UKC

Outdoor and Environmental Education involves assumptions that can be characterised by the answers to questions concerning methodology, ontology and epistemology. Discuss the extent to which paradigms are compatible using examples from Outdoor and Environmental Education activity to support your answer

Seems like complete waffle. But it's a real exam question dug out from a few years ago.

I still don't want it mean, In the white heat of an exam christ know what I wrote.

How would you approach it?

In reply to goldmember:

Stunned Silence! I remember the response when presented with the question

In reply to goldmember:

It means someone is dressing up simple subjects with long words to make it sound more 'academic'.

Bag of shite...

I think it's trying to ask if teaching methods used in outdoor and environmental education are appropriate. Judging by the wording of the question, I'd suggest not...

Outdoor education, and teaching in general, is a pretty practical subject. Yes, there's some educational psychology that's useful, but it doesn't need a lot of metaphysical bollocks about the nature of being.

In reply to goldmember:


'What can be said at all can be said clearly.' (Wittgenstein)

'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.' (Wittgenstein)

Whoever wrote that drivel should not be involved with education.

Mick

In reply to captain paranoia:




'Outdoor and Environmental Education involves assumptions that can be characterised by the answers to questions concerning methodology, ontology and epistemology. Discuss the extent to which paradigms are compatible using examples from Outdoor and Environmental Education activity to support your answer'

It's asking what they have in common when it comes to methodology ontology and epistemology and approaches to/methods of teaching...I think?

In reply to Timmd:

What 'they' have in common? 'Outdoor and Environmental Education' is clearly (!) a single entity in this question, not two distinct subjects...

In reply to captain paranoia:
That's a very good point, I'm still waking up.

Was asleep at half two-ish and awake at half nine.

Where's the coffee? |:-||

In reply to goldmember:


How you do it.
If/why it exists.
How do you know it.

Does that help? Sounds like the person who wrote the question was dead proud of the A Level Philosophy. Seems strange to put the question like that unless you do some course that uses those words so that you know how to apply them.

In reply to TobyA:

I thought it seemed flowerily-worded.

In reply to goldmember:
"Write an essay about anything to do with Outdoor Education. If it is vaguely convincing, you'll get the marks."

?

In reply to goldmember:

I'm assuming this was a FE / HE level question and not A level or BTech? I think I would have approached it by asking the other candidates what they made of it, and if their response was the same as yours, make representation to the Board of Studies / Exam Board. Examiners are *supposed* to set questions that are intelligible to the average student in an exam situation, though if this was an open book exam more perhaps could have been expected from the candidates. As an External, I have occasionally questioned the use of particular vocabulary when a more straightforward word would have done.

In reply to goldmember:

I think roughly translated it means-

"Help my head is stuck up my arse, please help me remove it so I can set you an exam question"

In reply to goldmember:

My interpretation of this is basically; how do positivistic, interpretivistic and critical approaches relate in the respect of the reasoning behind and the teaching of Outdoor Education and Environmental Education.

I actually think this is the question I got in my exam, I'm willing to put money on which course you are on.

At risk of sounding like an arse, to dismiss this as a 'simple' subject is quite blunt. Yes the question is worded strangely, but has been done purposefully so the lecturer can see whether the student has learnt the subject and it's terminology. The subject matter; a humans relationship and their thought processes about their interaction with their environment is highly complex. If you look at it in greater depth than just instinctively (which is what the majority of humans do, some better than others..) you'll find it not only fascinating, but also complex. Greater understanding of the subject will lead to better understanding of people and how to interact with them, particularly when facilitating learning in any environment. As humans are learning new things everyday, are interacting with their environment and other people everyday, it is arguably a very valuable for prospective soon-to-be 'real' adult to learn, not just the patrons of that course.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

I thought it strangely worded at the time. As a group we should have followed Kate's advice and went to the exam board. Then passed it on to the campaign for plain English.

In reply to The Green Giant:

That seems to tie in with Forest School, which is to do with how children benefit from learning out in woodlands.

In reply to goldmember:

All paradigms are incompatible. That's sort of the point. [Kuhn, 1962]

Seriously, people are criticising an exam question for being difficult to read. The purpose of the question is clearly to see if the student has understood the terminology used in the course. They are long, flowery but specific words that mean specific things in specific contexts.

Surely the question is "discuss different approaches to outdoor education using terminology and concepts you've learned about in this course." Seems reasonable.

In reply to goldmember:

For what it's worth here's how I'd go at the question...

Ignore the first sentence as it doesn't make sense. The second asks for a discussion of how well paradigms fit together. Now I know a paradigm means something that's considered the best way of doing things, for example you may see someone doing a stylish ascent of a chimney and say that's a paradigm of how to use bridging moves. So I'd think of areas where there's two possible ways of thinking about outdoor education, then discuss how compatible these two ideas (paradigms) are.

For example I may talk about honeypot sites. Some people think they limit damage to the environment by keeping tourists contained others say it's better if everyone spreads out. Are these two views compatible?

That's my thoughts anyway, hope it helps.
Cheers
Greasy


Ps I'm no expert on outdoor education, apologies if my example isn't actually outdoor education!