Inclusive Pedagogy Outdoors: Forest School and the Engagement of Students with Special Educational Needs

Inclusive Pedagogy Outdoors: Forest School and the Engagement of Students with Special Educational Needs | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Inclusive Pedagogy Outdoors: Forest School and the Engagement of Students with Special Educational Needs Alexandros Stavrianos This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7778847/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 29 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates the role of Forest School (FS) as a model for inclusive education within a mainstream English primary school. Employing a mixed-methods case study, the research combined systematic observations using the Leuven Scale of Involvement with parent questionnaires and teacher interviews to examine differences in pupil engagement across FS, classroom, and playtime settings. Results demonstrate consistently higher levels of involvement during FS sessions compared with classroom lessons and recess, with particularly notable gains among students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Triangulated qualitative data indicated improvements in children’s confidence, social interaction, and emotional well-being, further highlighting the holistic benefits of experiential outdoor learning. These findings suggest that FS offers a promising pedagogical approach for fostering inclusion in mainstream education. The study contributes to the growing empirical base on outdoor education by providing evidence of FS’s potential to support diverse learners, while also offering practical insights for educators and policy-makers seeking to integrate nature-based learning within school curricula. Forest School Inclusive Education Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Outdoor Learning Student Engagement Introduction From an evolutionary standpoint, the human–nature bond has shaped human development and identity since prehistoric times. Early Homo sapiens were not detached observers of the natural world but active participants in an ecological web, sustaining reciprocal relationships with their environment that were simultaneously practical and ontological (Mitten & Brymer, 2022). This balance was radically altered during the Industrial Revolution, when technological advances encouraged an anthropocentric worldview. Nature was redefined as commodified “resources” rather than a living system (AUTHOR, DATE), producing what Louv (2005) describes as “nature-deficit disorder”—a dual phenomenon of ecological degradation and psychological estrangement from biophilic roots. This rupture has prompted renewed efforts to re-establish nature’s role in human development, particularly in education. Outdoor Education (OE) has emerged as a pedagogical response, with meta-analyses demonstrating diverse benefits for cognitive functioning, social-emotional growth, and physical wellbeing (Kuo et al., 2019; Rickinson et al., 2004). Grounded in experiential learning theory (Kolb, 2014), OE fosters what Beames and Brown (2021) describe as “embodied place-based learning,” in which knowledge arises from direct sensory engagement with natural environments. Within this framework, Forest School (FS) has gained prominence through its synthesis of ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), inclusive pedagogy (Florian, 2008), and principles of self-determination (Ryan & Deci, 2000), supporting autonomy, competence, and relatedness in learners. Although scholarly interest in FS is growing, empirical gaps remain, especially concerning its impact on students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). This is significant given that around 15% of UK pupils have identified SEND (DfE, 2023), and natural environments may provide unique therapeutic benefits such as enhanced sensory processing and self-regulation (Faber Taylor & Kuo, 2011). Addressing this gap, the present study employs a mixed-methods design to investigate FS in a mainstream primary context. Building on AUTHOR, DATE foundational work, it applies the Leuven Involvement Scale (Laevers, 2005) to quantitatively compare engagement across environments, while also capturing qualitative accounts of psychosocial outcomes from key stakeholders. The conceptual framework integrates the biophilia hypothesis (Wilson, 1984), inclusive education theory (Booth & Ainscow, 2002), and Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan, 1995) to examine natural environments as equitable and transformative learning spaces. By combining perspectives from special education, environmental psychology, and outdoor learning, this research advances understanding of FS as an inclusive pedagogical approach. It contributes empirical evidence of how nature-based education can mitigate the shortcomings of traditional classrooms, particularly for SEND pupils, while offering practical guidance for educators and policymakers. Research questions: How does pupil involvement differ across Forest School, classroom, and playtime settings, as measured by the Leuven Scale of Involvement? In what ways do teachers and parents perceive Forest School as enabling (or constraining) inclusive practices for pupils, particularly those with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)? Forest School as a Framework for Inclusive Pedagogy Inclusive education has become a central principle of contemporary educational discourse, representing not only a pedagogical approach but also a philosophical commitment to equity and social justice in learning environments (Booth & Ainscow, 2002; Slee, 2018). This framework challenges traditional schooling by calling for the dismantling of systemic barriers and the creation of ecosystems that embrace neurodiversity and cognitive plurality (Florian & Beaton, 2018). As AUTHOR, DATE argues, genuine inclusion requires a reimagining of educational spaces—moving beyond surface-level accommodation to fundamentally transform structures, curricula, and assessment practices. The shortcomings of conventional classrooms are particularly evident for students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). Standardized curricula, didactic instruction, and rigid assessment protocols often result in what Armstrong and Tsokova (2019) term “pedagogical disablement,” where systemic inflexibility—rather than inherent student characteristics—creates barriers to participation. This aligns with the social model of disability (Oliver, 2013), which frames disability as arising from the interaction between individual differences and unsupportive environments. Forest School (FS) offers a compelling alternative by embedding inclusive principles within its ecological approach to learning. Grounded in the biophilic design framework (Faber & Kuo, 2011; Kellert, 2018), FS environments provide what Gibson (2014) describes as rich “affordances”—multiple pathways for engagement that accommodate diverse learning styles and abilities. Natural settings also provide neurobiological benefits, such as reduced sensory overload and enhanced attentional regulation (Kuo et al., 2019), creating particularly supportive contexts for SEND learners. Pedagogically, FS resonates with Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development through scaffolded, experiential learning. Unlike classroom adaptations, which are often retroactive, FS incorporates differentiation from the outset—what Tomlinson (2017) describes as “proactive rather than reactive differentiation.” Its open-ended activities foster what Hart (1992) terms genuine child-led participation, nurturing both agency and self-efficacy. The theoretical strength of FS lies in its synthesis of ecological psychology (Heft, 2001), universal design for learning (Rose & Meyer, 2002), and positive youth development frameworks (Lerner et al., 2005). Together, these dimensions create what might be described as an “ecology of inclusion,” where diversity is not only accommodated but leveraged as a resource for collective growth and learning. Forest School as a Pedagogy of Possibility Forest School (FS) represents a pedagogical innovation that translates inclusive education principles into practice through its synthesis of ecological design and learner-centred approaches. Drawing on embodied cognition (Wilson, 2002) and universal design for learning (Rose & Meyer, 2002), FS reconceptualises natural environments as dynamic learning spaces that inherently accommodate neurodiversity. Their multisensory qualities provide what Kaplan (1995) terms “soft fascination,” creating conditions of engagement particularly beneficial for learners with sensory processing differences. This regulation of stimuli contrasts with the overstimulation often experienced in conventional classrooms (Kuo et al., 2019). The structure of FS embodies Biesta’s (2010) notion of “subjectification”—supporting learners in becoming self-directed. Open-ended activities such as habitat exploration and construction with natural materials exemplify what Lave and Wenger (1991) describe as legitimate peripheral participation, enabling learners to engage at their own developmental level while gradually increasing competence and confidence. Such practices align with inclusive pedagogy that resists deficit models of disability, instead framing learning differences as natural variations in development (Florian, 2014). FS’s equity-oriented design resonates with Annamma et al.’s (2018) dis/ability critical race theory (DisCrit), challenging normative assumptions embedded in traditional schooling. By decentralising narrow measures of success and valuing diverse forms of participation, FS creates what Simon (1992) characterises as a “pedagogy of possibility” for marginalised learners. Its emphasis on learner agency and differentiated participation also reflects neurodiversity paradigms that position cognitive difference as natural variation rather than disorder (Armstrong, 2010). Despite this strong theoretical alignment, empirical research on FS implementation remains limited. Recent reviews (Leather, 2018; Remmen & Iversen, 2022) highlight three gaps: (1) longitudinal studies of inclusive outcomes, (2) comparative analysis of engagement across environments, and (3) qualitative exploration of stakeholder perspectives. Addressing these, the present study employs a critical realist methodology (Bhaskar, 2013) to investigate both observable outcomes and the mechanisms through which FS fosters inclusion. In particular, the research examines how FS’s interplay of environmental affordances (Gibson, 1979), flexible pedagogy, and community-building practices constructs what Bronfenbrenner (1979) would call a supportive microsystem for diverse learners. Through systematic analysis of participation and stakeholder accounts, this study seeks to develop a nuanced understanding of FS as what Slee (2018) terms an “inclusive education technology”—a practical vehicle for achieving equitable participation. In doing so, it contributes to the movement to shift inclusive education from theoretical aspiration toward empirically grounded, context-responsive implementation (Florian & Spratt, 2013). Methodology This study employed an exploratory, embedded case study design within a mixed-methods framework, grounded in critical realist philosophy (Bhaskar, 2013 ; Maxwell, 2012 ). The critical realist perspective enabled the investigation to address both observable patterns of engagement and the underlying mechanisms that shape inclusive practices in Forest School (FS) settings. The research was conducted in a mainstream primary school in England with an established FS programme, chosen for its commitment to inclusive education and diverse student population. Systematic observations were carried out across three learning environments—FS sessions, traditional classrooms, and unstructured outdoor play—producing 100 datasets. These observations focused on ten children from Years 3 and 4, including two with formally identified Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND): one boy with Autism Spectrum Disorder and one girl with mild intellectual disabilities. The other eight participants, all neurotypical peers, served as a comparison group, allowing analysis of differential engagement patterns. The Leuven Involvement Scale (Laevers, 2005 ) was used as the primary observational tool, providing a standardised measure of engagement across five levels of participation. This instrument captures cognitive involvement, emotional well-being, and self-directed activity, thereby offering a holistic assessment of learning engagement. Observations were conducted over a six-month period using time-sampling techniques, with data collected evenly across the three settings to ensure valid comparison. To complement the observational data, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with seven educators involved in FS delivery and classroom teaching. The protocol explored perceptions of environmental influences on participation, pedagogical adaptations for diverse learners, and outcomes associated with FS. At the same time, sixteen parents completed detailed questionnaires documenting observations of their children’s behavioural, social, and academic development in relation to FS participation. The mixed-methods analysis followed an iterative process of integration, whereby quantitative engagement metrics were interpreted alongside qualitative insights from stakeholders. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts and open-ended questionnaire responses was conducted following Braun and Clarke’s ( 2006 ) framework, with particular attention to emergent patterns in how learning environments mediated participation opportunities for SEND pupils. Ethical approval was secured through the institutional review board, with multilayered consent procedures for all participants. Observation protocols were designed to minimise researcher interference, using positioning strategies that preserved naturalistic interactions while ensuring comprehensive data capture. This methodological approach balanced systematic measurement with nuanced understanding, generating evidence that addressed the study’s central questions about FS as an inclusive pedagogical approach. Through this design, the study was able to capture both measurable outcomes and lived experiences of inclusive education across alternative learning environments, offering insights with theoretical significance and practical value for educators seeking to embed nature-based approaches in mainstream schooling. Participants A purposive sampling strategy was employed to recruit participants from a state-funded primary school in Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom, which had adopted Forest School (FS) as part of its inclusive education provision. The core cohort comprised ten children aged 7–9 years (Years 3 and 4). To enable focused analysis of inclusive practices, the sample intentionally included two pupils with formally diagnosed Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND): one male with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and one female with mild intellectual disabilities. Both students had Individual Education Plans (IEPs) in place. The remaining eight neurotypical peers served as a comparison group, supporting analysis of differential engagement across learner profiles. To incorporate wider perspectives, sixteen parents/guardians contributed longitudinal accounts of their children’s cognitive, social-emotional, and behavioural development in relation to FS. The parent cohort reflected diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, with all participants having at least six months’ exposure to the FS programme. Seven education professionals also took part, comprising two FS-certified leaders, three classroom teachers (including the school’s Special Educational Needs Coordinator), and two teaching assistants with designated responsibility for SEND support. This stratified structure facilitated comprehensive data triangulation. Students provided behavioural evidence through naturalistic observation, parents contributed lived-experience perspectives, and educators offered professional interpretations of pedagogical processes. Such a multi-voiced approach aligns with the study’s mixed-methods, critical realist framework by capturing both empirical manifestations of inclusion (observed behaviours) and the social constructions of inclusive practice (stakeholder perceptions). Ethical considerations informed participant selection, with deliberate attention to representation across gender, ability, and socioeconomic background. All participants met stringent inclusion criteria, including at least six months of continuous FS engagement and provision of informed consent (with adapted procedures for SEND pupils). This sample design generated rich, contextualised data while ensuring methodological rigour appropriate for an in-depth case study of inclusive education practices. Data Collection The study employed a rigorous multi-method strategy designed to capture both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of student engagement and inclusive practice within the Forest School (FS) context. Systematic observations formed the foundation of the empirical investigation. The Leuven Involvement Scale (Laevers, 2005 ), a validated instrument for measuring depth of engagement, was used to assess behavioural indicators of well-being and involvement on a five-point continuum. Trained researchers conducted 100 structured observations across three distinct environments—FS sessions, traditional classroom lessons, and unstructured break times. Each of the ten pupils was observed repeatedly across settings over a six-month period. The standardised protocol ensured reliable comparisons while accounting for contextual variation. To complement observational data, comprehensive questionnaires were administered to all sixteen parents. These hybrid instruments combined 5-point Likert-scale items with open-ended questions. They were designed to probe three developmental domains: cognitive engagement (e.g., persistence with challenging tasks), social competence (e.g., peer interaction patterns), and emotional regulation (e.g., stress responses). This design allowed both quantification of parental perceptions and collection of rich qualitative insights into children’s developmental trajectories. The qualitative dimension was further strengthened through semi-structured interviews with the seven educators. Conducted by trained researchers using a piloted protocol, these 45–60 minute interviews explored professional perspectives on FS’s role in supporting inclusive education. Questions were organised around three thematic clusters: observed behavioural changes in pupils (particularly those with SEND), perceived mechanisms of FS effectiveness, and implementation challenges. All interviews were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. The interview design reflected the study’s theoretical framework, drawing particularly on ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979 ) and inclusive pedagogy (Florian, 2014 ). Integration of the three data streams—systematic behavioural observations, parental reports, and educator perspectives—created a robust evidentiary base for examining FS’s inclusive potential. Methodological triangulation was enhanced through temporal spacing of data collection across the academic year, allowing assessment of both immediate effects and sustained impacts. All instruments were piloted before use and refined to ensure developmental appropriateness for the children and cultural sensitivity for families. This multi-method protocol successfully captured the complexity of inclusive education processes while maintaining the scientific rigour expected of mixed-methods educational research. Data Analysis The study adopted a mixed-methods approach to data analysis, integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques to generate a comprehensive understanding of the impact of Forest School (FS) on inclusive educational experiences. Quantitative data from the Leuven Involvement Scale and the closed-ended questionnaire items were analysed using descriptive statistics. This enabled the identification of key trends and patterns in pupils’ engagement levels across learning environments, as well as parents’ perceptions of FS’s influence on their children’s development. Qualitative data—comprising semi-structured educator interviews and parents’ open-ended questionnaire responses—were analysed using thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s ( 2006 ) six-phase framework. This approach facilitated the identification of recurring themes and categories relating to participants’ experiences, attitudes, and interpretations of FS, thereby illuminating the subjective and contextual dimensions of inclusion. Triangulation across data types and sources further enhanced the validity and trustworthiness of findings. By integrating behavioural observations with parent and teacher perspectives, the analysis produced a multi-layered depiction of FS as an inclusive pedagogical environment. Results Engagement Levels Across Different Educational Settings The Leuven Involvement Scale (LIS) was used to measure pupils’ active engagement across three learning environments: Forest School (FS), indoor classrooms, and recess. Results indicate clear differences, with FS sessions consistently producing higher levels of involvement compared to the other settings (Table 1 ). Table 1 Engagement Levels in different environments Environment Year 3 Average Scores Year 4 Average Scores Forest School 4.5 4.5 Indoor Class 3.2 3.2 Recess 2.8 2.9 Note. LIS range = 1 (low) to 5 (high). Values reported as means. The Leuven Scale (Laevers, 2015 ) assesses engagement on a five-point continuum, ranging from complete disengagement (Level 1) to sustained, focused involvement characterised by motivation, creativity, and active participation (Level 5). Importantly, the instrument captures not only cognitive but also emotional and physical dimensions of engagement. The inclusion of three distinct contexts—FS sessions, classroom instruction, and unstructured play—enabled systematic comparison of how different environments influence student participation. FS emerged as particularly conducive to deep engagement, with its natural setting and experiential activities encouraging higher levels of sustained involvement than classroom-based or unstructured settings. This finding resonates with Kolb’s ( 2014 ) experiential learning theory, which highlights the value of hands-on, sensory-rich experiences for fostering reflection and meaningful learning. The consistently higher engagement scores in FS (averaging 4.5 across both year groups) suggest that its child-centred and nature-connected pedagogy provides optimal conditions for holistic participation. These results reinforce the importance of educational approaches that move beyond passive knowledge transmission to support inclusive, whole-child development. The multidimensional assessment afforded by the Leuven Scale proved especially valuable for capturing qualitative differences in engagement, underscoring FS’s unique potential to promote learning that is cognitive, social, and emotional in scope. Analysis of Involvement by Student Type Further analysis examined the differentiated impact of Forest School (FS) on pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) compared with their peers without SEND. Table 2 Comparative Activation Scores for Students With and Without SEND Environment Averages of Pupils with SEND Averages of Pupils without SEND Forest School 4.6 4.4 Indoor Class 2.9 3.4 Recess 2.7 3.0 Note. LIS range = 1–5. The results demonstrate that SEND pupils achieved higher average involvement in FS sessions (4.6) compared to both their own classroom engagement (2.9) and the scores of their non-SEND peers in the same setting (4.4). These findings highlight FS as a particularly supportive and adaptable learning environment for learners with diverse needs. By contrast, non-SEND pupils showed smaller differences in engagement across the three contexts, although FS still emerged as the most engaging environment overall. Gender differences were also noted, with girls demonstrating slightly higher active and emotional participation during FS compared with boys. Taken together, these findings reinforce the importance of differentiated approaches that account for varied learner profiles. FS’s child-centred design, multisensory stimulation, and freedom from rigid academic structures appear to enable SEND students to participate actively and meaningfully. This aligns with the core principles of inclusive pedagogy (Florian, 2008 ) and supports arguments for FS as a model of inclusive practice (AUTHOR ET AL, DATE). Parents’ Perceptions of the Impact of Forest School (FS) Questionnaire feedback from parents indicated strong support for the FS approach and widespread recognition of its pedagogical benefits. Parents particularly emphasised enhanced pupil engagement and improved social skills. Table 3 Summary of Parents’ Perceptions of the Impact of the Forest School (FS) Category of Impact Agreement Percentage Increased Engagement 84% Improved Social Interactions 78% Enhanced Interest in Learning 75% The majority of parents reported that FS positively influenced their children’s active participation, alongside noticeable gains in social adjustment and peer relationships. These perceptions reinforce the role of the learning environment as a developmental catalyst, consistent with Bronfenbrenner’s ( 1979 ) ecological systems theory. By highlighting improvements not only in academic interest but also in social-emotional growth, parents’ perspectives support the view that FS functions as a holistic model of education that benefits the whole child. Teacher Observations Semi-structured interviews with teachers generated rich qualitative data that consistently underscored the positive impact of Forest School (FS). Educators highlighted notable increases in pupils’ autonomy and confidence, particularly among those with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). They also described strengthened classroom cohesion, fostered through the shared experiences of learning in natural environments. In addition, teachers reported improvements in pupils’ social skills, concentration, and emotional expression, attributing these gains to FS’s provision of a safe, supportive, and flexible learning environment. Collectively, these testimonies reinforce the view that FS should not be regarded merely as an alternative teaching practice, but rather as a dynamic and inclusive pedagogical environment with lasting effects on both individual learners and the wider school community. Teacher Reports: Perceived Benefits of Forest School (FS) Semi-structured interviews with teachers provided essential insight into the pedagogical dynamics of FS, highlighting not only its implementation but also its observable impact on pupils’ behaviour, attitudes, and engagement. Analysis of the interviews revealed recurring themes relating to enhanced intrinsic motivation, improved social skills, and increased concentration during outdoor sessions. Collectively, these themes reinforce FS as an environment that promotes cognitive, emotional, and social development through experiential engagement and freedom from the restrictive structures of the traditional classroom. Table 4 Reported Benefits of the Forest School by Teachers Benefit Frequency of Mention Enhancement of Student Motivation 12 Improvement of Social Skills 15 Better Focus on Activities 9 Teachers consistently identified FS as uniquely effective for fostering essential life skills that are often difficult to cultivate in conventional classroom contexts. They described how children who were hesitant to participate indoors became leaders outdoors, how quiet students found new voices in collaborative projects, and how restless learners channelled their energy into purposeful exploration. Such transformations reflect Vygotsky’s ( 1978 ) view of learning as a socially mediated process, with the natural environment functioning simultaneously as both classroom and teacher. A striking theme across testimonies was the visible joy students exhibited during FS sessions. Educators emphasised that this was not mere playfulness but rather evidence of profound learning enabled by feelings of safety, acceptance, and engagement. As one veteran teacher explained: “You can’t separate the happiness from the learning – we see children grasping concepts here that frustrated them indoors, because their whole being is involved.” This observation reflects insights from educational neuroscience, which demonstrate the interdependence of emotion and cognition in learning. Overall, teachers’ reports presented FS as more than an alternative teaching location. Instead, it emerged as a fundamentally different way of understanding education—one that honours children’s natural curiosity, values diverse forms of participation, and measures success through growth rather than scores. Where traditional schooling often struggles to accommodate varied learning styles and paces, FS’s flexible framework appeared to transform diversity into a resource rather than a barrier. These practitioner perspectives suggest that FS’s greatest contribution lies in its ability to reconnect learning with the natural world and with children’s intrinsic developmental needs. In doing so, FS offers a compelling model of education that is not simply preparation for tests, but preparation for life—one that is meaningful, inclusive, and profoundly human-centred. Thematic Analysis Findings Thematic analysis of the teacher interviews identified six interconnected themes that provide deeper insight into the operation and impact of the Forest School (FS) programme within the school context. Frequency of FS sessions Teachers emphasised the need for FS to occur more regularly. Sporadic implementation was seen as limiting its potential, whereas greater frequency would allow FS benefits to become more embedded in everyday educational practice. Flexible and open curriculum Respondents highlighted the importance of a curriculum that prioritises exploration, experimentation, and experiential engagement. Moving away from standardised teaching approaches was viewed as particularly advantageous for pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), since FS provides a child-centred framework responsive to individual needs. Parental involvement Active parental participation in FS sessions was identified as crucial for enhancing children’s emotional security and reinforcing the school–family relationship. Teachers noted that parental presence strengthened trust and a sense of belonging. Resources and logistics Adequate material and logistical support—including appropriate equipment—was recognised as a prerequisite for effective implementation. Teachers reported that limited resources restricted both the safety and creativity of FS activities. Gender differences Some teachers observed that girls tended to approach FS activities with greater caution. This suggests the value of differentiated pedagogical strategies that account for gender-related variations in learning experiences and engagement. Professional development There was strong agreement on the need for continuous and targeted professional development for educators. Teachers stressed that training in FS philosophy, methodology, and practice is essential for maximising its pedagogical potential and embedding it as a sustainable element of inclusive education. Together, these themes reinforce the view of FS as more than a supplementary activity. They highlight the structural, pedagogical, and relational conditions necessary to sustain FS as a transformative, inclusive practice within mainstream schooling. Discussion Forest School (FS) emerges from this study as a flexible and supportive learning environment with particular value for pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). The findings confirm that organised, pedagogically intentional outdoor learning can help dismantle fundamental barriers faced by SEND learners in conventional classrooms (O’Brien & Murray, 2007). Where traditional settings are often characterised by restricted mobility, one-dimensional knowledge transmission, and limited differentiation, FS offers a natural and adaptable learning space that promotes autonomy, exploration, and child-centred adaptation. The pedagogical framework of FS aligns closely with the principles of inclusive education articulated in contemporary literature (Florian, 2008; AUTHOR ET AL, DATE). Differentiation is not treated as an “add-on” or special adaptation but is embedded into FS’s core philosophy. Learners are offered multiple pathways for engagement, a range of roles, and flexible modes of participation. Activities are open-ended and multimodal, enabling pupils to engage in ways that reflect their abilities, needs, and interests. For instance, a child with sensory sensitivities may focus on exploring natural textures and sounds, while a pupil with social challenges may engage in group-based projects supported by peer collaboration. The natural environment also functions as an equalising space, reducing visible differences and fostering a sense of belonging. Within this context, SEND pupils experience education not as a test of compliance but as an opportunity for empowerment. The provision of choice, the absence of evaluative pressure, and the emphasis on experiential activity contribute to enhanced self-regulation, positive self-image, and growing confidence. Rather than adapting themselves to a rigid system, students are invited to co-construct their learning environment. The flexibility inherent in FS also supports variation in pace and level of challenge, allowing for personalised learning without stigma. Pedagogical strategies such as differentiated role assignments, peer support, and the absence of overt competition create conditions for meaningful inclusion. As a result, SEND pupils engage more actively and experience tangible success, with positive effects on psychosocial empowerment, peer relationships, and overall adjustment to school life. The systematic integration of FS should not be regarded as a supplementary or occasional intervention but as a fundamental element of educational policy designed to cultivate adaptive, democratic, and empowering schools for all learners. As AUTHOR (DATE) argues, the adoption of FS principles represents not simply a new teaching method but a pedagogical re-start, closely aligned with values of social justice and sustainability. The present study demonstrates that FS is not merely an alternative approach but a transformative pedagogical model with the capacity to operationalise inclusive education in practice. By promoting differentiation, autonomy, and a sense of community, FS establishes conditions for schools that include, empower, and support all students—regardless of profile or ability. Systematic implementation of FS can therefore serve as a catalyst for advancing educational equity, enhancing the participation, learning, and well-being of SEND pupils in meaningful and sustainable ways (Armstrong & Tsokova, 2019; Davis et al., 2014). Moreover, the findings highlight FS’s role in shifting the focus of education from the transmission of content to processes of inquiry, autonomy, and experiential engagement. This transformation is particularly significant in heterogeneous school contexts, where diverse learning needs demand flexible, accessible, and participatory models of practice (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; AUTHOR, DATE). In this sense, FS provides not only an inclusive pedagogy for the present but also a framework for reimagining education as a holistic, equitable, and future-facing endeavour. Perceptions of Parents and Educators Social and Emotional Dimensions of Forest School Feedback from parents and educators, gathered through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, provides substantive evidence of the social and emotional impact of Forest School (FS). These accounts are consistent with international research (Malone & Waite, 2016; Palavan et al., 2016), confirming the capacity of outdoor education to enhance pupil well-being, collaboration, and resilience. Parents reported clear improvements in their children’s social skills and emotional regulation, attributing these gains to FS’s non-judgemental and supportive character. Outdoor activities fostered empathy, agency, and peer interaction within a context where acceptance, safety, and self-expression were dominant values. The absence of constant evaluative pressure appeared to unlock children’s potential, promoting authentic presence and positive emotional engagement. Educators further noted that skills cultivated in FS often transferred back into the classroom. Enhanced conflict resolution, teamwork, and self-regulation were identified as direct outcomes of FS participation. This environment not only supported SEND pupils but also established conditions of equality and reciprocity that enriched the overall classroom climate. The triangulation of quantitative engagement data with parental and teacher narratives strengthened the validity of these findings, illuminating not only the cognitive but also the social and emotional dimensions of FS learning (AUTHOR, DATE). The shared sense of achievement—where each pupil contributed in their own way—cultivated belonging and reinforced collective cohesion. Emotional well-being also emerged as a consistent theme. Pupils appeared calmer, happier, and more willing to engage in learning following FS sessions. The natural environment, as a sensory-rich and emotionally regulatory space, seemed to exert a therapeutic influence, especially for children experiencing anxiety or low self-esteem. This dialectical interaction between social empowerment and emotional stability created a reinforcing cycle that strengthened psycho-educational development. These dynamics can be interpreted through ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), with FS functioning as a supportive microsystem that fosters development through interaction with both natural and social environments (AUTHOR, DATE). The involvement of parents and educators, combined with the authenticity of outdoor learning experiences, further consolidated the learning community and strengthened inclusive practice. Overall, the qualitative findings confirm FS as not only an innovative pedagogical tool but also a sustainable model for inclusive education. By cultivating empathy, resilience, and collaboration, FS contributes to individual empowerment and the building of a cohesive school community. The evidence strongly advocates for the integration of outdoor education into the core curriculum as a foundation for schools that meaningfully address the social, emotional, and learning needs of contemporary students. In summary, FS emerges not merely as an effective practice but as a holistic and adaptive framework where student participation—especially for those with SEND—is the norm rather than the exception. Its experiential character, sensory engagement, and emphasis on social collaboration collectively foster cognitive, emotional, and social development, advancing a more balanced and humane model of education. Contribution to Educational Practice and Policy This study, situated at the intersection of outdoor education, Forest School (FS), and inclusive pedagogy, contributes to the ongoing discourse on redefining educational frameworks to better respond to learner diversity. Its significance emerges at two levels—everyday teaching practice and broader educational policy—bridging theoretical principles with actionable strategies. At the practice level, the findings provide evidence-based recommendations for teachers and school leaders seeking to embed FS principles into daily learning. Strategies include designing flexible, adaptable environments that address the needs of heterogeneous classrooms, with particular emphasis on pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). FS’s experiential approach enhances active participation, fosters self-confidence, supports long-term retention, and encourages authentic understanding of curriculum content. By emphasising autonomy, discovery-based learning, and sensory engagement with natural environments, FS offers a compelling alternative for meeting diverse student needs in inclusive settings. At the policy level, the study provides a robust case for the institutional integration of FS within mainstream schooling. Policymakers can draw on these findings to design initiatives that promote outdoor and inclusive learning through targeted funding, professional development for teachers, and curriculum adaptation to embed experiential and student-centred approaches. By explicitly supporting SEND learners, FS aligns with international equity agendas, particularly Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) of the United Nations, which calls for inclusive and equitable quality education for all. In this way, the study extends beyond documenting the effectiveness of an alternative pedagogy. It positions FS as both a practical tool for enhancing classroom inclusion and a policy lever for systemic transformation, serving as a catalyst for rethinking how education can be organised to meet the social, emotional, and cognitive needs of contemporary learners. Reconfiguring Learning Across Contexts The comparative analysis of learning environments highlights how Forest School (FS) principles address key limitations of traditional education while complementing its strengths. Conventional classroom instruction is highly effective for structured knowledge delivery but often falls short in nurturing experiential learning, student agency, and emotional investment—the very domains where FS demonstrates its greatest impact. This complementarity suggests an opportunity to build more balanced educational ecosystems that integrate the advantages of both approaches. FS’s distinctive contribution lies in its ability to develop the whole child through nature-based, hands-on experiences. By prioritising exploration and student-directed inquiry, FS cultivates competencies that are often marginalised in formal schooling: self-regulation, creative problem-solving, and collaborative skills. For pupils who struggle in traditional classrooms—including those with neurodiverse profiles or sensory sensitivities—the outdoor environment offers alternative pathways to engagement and achievement. Activities can be flexibly adapted to individual needs, transforming potential barriers into opportunities for personalised growth. Crucially, FS reconfigures conventional educational dynamics. Freed from rigid timetables and standardised assessments, students experience learning as an organic process of discovery rather than performance. This shift opens space for diverse forms of participation and achievement, embedding inclusive principles into everyday practice rather than leaving them as abstract ideals. Learners who might otherwise disengage are enabled to contribute actively, with their unique strengths valued within the community. The benefits of FS extend beyond individual learners to reshape school culture more broadly. Collaborative outdoor experiences foster deeper peer relationships, stronger connections to the natural world, and renewed engagement with learning itself. These outcomes nurture ecological awareness, resilience, and social-emotional intelligence—competencies increasingly recognised as vital in contemporary education. Importantly, such benefits do not undermine academic goals; instead, they provide the motivational and cognitive foundation that strengthens classroom learning. Rather than positioning FS as a replacement for traditional education, the evidence suggests its greatest value lies in integration. A hybrid model that combines the structure of classroom instruction with the openness of outdoor learning may represent an optimal pathway for 21st-century schooling. Such a synthesis respects the complexity of human development while preparing learners not only with knowledge, but also with the creativity, adaptability, and environmental stewardship that the future demands. Theoretical and Practical Implications for Inclusive Education This study substantiates the central premise of ecological systems theory: that human development emerges through dynamic person–environment interactions (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Forest School (FS) exemplifies this framework in practice, creating a microsystem where natural surroundings, social dynamics, and pedagogical approaches converge to foster holistic development. In FS, the environment is not merely a backdrop for activity but an active agent in the learning process—shaping cognitive, social, and emotional growth through direct, multisensory engagement. FS thus represents more than an alternative teaching location; it constitutes a paradigm shift in how learning environments are conceptualised. By dissolving boundaries between classroom and nature, FS nurtures not only academic knowledge but also environmental literacy, self-awareness, and community belonging. This holistic orientation aligns with contemporary perspectives on learning as embodied and situated, dependent on both physical and social contexts (AUTHOR, DATE). Practically, the findings highlight the necessity of integrating FS principles with traditional pedagogy to create hybrid models that harness the strengths of both approaches. While conventional classrooms provide structure and access to knowledge systems, FS offers authentic experiential learning that is adaptive and inclusive. This combination is particularly effective in diverse educational contexts, enabling multiple pathways for pupils of varied needs, abilities, and cultural backgrounds to access and engage meaningfully with learning. Three dimensions emerged as essential to successful implementation: Emotional and social foundations that underpin academic achievement. Environmental awareness as a core competency for sustainable futures. Inclusive practices that guarantee equitable participation. Together, these elements frame an educational approach that prepares students not only for academic assessments but also for the complex personal, social, and ecological challenges of the 21st century. For policymakers, the study underscores the urgency of reconceptualising educational spaces, curricula, and teacher preparation. This requires investment in outdoor learning infrastructure, curriculum redesign to embed nature-based experiences, and professional development that equips educators to facilitate experiential, student-centred pedagogy. Most critically, it demands a commitment to ensuring that all learners—regardless of background or ability—can access these transformative opportunities. Ultimately, this research calls for moving beyond incremental adjustments toward systemic reimagining of education around ecological principles. FS offers one promising model for this transformation, demonstrating how learning environments can nurture the full spectrum of human potential while fostering the environmental stewardship urgently required in contemporary society. The challenge ahead is scaling these insights to design education systems that are truly inclusive, sustainable, and responsive to the needs of future generations. Limitations of the Present Study While this study provides substantive evidence of the value of Forest School (FS) for inclusive education, several limitations affect the generalisability of its conclusions. The investigation was conducted within a single school context, shaped by its particular demographic, cultural, and pedagogical characteristics. As such, external validity is limited, and replication across varied educational settings—urban and rural, multicultural and under-resourced—remains a crucial next step to assess the broader applicability of FS. The relatively small sample size, though appropriate for an exploratory case study, also constrains statistical analysis and subgroup comparisons. Future research involving larger and more diverse cohorts would enable deeper examination of differentiated FS impacts, particularly across categories such as type of Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), socioeconomic background, or linguistic and cultural identity. Another limitation is the cross-sectional design. The present study captures a snapshot of pupils’ experiences but cannot identify long-term outcomes in academic achievement, social development, or emotional well-being. Longitudinal studies are needed to examine both the sustainability of benefits and the mechanisms that underpin them over time. Finally, further inquiry is required into the adaptation of FS practices to the individualised needs of SEND learners. Research focusing on differentiated FS strategies could provide critical guidance for strengthening inclusive pedagogy. By expanding and deepening the empirical evidence base, future studies have the potential to support the systematic integration of FS into curricula, contributing to the creation of learning environments that are accessible, flexible, and genuinely inclusive. Conclusions This study provides compelling evidence that Forest School (FS) is more than an alternative pedagogical approach—it represents a necessary evolution in contemporary educational practice. Through a rigorous mixed-methods design, the research demonstrated FS’s unique capacity to engage diverse learners, with particularly transformative effects for students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). The findings reveal how nature-based environments activate children’s innate curiosity and capacity for growth in ways that conventional classrooms often struggle to achieve. At the heart of FS’s effectiveness is its ability to harmonise three critical dimensions of learning: cognitive development through hands-on experience, social-emotional growth through collaborative activities, and personal empowerment through self-directed exploration. For SEND pupils in particular, this triad of benefits addresses barriers to participation while unlocking previously untapped potential. FS’s flexibility and responsiveness to individual needs exemplify inclusive education in practice rather than theory. The consistency of positive outcomes—across both quantitative measures of engagement and qualitative stakeholder reports—suggests that FS responds to a profound developmental need in contemporary childhood. In an educational climate increasingly dominated by standardised testing and digital immersion, FS provides an essential counterbalance, reconnecting learning with embodiment, sensory richness, and direct experience of the natural world. These findings carry important implications for both policy and practice. They call for a re-examination of where, how, and for whom meaningful learning occurs. FS demonstrates that genuine inclusion requires not only accommodations for difference but also the fundamental redesign of learning environments to value neurodiversity and multiple ways of knowing. As educational and ecological challenges intensify, FS emerges as a timely and relevant model—one that prepares students not only for academic achievement but also for engaged, responsible citizenship in a complex world. The challenge ahead lies in moving FS from the margins to the centre of educational discourse, embedding it not as a supplementary programme but as an essential component of 21st-century schooling. Ultimately, this research points toward an educational future in which all children have regular opportunities to learn in and with nature. Such schools would nurture the whole child while cultivating the environmental stewardship that our planet urgently requires. FS illuminates a path toward a more equitable, sustainable, and human-centred vision of education. Declarations Acknowledgements This paper is derived from research conducted as part of the author’s doctoral thesis (title blinded for review) submitted to Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK, in 2024. The author gratefully acknowledges the supervisory team, the participating school community, and all individuals who contributed their time and insights to this research. Their support was invaluable in shaping both the thesis and this subsequent paper. This research was fully funded by an internal doctoral studentship from Anglia Ruskin University, whose financial and institutional support made this work possible. Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate This study was approved by BLINDED (approval reference: BLINDED). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board and with the 2013 Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all parents/guardians, with assent procedures adapted for child participants. Consent for Publication Not applicable. Funding This research was fully funded by an internal doctoral studentship BLINDED Competing Interests The author declares no competing interests. Clinical Trial Registration Clinical trial number: not applicable. References Annamma, S. A., Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. J. (2018). Disability critical race theory: Exploring the intersectional lineage, emergence, and potential futures of DisCrit in education. Review of Research in Education , 42 (1), 46-71. Armstrong, F., & Tsokova, D. (Eds.). (2019). Action research for inclusive education: Participation and democracy in teaching and learning . Routledge. Beames, S., & Brown, M. (2021). Adventurous learning: A pedagogy for a changing world (2nd ed.). Routledge. Bhaskar, R. (2013). A realist theory of science . Routledge. Bilton, H. (2010). Outdoor learning in the early years: Management and innovation (3rd ed.). Routledge. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools . Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design . Harvard University Press. Davis, J., & Elliott, S. (2014). Research in early childhood education for sustainability: International perspectives and provocations . Routledge. Faber Taylor, A., & Kuo, F. E. (2011). Could exposure to everyday green spaces help treat ADHD? Evidence from children's play settings. *Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3*(3), 281-303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2011.01052.x Fang, W. T., Hassan, A., & LePage, B. A. (Eds.). (2023). The living environmental education: Sound science toward a cleaner, safer, and healthier future . Springer. Florian, L. (2008). Inclusion: Special or inclusive education: Future trends. British Journal of Special Education, 35 (4), 202-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8578.2008.00402.x Gascón, M., Zijlema, W., Vert, C., White, M. P., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2017). Outdoor blue spaces, human health and well-being: A systematic review of quantitative studies. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 220 (8), 1207-1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.08.004 Gibson, J. J. (2014). The theory of affordances:(1979). In The people, place, and space reader (pp. 56-60). Routledge. Heft, H. (2001). Ecological psychology in context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the legacy of William James's radical empiricism . Psychology Press. Knight, S. (2013). Forest School and outdoor learning in the early years (2nd ed.). SAGE. Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development . FT Press. Kuo, M., Barnes, M., & Jordan, C. (2019). Do experiences with nature promote learning? Converging evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 , 305. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00305 Laevers, F. (2005). Well-being and involvement in care settings: A process-oriented self-evaluation instrument (SIC's) . Research Centre for Experiential Education. Laevers, F. (2015). Making care and education more effective through wellbeing and involvement: An introduction to experiential education. Research Centre for Experiential Education, University of Leuven. Leather, M. (2018). A critique of forest school: Something lost in translation. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 21 (1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-017-0006-1 Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., ... & von Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. The journal of early adolescence , 25 (1), 17-71. Lieberman, L. J., & Houston-Wilson, C. (2002). Strategies for inclusion . Human Kinetics. Louv, R. (2005). Nature deficit. Orion , 70 , 71. Malone, K., & Waite, S. (2016). Student outcomes and natural schooling: Pathways from evidence to impact report 2016 . Plymouth University. Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE. Mitten, D., & Brymer, E. (2022). Outdoor and environmental education: Nature and wellbeing. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of teacher education (pp. 1169-1175). Springer. O'Brien, L., & Murray, R. (2007). Forest School and its impacts on young children: Case studies in Britain. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6 (4), 249-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.03.006 Palavan, Ö., Çicek, V., & Atabay, M. (2016). Perspectives of elementary school teachers on outdoor education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4 (8), 1885-1893. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040819 Polemikou, A. (2023). Special environmental education: A disability rights approach to climate change. In B. Papavasileiou, G. Xanthakou, E. Nikolaou, & M. Kaila (Eds.), Challenges and crises: Energy, food security, pandemics, something else, what? (pp. 167-184). Diadrasi. Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2004). A review of research on outdoor learning . National Foundation for Educational Research and King's College London. Simon, R. (1992). Empowerment as a pedagogy of possibility. Becoming political: Readings and writings in the politics of literacy education , 139-151. AUTHOR DATE BLINDED AUTHOR DATE BLINDED AUTHOR DATE BLINDED AUTHOR ET AL DATE BLINDED AUTHOR ET AL DATE BLINDED Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, Ed.). Harvard University Press. Waite, S. (2020). Teaching and learning outside the classroom: Personal values, alternative pedagogies and standards. In Outdoor learning research (pp. 8-25). Routledge. Waite, S. (Ed.). (2017). Children learning outside the classroom: From birth to eleven (2nd ed.). Routledge. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 29 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education → Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7778847","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":530470012,"identity":"fbae871c-13a6-4739-9294-89ea1f143abc","order_by":0,"name":"Alexandros Stavrianos","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Centre of Critical Realism","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alexandros","middleName":"","lastName":"Stavrianos","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-04 09:23:55","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7778847/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7778847/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-025-00240-5","type":"published","date":"2026-04-29T15:58:03+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":108438092,"identity":"a5c14110-e2c4-4183-88dd-df19539ab87b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-04 16:07:40","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":318001,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7778847/v1/7c3617c6-4251-46bb-a91a-8bb8e94b0713.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Inclusive Pedagogy Outdoors: Forest School and the Engagement of Students with Special Educational Needs","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eFrom an evolutionary standpoint, the human–nature bond has shaped human development and identity since prehistoric times. Early Homo sapiens were not detached observers of the natural world but active participants in an ecological web, sustaining reciprocal relationships with their environment that were simultaneously practical and ontological (Mitten \u0026amp; Brymer, 2022). This balance was radically altered during the Industrial Revolution, when technological advances encouraged an anthropocentric worldview. Nature was redefined as commodified “resources” rather than a living system (AUTHOR, DATE), producing what Louv (2005) describes as “nature-deficit disorder”—a dual phenomenon of ecological degradation and psychological estrangement from biophilic roots.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis rupture has prompted renewed efforts to re-establish nature’s role in human development, particularly in education. Outdoor Education (OE) has emerged as a pedagogical response, with meta-analyses demonstrating diverse benefits for cognitive functioning, social-emotional growth, and physical wellbeing (Kuo et al., 2019; Rickinson et al., 2004). Grounded in experiential learning theory (Kolb, 2014), OE fosters what Beames and Brown (2021) describe as “embodied place-based learning,” in which knowledge arises from direct sensory engagement with natural environments. Within this framework, Forest School (FS) has gained prominence through its synthesis of ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), inclusive pedagogy (Florian, 2008), and principles of self-determination (Ryan \u0026amp; Deci, 2000), supporting autonomy, competence, and relatedness in learners.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough scholarly interest in FS is growing, empirical gaps remain, especially concerning its impact on students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). This is significant given that around 15% of UK pupils have identified SEND (DfE, 2023), and natural environments may provide unique therapeutic benefits such as enhanced sensory processing and self-regulation (Faber Taylor \u0026amp; Kuo, 2011). Addressing this gap, the present study employs a mixed-methods design to investigate FS in a mainstream primary context. Building on AUTHOR, DATE foundational work, it applies the Leuven Involvement Scale (Laevers, 2005) to quantitatively compare engagement across environments, while also capturing qualitative accounts of psychosocial outcomes from key stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe conceptual framework integrates the biophilia hypothesis (Wilson, 1984), inclusive education theory (Booth \u0026amp; Ainscow, 2002), and Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan, 1995) to examine natural environments as equitable and transformative learning spaces. By combining perspectives from special education, environmental psychology, and outdoor learning, this research advances understanding of FS as an inclusive pedagogical approach. It contributes empirical evidence of how nature-based education can mitigate the shortcomings of traditional classrooms, particularly for SEND pupils, while offering practical guidance for educators and policymakers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch questions:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"1\" type=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHow does pupil involvement differ across Forest School, classroom, and playtime settings, as measured by the Leuven Scale of Involvement?\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIn what ways do teachers and parents perceive Forest School as enabling (or constraining) inclusive practices for pupils, particularly those with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eForest School as a Framework for Inclusive Pedagogy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInclusive education has become a central principle of contemporary educational discourse, representing not only a pedagogical approach but also a philosophical commitment to equity and social justice in learning environments (Booth \u0026amp; Ainscow, 2002; Slee, 2018). This framework challenges traditional schooling by calling for the dismantling of systemic barriers and the creation of ecosystems that embrace neurodiversity and cognitive plurality (Florian \u0026amp; Beaton, 2018). As AUTHOR, DATE argues, genuine inclusion requires a reimagining of educational spaces—moving beyond surface-level accommodation to fundamentally transform structures, curricula, and assessment practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe shortcomings of conventional classrooms are particularly evident for students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). Standardized curricula, didactic instruction, and rigid assessment protocols often result in what Armstrong and Tsokova (2019) term “pedagogical disablement,” where systemic inflexibility—rather than inherent student characteristics—creates barriers to participation. This aligns with the social model of disability (Oliver, 2013), which frames disability as arising from the interaction between individual differences and unsupportive environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eForest School (FS) offers a compelling alternative by embedding inclusive principles within its ecological approach to learning. Grounded in the biophilic design framework (Faber \u0026amp; Kuo, 2011; Kellert, 2018), FS environments provide what Gibson (2014) describes as rich “affordances”—multiple pathways for engagement that accommodate diverse learning styles and abilities. Natural settings also provide neurobiological benefits, such as reduced sensory overload and enhanced attentional regulation (Kuo et al., 2019), creating particularly supportive contexts for SEND learners.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePedagogically, FS resonates with Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development through scaffolded, experiential learning. Unlike classroom adaptations, which are often retroactive, FS incorporates differentiation from the outset—what Tomlinson (2017) describes as “proactive rather than reactive differentiation.” Its open-ended activities foster what Hart (1992) terms genuine child-led participation, nurturing both agency and self-efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe theoretical strength of FS lies in its synthesis of ecological psychology (Heft, 2001), universal design for learning (Rose \u0026amp; Meyer, 2002), and positive youth development frameworks (Lerner et al., 2005). Together, these dimensions create what might be described as an “ecology of inclusion,” where diversity is not only accommodated but leveraged as a resource for collective growth and learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eForest School as a Pedagogy of Possibility\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eForest School (FS) represents a pedagogical innovation that translates inclusive education principles into practice through its synthesis of ecological design and learner-centred approaches. Drawing on embodied cognition (Wilson, 2002) and universal design for learning (Rose \u0026amp; Meyer, 2002), FS reconceptualises natural environments as dynamic learning spaces that inherently accommodate neurodiversity. Their multisensory qualities provide what Kaplan (1995) terms “soft fascination,” creating conditions of engagement particularly beneficial for learners with sensory processing differences. This regulation of stimuli contrasts with the overstimulation often experienced in conventional classrooms (Kuo et al., 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe structure of FS embodies Biesta’s (2010) notion of “subjectification”—supporting learners in becoming self-directed. Open-ended activities such as habitat exploration and construction with natural materials exemplify what Lave and Wenger (1991) describe as legitimate peripheral participation, enabling learners to engage at their own developmental level while gradually increasing competence and confidence. Such practices align with inclusive pedagogy that resists deficit models of disability, instead framing learning differences as natural variations in development (Florian, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFS’s equity-oriented design resonates with Annamma et al.’s (2018) \u003cem\u003edis/ability critical race theory\u003c/em\u003e (DisCrit), challenging normative assumptions embedded in traditional schooling. By decentralising narrow measures of success and valuing diverse forms of participation, FS creates what Simon (1992) characterises as a “pedagogy of possibility” for marginalised learners. Its emphasis on learner agency and differentiated participation also reflects neurodiversity paradigms that position cognitive difference as natural variation rather than disorder (Armstrong, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite this strong theoretical alignment, empirical research on FS implementation remains limited. Recent reviews (Leather, 2018; Remmen \u0026amp; Iversen, 2022) highlight three gaps: (1) longitudinal studies of inclusive outcomes, (2) comparative analysis of engagement across environments, and (3) qualitative exploration of stakeholder perspectives. Addressing these, the present study employs a critical realist methodology (Bhaskar, 2013) to investigate both observable outcomes and the mechanisms through which FS fosters inclusion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn particular, the research examines how FS’s interplay of environmental affordances (Gibson, 1979), flexible pedagogy, and community-building practices constructs what Bronfenbrenner (1979) would call a supportive microsystem for diverse learners. Through systematic analysis of participation and stakeholder accounts, this study seeks to develop a nuanced understanding of FS as what Slee (2018) terms an “inclusive education technology”—a practical vehicle for achieving equitable participation. In doing so, it contributes to the movement to shift inclusive education from theoretical aspiration toward empirically grounded, context-responsive implementation (Florian \u0026amp; Spratt, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employed an exploratory, embedded case study design within a mixed-methods framework, grounded in critical realist philosophy (Bhaskar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Maxwell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). The critical realist perspective enabled the investigation to address both observable patterns of engagement and the underlying mechanisms that shape inclusive practices in Forest School (FS) settings. The research was conducted in a mainstream primary school in England with an established FS programme, chosen for its commitment to inclusive education and diverse student population.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSystematic observations were carried out across three learning environments\u0026mdash;FS sessions, traditional classrooms, and unstructured outdoor play\u0026mdash;producing 100 datasets. These observations focused on ten children from Years 3 and 4, including two with formally identified Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND): one boy with Autism Spectrum Disorder and one girl with mild intellectual disabilities. The other eight participants, all neurotypical peers, served as a comparison group, allowing analysis of differential engagement patterns.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Leuven Involvement Scale (Laevers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) was used as the primary observational tool, providing a standardised measure of engagement across five levels of participation. This instrument captures cognitive involvement, emotional well-being, and self-directed activity, thereby offering a holistic assessment of learning engagement. Observations were conducted over a six-month period using time-sampling techniques, with data collected evenly across the three settings to ensure valid comparison.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo complement the observational data, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with seven educators involved in FS delivery and classroom teaching. The protocol explored perceptions of environmental influences on participation, pedagogical adaptations for diverse learners, and outcomes associated with FS. At the same time, sixteen parents completed detailed questionnaires documenting observations of their children\u0026rsquo;s behavioural, social, and academic development in relation to FS participation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe mixed-methods analysis followed an iterative process of integration, whereby quantitative engagement metrics were interpreted alongside qualitative insights from stakeholders. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts and open-ended questionnaire responses was conducted following Braun and Clarke\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) framework, with particular attention to emergent patterns in how learning environments mediated participation opportunities for SEND pupils.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003e was secured through the institutional review board, with multilayered consent procedures for all participants. Observation protocols were designed to minimise researcher interference, using positioning strategies that preserved naturalistic interactions while ensuring comprehensive data capture. This methodological approach balanced systematic measurement with nuanced understanding, generating evidence that addressed the study\u0026rsquo;s central questions about FS as an inclusive pedagogical approach.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThrough this design, the study was able to capture both measurable outcomes and lived experiences of inclusive education across alternative learning environments, offering insights with theoretical significance and practical value for educators seeking to embed nature-based approaches in mainstream schooling.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eParticipants\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA purposive sampling strategy was employed to recruit participants from a state-funded primary school in Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom, which had adopted Forest School (FS) as part of its inclusive education provision. The core cohort comprised ten children aged 7\u0026ndash;9 years (Years 3 and 4). To enable focused analysis of inclusive practices, the sample intentionally included two pupils with formally diagnosed Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND): one male with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and one female with mild intellectual disabilities. Both students had Individual Education Plans (IEPs) in place. The remaining eight neurotypical peers served as a comparison group, supporting analysis of differential engagement across learner profiles.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo incorporate wider perspectives, sixteen parents/guardians contributed longitudinal accounts of their children\u0026rsquo;s cognitive, social-emotional, and behavioural development in relation to FS. The parent cohort reflected diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, with all participants having at least six months\u0026rsquo; exposure to the FS programme.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeven education professionals also took part, comprising two FS-certified leaders, three classroom teachers (including the school\u0026rsquo;s Special Educational Needs Coordinator), and two teaching assistants with designated responsibility for SEND support.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis stratified structure facilitated comprehensive data triangulation. Students provided behavioural evidence through naturalistic observation, parents contributed lived-experience perspectives, and educators offered professional interpretations of pedagogical processes. Such a multi-voiced approach aligns with the study\u0026rsquo;s mixed-methods, critical realist framework by capturing both empirical manifestations of inclusion (observed behaviours) and the social constructions of inclusive practice (stakeholder perceptions).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEthical considerations informed participant selection, with deliberate attention to representation across gender, ability, and socioeconomic background. All participants met stringent inclusion criteria, including at least six months of continuous FS engagement and provision of informed consent (with adapted procedures for SEND pupils). This sample design generated rich, contextualised data while ensuring methodological rigour appropriate for an in-depth case study of inclusive education practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData Collection\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study employed a rigorous multi-method strategy designed to capture both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of student engagement and inclusive practice within the Forest School (FS) context.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSystematic observations formed the foundation of the empirical investigation. The Leuven Involvement Scale (Laevers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), a validated instrument for measuring depth of engagement, was used to assess behavioural indicators of well-being and involvement on a five-point continuum. Trained researchers conducted 100 structured observations across three distinct environments\u0026mdash;FS sessions, traditional classroom lessons, and unstructured break times. Each of the ten pupils was observed repeatedly across settings over a six-month period. The standardised protocol ensured reliable comparisons while accounting for contextual variation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e To complement observational data, comprehensive questionnaires were administered to all sixteen parents. These hybrid instruments combined 5-point Likert-scale items with open-ended questions. They were designed to probe three developmental domains: cognitive engagement (e.g., persistence with challenging tasks), social competence (e.g., peer interaction patterns), and emotional regulation (e.g., stress responses). This design allowed both quantification of parental perceptions and collection of rich qualitative insights into children\u0026rsquo;s developmental trajectories.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe qualitative dimension was further strengthened through semi-structured interviews with the seven educators. Conducted by trained researchers using a piloted protocol, these 45\u0026ndash;60 minute interviews explored professional perspectives on FS\u0026rsquo;s role in supporting inclusive education. Questions were organised around three thematic clusters: observed behavioural changes in pupils (particularly those with SEND), perceived mechanisms of FS effectiveness, and implementation challenges. All interviews were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. The interview design reflected the study\u0026rsquo;s theoretical framework, drawing particularly on ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e) and inclusive pedagogy (Florian, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntegration of the three data streams\u0026mdash;systematic behavioural observations, parental reports, and educator perspectives\u0026mdash;created a robust evidentiary base for examining FS\u0026rsquo;s inclusive potential. Methodological triangulation was enhanced through temporal spacing of data collection across the academic year, allowing assessment of both immediate effects and sustained impacts. All instruments were piloted before use and refined to ensure developmental appropriateness for the children and cultural sensitivity for families.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis multi-method protocol successfully captured the complexity of inclusive education processes while maintaining the scientific rigour expected of mixed-methods educational research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study adopted a mixed-methods approach to data analysis, integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques to generate a comprehensive understanding of the impact of Forest School (FS) on inclusive educational experiences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative data from the Leuven Involvement Scale and the closed-ended questionnaire items were analysed using descriptive statistics. This enabled the identification of key trends and patterns in pupils\u0026rsquo; engagement levels across learning environments, as well as parents\u0026rsquo; perceptions of FS\u0026rsquo;s influence on their children\u0026rsquo;s development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative data\u0026mdash;comprising semi-structured educator interviews and parents\u0026rsquo; open-ended questionnaire responses\u0026mdash;were analysed using thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) six-phase framework. This approach facilitated the identification of recurring themes and categories relating to participants\u0026rsquo; experiences, attitudes, and interpretations of FS, thereby illuminating the subjective and contextual dimensions of inclusion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTriangulation across data types and sources further enhanced the validity and trustworthiness of findings. By integrating behavioural observations with parent and teacher perspectives, the analysis produced a multi-layered depiction of FS as an inclusive pedagogical environment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eEngagement Levels Across Different Educational Settings\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Leuven Involvement Scale (LIS) was used to measure pupils\u0026rsquo; active engagement across three learning environments: Forest School (FS), indoor classrooms, and recess. Results indicate clear differences, with FS sessions consistently producing higher levels of involvement compared to the other settings (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEngagement Levels in different environments\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnvironment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYear 3 Average Scores\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYear 4 Average Scores\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eForest School\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndoor Class\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRecess\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e LIS range\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1 (low) to 5 (high). Values reported as means.\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Leuven Scale (Laevers, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) assesses engagement on a five-point continuum, ranging from complete disengagement (Level 1) to sustained, focused involvement characterised by motivation, creativity, and active participation (Level 5). Importantly, the instrument captures not only cognitive but also emotional and physical dimensions of engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe inclusion of three distinct contexts\u0026mdash;FS sessions, classroom instruction, and unstructured play\u0026mdash;enabled systematic comparison of how different environments influence student participation. FS emerged as particularly conducive to deep engagement, with its natural setting and experiential activities encouraging higher levels of sustained involvement than classroom-based or unstructured settings. This finding resonates with Kolb\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) experiential learning theory, which highlights the value of hands-on, sensory-rich experiences for fostering reflection and meaningful learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe consistently higher engagement scores in FS (averaging 4.5 across both year groups) suggest that its child-centred and nature-connected pedagogy provides optimal conditions for holistic participation. These results reinforce the importance of educational approaches that move beyond passive knowledge transmission to support inclusive, whole-child development. The multidimensional assessment afforded by the Leuven Scale proved especially valuable for capturing qualitative differences in engagement, underscoring FS\u0026rsquo;s unique potential to promote learning that is cognitive, social, and emotional in scope.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eAnalysis of Involvement by Student Type\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFurther analysis examined the differentiated impact of Forest School (FS) on pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) compared with their peers without SEND.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eComparative Activation Scores for Students With and Without SEND\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnvironment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverages of Pupils with SEND\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverages of Pupils without SEND\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eForest School\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndoor Class\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRecess\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e LIS range\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe results demonstrate that SEND pupils achieved higher average involvement in FS sessions (4.6) compared to both their own classroom engagement (2.9) and the scores of their non-SEND peers in the same setting (4.4). These findings highlight FS as a particularly supportive and adaptable learning environment for learners with diverse needs.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBy contrast, non-SEND pupils showed smaller differences in engagement across the three contexts, although FS still emerged as the most engaging environment overall. Gender differences were also noted, with girls demonstrating slightly higher active and emotional participation during FS compared with boys.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTaken together, these findings reinforce the importance of differentiated approaches that account for varied learner profiles. FS\u0026rsquo;s child-centred design, multisensory stimulation, and freedom from rigid academic structures appear to enable SEND students to participate actively and meaningfully. This aligns with the core principles of inclusive pedagogy (Florian, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) and supports arguments for FS as a model of inclusive practice (AUTHOR ET AL, DATE).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eParents\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of the Impact of Forest School (FS)\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuestionnaire feedback from parents indicated strong support for the FS approach and widespread recognition of its pedagogical benefits. Parents particularly emphasised enhanced pupil engagement and improved social skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSummary of Parents\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of the Impact of the Forest School (FS)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCategory of Impact\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAgreement Percentage\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncreased Engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e84%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImproved Social Interactions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnhanced Interest in Learning\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe majority of parents reported that FS positively influenced their children\u0026rsquo;s active participation, alongside noticeable gains in social adjustment and peer relationships. These perceptions reinforce the role of the learning environment as a developmental catalyst, consistent with Bronfenbrenner\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e) ecological systems theory. By highlighting improvements not only in academic interest but also in social-emotional growth, parents\u0026rsquo; perspectives support the view that FS functions as a holistic model of education that benefits the whole child.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eTeacher Observations\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSemi-structured interviews with teachers generated rich qualitative data that consistently underscored the positive impact of Forest School (FS). Educators highlighted notable increases in pupils\u0026rsquo; autonomy and confidence, particularly among those with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). They also described strengthened classroom cohesion, fostered through the shared experiences of learning in natural environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn addition, teachers reported improvements in pupils\u0026rsquo; social skills, concentration, and emotional expression, attributing these gains to FS\u0026rsquo;s provision of a safe, supportive, and flexible learning environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCollectively, these testimonies reinforce the view that FS should not be regarded merely as an alternative teaching practice, but rather as a dynamic and inclusive pedagogical environment with lasting effects on both individual learners and the wider school community.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eTeacher Reports: Perceived Benefits of Forest School (FS)\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSemi-structured interviews with teachers provided essential insight into the pedagogical dynamics of FS, highlighting not only its implementation but also its observable impact on pupils\u0026rsquo; behaviour, attitudes, and engagement. Analysis of the interviews revealed recurring themes relating to enhanced intrinsic motivation, improved social skills, and increased concentration during outdoor sessions. Collectively, these themes reinforce FS as an environment that promotes cognitive, emotional, and social development through experiential engagement and freedom from the restrictive structures of the traditional classroom.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eReported Benefits of the Forest School by Teachers\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBenefit\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency of Mention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnhancement of Student Motivation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImprovement of Social Skills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetter Focus on Activities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeachers consistently identified FS as uniquely effective for fostering essential life skills that are often difficult to cultivate in conventional classroom contexts. They described how children who were hesitant to participate indoors became leaders outdoors, how quiet students found new voices in collaborative projects, and how restless learners channelled their energy into purposeful exploration. Such transformations reflect Vygotsky\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e) view of learning as a socially mediated process, with the natural environment functioning simultaneously as both classroom and teacher.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA striking theme across testimonies was the visible joy students exhibited during FS sessions. Educators emphasised that this was not mere playfulness but rather evidence of profound learning enabled by feelings of safety, acceptance, and engagement. As one veteran teacher explained: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;You can\u0026rsquo;t separate the happiness from the learning \u0026ndash; we see children grasping concepts here that frustrated them indoors, because their whole being is involved.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e This observation reflects insights from educational neuroscience, which demonstrate the interdependence of emotion and cognition in learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOverall, teachers\u0026rsquo; reports presented FS as more than an alternative teaching location. Instead, it emerged as a fundamentally different way of understanding education\u0026mdash;one that honours children\u0026rsquo;s natural curiosity, values diverse forms of participation, and measures success through growth rather than scores. Where traditional schooling often struggles to accommodate varied learning styles and paces, FS\u0026rsquo;s flexible framework appeared to transform diversity into a resource rather than a barrier.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThese practitioner perspectives suggest that FS\u0026rsquo;s greatest contribution lies in its ability to reconnect learning with the natural world and with children\u0026rsquo;s intrinsic developmental needs. In doing so, FS offers a compelling model of education that is not simply preparation for tests, but preparation for life\u0026mdash;one that is meaningful, inclusive, and profoundly human-centred.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThematic Analysis Findings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThematic analysis of the teacher interviews identified six interconnected themes that provide deeper insight into the operation and impact of the Forest School (FS) programme within the school context.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFrequency of FS sessions\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Teachers emphasised the need for FS to occur more regularly. Sporadic implementation was seen as limiting its potential, whereas greater frequency would allow FS benefits to become more embedded in everyday educational practice.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFlexible and open curriculum\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Respondents highlighted the importance of a curriculum that prioritises exploration, experimentation, and experiential engagement. Moving away from standardised teaching approaches was viewed as particularly advantageous for pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), since FS provides a child-centred framework responsive to individual needs.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eParental involvement\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Active parental participation in FS sessions was identified as crucial for enhancing children\u0026rsquo;s emotional security and reinforcing the school\u0026ndash;family relationship. Teachers noted that parental presence strengthened trust and a sense of belonging.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eResources and logistics\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Adequate material and logistical support\u0026mdash;including appropriate equipment\u0026mdash;was recognised as a prerequisite for effective implementation. Teachers reported that limited resources restricted both the safety and creativity of FS activities.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGender differences\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Some teachers observed that girls tended to approach FS activities with greater caution. This suggests the value of differentiated pedagogical strategies that account for gender-related variations in learning experiences and engagement.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eProfessional development\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;There was strong agreement on the need for continuous and targeted professional development for educators. Teachers stressed that training in FS philosophy, methodology, and practice is essential for maximising its pedagogical potential and embedding it as a sustainable element of inclusive education.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTogether, these themes reinforce the view of FS as more than a supplementary activity. They highlight the structural, pedagogical, and relational conditions necessary to sustain FS as a transformative, inclusive practice within mainstream schooling.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eForest School (FS) emerges from this study as a flexible and supportive learning environment with particular value for pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). The findings confirm that organised, pedagogically intentional outdoor learning can help dismantle fundamental barriers faced by SEND learners in conventional classrooms (O’Brien \u0026amp; Murray, 2007). Where traditional settings are often characterised by restricted mobility, one-dimensional knowledge transmission, and limited differentiation, FS offers a natural and adaptable learning space that promotes autonomy, exploration, and child-centred adaptation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe pedagogical framework of FS aligns closely with the principles of inclusive education articulated in contemporary literature (Florian, 2008; AUTHOR ET AL, DATE). Differentiation is not treated as an “add-on” or special adaptation but is embedded into FS’s core philosophy. Learners are offered multiple pathways for engagement, a range of roles, and flexible modes of participation. Activities are open-ended and multimodal, enabling pupils to engage in ways that reflect their abilities, needs, and interests. For instance, a child with sensory sensitivities may focus on exploring natural textures and sounds, while a pupil with social challenges may engage in group-based projects supported by peer collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe natural environment also functions as an equalising space, reducing visible differences and fostering a sense of belonging. Within this context, SEND pupils experience education not as a test of compliance but as an opportunity for empowerment. The provision of choice, the absence of evaluative pressure, and the emphasis on experiential activity contribute to enhanced self-regulation, positive self-image, and growing confidence. Rather than adapting themselves to a rigid system, students are invited to co-construct their learning environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe flexibility inherent in FS also supports variation in pace and level of challenge, allowing for personalised learning without stigma. Pedagogical strategies such as differentiated role assignments, peer support, and the absence of overt competition create conditions for meaningful inclusion. As a result, SEND pupils engage more actively and experience tangible success, with positive effects on psychosocial empowerment, peer relationships, and overall adjustment to school life.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe systematic integration of FS should not be regarded as a supplementary or occasional intervention but as a fundamental element of educational policy designed to cultivate adaptive, democratic, and empowering schools for all learners. As AUTHOR (DATE) argues, the adoption of FS principles represents not simply a new teaching method but a pedagogical re-start, closely aligned with values of social justice and sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present study demonstrates that FS is not merely an alternative approach but a transformative pedagogical model with the capacity to operationalise inclusive education in practice. By promoting differentiation, autonomy, and a sense of community, FS establishes conditions for schools that include, empower, and support all students—regardless of profile or ability. Systematic implementation of FS can therefore serve as a catalyst for advancing educational equity, enhancing the participation, learning, and well-being of SEND pupils in meaningful and sustainable ways (Armstrong \u0026amp; Tsokova, 2019; Davis et al., 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, the findings highlight FS’s role in shifting the focus of education from the transmission of content to processes of inquiry, autonomy, and experiential engagement. This transformation is particularly significant in heterogeneous school contexts, where diverse learning needs demand flexible, accessible, and participatory models of practice (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; AUTHOR, DATE). In this sense, FS provides not only an inclusive pedagogy for the present but also a framework for reimagining education as a holistic, equitable, and future-facing endeavour.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerceptions of Parents and Educators\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial and Emotional Dimensions of Forest School\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFeedback from parents and educators, gathered through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, provides substantive evidence of the social and emotional impact of Forest School (FS). These accounts are consistent with international research (Malone \u0026amp; Waite, 2016; Palavan et al., 2016), confirming the capacity of outdoor education to enhance pupil well-being, collaboration, and resilience.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParents reported clear improvements in their children’s social skills and emotional regulation, attributing these gains to FS’s non-judgemental and supportive character. Outdoor activities fostered empathy, agency, and peer interaction within a context where acceptance, safety, and self-expression were dominant values. The absence of constant evaluative pressure appeared to unlock children’s potential, promoting authentic presence and positive emotional engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEducators further noted that skills cultivated in FS often transferred back into the classroom. Enhanced conflict resolution, teamwork, and self-regulation were identified as direct outcomes of FS participation. This environment not only supported SEND pupils but also established conditions of equality and reciprocity that enriched the overall classroom climate. The triangulation of quantitative engagement data with parental and teacher narratives strengthened the validity of these findings, illuminating not only the cognitive but also the social and emotional dimensions of FS learning (AUTHOR, DATE). The shared sense of achievement—where each pupil contributed in their own way—cultivated belonging and reinforced collective cohesion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmotional well-being also emerged as a consistent theme. Pupils appeared calmer, happier, and more willing to engage in learning following FS sessions. The natural environment, as a sensory-rich and emotionally regulatory space, seemed to exert a therapeutic influence, especially for children experiencing anxiety or low self-esteem. This dialectical interaction between social empowerment and emotional stability created a reinforcing cycle that strengthened psycho-educational development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese dynamics can be interpreted through ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), with FS functioning as a supportive microsystem that fosters development through interaction with both natural and social environments (AUTHOR, DATE). The involvement of parents and educators, combined with the authenticity of outdoor learning experiences, further consolidated the learning community and strengthened inclusive practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, the qualitative findings confirm FS as not only an innovative pedagogical tool but also a sustainable model for inclusive education. By cultivating empathy, resilience, and collaboration, FS contributes to individual empowerment and the building of a cohesive school community. The evidence strongly advocates for the integration of outdoor education into the core curriculum as a foundation for schools that meaningfully address the social, emotional, and learning needs of contemporary students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, FS emerges not merely as an effective practice but as a holistic and adaptive framework where student participation—especially for those with SEND—is the norm rather than the exception. Its experiential character, sensory engagement, and emphasis on social collaboration collectively foster cognitive, emotional, and social development, advancing a more balanced and humane model of education.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContribution to Educational Practice and Policy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study, situated at the intersection of outdoor education, Forest School (FS), and inclusive pedagogy, contributes to the ongoing discourse on redefining educational frameworks to better respond to learner diversity. Its significance emerges at two levels—everyday teaching practice and broader educational policy—bridging theoretical principles with actionable strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the practice level, the findings provide evidence-based recommendations for teachers and school leaders seeking to embed FS principles into daily learning. Strategies include designing flexible, adaptable environments that address the needs of heterogeneous classrooms, with particular emphasis on pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). FS’s experiential approach enhances active participation, fosters self-confidence, supports long-term retention, and encourages authentic understanding of curriculum content. By emphasising autonomy, discovery-based learning, and sensory engagement with natural environments, FS offers a compelling alternative for meeting diverse student needs in inclusive settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the policy level, the study provides a robust case for the institutional integration of FS within mainstream schooling. Policymakers can draw on these findings to design initiatives that promote outdoor and inclusive learning through targeted funding, professional development for teachers, and curriculum adaptation to embed experiential and student-centred approaches. By explicitly supporting SEND learners, FS aligns with international equity agendas, particularly Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) of the United Nations, which calls for inclusive and equitable quality education for all.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this way, the study extends beyond documenting the effectiveness of an alternative pedagogy. It positions FS as both a practical tool for enhancing classroom inclusion and a policy lever for systemic transformation, serving as a catalyst for rethinking how education can be organised to meet the social, emotional, and cognitive needs of contemporary learners.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReconfiguring Learning Across Contexts\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe comparative analysis of learning environments highlights how Forest School (FS) principles address key limitations of traditional education while complementing its strengths. Conventional classroom instruction is highly effective for structured knowledge delivery but often falls short in nurturing experiential learning, student agency, and emotional investment—the very domains where FS demonstrates its greatest impact. This complementarity suggests an opportunity to build more balanced educational ecosystems that integrate the advantages of both approaches.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFS’s distinctive contribution lies in its ability to develop the whole child through nature-based, hands-on experiences. By prioritising exploration and student-directed inquiry, FS cultivates competencies that are often marginalised in formal schooling: self-regulation, creative problem-solving, and collaborative skills. For pupils who struggle in traditional classrooms—including those with neurodiverse profiles or sensory sensitivities—the outdoor environment offers alternative pathways to engagement and achievement. Activities can be flexibly adapted to individual needs, transforming potential barriers into opportunities for personalised growth.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCrucially, FS reconfigures conventional educational dynamics. Freed from rigid timetables and standardised assessments, students experience learning as an organic process of discovery rather than performance. This shift opens space for diverse forms of participation and achievement, embedding inclusive principles into everyday practice rather than leaving them as abstract ideals. Learners who might otherwise disengage are enabled to contribute actively, with their unique strengths valued within the community.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe benefits of FS extend beyond individual learners to reshape school culture more broadly. Collaborative outdoor experiences foster deeper peer relationships, stronger connections to the natural world, and renewed engagement with learning itself. These outcomes nurture ecological awareness, resilience, and social-emotional intelligence—competencies increasingly recognised as vital in contemporary education. Importantly, such benefits do not undermine academic goals; instead, they provide the motivational and cognitive foundation that strengthens classroom learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRather than positioning FS as a replacement for traditional education, the evidence suggests its greatest value lies in integration. A hybrid model that combines the structure of classroom instruction with the openness of outdoor learning may represent an optimal pathway for 21st-century schooling. Such a synthesis respects the complexity of human development while preparing learners not only with knowledge, but also with the creativity, adaptability, and environmental stewardship that the future demands.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTheoretical and Practical Implications for Inclusive Education\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study substantiates the central premise of ecological systems theory: that human development emerges through dynamic person–environment interactions (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Forest School (FS) exemplifies this framework in practice, creating a microsystem where natural surroundings, social dynamics, and pedagogical approaches converge to foster holistic development. In FS, the environment is not merely a backdrop for activity but an active agent in the learning process—shaping cognitive, social, and emotional growth through direct, multisensory engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFS thus represents more than an alternative teaching location; it constitutes a paradigm shift in how learning environments are conceptualised. By dissolving boundaries between classroom and nature, FS nurtures not only academic knowledge but also environmental literacy, self-awareness, and community belonging. This holistic orientation aligns with contemporary perspectives on learning as embodied and situated, dependent on both physical and social contexts (AUTHOR, DATE).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePractically, the findings highlight the necessity of integrating FS principles with traditional pedagogy to create hybrid models that harness the strengths of both approaches. While conventional classrooms provide structure and access to knowledge systems, FS offers authentic experiential learning that is adaptive and inclusive. This combination is particularly effective in diverse educational contexts, enabling multiple pathways for pupils of varied needs, abilities, and cultural backgrounds to access and engage meaningfully with learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThree dimensions emerged as essential to successful implementation:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"1\" type=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEmotional and social foundations that underpin academic achievement.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEnvironmental awareness as a core competency for sustainable futures.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInclusive practices that guarantee equitable participation.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTogether, these elements frame an educational approach that prepares students not only for academic assessments but also for the complex personal, social, and ecological challenges of the 21st century.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor policymakers, the study underscores the urgency of reconceptualising educational spaces, curricula, and teacher preparation. This requires investment in outdoor learning infrastructure, curriculum redesign to embed nature-based experiences, and professional development that equips educators to facilitate experiential, student-centred pedagogy. Most critically, it demands a commitment to ensuring that all learners—regardless of background or ability—can access these transformative opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUltimately, this research calls for moving beyond incremental adjustments toward systemic reimagining of education around ecological principles. FS offers one promising model for this transformation, demonstrating how learning environments can nurture the full spectrum of human potential while fostering the environmental stewardship urgently required in contemporary society. The challenge ahead is scaling these insights to design education systems that are truly inclusive, sustainable, and responsive to the needs of future generations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLimitations of the Present Study\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile this study provides substantive evidence of the value of Forest School (FS) for inclusive education, several limitations affect the generalisability of its conclusions. The investigation was conducted within a single school context, shaped by its particular demographic, cultural, and pedagogical characteristics. As such, external validity is limited, and replication across varied educational settings—urban and rural, multicultural and under-resourced—remains a crucial next step to assess the broader applicability of FS.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe relatively small sample size, though appropriate for an exploratory case study, also constrains statistical analysis and subgroup comparisons. Future research involving larger and more diverse cohorts would enable deeper examination of differentiated FS impacts, particularly across categories such as type of Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), socioeconomic background, or linguistic and cultural identity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother limitation is the cross-sectional design. The present study captures a snapshot of pupils’ experiences but cannot identify long-term outcomes in academic achievement, social development, or emotional well-being. Longitudinal studies are needed to examine both the sustainability of benefits and the mechanisms that underpin them over time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, further inquiry is required into the adaptation of FS practices to the individualised needs of SEND learners. Research focusing on differentiated FS strategies could provide critical guidance for strengthening inclusive pedagogy. By expanding and deepening the empirical evidence base, future studies have the potential to support the systematic integration of FS into curricula, contributing to the creation of learning environments that are accessible, flexible, and genuinely inclusive.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study provides compelling evidence that Forest School (FS) is more than an alternative pedagogical approach\u0026mdash;it represents a necessary evolution in contemporary educational practice. Through a rigorous mixed-methods design, the research demonstrated FS\u0026rsquo;s unique capacity to engage diverse learners, with particularly transformative effects for students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). The findings reveal how nature-based environments activate children\u0026rsquo;s innate curiosity and capacity for growth in ways that conventional classrooms often struggle to achieve.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt the heart of FS\u0026rsquo;s effectiveness is its ability to harmonise three critical dimensions of learning: cognitive development through hands-on experience, social-emotional growth through collaborative activities, and personal empowerment through self-directed exploration. For SEND pupils in particular, this triad of benefits addresses barriers to participation while unlocking previously untapped potential. FS\u0026rsquo;s flexibility and responsiveness to individual needs exemplify inclusive education in practice rather than theory.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe consistency of positive outcomes\u0026mdash;across both quantitative measures of engagement and qualitative stakeholder reports\u0026mdash;suggests that FS responds to a profound developmental need in contemporary childhood. In an educational climate increasingly dominated by standardised testing and digital immersion, FS provides an essential counterbalance, reconnecting learning with embodiment, sensory richness, and direct experience of the natural world.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese findings carry important implications for both policy and practice. They call for a re-examination of where, how, and for whom meaningful learning occurs. FS demonstrates that genuine inclusion requires not only accommodations for difference but also the fundamental redesign of learning environments to value neurodiversity and multiple ways of knowing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs educational and ecological challenges intensify, FS emerges as a timely and relevant model\u0026mdash;one that prepares students not only for academic achievement but also for engaged, responsible citizenship in a complex world. The challenge ahead lies in moving FS from the margins to the centre of educational discourse, embedding it not as a supplementary programme but as an essential component of 21st-century schooling.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUltimately, this research points toward an educational future in which all children have regular opportunities to learn in and with nature. Such schools would nurture the whole child while cultivating the environmental stewardship that our planet urgently requires. FS illuminates a path toward a more equitable, sustainable, and human-centred vision of education.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis paper is derived from research conducted as part of the author\u0026rsquo;s doctoral thesis (title blinded for review) submitted to Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK, in 2024. The author gratefully acknowledges the supervisory team, the participating school community, and all individuals who contributed their time and insights to this research. Their support was invaluable in shaping both the thesis and this subsequent paper. This research was fully funded by an internal doctoral studentship from Anglia Ruskin University, whose financial and institutional support made this work possible.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval and Consent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;This study was approved by BLINDED (approval reference: BLINDED). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board and with the 2013 Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all parents/guardians, with assent procedures adapted for child participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for Publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;This research was fully funded by an internal doctoral studentship BLINDED\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;The author declares no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical Trial Registration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Clinical trial number: not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnnamma, S. A., Ferri, B. A., \u0026amp; Connor, D. J. (2018). Disability critical race theory: Exploring the intersectional lineage, emergence, and potential futures of DisCrit in education. \u003cem\u003eReview of Research in Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(1), 46-71. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArmstrong, F., \u0026amp; Tsokova, D. (Eds.). (2019). \u003cem\u003eAction research for inclusive education: Participation and democracy in teaching and learning\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeames, S., \u0026amp; Brown, M. (2021). \u003cem\u003eAdventurous learning: A pedagogy for a changing world\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBhaskar, R. (2013). \u003cem\u003eA realist theory of science\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBilton, H. (2010). \u003cem\u003eOutdoor learning in the early years: Management and innovation\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed.). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBooth, T., \u0026amp; Ainscow, M. (2002). \u003cem\u003eIndex for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools\u003c/em\u003e. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Psychology, 3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBronfenbrenner, U. (1979). \u003cem\u003eThe ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design\u003c/em\u003e. Harvard University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavis, J., \u0026amp; Elliott, S. (2014). \u003cem\u003eResearch in early childhood education for sustainability: International perspectives and provocations\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFaber Taylor, A., \u0026amp; Kuo, F. E. (2011). Could exposure to everyday green spaces help treat ADHD? Evidence from children\u0026apos;s play settings. *Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3*(3), 281-303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2011.01052.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFang, W. T., Hassan, A., \u0026amp; LePage, B. A. (Eds.). (2023). \u003cem\u003eThe living environmental education: Sound science toward a cleaner, safer, and healthier future\u003c/em\u003e. Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlorian, L. (2008). Inclusion: Special or inclusive education: Future trends. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Special Education, 35\u003c/em\u003e(4), 202-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8578.2008.00402.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGasc\u0026oacute;n, M., Zijlema, W., Vert, C., White, M. P., \u0026amp; Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2017). Outdoor blue spaces, human health and well-being: A systematic review of quantitative studies. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 220\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1207-1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.08.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGibson, J. J. (2014). The theory of affordances:(1979). In \u003cem\u003eThe people, place, and space reader\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 56-60). Routledge. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeft, H. (2001). \u003cem\u003eEcological psychology in context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the legacy of William James\u0026apos;s radical empiricism\u003c/em\u003e. Psychology Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKnight, S. (2013). \u003cem\u003eForest School and outdoor learning in the early years\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). SAGE.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKolb, D. A. (2014). \u003cem\u003eExperiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development\u003c/em\u003e. FT Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuo, M., Barnes, M., \u0026amp; Jordan, C. (2019). Do experiences with nature promote learning? Converging evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology, 10\u003c/em\u003e, 305. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00305\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLaevers, F. (2005). \u003cem\u003eWell-being and involvement in care settings: A process-oriented self-evaluation instrument (SIC\u0026apos;s)\u003c/em\u003e. Research Centre for Experiential Education.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLaevers, F. (2015). Making care and education more effective through wellbeing and involvement: An introduction to experiential education. Research Centre for Experiential Education, University of Leuven.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeather, M. (2018). A critique of forest school: Something lost in translation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-017-0006-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., ... \u0026amp; von Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. \u003cem\u003eThe journal of early adolescence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(1), 17-71.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLieberman, L. J., \u0026amp; Houston-Wilson, C. (2002). \u003cem\u003eStrategies for inclusion\u003c/em\u003e. Human Kinetics.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLouv, R. (2005). Nature deficit. \u003cem\u003eOrion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e70\u003c/em\u003e, 71.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMalone, K., \u0026amp; Waite, S. (2016). \u003cem\u003eStudent outcomes and natural schooling: Pathways from evidence to impact report 2016\u003c/em\u003e. Plymouth University.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaxwell, J. A. (2012). \u003cem\u003eQualitative research design: An interactive approach\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed.). SAGE.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMitten, D., \u0026amp; Brymer, E. (2022). Outdoor and environmental education: Nature and wellbeing. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eEncyclopedia of teacher education\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1169-1175). Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026apos;Brien, L., \u0026amp; Murray, R. (2007). Forest School and its impacts on young children: Case studies in Britain. \u003cem\u003eUrban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening, 6\u003c/em\u003e(4), 249-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.03.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePalavan, \u0026Ouml;., \u0026Ccedil;icek, V., \u0026amp; Atabay, M. (2016). Perspectives of elementary school teachers on outdoor education. \u003cem\u003eUniversal Journal of Educational Research, 4\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1885-1893. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040819\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePolemikou, A. (2023). Special environmental education: A disability rights approach to climate change. In B. Papavasileiou, G. Xanthakou, E. Nikolaou, \u0026amp; M. Kaila (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eChallenges and crises: Energy, food security, pandemics, something else, what?\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 167-184). Diadrasi.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., \u0026amp; Benefield, P. (2004). \u003cem\u003eA review of research on outdoor learning\u003c/em\u003e. National Foundation for Educational Research and King\u0026apos;s College London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSimon, R. (1992). Empowerment as a pedagogy of possibility. \u003cem\u003eBecoming political: Readings and writings in the politics of literacy education\u003c/em\u003e, 139-151.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAUTHOR DATE BLINDED\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAUTHOR DATE BLINDED\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAUTHOR DATE BLINDED\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAUTHOR ET AL DATE BLINDED\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAUTHOR ET AL DATE BLINDED\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVygotsky, L. S. (1978). \u003cem\u003eMind in society: The development of higher psychological processes\u003c/em\u003e (M. Cole, Ed.). Harvard University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWaite, S. (2020). Teaching and learning outside the classroom: Personal values, alternative pedagogies and standards. In \u003cem\u003eOutdoor learning research\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 8-25). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWaite, S. (Ed.). (2017). \u003cem\u003eChildren learning outside the classroom: From birth to eleven\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Forest School, Inclusive Education, Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), Outdoor Learning, Student Engagement","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7778847/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7778847/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates the role of Forest School (FS) as a model for inclusive education within a mainstream English primary school. Employing a mixed-methods case study, the research combined systematic observations using the Leuven Scale of Involvement with parent questionnaires and teacher interviews to examine differences in pupil engagement across FS, classroom, and playtime settings. Results demonstrate consistently higher levels of involvement during FS sessions compared with classroom lessons and recess, with particularly notable gains among students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Triangulated qualitative data indicated improvements in children’s confidence, social interaction, and emotional well-being, further highlighting the holistic benefits of experiential outdoor learning. These findings suggest that FS offers a promising pedagogical approach for fostering inclusion in mainstream education. The study contributes to the growing empirical base on outdoor education by providing evidence of FS’s potential to support diverse learners, while also offering practical insights for educators and policy-makers seeking to integrate nature-based learning within school curricula.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Inclusive Pedagogy Outdoors: Forest School and the Engagement of Students with Special Educational Needs","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-20 08:39:54","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7778847/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"0bb9c0e6-5049-41b1-9165-2151e9afe4d6","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 20th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-04T16:07:35+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7778847","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-025-00240-5","journal":{"identity":"journal-of-outdoor-and-environmental-education","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education"},"publishedOn":"2026-04-29 15:58:03","publishedOnDateReadable":"April 29th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-20 08:39:54","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s42322-025-00240-5","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-025-00240-5","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7778847","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7778847","identity":"rs-7778847","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}