powerful teaching strategy – school practices in secondary geography education in                  the Netherlands. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education,                  20(4), 309–325.             Orion, N. (1993). A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral                  part of the science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93(6), 325–331.             Outdoor education. (n. d.). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outdoor_education             Papáček, M. (2010). Limity a šance zavádění badatelsky orientovaného vyučování přírodopisu                  a biologie v České republice. In M. Papáček (Ed.), Didaktika biologie v České republice                  2010 a badatelsky orientované vyučování (DiBi 2010) (pp. 145–162). České Budějovice:                  Pedagogická fakulta Jihočeské univerzity v Českých Budějovicích.             Papík, M. (1980). Vyučovacie prostriedky zemepisu. In Turkota, J. (Ed.), Základy všeobecnej                  didaktiky geografie (p. 217). Bratislava: Slovenské pedagogické nakladatelstvo.             Petr, J. (2010). Biologická olympiáda – inspirace pro badatelsky orientované vyučování                  přírodopisu a jeho didaktiku. In M. Papáček (Ed.), Didaktika biologie v České republice                  2010 a badatelsky orientované vyučování (DiBi 2010) (pp. 136–144). České Budějovice:                  Pedagogická fakulta Jihočeské univerzity v Českých Budějovicích.             Petty, G. (1996). Moderní vyučování: Praktická příručka. Praha: Portál.             Philipsen, G., \& Carbaugh, D. (1986). A bibliography of fieldwork in the ethnography of                  communication. Language in Society, 15(3), 387–397.             Podroužek, L. (2003). Úvod do didaktiky prvouky a přírodovědy pro primární školu. Dobrá Voda:                  Aleš Čeněk.                                                187","Podroužek, V. (2002). Integrovaná výuka na základní škole v teorii a praxi. Plzeň: Fraus.             Polley, S., \& Pickett, B. (2003). The nature and scope of outdoor education in South Australia:                  A summary of key findings. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 7(2), 11–18.             Potter, T. G., \& Dyment, J. E. (2016). Is outdoor education a discipline? Insights, gaps and future                  directions. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 16(2), 146–159.             Practical Outdoor Skills.  (n.  d.).  Retrieved  from  http://www2.isu.edu/outdoor/Syllabus_                  PracticalSkills.html             Price, C., Cohen, D., Pribis, P. \& Cerami, J. (2017). Nutrition education and body mass index in                  grades k-12: A systematic review. Journal of School Health, 87(9), 715–720.             Priest, S. (1986). Redefining outdoor education: A matter of many relationships. The Journal                  of Environmental Education, 17(3), 13–15.             Průcha, J. (1992). Pedagogické teorie a výzkumy na Západě. Praha: Karolinum.             Průcha, J., Walterová, E. \& Mareš, J. (2013). Pedagogický slovník. Praha: Portál.             Register of schools and educational facilities. (n. d.). Praha: MŠMT. Retrieved from https://                  profa.uiv.cz/rejskol/             Remington, T., \& Legge, M. (2017). Outdoor education in rural primary schools in New Zealand:                  a narrative inquiry. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 17(1), 55–66.             Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Young Choi, M., Sanders, D., \& Benefield, P.                  (2004). A review of research outdoor learning. London: National Foundantion for                  Educational Research and King´s College London.             Roberts, J. W. (2012). Beyond learning by doing: Theoretical currents in experiential education.                  New York and London: Routledge.             Řehák, B. (1965). Vyučování bioologii na základní devítileté škole a střední všeobecně vzdělávací                  škole. Praha: SPN.             Řezníčková, D. (2008). Náměty pro geografické a environmentální vzdělávání: Výuka v krajině.                  Praha: Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Přírodovědecká fakulta.             Řezníčková, D. (2015). Didaktika geografie: proměny identity oboru. In I. Stuchlíková, \& T. Janík                  (Eds.), Oborové didaktiky: vývoj–stav–perspektivy (pp. 259–288). Brno: Masarykova                  univerzita.             Samková, L., Hošpesová, A., Roubíček, F., \& Tichá, M. (2015). Badatelsky orientované vyučování                  matematice. Scientia in educatione, 6(1), 91–122.             Scott, I., Fuller, I., \& Gaskin, S. (2006). Life without fieldwork: Some lecturers’ perceptions                  of geography and environmental science fieldwork. Journal of Geography in Higher                  Education, 30(1), 161–171.             Shaffir, W. B., \& Stebbins, R. A. (2003). Introduction to fieldwork. In M. R. Pogrebin (Ed.),                  Qualitative approaches to criminal justice: Perspectives from the field (pp. 2–16).                  Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.             Schwartz-Barcott, D., Patterson, B. J., Lusardi, P., \& Farmer, B. C. (2002). From practice to                  theory: Tightening the link via three fieldwork strategies. Journal of Advanced Nursing,                  39(3), 281–289.             Sigmund, E., \& Sigmundová, D. (2011). Pohybová aktivita pro podporu zdraví dětí a mládeže.                  Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci.             Silverman, D. (2005). Ako robiť kvalitatívny výskum: Praktická príručka. Bratislava: Ikar.                                                188","Slavík, J., Janík, T., Najvar, P., \& Knecht, P. (2017). Transdisciplinární didaktika: O učitelském                  sdílení znalostí a zvyšování kvality výuky napříč obory. Brno: Masarykova univerzita,                  Pedagogická fakulta.             Smith, G. A. (2007). Place-based education: Breaking through the constraining regularities of                  public school. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 189–207.             Smrtová, E., Zabadal, R., \& Kováříková, Z. (2012). Za Naturou na túru: Metodika terénní výuky.                  Praha: Apus.             Steele, R. M., Van Sluijs, E. M., Cassidy, A., Griffin, S. J., \& Ekelund, U. (2009). Targeting                  sedentary time or moderate-and vigorous-intensity activity: Independent relations                  with adiposity in a population-based sample of 10-y-old British children. The American                  Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 90(5), 1185–1192.             Straková, J. (2013). Jak dál s kurikulární reformou. Pedagogická orientace, 23(5), 734–743.             Strong, W. B., Malina, R. M., Blimkie, C. J., Daniels, S. R., Dishman, R. K., Gutin, B., ...                  \& Rowland, T. (2005). Evidence based physical activity for school-age youth. The Journal                  of Pediatrics, 146(6), 732–737.             Stuchlíková, I. (2010). O badatelsky orientovaném vyučování. In M. Papáček (Ed.), Didaktika                  biologie  v  České  republice  2010  a  badatelsky  orientované  vyučování  (DiBi  2010)                  (pp. 129–135). České Budějovice: Pedagogická fakulta Jihočeské univerzity v Českých                  Budějovicích.             Svobodová, H., \& Hofmann, E. (2018). Are Czech students of teacher training prepared for                  interdisciplinary teaching? In H. Svobodová, \& P. Vlček (Eds.), Curriculum and teaching                  in physical education and geography: Interdisciplinary and international perspectives                  (pp. 27–38). Brno: Masaryk University.             Svobodová, H., Mísařová, D., Durna, R., Češková, T. \& Hofmann, E. (2019). Koncepce terénní                  výuky pro základní školy na příkladu námětů pro krátkodobou a střednědobou terenní                  výuku předmětů Člověk a jeho svět a Zeměpis. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.             Svobodová, H., Durna, R., Mísařová, D., \& Hofmann, E. (2019). Komparace formálního ukotvení                  terénní výuky ve školních vzdělávacích programech a její pojetí na modelových                  základních školách. Orbis Scholae, 13(2), 95–116.             Svobodová, H., Durna, R., Pernica, M., \& Hofmann, E. (2018). Námětovník pro terénní výuku                  socioekonomické geografie. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, Elportál.             Svobodová, H., Mísařová, D., \& Hofmann, E. (2016). Analýza školních vzdělávacích programů                  ve vztahu k terénní výuce. In A. Nováček (Ed.), Sborník příspěvků Výroční konference                  České geografické společnosti Geografické myšlení jako atkuální společenská výzva                  (pp. 292–302). České Budějovice: Jihočeská univerzita v Českých Budějovicích.             Škoda, J., \& Doulík, P. (2011). Psychodidaktika: Metody efektivního a smysluplného učení                  a vyučování. Praha: Grada.             Štoček, M. (2011). Rukověť střední školy školní rok 2011/2012. Nový Bydžov: aTre.             Šupka, J., Hofmann, E., \& Rux, J. (1993). Didaktika geografie I. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.             Švec, Š. (1995). Základné pojmy v pedagogike a andragogike (s anglicko-slovenským slovníkom                  termínov s definíciami as registrom ich slovensko-anglických ekvivalentov). Bratislava: Iris.             ŠVP Základní školy JUDr. Mareše, Znojmo – charakteristika vzdělávacího oboru zeměpis.                  (unpublished manuscript). (n. d.). Znojmo: Základní školy JUDr. Mareše.                                                189","Tejeda, R., \& Santamaría, I. (2010). Models in teaching: a powerfull skill. In Proceedings of                  the 7th WSEAS International conference on engineering education (pp. 77–85). Sofia:                  World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS).             Thematic report. Analysis of school curricula for basic education for the period of 2007–2011.                  (2012)  Prague: Czech  School  Inspectorate.  Retrieved  from  http://www.csicr.cz/                  getattachment/81ecf1bd-9e36-4298-817a-3fc2ecc6198c             Tichý, O. (1965). Metodika zeměpisu. Praha: SPN.             Trávníček,  M.  (2007).  Poslání  současné  školní  tělesné  výchovy  pohledem  učitelů  ZŠ.                  In E. Řehulka (Ed.), Přehled anotací 3. konference Škola a zdraví 21 (p. 44). Brno: MSD.             Turčová, I., Martin, A., \& Neuman, J. (2005). Diversity in language: Outdoor terminology in the                  Czech Republic and Britain. Journal of Adventure Education \& Outdoor Learning, 5(2),                  101–117.             Turkota, J. (1980). Základy všeobecnej didaktiky geografie. Bratislava: SPN.             Uhls, Y. T., Michikyan, M., Morris, J., Garcia, D., Small, G. W., Zgourou, E., \& Greenfield, P. M.                  (2014). Five days at outdoor education camp without screens improves preteen skills                  with nonverbal emotion cues. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 387–392.             Veisová, E. (2009). Možnosti a důsledky kombinace metod v sociologickém výzkumu se zřetelem                  na metody focus groups a internetového výzkumu (doctoral dissertation). Praha: Fakulta                  sociálních věd Univerzity Karlovy, Institut sociologických studií.             Vlček, P., Resnik-Planinc, T., Svobodová, H., \& Clausen, S. W. (Eds.). (2016). Integrating physical                  education and geography: A case study of the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Denmark.                  Brno: Masarykova univerzita.             Vystoupil, J., Šauer, M., Holešinská, A., Kunc, J., Tonev, P., \& Seidenglanz, D. (2011). Geografie                  cestovního ruchu České republiky. Plzeň: Aleš Čeněk.             Wahla, A. (1973). Didaktika zeměpisu 1. Obecná didaktika zeměpisu. Ostrava: Pedagogická                  fakulta.             Wahla, A. (1983). Terminologický a výkladový slovník didaktiky geografie. Ostrava: Pedagogická                  fakulta.             Waite, S. (2009). Outdoor learning for children aged 2–11: Perceived barriers, potential                  solutions. In Fourth International Outdoor Education Research Conference (pp. 15–18).                  Victoria: La Trobe University.             Wareham, N. J., van Sluijs, E. M., \& Ekelund, U. (2005). Physical activity and obesity prevention:                  A review of the current evidence. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 64(2), 229–247.             Wilczyńska-Wołoszyn, M. M. (2003). The geographical laboratory of half a kilometre space                  around the school. In A. Kolwalczyk (Ed.), Theoretical and methodological aspects of                  geographical space at the turn of century (pp. 315–320). Warsaw: Warsaw University,                  Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies.             Yang, D., Wang, Z., Xu, D., \& Deng, Z. (2014). A small-scale survey of the views and attitudes                  of junior high school teachers in China toward geographical fieldwork. International                  Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 23(3), 197–212.             Zink, R., \& Boyes, M. (2006). The nature and scope of outdoor education in New Zealand                  schools. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 10(1), 11.                                                 190","LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS                   BMI    Body Mass Index             BMI P   Body Mass Index percentile             Cf.    Confer (= compare opinions)             e.g.   Exempli gratia (= for example)             Ed(s).   Editor(s)             EEPA   Environmental Education and Public Awareness.             Etc.   Et citera (= and so on)             EU     European Union             FEP    Framework Educational Programme             FEP EE   Framework Educational Programme for Elementary Education             FEP PE    Framework Educational Programme for Preschool Education             FEP SGE   Framework Educational Programme for Secondary General Education (Grammar Schools)             FEP STVT  Framework Educational Programmes for Secondary Technical and Vocational Training             FEPW   Further Education of Pedagogical Workers             GIS    Geographic information system             GPS    Global Positioning System             HBSC   Health Behaviour in School-aged Children             ISCED   International Standard Classification of Education             IT     Information Technology             m a.s.l.   Meters above sea level             MET    Metabolic Equivalent             MEYS   Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports             NAS    National wide Anthropological Survey             No.    Number             PE     Physical Education             SEP    School Educational Programme             TV     Television             UK     United Kingdom             USA/US  United States of America / United States             WS     Weight status                                                          191","","LIST OF FIGURES                    FIGURE 1. THE SYSTEM OF CURRICULAR DOCUMENTS IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC             (WHITE BOX) IN RELATION TO THE DIMENSION OF LEARNING OUTCOMES (GREY BOX). .......21             FIGURE 2. THE POSITION OF GEOGRAPHY IN THE NATURAL SCIENCE SYSTEM.........................28             FIGURE 3. (GEOGRAPHIC) EXPLORATION MODEL. .........................................................................29             FIGURE 4. TENTATIVE VIEW OF ROLES OF TEACHER AND STUDENT IN DIFFERENT             OUTDOOR EDUCATION STRATEGIES.  ...........................................................................................44             FIGURE 5. DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE TERMS “WALK” AND “EXCURSION”             ACCORDING TO PREVAILING CONTENT.  .......................................................................................51             FIGURE 6. DIVISION OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION ACCORDING TO ITS FOCUS. .............................60             FIGURE 7. CLASSIFICATION OF EDUCATION FROM DISCIPLINARY TO INTERDISCIPLINARY             AND TRANSDISCIPLINARY. ..............................................................................................................60             FIGURE 8. THE FOUR-ZONE OUTDOOR EDUCATION MODEL. .......................................................63             FIGURE 9. GEOGRAPHY AS A COMPLEX. ....................................................................................... ...75             FIGURE 10. RESEARCH DESIGN. ........................................................................................................89              FIGURE 11. SCHOOLS IN THE SOUTH-MORAVIAN AND SOUTH-BOHEMIAN REGIONS             IN WHICH SEPS WERE ANALYSED . ..................................................................................................91             FIGURE 12. SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATION OF THE TRIANGULATION METHOD. ...........................101             FIGURE 13. THE AGE OF THE ANALYSED 50 SEPS. ..........................................................................105             FIGURE 14. THE OCCURRENCE OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL             AREAS IN THE “SYLLABUS“ OF SEPS (N = 42). ........................................................................... ...107             FIGURE 15. THE OCCURRENCE OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL             AREAS/SUBJECTS IN THE “COURSE OF STUDY“ OF SEPS (N = 49). .............................................108             FIGURE 16. PLACE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION             IDENTIFIED IN 50 SEPS. ........................................................................................................................109             FIGURE 17. LENGTH OF IMPLEMENTATION OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION             IDENTIFIED IN 50 SEPS. ..............................................................................................................................110             FIGURE 18. A TIME-SPACE MATRIX OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION FORMS. ................................. ...111             FIGURE 19. INTER/SUBJECT-ORIENTED OUTDOOR EDUCATION IDENTIFIED IN 50 SEPS. .......112             FIGURE 20. IMPLEMENTED FORMS OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IDENTIFIED IN 50 SEPS.  ........114                                                   193","FIGURE 21. INCORPORATION OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION INTO CROSS-CURRICULAR             SUBJECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 50 SEPS. ..................................................................................... ...115             FIGURE 22. THE USE OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN SCHOOL PROJECTS             IDENTIFIED IN 50 SEPS. ..............................................................................................................................116             FIGURE 23. THE LOCALISATION OF THE SCHOOL IN THE KŘTINY MUNICIPALITY             AND LOCATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SHORT-TERM OUTDOOR EDUCATION. ........ ...117             FIGURE 24. ASSESSMENT OF PUPILS’ ACTIVITIES DURING OUTDOOR EDUCATION –             GRADE 5. .......................................................................................................................................................138              FIGURE 25. ASSESSMENT OF PUPILS’ ACTIVITIES DURING OUTDOOR EDUCATION –             GRADE 6. .......................................................................................................................................................138             FIGURE 26. THE PERCEPTION OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION BY PUPILS OF             GRADES 5 AND 6. .......................................................................................................................... ...139              FIGURE 27. THE MOST IMPORTANT SKILLS THAT PUPILS OF THE GRADE 5 AND 6             LEARNED OUTDOORS. ...................................................................................................................140             FIGURE 28. PHOTOS OF THE FOREST WHERE THE PUPILS WERE SUPPOSED TO             DECIDE WHAT HERBS THERE ARE. ................................................................................................140             FIGURE 29. ANSWERS OF GRADE 5 PUPILS RELATED TO THE STOP POINT DURING             OUTDOOR EDUCATION. .................................................................................................................142             FIGURE 30. WHAT PUPILS OF THE GRADES 5 AND 6 ENJOY MOST DURING             OUTDOOR EDUCATION. .................................................................................................................144             FIGURE 31. THE PERCEPTION OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION BY PUPILS OF             GRADES 8 AND 9. .............................................................................................................................145             FIGURE 32. GRADE 8 AND 9 PUPILS’ OPINION ON OUTDOOR EDUCATION. ..............................146              FIGURE 33. PHOTOS WHERE THE PUPILS OF GRADE 8 AND 9 WERE SUPPOSED TO             DECIDE IF IT WAS A KARST PHENOMENON OR NOT. ............................................................... ...147             FIGURE 34. THE ACCURACY OF THE RUDICE SINK PLOTTING ON THE MAP             BY GRADE 8 AND 9 PUPILS. ............................................................................................................150             FIGURE 35. WHAT PUPILS OF THE GRADE 8 AND 9 ENJOY MOST DURING             OUTDOOR EDUCATION. .............................................................................................................. ...151              FIGURE 36. FREQUENCY OF PARENTING IN THE COUNTRYSIDEWITH CHILDREN. ...................152             FIGURE 37. THE PERCEPTION OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION BY PUPILS OF             THE GRADE 5, 6, 8 AND 9 OF THE MODEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. ......................................... ...157             FIGURE 38. THE PORTION OF TIME SPENT ON DIFFERENT KINDS OF ACTIVITY FOR             TEN PUPILS OF GRADE 5 DURING FOUR LESSONS OF VARIOUS TYPES OF EDUCATION. ......164             FIGURE 39. THE PORTION OF TIME SPENT ON DIFFERENT KINDS OF ACTIVITY FOR             TEN PUPILS OF GRADE 8 DURING FOUR LESSONS OF VARIOUS TYPES OF EDUCATION .......164                                                     194","LIST OF TABLES                    TABLE 1. KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ATTITUDES THAT CAN BE PRACTISED IN             OUTDOOR EDUCATION ........................................................................................................................ 17             TABLE 2. ANCHORING OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN FRAMEWORK EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMME             FOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION FOR THE LOWER STAGE OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION –             SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE EDUCATIONAL AREA “PEOPLE AND THEIR WORLD” ......................................23             TABLE 3. ANCHORING OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN THE FRAMEWORK EDUCATIONAL             PROGRAMME FOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION FOR BIOLOGY EDUCATION ..........................................24             TABLE 4. ANCHORING OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN THE FRAMEWORK EDUCATIONAL             PROGRAMME FOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION FOR GEOGRAPHY EDUCATION ....................................24             TABLE 5. ANCHORING OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN THE FRAMEWORK EDUCATIONAL             PROGRAMME FOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION FOR PHYSICAL EDUCATION.........................................24             TABLE 6. ANCHORING OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN THE FRAMEWORK EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMME             FOR SECONDARY GENERAL EDUCATION (GRAMMAR SCHOOLS)             FOR GEOGRAPHY EDUCATION .................................................................................................................25             TABLE 7. ANCHORING OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN THE FRAMEWORK EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMME             FOR SECONDARY GENERAL EDUCATION (GRAMMAR SCHOOLS)             FOR PHYSICAL EDUCATION .................................................................................................................25              TABLE 8. CHANGING APPROACHES TO OUTDOOR EDUCATION IN THE UK FROM 1950 TO 1985 ........ 46             TABLE 9. KEY ASPECTS OF INDIVIDUAL STAGES OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION ..................................... 66             TABLE 10. ACTIVITIES DEFINING BASIC FORMS OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION AND THEIR             DIFFICULTY PROGRESSION ..................................................................................................................67              TABLE 11. EXAMPLE OF TYPES OF ACTIVITIES FOR OUTDOOR EDUCATION ON THE EXAMPLE OF             THE TOPIC “TRAFFIC” AND THEIR HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL PROGRESS ........................................72             TABLE 12. PREPARATION AND SCENARIO OF THE CASE STUDY ..........................................................77             TABLE 13. NUMBER OF CLASSES IN THE LOWER AND UPPER STAGES OF THE ANALYSED             ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ......................................................................................................................92             TABLE 14. IDENTIFICATION OF SCHOOLS WHERE STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS WITH TEACHERS             TOOK PLACE ....................................................................................................................................... 94             TABLE 15. CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERVIEWED LOWER GRADE TEACHERS (GRADES 1–5) .................97              TABLE 16. CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERVIEWED UPPER GRADE TEACHERS (GRADES 6–9) .................97                                                   195","TABLE 17. TRANSFORMATION OF INTEREST TOPICS RESULTING FROM             THE SEP CONTENT ANALYSIS  INTO THE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE STRUCTURED INTERVIEW ............98             TABLE 18. BMI PERCENTILE AND WEIGHT STATUS OF GRADE 5 AND 8 PROBANDS                            TH             ACCORDING TO  THE 6  NAS METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................104             TABLE 19. THE OPINIONS OF PUPILS OF THE GRADES 5 AND 6, WHETHER             HERBACEOUS PLANTS  THRIVE IN A DECIDUOUS/CONIFEROUS FOREST ..........................................141             TABLE 20. THE DECISION OF PUPILS OF GRADES 8 AND 9 REGARDING WHETHER             THE KARST PHENOMENON IS IN THE PICTURE OR NOT .....................................................................148             TABLE 21. BENEFITS OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION THROUGH TEACHERS’ VIEW ................................... 155             TABLE 22. ATTITUDES TO OUTDOOR EDUCATION OF PUPILS AT GRADES 5, 6, 8 AND 9             OF  THE MODEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL .............................................................................................158             TABLE 23. BENEFITS OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION THROUGH PARENTS’ VIEW .....................................159              TABLE 24. AVERAGE ESTIMATED CALORIES NEED PER DAY, BY AGE, SEX,             AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY LEVEL FOR PUPILS OF GRADE 5 (AGE 9–11 IN THE MODEL SCHOOL)             AND GRADE 8 (AGE 13–14 IN THE MODEL SCHOOL) ...........................................................................161             TABLE 25. THE AMOUNT OF CONSUMED ENERGY (KCAL) OF GRADE 5 PUPILS DURING             FOUR LESSONS OF VARIOUS TYPES OF EDUCATION ..........................................................................162             TABLE 26. THE AMOUNT OF CONSUMED ENERGY (KCAL) OF GRADE 8 PUPILS DURING             FOUR LESSONS OF VARIOUS TYPES OF EDUCATION ..........................................................................163             TABLE 27. COMPARISON OF ENERGY (KCAL) USED UP BY TEN 5TH GRADE PUPILS AND             TEN 8TH GRADE PUPILS DURING A LESSON OF PE AND OUTDOOR EDUCATION ..............................165                                                                               196","INDEX                   A                                  F              aid  47, 119, 124                  field research  14, 17, 43, 56, 57, 73, 74, 77                                                fieldwork  9, 13–15, 31, 36, 37, 43, 46, 52, 56, 57,             B                                        72, 77–85, 90, 113, 168–171                                                first-hand experience  13             barrier  47, 100, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 156,   Framework Educational Programme / FEP  9,                  172, 174                            14, 19–26, 32, 34, 37, 45, 46, 71, 77, 90,             C                                        105, 154, 168                                                G             camp  25             case study  54, 74, 76, 77, 82, 84  GPS  16, 35–37, 51, 79, 124, 138, 144, 145,             content analysis  89–93, 98, 99, 101, 105,   146, 151, 156, 174                  107–110, 112, 114–116, 153, 154, 169  guided tour  107, 119, 120             course  9, 46, 54, 55, 58, 59, 63, 66–68, 70,                  98, 107, 108, 113, 118, 119, 121, 124,   I                  125, 132–134, 142, 143, 161, 165, 171,                  172, 175                      inquiry  13, 43, 56, 57, 64, 67, 68, 168, 170             cross-curricular  32, 78, 92, 114, 115  integration  5, 19, 32, 45, 59, 69, 70, 72, 92,             curriculum  86, 94, 95                   111, 118, 119                                                interdisciplinarity  28, 61, 98, 171             D                                  interview  52, 65, 78, 93–99, 101, 116,                                                      118–120, 123, 127, 129, 135, 153–155,             data  17, 19, 25, 30, 36, 37, 46, 56, 57, 59,   157, 173, 174                  65–67, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76–84, 95, 98,                  99, 101–104, 122, 136, 144, 160,   K                  167–170                                                kcal  102, 161–165             E                                  key competence  9, 26, 27, 29, 66, 70, 75, 88,                                                      100, 153, 171, 175             educational area  14, 21–23, 25, 26, 32, 72,                  73, 106–108, 153, 154         L             EEPA  118, 127             excursion  14, 45, 48–52, 62, 63, 67, 112  lifestyle  10, 32–34, 41, 54, 58, 71, 86, 87,             exploration  14, 24, 26, 29, 67, 72, 132  160, 161                                                long-term  22, 26, 34, 36, 51, 61–64, 68, 87,                                                      106, 109, 110, 113, 119, 123, 124, 128,                                                      154, 160, 174, 175                                                     197","M                                  S              map  16, 17, 23, 25, 30, 35–37, 52, 55–58, 65,   safety  23, 24, 35, 37–39, 45, 47, 58, 69,                  66, 71–73, 78–84, 91, 92, 100, 106,   71–73, 77, 80, 87, 120, 121, 123, 131,                  119, 122, 124, 135, 137–139, 142–144,   134, 171, 172, 174                  146, 149, 150, 157, 170, 174, 175  SEP  20, 26, 34, 46, 69, 72, 88–101, 105–116,             MET  102                                 118, 121, 126, 132, 153, 154, 160, 168,             mid-term  174                            169, 174             movement  24, 30–34, 39, 41, 59, 64, 72, 73,   short-term  26, 34, 49, 50, 52, 61, 68, 76, 87,                  80, 83, 153, 170, 171               92, 93, 109, 110, 113, 117–119, 121, 129,                                                      156, 160, 172, 174, 175             O                                  school ground  35, 55, 58, 61, 62, 109, 116,                                                      119, 122, 125, 134, 172             obesity  33, 103, 170              school in the countryside  22, 53, 54, 113,             observation/observing  14, 15, 22–24, 26, 31,   121, 128                  33, 41, 42, 45–50, 52, 57, 65, 67, 68,   sketch  17, 22, 35, 50, 52, 57, 71, 83, 84, 135, 144                  77, 78, 106, 112, 113, 123, 146, 173  skill  13, 14, 16–18, 27, 28, 29, 31–35, 39, 42,                                                      46, 47, 53–59, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 76,             P                                        78, 82, 84, 86–88, 100, 127, 132, 133,             parents  9, 10, 35, 38, 70, 85, 88, 89, 95, 100,   135, 136, 140, 146, 152, 154, 155,                  101, 123–126, 129, 130, 133–135,    158–160, 170–175                  151–156, 159, 160, 172–175    syllabus  41, 49, 66, 78, 106, 107, 118             physical activity  10, 33, 34, 52, 53, 58, 61, 75,                  85–89, 95, 99, 100, 102–104, 153, 160,   T                  161, 163, 165, 167–171, 175   teaching strategy  10, 13, 15, 59             physical education  9, 22–26, 31, 33, 34, 47,   thinking  16, 27, 28, 29, 32, 44, 56, 61, 71, 75,                  50, 59, 78, 88, 89, 103, 107, 121, 153,   82, 173                  154, 175                      tour  48–50, 55, 107             place-based  19                    training course  25, 54, 55, 58, 59, 93, 121, 133             problem-solving  10, 18, 27, 30, 34, 44, 62,   trip  32, 43, 45, 47, 49, 53, 55, 62, 71, 92, 93, 99,                  71, 135                             108–110, 113, 119, 121–123, 125–127,             project  9, 11, 19, 31, 46, 58, 59, 71, 79–81, 88,   130, 132–134, 138, 152, 157, 168, 174                  90, 92, 93, 106, 110, 115, 116, 119, 121,                  134, 154, 170, 171            U              R                                  urban  14, 28, 62, 63, 68, 78, 79, 91, 94, 95,                                                      109, 110, 129             rural  14, 62, 63, 68, 78, 79, 91, 92, 94, 109,                  110, 125                      W                                                walk  14, 46, 48–53, 57, 59, 62, 63, 67, 68, 72,                                                      93, 112, 119, 120, 122, 126, 132, 151,                                                      165, 168, 174                                                      198","Scientific Editorial Board of Masaryk University               prof. PhDr. Jiří Hanuš, Ph.D.; PhDr. Jan Cacek, Ph.D.; Mgr. Tereza Fojtová;             doc. JUDr. Marek Fryšták, Ph.D.; Mgr. Michaela Hanousková;             doc. RNDr. Petr Holub, Ph.D.; doc. Mgr. Jana Horáková, Ph.D.;             prof. MUDr. Lydie Izakovičová Hollá, Ph.D.; prof. PhDr. Mgr. Tomáš Janík, Ph.D.;             prof. PhDr. Tomáš Kubíček, Ph.D.; prof. RNDr. Jaromír Leichmann, Dr. rer. nat.;             PhDr. Alena Mizerová; doc. Ing. Petr Pirožek, Ph.D.;             doc. RNDr. Lubomír Popelínský, Ph.D.; Mgr. Kateřina Sedláčková, Ph.D.;             prof. RNDr. Ondřej Slabý, Ph.D.; prof. PhDr. Jiří Trávníček, M.A.;             doc. PhDr. Martin Vaculík, Ph.D.                      Outdoor Education in Geography: A specific Educational Strategy                RNDr. Hana Svobodová, Ph.D.                Published by Masaryk University Press, Žerotínovo nám. 617/9, 601 77 Brno, CZ               English proofreading: Ailsa Marion Randall, M.A.             Cover design: Mgr. et Mgr. Jana Nedomová, Ph.D.              Typesetting: Mgr. Tereza Češková             First electronic edition, 2019                       ISBN 978-80-210-9522-9",""];