Out‐of‐Doors Earth Science One Reason Why

Abstract

Earth science education has emerged from a lecture course to a less structured inquiry and guided-discovery program. The inception of the curriculum change has exposed students to learning through process within the laboratory-classroom. Although many of the activities performed are based on the premise of learning by doing, many of them are ends in themselves and have little relationship to the child's everyday world. If it is assumed that children should understand and participate in a society of an ever diminishing natural environment which is science oriented, then it seems that teaching, especially science teaching, should help the child to develop understandings within the setting of the natural environment. many years have insisted that a more effective learning takes place where that learning is connected with direct experiences. School buildings are still being designed to bring information into the classroom to be learned. It has been reported that schools usually do not teach a relevant curriculum; when they do, they fail to teach the child how he can relate this learning to his life outside of school (Glasser, 1969:50).Researchers such as Hurd (1965:2), Hammerman and Hammerman (1964:1) and Brown (1961:5) have emphasized the effectiveness of using our natural environment. J. W. Smith (1963:29) has said "Learning takes place most effectively through direct experience-beginning with concrete activities and letting useful abstractions follow." THE PROBLEMThe purpose of this study was to investigate the difference in learning of eighth and ninth grade earth science students, one-half of the students experiencing laboratory investigations in an indoor environment using pre-packaged materials and the other half experiencing laboratory investigations in the outdoor environment using available natural resources. The study attempted to discover if there were significant differences in achievement, critical thinking and preference for the 413

Field‐Based Education: Some Theoretical Considerations

“…They seem to argue that field experiences are generally chosen because, inter alia, the latter: a. provide opportunities for practising techniques that cannot be carried out elsewhere [learning goal = acquisition of practical/intellectual/methodological skills] (Keown, 1984;McNamara and Fowler, 1975;Riban and Koval, 1971 (Connor, 1973;Connor et al, 1975;Pashuk, 1975); d. reinforce things previously presented in the classroom [learning goal = application and consolidation of learning]; e. stimulate higher-level understanding of matters already encountered elsewhere [learning goal = deepening conceptual development] (Keown, 1984;Novak, 1976); f. stimulate, in cases where the field is a natural environment (whether physical, cultural or social), an attitude of appreciation, concern, and valuing of that environment [learning goal = appraisal and adoption of attitudes and values] (Ignatiuk, 1978;Keown, 1984;Kern and Carpenter, 1984).…”

The field course effect: gains in cognitive learning in undergraduate biology students following a field course

“…In problemsolving exercises, those students who attended the field course considered the problems more deeply and presented more sophisticated solutions than those taught in the classroom. McNamara and Fowler (1975) also undertook a pre/post quasi-experimental study of 14-year-old learners. Those learners attending an earth science field course were found to have improved their critical thinking skills and were judged to have gained greater affinity with the environment.…”

Outdoor education gives fewer demands for action regulation and an increased variability of affordances

“…For the primary students the prevalence for experienced-based learning was even higher. McNamara and Fowler (1975) constructed a study to investigate the differences in learning in the outdoor environment versus the indoor environment. Concepts that are a part of the pupils' physical environment are best learned outdoors, they conclude.…”