Netla – Online Journal on Pedagogy and Education: Special edition 2016 – About outdoor education is publised by Netla – Online Journal on Pedagogy and Education and the School of Education. Editorial board members were Kristín Björnsdóttir (editor) and Steingerður Ólafsdóttir. Sigríður Kr. Hrafnkelsdóttir was responsible for the project management of the publication. Robert Berman and Torfi Hjartarson, managed final proofreading, final editing, and publication.
There are six articles in the special issue (two in English) and five of them are peer reviewed. In addition to a general manuscript review, they are read by the editorial board and peer-reviewed by two experts in the field of the subject. At least one of the experts does not work in the same field as the authors of the articles. Full anonymity is maintained during the peer review.
Published 07.09.2016
Articles in English
Kolbrún Þ. Pálsdóttir
Integrated learning in schools and leisure-time centres: Moving beyond dichotomies
Leisure-time centres for young school children operate on the periphery of the education system and are built on a leisure-time pedagogy that is inherently experiential and child-centred. When exploring views towards the young learner, two main frameworks come to the surface: the traditional developmental framework that looks at children as vulnerable subjects, and the social framework that recognizes children as active subjects. The author delineates a new conceptual philosophy for learning, namely integrated learning, which rejects the above dichotomies between formal and in-formal, objects and subjects. Such a framework describes the learning trajectories of children and serves to guide interdisciplinary professional collaboration between schools and leisure-time centres.
Ólafur Páll Jónsson
Space for play: The dilemma of radical outdoor education
The continuity thesis and radical outdoor education refer to two views of education, both of which seem plausible (and both of which are variously supported by empirical evidence). The first emphasizes continuity while the second emphasizes a sharp break with continuity. While the continuity thesis seems initially plausible, it is incompatible with the claim that radical educational settings, which make a sharp break with previous experience, are conducive to learning. The author refers to this as the dilemma of radical educational settings.
