Teaching outdoor and adventure activities: an investigation of a primary school physical education professional development p

Participation and Physical Activity (CSPPA) study (Woods et al., 2010). 
Gymnastics.
On a global level, Hardman and Marshall (2005) report that the 
percentage of time devoted to gymnastics in primary schools is relatively high. 
Conversely, only ten per cent of instructional time is given to gymnastics in physical 
education lessons in fifth classes in Irish primary schools according to the teachers 
(N=74) (Broderick & Shiel, 2000). From 2004-2009 there has been an increase of 19% 
in frequency of participation in gymnastics by primary school children (Woods et al., 
2010). This low percentage may be attributed to teacher’s perceptions as to their own 
confidence levels in this strand area (Bunker, Hardy, Smith and Almond, 1994). Safety 
issues may also be a concern for teachers particularly when it comes to teaching specific 
skills such as forward and backward rolls and handstands. Furthermore, confusion may 
persist for some teachers as to what actually constitutes gymnastics in the primary 
school (Reynolds, 2000).
Outdoor and adventure activities.
Outdoor and adventure activities (O&AA) is 
a relatively new area in physical education in Ireland. It became a strand in its own 
right in the 1999 curriculum, having appeared under the heading ‘other activities’ in the 
1971 curriculum. The 1971 curriculum regarded ‘outdoor activities of an adventurous 
nature…as an opportunity to promote a love of nature and qualities of leadership, 
courage and self-reliance’ (Government of Ireland, 1971, p. 293). The merits of 
exposing urban children in particular, to these experiences of ‘life in the open’ were 
highlighted. Activities such as camping and water-based activities are commonly 
associated with this area. Martin (2000) describes activities such as these as ‘outdoor 
pursuits’ which require specially trained personnel. However, O&AA are defined as 

---

38 
those activities which the class teacher undertakes within the school during physical 
education classes (Martin, 2000). Using this definition it is clear to see how such an 
area is as applicable to infants as it is to sixth class. Perspectives in the 1971 curriculum 
suggested that senior pupils only should experience outdoor activities. This may be due 
to the fact that the activities specified were of the ‘outdoor pursuits’ type as opposed to 
school-based activities. The Physical Education Curriculum (Government of Ireland, 
1999b) on the other hand recommends that much of the O&AA strand can take place in 
the school itself, particularly at infant level, where basic skills are taught. Martin (2000) 
agrees that the most dominant feature of O&AA for infants and older children alike is 
the adventure aspect, as the ‘outdoorness’ is not as crucial. Of all the strands, O&AA 
seems to fair the worst with 89% (N=1,135) of fifth and sixth class children reporting 
no exposure to the strand during physical education over the previous twelve months 
(Woods et al., 2010). One of the reasons why O&AA may not be taught is that of all 
the strand areas it is the one area where a teachers ‘apprenticeship of observation’ 
(Lortie, 1975) is of little help as few if any teachers would have experienced O&AA in 
school (or out). In the Irish colleges of education, the O&AA module, as part of the 
physical education undergraduate programme, only came into being in 2004.
In summary, it is apparent that there are a variety of areas of learning within the 
physical education curriculum for children of all ages. What appears crucial in terms of 
physical education is the concept of a breadth of activities rather than depth at this age.
It is very evident, from the studies cited above, that children (especially those in the 
senior classes) are not receiving the recommended allocation of physical education time.
We can also see that these children are not receiving a broad and balanced programme 
which would involve experiencing at least five if not all six strands of the curriculum 
over an academic year. Some improvements have been noted in recent research (Woods 
et al., 2010) and at primary level that there has been an increase in children’s 
experiences of some of the strands. However, it should be noted that in these studies 
cross-sectional data are being used, so its purpose is to highlight trends, and not track 
children over time, therefore they do not provide accurate reflections of improvement in 
children’s experiences. All studies reported above, which involve children, are based 
on the responses of children aged 10-12 years whereby it is assumed that they will have 
the ability to complete questionnaires and contribute to interviews. Children’s 
comments on their experiences of physical education may also provide different 
information than if their teachers were asked. This limitation and the lack of 

---

39 
observational data do not allow for objective evaluations. These qualitative methods are 
expensive and time-consuming and require detailed training and accurate assessment 
tools. Establishing reliable research methods which can produce valid results from 
young children ensuring the entire primary school voice is heard and acknowledged, 
giving a more complete picture of the primary physical education landscape are 
warranted. 
‘Historically, elementary physical education programs have largely been left 
untouched by efforts to evaluate their effectiveness or to hold schools or teachers 
accountable for providing students with effective instruction’ (Rink & Hall, 2008, p. 
217). In the United States, it is only South Carolina (as of 2008), that has a 
comprehensive assessment program in primary physical education with ‘legislated 
provisions for accountability at the school level’ (Rink & Hall, 2008, p. 217). There is a 
dearth of independent evaluation of primary physical education practice in Ireland.
Further research should be longitudinal, to establish how content and quality of physical 
education provision changes over time. This would provide a more comprehensive 
view of the status of physical education practice in primary schools. The issue of what 
is quality physical education also needs to be addressed. A recent study in the UK 
(Keay, 2011), evidenced best practice in physical education in 198 primary schools.
When asked to qualify what they meant by best practice, the respondents (partnership 
development officers, teachers, coaches and local authority representatives from eight of 
the English regions) identified competition and extra-curricular activities as indicators 
of best practice. Whether these indicators can be considered best practice for 4-12 year 
olds is questionable and there is a danger that it just caters for the sporting or motor 
elite. Another indicator highlighted in the study, was having a broad curriculum, but the 
identified schools often focussed on specific activities. Child learning or achievements 
were not mentioned as quality indicators. There is a gap between perceptions of 
quality/best practice and what occurs in practice, and problems exist even where there 
are clear structures and performance indicators. Research is needed that will examine 
what is meant by quality physical education or best practice in primary physical 
education, and to what extent it is being achieved.