676190

research-article2016
JEEXXX10.1177/1053825916676190Journal of Experiential EducationJames and Williams

Article
Journal of Experiential Education
2017, Vol. 40(1) 58­–71
School-Based Experiential © The Authors 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Outdoor Education: A sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1053825916676190
Neglected Necessity journals.sagepub.com/home/jee

Joan K. James1 and Theresa Williams1

Abstract
In this research study, we hear the voices of middle school students, preservice
teachers, and practicing middle school teachers in support of school-based experiential
outdoor education. The benefits of engaging youth in memorably relevant learning,
immersing them in physically active, field-based education, and providing them with
authentic, contextualized opportunities to extend classroom-based learning are
examined. This research addresses the question, “Is experiential outdoor education
for middle school–aged students a valuable use of school time?” The answer is a
resounding “YES!” School-based experiential outdoor education, although often
neglected as a part of the curriculum in our current era of high-stakes test-based
accountability, is definitely a necessity.

Keywords
outdoor education, experiential learning, field experiences, environmental education,
camp

Introduction
For more than 100 years, the works of John Dewey (1916/1944) have espoused the
values of experiential education. Dewey emphasizes that experiential learning (hands-
on, active, in-context) is an essential ingredient in meaningful and comprehensive stu-
dent learning. During the past 20 years, the negative consequences attached to low
standardized test scores have influenced schools and teachers to narrow the curriculum
so their efforts can be focused on test preparation (Berliner, 2011; Blazer, 2011; Cawelti,

1University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA

Corresponding Author:
Joan K. James, Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Studies, University of Wyoming, P.O. Box
130, Laramie, WY 82073-0130, USA.
Email: [email protected]
James and Williams 59

2006; Erskine, 2014; Faukner, 2006). Consequently, untested curriculum and time-
intensive, student-centered, experiential learning that integrates subject matter in mean-
ingful ways have been de-emphasized or eliminated (Amrein & Berliner, 2003; Erskine,
2014; Faukner, 2006; Ives & Obenchain, 2006; Mora, 2011).
One type of education that is currently receiving less emphasis in schools is expe-
riential outdoor education. Because of the increased emphasis on test-based account-
ability, there are fewer school-based opportunities for children to experience nature
and actively participate in environmental science outside (Faukner, 2006; Larkin,
2011; Mora, 2011). While much science is learned in classrooms through teacher lec-
ture, textbook reading, laboratory experiments, and interactive discussion, this is not
enough to develop in-depth conceptual understanding. Application of environmental
science concepts in experiential, real-life field contexts is extremely valuable.
Scaffolding the learning from the classroom to the field and then back to the classroom
results in memorable, comprehensive, and long-term learning (Barlow, 2015; Breunig,
Murtell, & Russell, 2014; Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ], 2011; Fägerstam,
2014; Association for Science Education Outdoor Science Working Group [ASE
OSWG], 2011; Thornburn & Marshall, 2014). Although this type of learning holds
immense benefits for all students, it is particularly valuable for students who struggle
with traditional school tasks or have developed an apathetic stance toward school and
learning (Barlow, 2015; Bass, Yumol, & Hazer, 2012; Bredderman, 1983; Breunig
et al., 2014; Breunig et al., 2008; Haury & Rillero, 1994; Ives & Obenchain, 2006;
Moulton, 2008; Parry, 2011; Resource Area for Teaching [RAFT], 2013; Scott, Boyd,
& Colquhoun, 2013).
Because schools increasingly de-emphasize or eliminate outdoor education, this
study attempts to examine the value of school-based outdoor education on youth (mid-
dle school students in particular) engagement in and motivation for learning. Moreover,
this study fills a void in the research by obtaining the participants’ perspectives on
these matters (Allison & Pomeroy, 2000).

Review of Literature
Public school accountability movements have influenced public education for more
than 50 years. For the past 14 years, nonproficient standardized test scores have
resulted in high-stakes consequences for schools, teachers, and students. One unin-
tended negative consequence of this high-stakes environment is a narrowing of the
curriculum as educators increasingly teach with the purpose of assuring proficient
reading and math standardized test scores (Berliner, 2011; Blazer, 2011; Cawelti,
2006; Erskine, 2014). To prepare their students for the high-stakes tests, teachers often
rely on time-efficient instructional models that teach lower level fact and skill acquisi-
tion through teacher-centered lecture, drill, and rote memorization. Much research
indicates that active, subject-integrated, experiential, in-context learning is the most
effective way to reach students (Bass et al., 2012; Bredderman, 1983; Chen & Chou,
2015; Haury & Rillero, 1994; Ives & Obenchain, 2006; Jones et al., 2015; RAFT,
2013; Wiggins & McTighe, 2008). These instructional practices are often abandoned,
60 Journal of Experiential Education 40(1)

however, because of the time they take away from test preparation (Berliner, 2011;
Blazer, 2011; Cawelti, 2006; Erskine, 2014). The State Education and Environment
Roundtable (Lieberman & Hoody, 1998), a cooperative endeavor of 12 state education
agencies in the United States, has been working to improve student learning by inte-
grating experiential outdoor education into K-12 curricula. Research supports that
integrating experiential outdoor education into K-12 curricula results in better stan-
dardized test performance, reduced discipline and classroom management problems,
and increased engagement in and motivation for learning (Breunig et al., 2008;
Fägerstam, 2014; Garst, Scheider, & Baker, 2001; Lieberman & Hoody, 1998; Scott
et al., 2013).
Apathy for school-related learning is high among adolescents (Moulton, 2008; Tita,
2010; Wang & Holcombe, 2010). The 2013 Gallop poll on school engagement admin-
istered to more than 600,000 sixth- through 12-grade U.S. students found that 45%
were disengaged in school-based learning (Blad, 2014). This report contends that
emotional engagement in school is the noncognitive factor that most directly corre-
lates with academic achievement (Blad, 2014). Many studies indicate that outdoor
education programs hold high emotional engagement for students and, as a result,
increase motivation for the learning taking place in this environment. Experiential
involvement in active, in-context, outdoor environmental education is exciting and
emotionally engaging for children and consequently leads to deeper and more effec-
tive learning (Bass et al., 2012; Bredderman, 1983; Breunig et al., 2014; Haury &
Rillero, 1994; Ives & Obenchain, 2006; Parry, 2011; RAFT, 2013; Scott et al., 2013).
Bredderman (1983) contends that students who struggle with academics, motiva-
tion, attentional focus, or social skills gain the most from activity-based, experiential,
in-context outdoor education. Research indicates that, oftentimes, pupils who tend to
be “invisible” in school demonstrate critical thinking skills and even take on leader-
ship roles in the outdoors, thus leveling the academic playing field (Barlow, 2015;
Breunig et al., 2014; Breunig et al., 2008; Moulton, 2008; Scott et al., 2013).
Children are spending more time engaged in sedentary, often technology-related,
indoor activities, and less time in the outdoors (CEQ, 2011; Dillon, 2010; Kennedy,
2011; Larkin, 2011; Richtel, 2010). This is partly because parents are more reluctant
to let their children engage in unsupervised outdoor play for safety reasons (Little,
2015). In a study of more than 2,000 U.S. 8- to 18-year-olds, it was found that, on
average, they spend more than 7 hr a day interacting with media (CEQ, 2011). This is
even more remarkable when contrasted with the finding that children this age spend an
average of only 30 min a week outdoors. Because they have spent so little time out-
doors, some of our youth have developed a view of the outdoors as being remote,
mysterious, and frightening, and have acquired a fear of the unfamiliar—weather,
insects, wild animals (CEQ, 2011; Larkin, 2011).
There is compelling research evidence of the wide-ranging educational benefits of
applying science through experiential outdoor education fieldwork (Dillon, 2010;
Fägerstam, 2014; ASE OSWG, 2011; Rickerson et al., 2004; Scott et al., 2013;
Thornburn & Marshall, 2014). Professor Steve Jones, President of the Association for
Science Education, states, “The study of biology, geology and the rest is a living
James and Williams 61

experience, and without fieldwork it can be (and often is) killed stone dead” (OSWG,
2011, p. 2). Applying classroom-learned educational content in concrete and relevant
real-life contexts leads to deeper understanding and more effective development of
critical thinking skills. Providing this in-context application is more effective than
learning these same concepts only through classroom-based lecture, lab experiments,
discussion, textbooks, and worksheets (Dillon, 2010; Fägerstam, 2014; ASE OSWG,
2011; Rickerson et al., 2004; Thornburn & Marshall, 2014). In essence, work in the
field should scaffold on prior well-designed classroom learning. Similarly, building on
field-obtained information once back in the classroom adds even more depth to the
learning (Barlow, 2015; Breunig et al., 2014; CEQ, 2011; Fägerstam, 2014; ASE
OSWG, 2011; Parry, 2011; Rickerson et al., 2004; Thornburn & Marshall, 2014).
This research study, which is described in detail below, adds to the literature in sup-
port of school-based, experiential, outdoor education as one of many powerful ways to
engage our students in meaningful, memorable, and motivating learning.

Method
Setting and Participants
In total, 56 seventh- and eighth-grade students who attend a school of choice in the
Rocky Mountain West are the participants of this study. Outdoor education is a major
curricular emphasis for this school. As they progress through the grades, kindergarten
through ninth-grade students participate in increasingly challenging fall and winter
outdoor education experiences. For these seventh and eighth graders, the overarching
theme of “water and its environmental impact” was learned through the lens of physi-
cal, earth, and life science. In-classroom learning was accomplished through textbook
reading, video, teacher lecture, lab experiment, and interactive discussion. In-context
outdoor field experiences provided opportunities to explore this theme in more depth
under the tutelage of environmental scientists. Back in the classroom following the
field experience, four 100-min class periods were devoted to making sense of the data
collected by the students in the field, and making connections between in-class learn-
ing and field experience. Moreover, teacher-facilitated class discussion helped stu-
dents make connections among the eight environmentally focused, outdoor science
centers. For example, the teacher facilitated as the students analyzed data from water
quality measures, soil samples, and plant transects to determine the effect of water
health and abundance on plant and animal biodiversity. In addition to these science
centers, the middle school students participated in team-building activities, archery,
nature hikes, nighttime astronomy, campfire cooking, tent pitching, and camping.
Three middle school science teachers and eight preservice teachers facilitated the
learning and mentored the students as they participated in this outdoor education expe-
rience. With extensive mountainous wilderness areas close by and a school devoted to
experiential outdoor education, many of these 56 seventh and eighth graders have
spent a lot of time in the outdoors with their families and on school camping trips.
Several of these students are extremely interested in and knowledgeable about
62 Journal of Experiential Education 40(1)

environmental science, and feel quite comfortable in nature. Eight students (14%) are
new to the school and the Rocky Mountain Region. When preparing for the outdoor
education overnight camp, it became evident that they have little experience with and
lack confidence in wilderness settings. Thirteen (23%) of the middle school students
struggle with behavior, attention, motivation, and/or social issues. Three of these stu-
dents (all boys) have one-on-one paraprofessional support for much of each school
day. In addition, seven students (13%) struggle with traditional academic tasks involv-
ing reading and writing, but are motivated learners and excel in hands-on, active,
experiential learning.

Research Design and Data Analysis

As this research study seeks to gain an in-depth understanding of the value of a field-
based, experiential, outdoor learning camp from close field observation and partici-
pants’ perspectives, the more flexible, naturalistic, information-rich, and illuminative
qualitative phenomenological research methodology is utilized (Ballad & Bawalan,
2012; Goetz & Mahoney, 2012; Mack, Woodsong, MacQueen, Guest, & Namey,
2005; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Phenomenological research describes the under-
standing of shared experiences from the perspectives of each participant (Ballad &
Bawalan, 2012). This hermeneutic approach to research enables a deep understanding
of the context-specific experiences of real people rather than a statistical generaliza-
tion of a nonexistent “average” person (Ballad & Bawalan, 2012).
The constructivist epistemology is appropriate for this study because our ontologi-
cal vision as researchers complements the constructivist nature of experiential learn-
ing (Allison & Pomeroy, 2000). As experiential research is complex and filled with
uncertainties, the constructivist approach is open to a broad range of research ques-
tions (Allison & Pomeroy, 2000). This research study goes beyond the more simplistic
question “Is school-based experiential outdoor education beneficial?” by attempting to
analyze how and why it is beneficial. It seeks participants’ perspectives and close
observation of this particular school-based, experiential, outdoor education program
and the processes at work in this situation that made it beneficial. This research study
attempts to deeply understand the complexities of this particular school-based, experi-
ential, outdoor education experience (Allison & Pomeroy, 2000).
There are two researchers for this study. One is a college of education assistant
professor who was previously a fourth- or fifth-grade teacher in the targeted school.
The other is a current science teacher of these students. Both know most of the partici-
pating seventh and eighth graders well from interacting with them in a teacher–student
relationship over the past 5 years. This personal knowledge of the students has been
helpful for the researchers in comparing students’ in-class behaviors and attitudes with
their field behaviors and attitudes.
The qualitative data collection involved close participant observation and contex-
tual note-taking during the outdoor education experience. Following the field experi-
ence, semistructured, individual interviews were conducted with all participants (56
middle school students, eight preservice teachers, and three classroom teachers). The
James and Williams 63

two-day, one-night experiential outdoor education experience was referred to as

“camp” when talking with the middle school students. They were asked to respond to
the following questions: (a) Was the camp a worthwhile experience for you? Why? (b)
What camp activities were valuable? Why? (c) What camp activities were not valu-
able? Why? and (d) What would you do to change this camp to make it a more valu-
able experience? Demographic information including gender, number of years living
in this region and attending this school, and teacher-perceived motivation for and suc-
cess in traditional school learning was also collected.
The data collection was emergent; the researchers asked questions to clarify the
meaning of their field observations and asked follow-up questions to delve more
deeply into unpredictable interviewee responses. Observations of these students in the
field and oral statements from these students and the adult mentors in their postcamp
interviews were sorted and categorized to arrive at these major themes: (a) evidence
that supports or refutes engagement in experiential outdoor education and (b) evidence
of the value or lack of value of this outdoor education camp.

Research Limitations
While being systematic in the inductive analysis of the data, the researchers occasion-
ally encountered challenges related to their subjective interpretations because of pre-
conceived ideas from knowing the students. This may have introduced some bias into
the results. Most of the middle school students had developed a close, respectful rela-
tionship with the researchers because they were currently or had been their teacher.
Because of this, some may have responded to interview questions in a way that they
thought would be pleasing to the researchers, thus skewing the data. It should also be
kept in mind that adolescents, driven by their developmental need for autonomy and
independence, often test rules and boundaries stipulated by adults (Spano, 2004). In an
effort to exert their autonomy and independence, some of the middle school students
may have stated the opposite of what they thought was expected of them. This, too,
would skew the data.
As school sites are situated in varying social, economic, and geographical contexts,
the conditions of this study may not be replicable and, therefore, the results cannot be
generalized to all school situations. Naturalistic generalizations, however, can be made
by individuals depending on the relevance and usefulness of this study in relation to
the reader’s own circumstance (Allison & Pomeroy, 2000). It is the researchers’ hope
that other teachers and schools will use the results of this study to integrate experien-
tial outdoor education experiences into their curriculum.

Results
Evocative accounts of this experiential outdoor education experience quoted directly
from participants provide a rich interpretation of its benefits. When analyzing postcamp
interview responses from the seventh- and eighth-grade students, it was evident that
most considered this outdoor education event to be a valuable experience. Forty-four of
64 Journal of Experiential Education 40(1)

the 56 seventh and eighth graders (79%) indicated that the outdoor education camp was
worthwhile. Middle school student responses indicated that they enjoyed learning envi-
ronmental science concepts in a hands-on, active, and experiential way. “I got to learn a
bunch of stuff, and hands-on activities make it easier to remember,” commented J.
Jackson (personal communication, October 8, 2015). D. Storey stated, “It is a wonderful
way to learn because you get fresh air and you’re not cooped up in a classroom” (per-
sonal communication, October 9, 2015). Most students found it worthwhile to collect
real data to learn about the environment. As one student succinctly explained, “We didn’t
just get data from some worksheet; we saw how the data was collected, and that makes
it much more meaningful” (M. Rose, personal communication, October 6, 2015).
We all know students who have little confidence in the classroom because of their
lack of comfort or competence in traditional school-related skills involving a lot of
reading and writing, sitting, and listening. It is these students who often become the
leaders in outdoor education environments. These students often excel and thrive in
outdoor field experiences, where they can demonstrate their high-level thinking skills
in a more hands-on, active, and experiential manner (Barlow, 2015; Bredderman,
1983; Breunig et al., 2014; Breunig et al., 2008; Moulton, 2008; Scott et al., 2013;
Thornburn & Marshall, 2014). A case in point from this study is a seventh-grade stu-
dent who could read and write only at a second-grade level but was very engaged in
this in-context learning environment. His hand was constantly waving in the air in
eagerness to make his thinking visible in every center, and his contributions demon-
strated insightful critical thinking skills.
As indicated above, students identified with special needs often took on leadership
roles in this environment. A poignant example of this was expressed by two middle
school teachers describing the collaborative tent-pitching activity. Teacher B. Matthews
stated, “This small group activity let the students persevere in solving a problem together
without any adult interference. These tents were not super easy to assemble, so it was a
true challenge for most groups and all groups succeeded” (personal communication,
October 19, 2015). Teacher D. Fricke added, “I watched a student with special needs
direct three other students in a seemingly dysfunctional group to succeed [in pitching
their tent] before all other groups” (personal communication, October 20, 2015).
Some students who had long since developed a stance of disinterest and apathy for
all school-based learning were astonished at their own intrinsic involvement and love
of learning occurring in this experiential outdoor education atmosphere (Bass et al.,
2012; Blad, 2014; Bredderman, 1983; Garst et al., 2001; Moulton, 2008; RAFT, 2013;
Tita, 2010). For example, a transfer student, who had been suspended 8 times at his
previous school and was unmotivated and inappropriately disruptive in the classroom,
started out by being off-task and disrespectful in this unfamiliar environment. Soon,
however, he immersed himself in the activities and visibly changed his demeanor and
attitude. In his postcamp interview, he stated, “This camp was a very worthwhile expe-
rience. I learned a lot in a really fun way and it was awesome to camp with friends. We
should have stayed two nights” (R. Campbell, personal communication, October 18,
2015). Another behaviorally challenged and unmotivated student in the classroom was
very engaged and on-task in the centers involving active, hands-on learning. He was
James and Williams 65

observed immersing himself in collecting and identifying land and aquatic macroin-
vertebrates, weighing and measuring live fish, and much more.
Eight of the seventh- and eighth-grade students were new to the school and/or to the
Rocky Mountain Region. When preparing for this outdoor education experience, it
was clear that each of these students had spent little time outdoors. Some of them
expressed some fear and concern about spending 2 days and a night living and learning
in a remote wilderness area. As supported in the literature (CEQ, 2011; Larkin, 2011),
their inexperience with the outdoors led to a fear of the unfamiliar—weather, insects,
wild animals—and they viewed the outdoors as being remote, mysterious, and fright-
ening. A couple girls who were afraid to touch a fish or an insect at the start of the
camp were proud of themselves for stepping out of their comfort zone and trying new
things. As one girl commented, “I was not looking forward to camp at all because I am
not an outdoor person . . . Even though I was afraid, I held a live fish and caught some
insects” (C. Cooke, personal communication, October 9, 2015). A boy who was anx-
ious about spending the moonless and cold night in a tent had a stomachache and hung
close to the teachers until being persuaded to climb into his sleeping bag. He perse-
vered through the night and expressed pride in his accomplishment the next morning.
No matter the learning environment (indoor or outdoor classrooms), when learning
is active, experiential, and applied in real-world contexts, it is memorable and more
easily committed to long-term memory. Student-centered learning where students are
engaged in constructing their own knowledge through experience often has the effect
of bringing learning alive or rekindling a love of learning (Bass et al., 2012;
Bredderman, 1983; Chen & Chou, 2015; Fägerstam, 2014; Haury & Rillero, 1994;
Jones et al., 2015; Parry, 2011; RAFT, 2013; Scott et al., 2013; Thornburn & Marshall,
2014; Wiggins & McTighe, 2008). These middle school students had a strong desire to
be engaged, active participants in their learning and expressed little tolerance for cen-
ters that involved a lot of lecture, passive listening, or even interactive discussion. The
seven students (13%) who did not think this outdoor education field experience was
valuable expressed that the centers needed to be more activity-based with less sitting
and listening. One student commented, “I didn’t like the centers where we didn’t do
much. I love hands-on activities” (A. Markley, personal communication, October 7,
2015). Another concisely stated, “It was like school outside” (C. Patterson, personal
communication, October 13, 2015). Still another indicated, “The nature was nice, but
the lessons were too long and relatively boring” (E. Case, personal communication,
October 8, 2015).
The value of hands-on, experiential activities in engaging students in the learning
was a theme that emerged from the preservice teacher responses as well. G. Vernon
stated, “Yes, it was a worthwhile experience because it’s something different from the
classroom setting. It is more hands-on, and the students can see and learn from real
things. It is a different avenue for learning with more engagement” (personal commu-
nication, October 12, 2015). Another preservice teacher remarked, “The camp was a
worthwhile experience because it got the kids out in nature and they learned a lot of
material in a little bit of time” (A. Benko, personal communication, October 13, 2015).
66 Journal of Experiential Education 40(1)

It is beneficial when students are given opportunities to apply their in-class learning
in real-life contexts (Dillon, 2010; Fägerstam, 2014; ASE OSWG, 2011; Rickerson
et al., 2004; Thornburn & Marshall, 2014). When in the school classroom, learning
about science concepts occurs through well-designed instruction involving textbook
reading, videos, laboratory experiments, and interactive discussions. When students
are able to scaffold on this learning by applying it in actual outdoor fieldwork, their
understanding is deepened as their critical thinking skills are developed. All eight of
the preservice teachers who accompanied and mentored the seventh and eighth graders
pointed out the benefits of connecting in-class concept learning to application in the
field. One preservice teacher commented, “I definitely think the camp was a worth-
while experience for the students because it put their class learnings into action which
really helped some of the students understand the science concepts much better” (J.
Johnson, personal communication, October 12, 2015). Another remarked, “This camp
was an extremely worthwhile experience for the middle-school students because it
taught them class-related things like science and math, and even about different careers
and content they wouldn’t have otherwise known about” (T. Marks, personal commu-
nication, October 13, 2015).
Deep and meaningful learning occurs when in-context fieldwork scaffolds prior
classroom learning. Following up on the learning from the real-life field experiences
once back in the classroom adds even more depth to the learning. It is indeed helpful
when the learning in both contexts (in class and in the field) build on and support each
other (Barlow, 2015; Breunig et al., 2014; Fägerstam, 2014; ASE OSWG, 2011; Parry,
2011; Thornburn & Marshall, 2014). All three teachers contended that the students
very effectively integrated their classroom-based and field learning. Teacher B.
Matthews reflected,

The camp was worthwhile for a number of reasons. First of all, the students were able to
explore science in place. For example, they were able to see and touch the fish they were
studying, and they were able to make real-world connections between water chemistry
and the reasons why rainbow trout are able to thrive in the reservoir. (Personal
communication, October 19, 2015)

Teacher C. Claflin commented, “Students were able to apply class-based learning as

they participated in actual scientific research and data collection” (personal communi-
cation, October 21, 2015). Students not only applied their classroom learning in the
field, they brought the learning from the field investigations back to the classroom
where teachers provided time and support to analyze and make sense of their data. An
example of this was related by teacher, D. Fricke:

Generalized pre-camp concept learning about symbiotic relationships was applied in the
field where the real-life symbiotic relationship between pine bark beetles and the blue
stain fungus was investigated. In post-camp work, students seamlessly integrated the
learning from multiple outdoor centers that related to this basic scientific concept.
(Personal communication, October 20, 2015)
James and Williams 67

The value of school-based experiential outdoor education is evident. It connects

classroom-based learning with in-context field-based experiences. It is effective in
engaging all students in active, experiential, environmental science. It is successful in
motivating the apathetic and bringing learning alive for those who are unsuccessful
in more traditional learning contexts. It builds confidence in those who have a fear of
the unfamiliar wilderness. School-based experiential outdoor education is, indeed,
beneficial.

Discussion and Implications

Is experiential outdoor education for middle school students a valuable use of school
time? As supported by much research (Barlow, 2015; Breunig et al., 2014; Dillon,
2010; Fägerstam, 2014; Garst et al., 2001; Jones et al., 2015; Larkin, 2011; ASE
OSWG, 2011; Rickerson et al., 2004; Scott et al., 2013; Thornburn & Marshall, 2014),
the findings of this study underscore the value of school-based experiential outdoor
education.
It is apparent from most participant responses and supported by research (Breunig
et al., 2014; Chen & Chou, 2015; Jones et al., 2015; OSWG, 2011; Wiggins &
McTighe, 2008) that active, experiential learning is key to the effectiveness of this
experience. It is evident from the responses that most of the students have little or no
tolerance for centers where they are expected to passively listen and absorb informa-
tion whether the instruction is in a classroom or in the field. When the students are
engaged in “doing” the science, their motivation to participate is strong and their
active engagement is obvious, which will likely lead to memorable, long-lasting learn-
ing. This finding alone sends a strong message to educators who hope to implement
successful outdoor education programs or effective classroom-based learning.
As supported in the literature (Barlow, 2015; Breunig et al., 2014; Fägerstam, 2014;
ASE OSWG, 2011; Parry, 2011; Thornburn & Marshall, 2014), the bridge of learning
from school to field and back to school is another huge key to the effectiveness of this
experience, and emphasizes the importance of connecting classroom and field learning
to deepen conceptual understanding. Such connections will likely result in more mean-
ingful, memorable, long-lasting concept acquisition.
Field observation and participant responses clarify the immense value of outdoor
education for children who struggle with the tighter structure and more passive “sit
and get” nature of traditional classrooms (Barlow, 2015; Bredderman, 1983; Breunig
et al., 2014; Breunig et al., 2008; Moulton, 2008; Scott et al., 2013; Tita, 2010).
Adolescents who had, over the years, come to view school-based learning as meaning-
less and disengaging were motivated and immersed in this experiential, in-context,
field-based learning. Several of these students face the daily struggle of sitting still and
focusing their attention on textbook reading and lecture/discussion learning. In this
more active, experiential setting, these students often became the leaders of their
peers. Instead of avoiding learning by being unfocused, off-task, or disruptive, most
were intently engaged and likely learning deeply as a result. As they shared their ques-
tions and insights and immersed themselves in the hands-on activities, it was apparent
68 Journal of Experiential Education 40(1)

that these students had strong critical thinking abilities that were rarely evident in the
classroom. Some of these students even expressed a desire to learn more advanced
concepts, which was rare for them in the traditional classroom setting. The few stu-
dents who were fearful of the unfamiliar aspects of the wilderness that they had never
been exposed to faced their fears and gained an appreciation of nature.
In this outdoor education environment away from the support of their parents, these
students enhanced their sense of independence and responsibility as they collaborated
and cooperated with peers to master naturally occurring challenges like figuring out
how to pitch their tents. This outdoor experience also required them to persevere in
difficult situations such as making it through a cold night on hard, rough ground.
The active, experiential nature of in-context, outdoor education that is effective in
engaging all students in motivating and meaningful learning. The bridge of environ-
mental science learning between in-class learning and real-life application in the field.
The enhanced sense of independence and responsibility as students face unique chal-
lenges. For all these reasons, it is evident that experiential, outdoor education is valu-
able to include as a part of environmental science learning. Further research is needed
on the unique and subjective experiences of individuals and groups concerning how
and why school-based, experiential, outdoor education might be beneficial.

Conclusion
For the past two decades, the emphasis in education has increasingly been on improv-
ing academic achievement and raising standardized test scores. This has led to a nar-
rowed curriculum where active, experiential, in-context learning has been
de-emphasized or eliminated (Berliner, 2011; Blazer, 2011; Cawelti, 2006; Erskine,
2014; Faukner, 2006). Consequently, there has not been a lot of research done on the
value of outdoor environmental education, especially from the viewpoints of partici-
pants. This research study helps to fill that gap as it taps participants’ perspectives
concerning the value of school-based experiential outdoor education. Similarly, since
Lieberman and Hoody’s (1998) study by the State Education and Environment
Roundtable, there has been little research conducted on the effectiveness of outdoor
experiential education in closing the academic achievement gap and raising standard-
ized test scores. Future research studies could explore this connection in more depth.
Analysis of the field observations and participant interviews has led to a rich, com-
prehensive understanding of the value of school-sponsored experiential outdoor edu-
cation. It is obvious from the student responses that they engage with learning and
acquire knowledge best when instruction is meaningful, active, and experiential. As
teachers, we need to strive to immerse our students in concept learning of this nature
whether in the classroom or in the field. Outdoor education that effectively bridges
classroom and field learning is also beneficial. Pairing dynamic in-class learning with
authentic contextualized application of scientific concepts is extremely valuable in
engaging the most apathetic and unmotivated students in minds-on learning. Building
confidence and independence by solving problems on their own and with a team is
often an unplanned benefit of experiential outdoor education.
James and Williams 69

Indeed, experiential outdoor education is a necessary, but often neglected, aspect of

school curriculum.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

References
Allison, P., & Pomeroy, E. (2000). How shall we “know?” Epistemological concerns in research
in experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education, 23, 91-98.
Amrein, A., & Berliner, D. (2003). The testing divide: New research on the intended and unin-
tended impact of high-stakes testing. Peer Review, 5(2), 31-32.
Association for Science Education Outdoor Science Working Group (ASE OSWG). (2011). Outdoor
science: A coordinated approach to high-quality teaching and learning in field work for science
education. Shrewsbury: Field Studies Council and King’s College London. Retrieved from
http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/ase-outdoor-science-report(1).pdf
Ballad, C. G., & Bawalan, R. J. (2012). Methods of qualitative research: Phenomenological
research. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/Ralph
Barlow, G. (2015). The essential benefits of outdoor education. International School, 17(3),
53-55.
Bass, K. M., Yumol, D., & Hazer, J. (2012). The effect of RAFT hands-on activities on student
learning engagement and 21st century skills (RAFT Student Impact Study). Retrieved from
http://www.raft.net/public/pdfs/Rockman-RAFT-Report.pdf
Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing
and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41, 287-301.
Blad, E. (2014, April). More than half of students “engaged” in school, says poll. Education
Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/04/09/28gallup.h33.html
Blazer, C. (2011). Unintended consequences of high-stakes testing (Information Capsule, Vol.
1008). Miami, FL: Research Services, Office of Assessment, Research, and Data Analysis,
Miami-Dade County Public Schools.
Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A
qualitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53, 499-518.
Breunig, M., Murtell, J., & Russell, C. (2014). Students’ experiences with/in integrated envi-
ronmental studies programs in Ontario. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor
Learning, 15, 267-283. doi:10.1080/14729679.2014.955354
Breunig, M., O’Connell, T., Todd, S., Young, A., Anderson, L., & Anderson, D. (2008).
Psychological sense of community and group cohesion on wilderness trips. Journal of
Experiential Education, 30, 258-261.
Cawelti, G. (2006). The side effects of NCLB. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 64-68.
Chen, C. H., & Chou, M. H. (2015). Enhancing middle school students’ scientific learning
and motivation through agent-based learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31,
481-493.
70 Journal of Experiential Education 40(1)

Council on Environmental Quality. (2011). America’s great outdoors: A promise to future gen-
erations. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/ago
Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy in education. New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work pub-
lished 1916)
Dillon, J. (2010). Beyond barriers to learning outside the classroom in natural environments.
Reading, UK: Natural England.
Erskine, J. L. (2014). It changes how teachers teach: How testing is corrupting our classrooms
and student learning. Multicultural Education, 21(2), 38-40.
Fägerstam, E. (2014). High school teachers’ experience of the educational potential of outdoor
teaching and learning. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 14, 56-81.
Faukner, S. A. (2006). Testing vs. teaching: The perceived impact of assessment demands on
middle grades instructional practices. Research in Middle Level Education, 29(7), 1-13.
Garst, B., Scheider, I., & Baker, D. (2001). Outdoor adventure program participation impacts on
adolescent self-perception. Journal of Experiential Education, 24, 41-49.
Goetz, G., & Mahoney, J. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Quantitative and qualitative research
in the social sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Haury, D. L., & Rillero, P. (1994). Perspectives on hands-on science teaching. Pathways
to School Improvement, The ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and
Environmental Education. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED372926
Ives, B., & Obenchain, K. (2006). Experiential education in the classroom and academic out-
comes: For those who want it all. Journal of Experiential Education, 29, 61-77.
Jones, B. D., Chittum, J. R., Akalin, S., Schram, A. B., Fink, J., Schnittka, C., . . . Brandt, C.
(2015). Elements of design-based science activities that affect students’ motivation. School
Science and Mathematics, 115, 404-415.
Kennedy, M. (2011). The great outdoor learning environment. American School & University.
Retrieved from http://asumag.com/constructionplanning/great-outdoor-learning-environment
Larkin, D. (2011). “Before today, I was afraid of trees”: Rethinking nature deficit disorder.
Rethinking Schools, 26(1), 38-43.
Lieberman, G. A., & Hoody, L. L. (1998). Closing the achievement gap: The environment as
an integrating context for learning—Executive summary. San Diego, CA: State Education
and Environment Roundtable.
Little, H. (2015). Mothers’ beliefs about risk and risk-taking in children’s outdoor play. Journal
of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 15, 24-39.
Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K. M., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative
research methods: A data collector’s field guide. Research Triangle Park, NC: Family
Health International.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementa-
tion (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
Mora, R. (2011). “School is so boring”: High-stakes testing and boredom at an urban middle
school. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 9(1), 1-9. Available from http://www.
urbanedjournal.org
Moulton, J. (2008). Emotional engagement in education, part one: Should teachers care
about student apathy? Edutopia—What Works in Education, George Lucas Educational
Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/emotional-engagement-education-
part-one
Parry, J. (2011, September). Raising the bar: A case for quality outdoor education. Camping
Magazine, 84(5), 16.
James and Williams 71

Resource Area for Teaching. (2013). Bridging the engagement gap with hands-on teaching.
Available from http://www.raft.net
Richtel, M. (2010, November 21). Growing up digital, wired for distraction. The New
York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/technology/21brain.
html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Rickerson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P.
(2004). A review of research on outdoor learning. Shrewsbury, UK: National Foundation
for Educational Research.
Scott, G., Boyd, M., & Colquhoun, D. (2013). Changing spaces, changing relationships: The
positive impact of learning out of doors. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 17,
47-53.
Spano, S. (2004). Stages of adolescent development. Ithaca, NY: ACT for Youth Upstate Center
of Excellence. Retrieved from http://www.actforyouth.net/resources/rf/rf_stages_0504.pdf
Thornburn, M., & Marshall, A. (2014). Cultivating lived-body consciousness: Enhancing cogni-
tion and emotion through outdoor learning. Journal of Pedagogy, 5, 115-132.
Tita, C. A. (2010, November). Student apathy on the rise. SouthEast Education Network.
Retrieved from http://www.seenmagazine.us/articles/article-detail/articleid/1067/student-
apathy-on-the-rise.aspx
Wang, M., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment, engage-
ment, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research
Journal, 47, 633-662.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2008). Put understanding first. Educational Leadership, 65(8),
36-41.

Author Biographies
Joan K. James taught 4th and 5th grades for the past 21 years at the University of Wyoming
Lab School where she engaged her students in experiential outdoor education. Currently, she is
an Assistant Professor at the University of Wyoming where she involves her College of
Education preservice teachers in school-based outdoor education programs.
Theresa Williams teaches middle-school math and science at the University of Wyoming Lab
School. Outdoor education experiences are a valued and beneficial aspect of her middle-school
curriculum.