Introduction

Outdoor and environmental education (OEE) has, for many years now, taken learners outside to engage directly with nature and with each other. The benefits of such endeavours are well-versed. Whether it be connection to place (e.g. Sanderud et al. 2021), environmental awareness (e.g. Wigglesworth and Heintzman 2017) or personal growth and development (e.g. Shellman and Hill 2017), the role OEE can have in education cannot be underestimated.

With the above in mind, I define OEE as an intentional pedagogic strategy that rests on the foundation that authentic outdoor, place-responsive learning offers greater connection to the land, to oneself and to others, than more typical approaches in mainstream education. This is an appealing synthesis of OEE, but, despite these benefits, James and Williams (2017) note that taking learners outside the classroom is often a neglected necessity. Instead, preference is placed on a narrow curriculum that focusses on standardised test scores and academic achievement. Despite this limited scope, the benefits of OEE activities and experiences are considered significant as learners proceed into a future likely to be marked by societal unpredictability and environmental breakdown (Quay et al. 2020).

However, the context in which OEE sits has drastically changed, something van Kraalingen (2022) acknowledged recently when exploring the complex relationships between technological mediation and the outdoor classroom. Furthermore, as Hood and Tesar (2019) acknowledge, young people are now growing up in the Anthropocene, a geological epoch that recognises human impact on the land. For Taylor (2017), this development demands a paradigm shift and requires OEE to recognise that outdoor learning activities are enmeshed within what I describe as an assemblage of people, places, technological architectures, and rapidly degrading more-than-human ecologies.

Alongside this acknowledgement, the field of OEE must also consider how it is inescapably positioned within the networked spaces (e.g. social media and the technical architectures that sustain them) that very often characterise contemporary societies. Montgomery (2015) extends this, demonstrating how networked spaces have unpicked what were formerly stable social boundaries in the lives of young people. As 18-year-old Skyler told her Mum in research conducted by boyd (2014: 119), if you cannot engage with such spaces ‘you don’t exist’. Davidson and Goldberg (2010) build on this, positing that technology has inevitably altered how young people participate in civic society, whilst changing how people play, learn and socialise.

In contemporary life, young people seamlessly inhabit and grow up in a world where distinguishing between so-called digital and non-digital spaces becomes increasingly difficult and probably impossible (Allaby and Shannon 2020; Kaplan-Berkley 2021). Positioning contemporary childhoods within this collapsed digital–non-digital binary may be positioned as a characteristic of the postdigital condition (Ryberg et al. 2021). As Jandrić et al. (2018: 893) put forward, ‘we are increasingly no longer in a world where digital technology and media is separate, virtual, “other” to a “natural” human and social life’. This adds yet more layers to the OEE endeavour and presents a messy and chaotic space from which young people may begin to make sense of their outdoor learning experiences. This raises the question: In a time of climate and ecological crisis, what impact might a postdigital reality have on the purposes and outcomes of OEE?

Within this postdigital context, OEE must also account for the ongoing oppression and stigmatisation experienced by groups of diverse populations in outdoor learning. Whether it be issues of hegemonic masculinity (Kennedy and Russell 2020), racial equity and inclusion (Romero et al. 2022) or the marginalisation of gender variant students (Bren and Prince 2022), we must consider how the postdigital interacts with the foundational inequalities present in OEE. Making sense of the relationships between OEE, inequality, emancipation and the postdigital interacts with Jandrić and Ford’s (2022) edited book Postdigital Ecopedagogies: Genealogies, Contradictions, and Possible Futures. Especially poignant is the chapter from Misiaszek et al. (2022), who present a case study on an ecopedagogical course which utilised TikTok to explore narratives of neocolonialism, ecoracism and anthropocentrism in Western constructions of nature and earth. They conclude that learners need ‘to be also outside of digital spaces (e.g., offline, off-the-grid)’ in order to understand and address issues of socio-environmental injustices and the climate and ecological crisis (Misiaszek et al. 2022: 140).

What the above does is outline some of the complexities that are present when considering the role of the postdigital in OEE contexts. As I have discussed previously, ‘in a postdigital world marked by the climate and ecological crisis, the connection(s) between planetary health, ecological consciousness, and climate action are of the highest importance’ (MacKenzie et al. 2022: 306). This, of course, may be furthered when considering how, and in what ways, issues of privacy, power, political economies and democracy (to name just four) intersect with postdigital realities (Fuchs 2021; Royle 2022). Ultimately, my commentary here cannot fully address all of these considerations. Instead, my argument centres on contesting the salience of the digital–non-digital binary in OEE and, alongside this, to re-evaluate what role OEE might have in this postdigital world.

The Nature–Technology Binary in Outdoor and Environmental Education

Turning to some of the early literature in OEE, we see the foundational argument against technology incorporation within the field. This is an argument that has progressed into the development of a nature–technology binary in contemporary practice and literature. For instance, Conover and Conover (1995) and Strong (1995) advocate that using technology diminishes the outdoor experience by making it more comfortable and readily consumable. As Cuthbertson et al. (2004: 142) discuss, ‘if a technologically mediated nature is all we come to know, we risk eroding direct, meaningful engagement with nature’.

Positioning technology as dissolving profound experiences with nature is also discussed by Louv (2005), who positions technology, amongst other things, as generating a barrier between young people and direct connection to nature, coining the term ‘nature-deficit disorder’. Smith et al. (2018) pick up on this and position engagement with technology in outdoor learning as a critical factor that threatens relationships between students and which limit connections to the natural world. Walter (2013) also suggests that the so-called net-generation needs to be ‘greened’ (e.g. they need to reconnect to nature), but at the same time shows how digital technology could be employed to extend the OEE experience through photographs or blog posts.

The above is contextualised in van Kraalingen’s (2021) systematised review of literature concerning the place and use of mobile technologies in outdoor learning. Two dimensions are presented that feature in the literature that focus on (1) the benefits of using mobile technologies and (2) the pitfalls associated with mobile technologies. It is suggested that ‘it is unlikely that a consensus will be reached on whether mobile technology positively or negatively affects outdoor learning’ (van Kraalingen 2021: 12). What emerges recognises that there is a ‘for-and-against’ argument for technology use in outdoor learning and that educators must critically reflect on what role such technology could have in their practice.

This captures the general position that it is the educator in OEE who decides whether digital technologies are used by students or not. I argue that this discounts the situated and networked realities of young people (Reed 2021). For OEE, then, there are a series of important considerations on the role of technologies in practice, but these considerations are typically situated within an opposing binary in which little consensus can be found.

Postdigital Assemblages in Outdoor and Environmental Education

I now attempt to look beyond this binary to consider what a postdigital assemblage might look like for OEE. Initially returning to Ryberg et al. (2021), we encounter some of the groundwork necessary to position OEE within the postdigital. Drawing on Fawns (2019), Jandrić et al. (2019) and Knox (2019), Ryberg et al. (2021) suggest that the postdigital is well-positioned to offer a critical platform for progression beyond binary thinking in relation to technology and education. Furthermore, drawing on Macgilchrist’s (2021: 662) notion of postdigital assemblages, we are encouraged to ask: ‘What knots are visible that can be unravelled to show what is coming into being and how things are holding together in a given educational context on any given day?'. This might encourage those within the OEE context to ask: In what ways might networked spaces and technical architectures inescapably materialise within, sustain and affect how educators and students engage with nature?

Exploring a little further into Macgilchrist’s (2021) application of Tsing (2015), an assemblage may be considered indeterminate, always unpredictable and can comprise both human and non-human factors. As Tsing (2015: 27) suggests, this generates ‘tangled landscapes’ whereby individual components of reality cannot be fully explicated. They are intertwined with countless other factors that, when combined, shape reality at that very moment. This focus on entanglement, that binary thinking oversimplifies the complex nature of reality, offers a standpoint from where the for-and-against binary of technology in OEE may be dismantled.

Perhaps aptly in a postdigital world, Müller and Schurr (2016) position assemblage thinking as intertextual and dense. They claim that a single definition would serve to undermine the purpose of assemblage thinking, which attempts to make sense of complexity and chaos. However, in my view, it is an approach that can demonstrate how OEE is situated within a complex and heterogeneous postdigital space that is consistently shaped and reshaped by social, technical and cultural factors. Whilst Macgilchrist (2021) characterises postdigital assemblages as resisting the temptation to break reality down into distinct, systematic elements, to demonstrate OEE’s entanglement with the postdigital, it is necessary for me to offer some broad constitutive components of what a postdigital assemblage might look like.

Reflecting the theoretical basis of assemblages set out by DeLanda (2006) and Lupton (2015), we may think of OEE as comprising innumerable individual, yet interacting, components that, by way of example for this commentary, could include:

  1. 1.

    The diversity and background of each learner or educator.

  2. 2.

    The social and cultural fabric entangled within broader conceptualisations of socio-environmental injustices and the climate and ecological crisis.

  3. 3.

    The OEE activity undertaken, including location, learning outcomes and length of time in the ‘field’.

  4. 4.

    The mobile technologies (e.g. smartphones) used by each individual person before, during and after the OEE experience.

  5. 5.

    The technical architectures present (or not) at any given OEE location (e.g. the prevalence of Wi-Fi or mobile signal).

  6. 6.

    The countless, algorithmically sustained and ‘never off’ networked backchannels (e.g. Snapchat) that each person occupies.

Each factor here could be further analysed to reveal additional nuance and complexity, and there will be many more factors than just those I have outlined. However, what postdigital assemblage thinking does is recognise that all these individual entities combine at any given time to create an assembled whole. It is this assembled whole that constitutes reality and that shapes my primary focus here.

Christensen and Prax (2012) recognise that such a perspective serves to acknowledge the entanglement of virtual and networked spaces with the embodied and physical realities of individual and collective actors. Crucially, this assembled whole is infinitely complex and will collapse and rebuild based on rapidly changing sociotechnical factors. Simply entering phone signal in a rural area, a student receiving a Snapchat message or sharing photos of the experience online, will continuously shape and reshape the experience. This provides a mechanism through which the complexity of postdigital OEE may be understood.

Note, however, that the listed factors are often beyond the control of the educator. As educators, we may make decisions on whether young people can or cannot have and use their mobile technologies during OEE, but we must now acknowledge that entangled and irremovable sociotechnical architectures influence programmes in ways that we cannot control. This lack of control should not generate a knee-jerk reaction for those engaged in OEE. As Fawns (2022: 2) outlines when putting forward the case for an entangled pedagogy, putting pedagogy first in a way that discounts the role of technologies ‘leaves educators susceptible to an inadequate appreciation of complexity relating to how it is entangled in educational activity’. The characterisation I have outlined positions a postdigital assemblage in OEE as alive, fluid and unseen, something Deleuze and Parnet (1987: 69) hint at when describing the ephemeral nature of assemblages by depicting them as like ‘contagions, epidemics, the wind’.

What this description of a postdigital reality does for OEE is question the viability of the for-and-against argument present both in practice and in literature. Through recognising the salience and entangled nature of postdigital assemblages in OEE, new questions emerge for us to consider. This is especially in relation to how postdigital assemblages may interact with the benefits of OEE, such as connection to place and personal growth and development, as well as with cultures of exclusion and marginalisation. In a time of climate and ecological crisis, in a new geological epoch, OEE and the reality of the postdigital sit together as learners prepare for uncertain futures.

An Example

To place the above in context, I provide a short narrative from an imaginary 5-day residential OEE trip to Flat Holm Island in the Bristol Channel, Wales. Though the case is imaginary, each example is drawn from real-world practice and observation. The following activity was undertaken by a small group of 12- to 13-year-olds who were allowed their phones during evening activities.

Postdigital Assemblages Around the Campfire

The group are sitting around a campfire. They have been busy undertaking a geomorphological survey of a 300-million-year-old sea floor on the West side of the island, and their evening campfire activity is an opportunity to reflect on the day. As part of the activity, the educator gives the students a flint fire starter so they can all contribute to lighting their fire. It does not take long before a student calls out, ‘this is so much harder than on Minecraft!’. ‘Yeah, I can’t get mine to work at all’, another replies. The group begin discussing techniques, wondering how a Minecraft Fire Charge might aid their fire-starting endeavours. ‘Do you all like Minecraft, then?’, the educator chimes in. ‘Yeah! It’s educational. You can light fires, I know all about Oak and Birch trees, and I’ve spent so much time exploring caves and cliffs. This fire [indicating in front of them] is way harder to light though.’

After a short whilst, the fire is lit, and students are hurriedly finding more wood in the local area to sustain their success. Here, students begin discussing the merits of Netherrack (a cheap Minecraft building block) which burns indefinitely in Minecraft when lit. During this time, one student has taken their flint aside and has set up their phone on a tree stump so that the camera is pointing towards them. They sit, cross-legged, and go through a practice run to make sure their flint will work. They then begin filming on Instagram Live and talk directly to the camera, explaining what the flint is and how to strike it in such a way that a spark is created. Before filming, they found some dry beard lichen, which the instructor had said could make an excellent fire starter. They strike and strike, eventually generating enough sparks that their lichen begins to catch. A gleeful ‘woo hoo!’ is shouted out and the burning ember is held up to the camera for the viewers to see. The young person rushes back to the group to tell the story of their success.

Before the fire is put out, there is one final and very exciting activity, students are each given a clutch of marshmallows to roast on the fire. One by one, each student goes to the fire and spends a few seconds getting their marshmallow roasting ‘just right’. However, students do not just bring their roasting stick to the fire, they also have their phones neatly poised to record the occasion. In what becomes a predictable chain of events, students bend down, place their marshmallow in the fire and, with either their camera app, Instagram or Snapchat, record their experience. When returning to their seated position, filters are applied, and videos are shared amongst the groups’ WhatsApp chat.

Videos of the event are also sent home to parents. As one young person quipped, ‘it is important because my Dad likes to see what I’ve been up to, I said I’d message him whenever I could’. Whilst sharing to social media or sharing with people back home is a big motivation, others recorded the event so they could remember it. ‘I’ll upload all of this to my G-Drive folder’, one student tells me, ‘so I can look back at this in the future and remember the heat of the fire and taste of my marshmallows’.

Thoughts for the Future

The role of postdigital assemblages in OEE offers a platform from where the complex relationships between young people, networked spaces and architectures and direct educational engagement with nature may be addressed. As exemplified in the campfire activity, distinguishing between ‘digital’ and ‘non-digital’ spaces in OEE no longer adequately describes the nature of students’ postdigital realities. Aligning with van Kraalingen’s (2022: 5) assessment, ‘our engagement with digital and mobile technologies is increasingly shifting our direct experience of the environment to a human-technology-nature interface’. This acknowledgement is of critical importance as educators and learners navigate their OEE endeavours.

Alongside this, we must also consider how matters of socio-environmental justice, emancipation and capitalism shape and pervade OEE spaces and experiences in the context of a postdigital assemblage. Furthermore, postdigital assemblage thinking offers us an acknowledgement of the complexity that exists beyond the nature–technology binary. In many ways, this commentary kickstarts this conversation and, as I have outlined previously with colleagues (Reed et al. 2022), invites others to consider how and in what ways the postdigital interacts with the purposes, outcomes and accessibility of OEE. Perhaps importantly, there has been limited acknowledgement of the postdigital in relation to educating in and for the climate and ecological crisis. In the twenty-first century, marked by the Anthropocene, the uncertainties and socio-environmental injustices that come with climate breakdown and, more recently, the realities of war, the role of postdigital OEE in framing our connections to each other and to the planet could not be more important.