Hands On The Earth: The Effects of Outdoor Experiences on Science Learning

LaShaun Ellis

Ed. 703.22

Spring 2010

Professor O’Connor-Petruso

Table of ContentsAbstract

Introduction

Statement of the Problem

Review of Related Literature

Statement of the Hypothesis

Method

Participants

Instruments

Experimental Design

Procedure

Results

Discussion

Implications

References

Appendices

Statement of the Problem

o According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 54% of NYC fourth graders scored below basic in science achievement in 2005.

o Fifteen year olds from the United States rank 21st in science achievement worldwide.

o Government studies from 2001 show American youth spend 90% of their lives indoors.

Review of Related Literature

John Dewey (1859-1952)Pre-eminent educational theorist, stated there is an organic connection between education and personal experience.

Howard Gardner (1943- )Developed a theory of eight Multiple Intelligences, later included a ninth, the Naturalist.

William Heard Kilpatrick (1871- 1965) One of the leading exponents of child-centered, experienced-based schooling.

Eleanor MieleEnvironmental educator, with a focus on learning outside the classroom.

Mark RickinsonConducted extensive research on the benefits of outdoor learning and included many of the barriers.

Review of Related Literature

Pros

• Elementary science education should provide experiences in authentic settings. Environmental experiences are important to the growth and development of children and should be provided throughout their educational career. Barratt, E., Barratt, R., & Scott, W., 2007; Carrier, S., 2009; Learning Outside the Classroom Manifesto, 2006; Maynard, T. & Waters, J., 2007; Simmons, D., 1998

• Adequately planned, taught and followed up fieldwork gives learners a chance to develop cognitive skills and skills needed for scientific inquiry. Hands-on outdoor science related activities also positively effect discussion, writing, reading, recall, and engagement.Bourdeau, V., 2008; Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Young Choi, M.-Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P., 2006; Lord, T., 2008; Potter, G. & Ritz, W., 2006; Waite, S., 2007

Review of Related Literature

Pros

• Urban school grounds can become an enriching extension of the classroom and students learn significantly more science in outdoor schoolyardsBroda, H., 2007; Carrier, S., 2009; Cronin-Jones, L., 2000; Dillon, J., Morris, M., O’Donnell, L., Reid, A., Rickinson, M., & Scott, W., 2005; McNally, S., 2009.

• Outdoor learning provides a meaningful context for education, it can also be a great way to reach the broad spectrum of students in the classroom. Dyment, J., 2005; Foran, A., 2005; Siry, C. & Buchinski, L., 2005; Tangen, D., & Fielding-Barnsley, R., 2007; Warren, K., 2005.

• Teachers need to be trained to use the outdoors effectively and form relationships with science-rich institutions to increase their subject knowledge. Haines, S., 2006; Johnson, C., 2009; MacDonald, M., Sloan, H., Miele, E., Powell, W., Silvernail, D., Kinzler, R., Hong, J., & Simon, C., 2008; Tal, T. & Morag, O., 2009.

Review of Related Literature

Cons

• Teachers lack confidence of the outdoors, pedagogical knowledge, and pre-service training• Not enough or no effective follow-up performed• Health and safety• Not enough supervision• School and district regulations• Lack of administrative support• Equipment/appropriate clothing • Funds

Carrier, S., 2009; Cronin-Jones, Dillon, J., et al, 2006; Dyment, J., 2005; Maynard, T. & Waters, J., 2007; Simmons, D., 1998.

Statement of the Hypothesis

HR₁ A planned outdoor learning experience, led by garden

educators in collaboration with classroom teachers, will lead to increased gains in the science learning of 16 third graders and 23 fifth graders (CTT class) at P.S. XY, a Title 1 public school in Brooklyn, NY, as measured by pre and post-tests and a learning experiences survey.

Method

Experimental Design

Quasi-experimental non-equivalent group design: One-Group Pre-test-Post-test Design

Individuals are not randomly assigned.

Symbolic Design: OXOTwo groups will be pre-tested, exposed to treatment

and post-tested, symbolic design: OX₁O OX₂O

Threats to Validity

Threats to Internal ValidityHistory: No knowledge of full academic history.

Maturation: Time between pre-trip activity and trip.

Testing and Pre-testing Sensitization: Feelings of negativity.

Instrumentation: How the test was administered.

Threats to External ValidityGeneralizable Conditions: Cannot be replicated.

Pre-test Treatment: Students may anticipate future interactions.

Selection-Treatment Interaction: Not chosen at random.

Procedure

• February 9th, 2010Teacher Survey Distributed

• Mid to Late February Consent Form was given to the Principal

• March, 2010Consent Forms were given to Parents/Guardians

• March 26th and April 7th, 2010Post-tests were taken by 5th and 3rd graders

• April 8th and 9th, 2010Students experienced intervention

• April 13th and 30th, 2010

Pre-tests were taken by 3rd and 5th graders

Results

The data above shows that all but two students’ results improved upon taking the post-test. The data to the right shows that there is an Rxy of .4, when rounded to the nearest tenth, showing that there is no correlation.

Survey statement #6 I feel I learn more science when I can connect what I learn to the world outside of the classroom.

Results

The data above shows that the results of six students did not improve upon taking the post-test. The data to the right shows that there is an Rxy of .2, when rounded to the nearest tenth, showing that there is no correlation.

Survey statement #6 I feel I learn more science when I can connect what I learn to the world outside of the classroom.

Discussion

Students’ post-test scores indicated that the students learned more about selected environmental science topics through outdoor experience (Cronin-Jones, 2000)

The students experienced an outdoor visit to Brooklyn Botanic Garden and the researcher saw considerable gains for a large number of students when compared to the pre-test (Dewey, 1938; Carrier, 2009).

Students were exposed to purposeful experiences that engaged them in science learning (Simmons, 1998).

According to the survey some teachers did not feel confidant in their knowledge when it came to implementing a change in instructional methods (Dyment, 2005; Dillon et al., 2006; Broda, 2007).

Implications

The findings of the action research project were inconclusive.

A more in depth, longitudinal study must be conducted, where the students, teachers and external partners, if there are any in the future, can be observed more closely and the intervention can occur on a regular basis.

Change research design from quasi-experimental to a true experimental design with two groups.

ReferencesBarratt, E., Barratt, R., & Scott, W. (2007, September 4). Engaging children: research issues around

participation and environmental learning. Environmental Education Research, Vol.13(4), 529-544. (ERIC Document) Retrieved October 2, 2009, from ERIC database.

Bourdeau, V. (2008, September). Inquiry goes outdoors: what can we learn at the pond? Science Scope, 64-67. (ERIC Document) Retrieved October 2, 2009, from ERIC database.

Broda, H. (2007). Schoolyard enhanced learning: using the outdoors as an instructional tool k-8. Maine: Stenhouse.

Carrier, S. (2009, March 1). Environmental education in the schoolyard: learning styles and gender. Journal of Environmental Education, 40(3), 2-12. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ830534) Retrieved September 17, 2009, from ERIC database.

Carrier, S. (2009 Spring). The effects of outdoor science lessons with elementary school students on preservice teachers’ self efficacy. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 35-48. (ERIC Document) Retrieved October 6th, 2009, from ERIC database. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience in education. Touchstone, 2, 25.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience in education. Touchstone, 2, 25.Dillon, J., Morris, M., O’Donnell, L., Reid, A., Rickinson, M., & Scott, W. (2005).

Engaging and learning with the outdoors – the final report of the outdoor classroom in a rural context action research project. Slough: National Foundation for Education Research.

Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Young Choi, M.-Y., Sanders, D., Benefeild, P. (2006). The value of outdoor learning: evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere. School Science Review, 87, 107-111.

Dyment, J. (2005). Green school grounds as sites for outdoor learning: barriers and opportunities. Internation Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 28-45. (ERIC Document) Retrieved October 9th, 2009, from ERIC database.

Foran, A. (2005). The experience of pedagogic intensity in outdoor education. Journal of experiential education, 147-163. (ERIC Document) Retrieved November 7, 2009, from ERIC database.

Haines, S. (2006 Summer). Outdoor classrooms - planning makes perfect. Science and Children, 44-48. (ERIC Document) Retrieved October 2, 2009, from ERIC database.

Johnson, C. (2009). An examination of effective practice: moving toward elimination of achievement gaps in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, Vol. 20, 287-306. (ERIC Document) Retrieved November 1, 2009, ERIC database.

Lord, T. (2008, March/April). If you go down to the woods today… Journal of College Science Teaching, 90-93. (ERIC Document) Retrieved October 2, 2009, from ERIC database.Learning outside the classroom manifesto. (2006). Nottingham: Crown

Macdonald, M., Sloan, H., Miele, E., Powell, W., Silvernail, D., Kinzler, R., Hong, J., & Simon, C. (2008). Improving urban earth science education: the TRUST model. Journal of Geoscience Education, 269-279. Retrieved December 3, 2009, from Journal of Geoscience Education.

Maynard, T. & Waters, J. (2007 October). Learning in the outdoor environment and missed opportunity? Early Years, 255-265. (ERIC Document) Retrieved October 9th, 2009, from ERIC database.

McNally, S. (2009, May 29). Taking classroom into great outdoors; a new breed of teacher is emerging that combines classroom learning with pertinent field trip and resources focused on the environment and the active role of students. The Gazette (Montreal), A12. (LexisNexis Document) Retrieved October 2, 2009, from LexisNexis database.

Potter, G., & Ritz, W. (2006, October 1). Sense of wonder science. Science and Children, 44(2), 40-42. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ758283) Retrieved September 17, 2009, from ERIC database.

Simmons, D. (1998). Using natural settings for environmental education: perceived benefits and barriers. Journal of Environmental Education, 29(3), 23-31. (ERIC Document) Retrieved October 11th, 2009, from ERIC database.

Siry, C. & Buchinski, L. (2005). A field guide of their own. Science and Children, 36-39. (ERIC Document) Retrieved October 2, 2009, from ERIC database.

Tal, T. & Morag, O. (2009). Reflective practice as a means for preparing to teach outdoors in an ecological garden. Journal of Science Teacher Education, Vol. 20, 245-262. (ERIC Document) Retrieved November 1, 2009, ERIC database.

Tangen, D., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (2007, January 1). Environmental education in a culturally diverse school. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 23, 23-30. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ833279) Retrieved September 17, 2009, from ERIC database.

Waite, S. (2007, November 1). Memories are made of this: some reflections on outdoor learning and recall. Education 3-13, 35(4), 333-347. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ828216) Retrieved September 17, 2009, from ERIC database.

Warren, K. (2005). A path worth taking: the development of social justice in outdoor experiential education. Equity and Excellence in Education, Vol. 38, 89-99. (ERIC Document) Retrieved October 2, 2009, from ERIC database.

Appendix A – Consent Form

Appendix B – Principal Consent Form

Appendix C – Parent/Guardian Consent Form

Appendix D – Parent/Guardian Consent Form-Spanish

Appendix E – Pre-Test

Appendix F – Post-Test

Appendix G – Student Survey