English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The idea that certain outdoor education (OE) programs consistently improve character traits has been a recurring theme not only in OE practice but also in some approaches to research and theory (Brookes, 2003a, 2003b). Sometimes referred to as “character building,” such approaches to OE persist although perhaps less prominently than in the past (Dyment &amp; Potter, 2015). The idea of character-trait building is consistent with everyday beliefs about personality, but what is surprising is that strands of OE research and scholarship remain rooted in beliefs about personal traits that have been scientifically discredited for decades. This article considers some barriers which could help explain why OE research and scholarship have failed to exhibit a paradigm shift which should have eventuated had OE research more faithfully reflected key developments in psychological science and stayed within the bounds of scientific credibility.

A paradigm shift that never was. (A critique of Neo-Hahnian outdoor education theory part three)