Geoffrey Guy; 2013

The Value of Bushcraft in Formal Education Introduction Bushcraft is a term commonly used to describe a set of skills and knowledge including topics such as botany, zoology, hand crafts and outdoors leadership (Mears, 2002) which might conceivably be used as the means to live in the wilderness but which nowadays are most commonly practiced as a recreational activity. Often these skills are closely related to the skills of indigenous peoples or primitive civilisations (Wescott, 2001) and are even taught to training archaeologists to develop their understanding of primitive skills and technology (Gilsen, 2013). However these skills are not purely recreational, within the countryside management industry many of the skills required can be directly linked to the skills of bushcraft. Students preparing for a career in countryside management study topics such as green woodwork, woodland management, archaeology, landscape history and game management. There are also units of study which include environmental education and allow students to develop the skills required to pass this knowledge on to others. In my experience of delivering countryside management courses at Moulton College for the past two years and my much longer experience of teaching bushcraft I have seen students respond well to recreational bushcraft tuition. In 2011 I was asked by a school, where I was teaching bushcraft to a Duke of Edinburgh Award (DofE) group, to take a group of GCSE students on a field trip to the Peak District as part of their Geography curriculum. During the trip a couple of students referred to and related things I had taught them during their bushcraft tuition to what they had been studying in Geography. I realised that I could link bushcraft to academic subjects as well as it having purely practical applications. These experiences influenced my decision to carry out some research on the relevance of bushcraft in real world environmental education (Guy, 2011) as part of my foundation degree. This research led me to conclude that students engaged well with bushcraft activities compared to their usual sessions, and that the activities complemented their normal countryside management studies. However no formal acknowledgement of bushcraft exists within the curriculum of mainstream countryside management courses, although in the last few years nationally recognised bushcraft certificates have been accredited by organisations such as the Institute for Outdoor Learning (IOL) (Institute for Outdoor Learning , nd) and NCFE (Woodcraft School, 2013). Other than its recreational value there is an obvious cultural value of passing on traditional skills to young people (Wescott, 2001; Kritsch & Wright-Frazer, 2002) which will be explained in a review of topical literature. It is my hypothesis that linking bushcraft with countryside management qualifications can both improve student engagement and increase attainment.

Literature Review At the moment in the UK the importance of bushcraft is, more often than not, measured by its status as a recreational activity. Over the last fifteen to twenty years, the publication of books by John Wiseman (1986), Mors Kochanski (1987), and Ray Mears (2002), and numerous television programmes have made bushcraft and survival skills more accessible to the public. This growing

1

Geoffrey Guy; 2013 popularity has prompted the considerable growth in the number of providers of recreational bushcraft courses (Dryad Bushcraft, nd). Bushcraft skills were once more than recreation, without knowledge of plants people would have been without food, medicine and material for construction. Without a knowledge of ecology people would have gone without food and clothing (Elpel, 2001). For those who want to pursue a career in countryside management, or specialist areas such as game keeping or botany, knowledge of ecology and animal and plant identification is essential. There have been many studies abroad of how best to perpetuate this traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom (TEKW) and the skills of native peoples. In some parts of the world these skills are still in everyday use, but technological improvements have reduced demands on young people to learn traditional skills. This has led to a reduction in the number of people who have well developed practical ‘bushcraft’. Particularly, according to a study of the Transmission of Environmental Knowledge and Land Skills among Inuit Men in Ulukhakatok, in specialist areas such Polar Bear hunting (Pearce, et al., 2011), making skin clothing (Kritsch & WrightFrazer, 2002), fur preparation, hunting, fishing and trapping (Ohmagari & Berkes, 1997). The links between these very specialist skills and countryside management in the UK may not be obvious but the principle is the same. Modern technology may have made many hand tools and traditional skills less efficient than modern methods but by no means have they become obsolete. For example in many parts of the world subsistence agriculture relies solely on the traditional knowledge and skills of the farmers (Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1990; Beckford & Barker, 2007) and researchers agree that TEKW is valuable and valid even when you consider the availability of modern farming methods and improved scientific knowledge of agriculture (Colorado & Collins, 1987; Schultes, 1988; Posey, 1990; Hunn, 1993; Agrawal, 1995). Today we are far removed from the ancient skills that would once have been used by native peoples living in the British Isles; the hunter gatherer societies of the Mesolithic (10,000-5,500 years ago) were the last people in the British Isles to operate without agriculture (Darvill, 2010) and would have used bushcraft as their means of survival. In other parts of the world survival and bushcraft skills have been used by native peoples in living memory and in some parts of the world are still vital components of everyday life (Wescott, 2001). As Pearce et al. (2011), Kritsch and Wright-Frazer (2002) and Ohmagari and Berkes (1997) explain, the successful transmission of these skills is a vital part of preserving the skills, traditions and way of life of surviving native peoples. Formal schools have been set up in some parts of the world to ensure these skills can be taught to younger generations such as the Samernas Utbildningscentrum (The Sami’s Training Centre) in Jokkmokk, Sweden (Samernas Utbildningcentrum, nd), and the TePuia in Rotoroa, New Zealand (Te Puia, 2010). These skills have already been lost (Hillman & Mears, 2007), or at least are only practiced by a very small minority, in the UK and to teach them now is to re-introduce them rather than to preserve them. But they can be relevant in a range of applications, from developing social skills (Guy, 2012) to influencing environmental decision making (Ellis, 2005). Significantly, considering the aim of this study, there is significant research suggesting that TEKW, which we have agreed is a significant part of ‘bushcraft’, is very relevant to biodiversity and conservation (Schultes, 1988; Berkes, et al., 1993; Richards, 1997; Ellis, 2005) which in turn is a significant part of countryside management. The cited literature gives grounds to support an investigation into whether bushcraft tuition can support countryside management courses based on the similarities between the subjects and its cultural value.

2

Geoffrey Guy; 2013 From an educational theory point of view, how might bushcraft improve a student’s learning experience and attainment? The constructivist theory says that knowledge is constructed as new information ‘joins up’ with existing information (Glaserfield, 1989). By providing new experiences to students through bushcraft it gives them another point of reference by which to remember the information they require. For example a student could learn that lime could be recognised by its roughly heart shaped, saw edged leaves, smooth green/grey bark in immature trees and grey/brown slightly fissured bark in mature specimens. If you add to a knowledge of those features the knowledge that it’s bark makes excellent string when collected and prepared properly this will provide another ‘reference point’, another cognitive link which will help them recall the information. Additionally those students who are strongly kinaesthetic may well remember a plant species better based on the occasion when they made sting from bark rather than visual features of the plant. The literature explored here shows there is already significant grounds to link bushcraft with countryside management and plenty of practicing bushcraft instructors would agree that students engage well with the activities and enjoy them (Watson, 2013). I would like to find whether or not these skills can improve performance in formal education. The topics which could be covered as part of bushcraft are almost endless but for the purpose of this action research I intend to focus on one element; plant identification for food and natural resources. To pursue a career in countryside management it is vital that students have well developed plant identification skills and many of the assessment criteria in the BTEC level 3 countryside management curriculum demand that learners be able to identify tree and plant species

Methods The purpose of any action research is to make some improvement of teaching practice, whether that relates to a teachers understanding of practice, or the improvement of the situation in which the learning takes place (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). To measure how a particular method or approach might improve a teachers practice a cycle is established whereby the proposed improvement is planned, carried out, reflected on (changed where necessary) and finally re-implemented leading to a continued upward spiral of improvement as a practitioner rejects less effective methods and further refines their technique. I chose to assess student attainment based on the plant identification skills of two cohorts of students. In the first cycle (Carr & Kemmis, 1986) of my action research one cohort received no bushcraft instruction whereas in the second cycle the students received bushcraft tuition to support instruction on plant identification. Cohort A was taught to recognise plants based on the size, colour and formation of their various structures such as bark, leaves, buds, fruit, and also taught about the habitat and conditions they might most often be found in. The way that my approach to teaching cohort B (who received bushcraft tuition) differed from this was that although the way to recognise a plant based on its specific features was the same I also taught what each plant could be used for. For example, cohort A were taught that lime could be recognised according to the example given above, cohort B were taught these same features but they went on to collect some bark and use it to make a meter of string strong enough to lift a toolbox. This was one of the longer activities which supported this method of teaching. Shorter activities included collecting wild food and discussions

3

Geoffrey Guy; 2013 based on the medicinal properties of certain plants. Each cohort was then given an identical practical test to identify sixteen different plant and tree species, based on a single sighting of each one in the wild rather than from a sample or picture, in order to test the null hypothesis; Ho= Supporting lessons on plant and tree identification with bushcraft tuition does not affect student attainment The results of the test from each cohort of students were compared using a t-test to determine whether differences between the two sets of results were significant. Based on the argument that improved engagement leads to improved attainment as it “increases attention to the learning task, mental effort, and perseverance in the face of difficulty” (Petty, 1998, p. 55) this analysis of students attainment will also contribute towards my multi method (Bryman, nd) approach to determining whether or not taking part in bushcraft activities improves engagement. I chose to use a questionnaire using a forced choice (Allen & Seaman, 2007) Likert style scale to measure the attitude of students in cohort B towards the bushcraft they had been taught within the curriculum. A forced choice questionnaire was used to prevent students from ‘fence sitting’ and giving no opinion. The primary purpose of this questionnaire was to gain an understanding of student engagement but also to gather opinions of how relevant the students felt bushcraft was to their qualification and future career. Also to support my investigation into improved attainment there was a question to gauge whether or not the students thought the activities helped improve their attainment by developing skills that would apply to their studies at college. The idea that better engagement with a topic and intrinsic motivation (Wilson, 2009) to study it improves the performance of a student is not a new one (Dev, 1997) so responses to the questionnaire may also support the primary investigation into how bushcraft tuition affects attainment. The questionnaire was supported by my own observations of students during sessions and by the observations of a colleague. All students taking part in the questionnaire and test were informed of my research aims and gave their consent to take part.

Results In figure 1 below the numbers on the y axis correspond to the questions posed on the questionnaire; 1. Bushcraft is not part of the required curriculum of a countryside management course, but studying it equips you with skills you could use in a career in the countryside. 2. It is easy to engage and take part in bushcraft activities. 3. Bushcraft is a more engaging topic than other topics you study at college. 4. Knowing about the properties and uses of certain plants and trees has enhanced your ability to identify them. 5. The basic skills of bushcraft, such as using a knife or saw, have helped you in your studies. Each of these questions had the possible responses strongly agree (4), agree (3), disagree (2) and strongly disagree (1). To calculate a Likert score for each question each response was assigned the value in brackets.

4

Geoffrey Guy; 2013

5

3.5

4

3.7 Strongly Agree

3

3.7

Agree Disagree

2

3.5 Strongly Disagree

1

3.5

Figure 1; Results of student questionnaire including Likert scale scoring.

Responses to questions two and three in figure 1 shows that all respondents agreed that bushcraft sessions were engaging, however having observed them in my sessions I would not necessarily agree that they were all always engaged. There was one particular student who did not consistently engage. This may indicate that there are some discrepancies in the evidence provided by questionnaire responses, possibly due to acquiescence bias (Holbrook, nd) as they tried to respond ‘positively’ to the question. Or due to social desirability bias (Fisher, 1993) as they tried to provide the answer they thought I wanted. However, as noted in an observed session and in my own observation of students, they were generally engaged.Figure 1 seems to show overwhlimeingly that students agreed that bushcraft was a valuable topic to study. The responses to questions two and three particularly show that students felt they could engage easier with bushcraft activities than with other topics. Even taking into account that a truthful response from the un-engaged learner I mentioned may have been to strongly disagree with questions two and three this could only reduce the Likert score for these questions to 3.2 and 3.4 respectively, still a very positive result indicating that students were generally engaged. Question one, as shown in figure 1, was also answered positively showing that students understood the value of learning bushcraft skills alongside their studies. Their response to this question validates this whole project, if the students couldn’t see any relevance to their studies there would be no point teaching bushcraft within a course and it would have to be presumed that it’s value was purely recreational or as an occasional enrichment activity for students. The positive response here was supported by students highlighting which areas of their studies they felt bush craft supported.

5

Geoffrey Guy; 2013 Principles of Wildlife Populations, Ecology and Conservation Estate Skills Vertebrate Pest and predator Control Greenwood Craft

Game Bird Production Fishery Management Woodland Management Fresh Water and wetland management Work Experience Investigative Project

figure 2; student perception of bushcraft relevance to countryside management topics figure 2 shows which units of study the students felt were best supported by bushcraft activities. It was clear that links to bushcraft were not as strong across the whole suite of units studied by countryside management students but there are clear links with several, the structured qualitative data gained through the responses to a Likert scaled questionnaire and presented here was also supported by comments from the students which highlight in more detail the areas they feel bushcraft is relevant to. 50% of students specifically mentioned in their comments a topic which bushcraft has helped them with, the most common topic mentioned was understandably plant and tree identification as there was a focus on this during sessions. The insight bushcraft gives into landscape history was mentioned and this will support the Archaeology and landscape history module that they will study next year. Although only 50% of students mentioned in their comments specific areas which bushcraft had benefitted their studies in total 70% of students mentioned that they felt the skills they learned would help them in the future. Referring back to figure 1; questions four and five aim to show whether or not the students think that bushcraft has helped in their studies on the countryside management course. The responses from students indicate that they think it did help them, however students own perception of their performance is not always reliable and studies have shown that among students who consider themselves to be ‘above average’ test scores have actually been falling since the 1960’s (Kremer, 2013). For a better indication of how bushcraft helps student attainment the results of the test I issued to each cohort of students were examined.

6

Geoffrey Guy; 2013 Having ascertained that the test results had a normal distribution using an Anderson-Darling test the results of a t-test to test Ho= supporting lessons on plant and tree identification with bushcraft tuition does not affect student attainment show that the results of those students who had received bushcraft tuition were better than those who had not ( T = -2.38 P= 0.035 DF = 12). Thus the null hypothesis can be rejected in favour of the hypothesis H1= supporting lessons on plant and tree identification with bushcraft tuition does affect student attainment.

Discussion The statistical analysis of the results shows that those students who received bushcraft tuition did outperform those who did not receive bushcraft tuition, thereby proving that the inclusion of bushcraft in taught sessions does affect and indeed improve student attainment. This test can’t prove that bushcraft would similarly impact all areas of a countryside management course but it is encouraging to see that at least in this area there is significant correlation. It would be interesting to devise a method of measuring how bushcraft might affect the attainment of students in other areas of their studies. As to how bushcraft might affect attainment during the test I gave to students I did hear individuals reminding themselves of things they had used the plants for, I heard comments such as; “I remember eating that, it tasted awful” and “that’s the one we used to make friction fire kits” so it was clear that the additional links that students were constructing (Glaserfield, 1989) for themselves were helping them remember and recognise each plant and tree species. Interestingly enough there was one student who referred to Homers Illiad in recalling the medicinal plant Yarrow rather than to my bushcraft tuition but again this highlighted the importance of having as many points of reference by which to identify something as possible. Additionally; as discussed earlier improved engagement can improve attention and mental effort (Petty, 1998) and the results presented in Figure 1 certainly indicate that the students engaged well with bushcraft sessions. There was a small minority of students who did not engage as well with bushcraft activities; the two students in question are ones who have been admitted to a general countryside management course despite having very specific interests in specialist areas. One student is very interested in pursuing a career as a game keeper and the other as a musician (he is studying countryside management as a ‘back up’). These students did not engage as well with bushcraft activities (although they did answer the questionnaire that they did, this has been discussed in the results section) and this may be because their specific interests were not catered to by this activity. Where the majority of the other students had a more general interest in countryside management or at least a more open mind about what might be relevant to their qualifications they all engaged fully. It would be interesting to see if other elements of bushcraft would have engaged the two students discussed here more effectively for example would the student interested in game keeping have been better engaged by a lesson on primitive traps? For the purpose of this investigation I did not consider that question but there would be clear links between primitive trapping and topics which countryside management students study such as pest and predator control, game management and wildlife law. This issue of unengaged students does also raise the issue of whether or not they were admitted to the best course of study for them would the first student in question have been better off studying a game keeping apprenticeship for example?

7

Geoffrey Guy; 2013 The experiences these students have reported having through their responses to the questionnaire indicate that the way I enact the prescribed curriculum (Kelly, 2009) is effective. The prescribed curriculum does give scope for the inclusion of bushcraft activities in certain modules of the course; Edexcel Unit 30 Undertaking Woodland Habitat Management includes assessment criteria which could be directly supported by using bushcraft to enhance students plant ID skills as does Unit 43 Understanding Organism Identification. A significant part of bushcraft is the ability to use a saw, knife and axe to fashion items such as spoons, tent pegs, traps and simple tools again these activities are all assessed as part of the green woodwork unit (Edexcel unit 12). Even though bushcraft would not traditionally be included in these lessons, it is my own experience of using and teaching bushcraft in the past that has convinced me of its value in teaching and led me to include it in my sessions. The students have drawn these same conclusions, as highlighted by Figure 2, they have identified units of study which they feel have been or could be supported by bushcraft activities.

Conclusion The results of this research have justified my use of bushcraft as a teaching tool and have encouraged me to pursue additional opportunities to embed bushcraft into the curriculum in the future. In terms of the effectiveness of using bushcraft as a tool to improve student’s attainment in relevant areas this research shows that students who took part in bushcraft activities far outperformed those who did not take part in bushcraft activities. The possible reasons for this have been discussed above and are probably more to do with the extra ‘links’ in students knowledge created by taking part in bushcraft activities than by the nature of the activity itself. With that in mind it should be possible to find similar supporting activities for any subject which can help students create more cognitive links and thus help them in their recollection of acquired knowledge. The suitability of bushcraft as an activity to promote the creation of these extra cognitive links for this particular type of activity is undeniable. The inclusion of bushcraft activities clearly enriched the sessions that students took part in and was deemed relevant and engaging by students as shown by their responses to the questionnaire. There was a minority of students who did not engage as well with the bushcraft activities and that lack of engagement might be linked to their specific interests or particularly in this case their lack of interest in the topic of bushcraft. As a whole thought engagement was noted to be improved by participation in bushcraft activities and this improved engagement can clearly made a difference in terms of student attainment as affirmed by literature (Petty, 1998). When students engage well with a topic they will naturally try harder and perform better.

8

Geoffrey Guy; 2013 Works Cited Agrawal, A., 1995. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development Change , Volume 26, pp. 413-439. Allen, E. & Seaman, C., 2007. Likert Scales and Data Analyses. Quality Progress, pp. 64-65. Barnes , P. & Sharp, B., 2004. Introduction; Some thoughts on the nature of outdoor education. In: P. Barnes & B. Sharpe, eds. The RHP Companion to Outdoor Education. Lyme Regis : Random House . Beckford, C. & Barker, D., 2007. The role and value of local knowledge in Jamaican agriculture; adaptation and change in small scale farming. The Geographical Journal, 173(2), pp. 118-128. Berkes, F., Gadgil, M. & Folke, C., 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio, 22(2-3), pp. 151-156. Bryman, A. E., nd. Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. [Online] Available at: http://www.referenceworld.com/sage/socialscience/mmr.pdf [Accessed 15 05 2013]. Carr, W. & Kemmis, S., 1986. Becoming Critical; education, knowledge and action research. s.l.:Lewes, Falmer . Colorado, P. & Collins , D., 1987. Western scientific colonialism and the re-emergence of native Science.. Practice: Journal of Politics, Economics, Psychology, Sociology and Culture , Volume Winter , pp. 50-65. Darvill, T., 2010. Prehistoric Britain. 2nd ed. London: Routledge . Dev, P. C., 1997. Intrinsic Motivation and Academic Achievement; What Does Their Relationship Imply for the Classroom Teacher?. Remedial and Special Education, 18(1), pp. 12-19. Dryad Bushcraft, n.d. Bushcraft What is it?. [Online] Available at: http://www.dryadbushcraft.co.uk/bushcraft.html [Accessed 21 05 2013]. Ellis, S. C., 2005. Meaning ful Consideration? A review of Traditional Knowledge in Environmental Dcision Making. Arctic, 58(1), pp. 66-77. Elpel, T. J., 2001. Metaphors for Living; Questing for Insight. In: D. Wescott, ed. Primitive Technology II; Ancestral Skills. Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith. Fisher, R. J., 1993. Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), pp. 303-315. Gilsen, L., 2013. Additional Training Opportunities for Students in Archaeology. The SAA archaeological record , 13(2), pp. 4-6. Glaserfield, E., 1989. Constructivism in Education. Oxford : Pergamon Press . Guy, G., 2011. Relevance of 'Bushcraft' within Realworld Environmental Education. s.l.:Unpublished .

9

Geoffrey Guy; 2013 Guy, G., 2012. Forest School Level 3 Practitioners Award Evidence Portfolio; Discussion and Review of Current Forest School Philosophy and Aims in Light of its Recent Historical Development.. s.l.:Unpublished . Hillman, G. & Mears , R., 2007. Wild Food. London: Hodder & Stoughton . Holbrook, A., n.d. Aquiescence Response Bias. In: P. J. Lavrakas, ed. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods . s.l.:Sage . Hunn, E. N., 1993. What is traditional ecological knowledge?. In: N. M. Williams & G. Baines , eds. Traditional Ecological Knowledge; wisdom for sustainable development. Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, pp. 13-15. Institute for Outdoor Learning , nd. IOL Foundational Bushcraft Competency. [Online] Available at: http://www.outdoor-learning.org/Default.aspx?tabid=225 [Accessed 04 01 2013]. International Association of School Librarianship, 2008. School Libraries Make a Difference to Student Achievement. [Online] Available at: http://www.iasl-online.org/advocacy/make-a-difference.html [Accessed 12 April 2013]. Kelly, A. V., 2009. The Curriculum; Theory and Practical. 6th ed. s.l.:Sage Publications . Kochanski, M., 1987. Bush Craft; outdoor skills and wilderness survival. Expanded ed. Edmonton: Lone Pine Publishing. Kremer, W., 2013. Does Confidence Really Breed Success?. [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20756247 [Accessed 30 05 2013]. Kritsch, I. & Wright-Frazer, K., 2002. The Gwich'in Traditional Caribou Skin Clothing Project; Repatriating Traditional Knowledge and Skills. Arctic, 55(2), pp. 205-213. Lave, J., 1988. Cognition in Practic: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life.. Canbridge: Cambridge University Press . Mears , R., 2002. Bushcraft; An inspirational guide to surviving the wilderness. 1st ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M. & Maczuga, S., 2009. Risk factors for learning-related behavior problems at 24 months of age: Population-based estimates.. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Volume 37, pp. 401-413. Ohmagari, K. & Berkes, F., 1997. Transmission of Indigenous Knowledge and Bush Skills among Western James Bay Cree Women of Subarctic Canada. Human Ecology, 25(2), pp. 197-222. Pearce, T. et al., 2011. Transmission of Environmental Knowledge and Land Skills among Inuit Men in Ulukhatok, Northwest Territories, Canada. Human Ecology, Volume 39, pp. 271-288.

10

Geoffrey Guy; 2013 Petty, G., 1998. Teaching Today. Cheltenham: Stanley Thomas. Posey, D. A., 1990. The Sience of the Mebengokre. Orion, 9(3), pp. 16-21. Reichel-Dolmatoff, G., 1990. The Forest Within; World-view of the Tukano Amazonian Indians. s.l.:Themis publishing. Richards , R. T., 1997. What the natives know: wild mushrooms and forest health. Journal of Forestry, Volume September , pp. 5-10. Samernas Utbildningcentrum, n.d. Samernas Utbildningscentrum. [Online] Available at: http://www.samernas.se/default.asp?ID=1&menu_item=1 [Accessed 16 05 2013]. Schultes , R. E., 1988. Primitive Plant Lore and Modern Conservation. Orion, 7(3), pp. 8-15. Schultes , R. E., 1988. Primitive Plant Lore and Modern Conservation. Orion, 7(3 ), pp. 8-15. Te Puia , 2010. Te Puia New Zealand Maori Arts and Craft Institute. [Online] Available at: http://tepuia.com/index.htm [Accessed 16 05 2013]. Watson, D., 2013. Bushcraft Lessons for Life. Horizons; Proffessional Development for Outdoor Practitioners , Spring , pp. 26-29. Wescott, D., 2001. Introduction. In: D. Wescott, ed. Primitive Technology II; Ancestral Skills. Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith. Wilson, L., 2009. Practical Teaching A Guide to PTLLS and DTLLS. Andover: Cengage Learning EMEA. Wiseman, J., 1986. The SAS Survival Handbook. s.l.:s.n. Woodcraft School, 2013. Certificate in Bushcraft Leadership - NCFE level 4. [Online] Available at: http://www.woodcraftschool.co.uk/courses/bushcraft-courses/certificate-in-bushcraftleadership-ncfe-level-4.html [Accessed 03 01 2013].

11