Exemplary practices in field trips to natural environments

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 51, NO. 4, PP. 430–461 (2014)

ResearchArticle

ExemplaryPractices inFieldTrips toNaturalEnvironments

Tali Tal,1 Nirit Lavie Alon,1 and Orly Morag2

1Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology,

Haifa 32000, Israel2Gordon College of Education, Haifa, Israel

Received 15 August 2012; Accepted 4 December 2013

Abstract: In light of the literature that deals with challenges of outdoor education, this paper presents

exemplary practices in field trips to natural environments.We offer an analysis of 62 field trips of students in

grades 4–8 (age 10–14), guided by professional guides or by teachers. In aiming at elucidating the qualities of

exemplary fieldtrips, we analyze five examples of high quality field trips. Each of the five was exemplary in

several aspects, but not necessarily in all. Data were collected though observations and interviews with

teachers, guides and students. Interpretative analysis was used in addition to an analytic framework that we

developed previously. In general, we stress that good collaboration between the guide and the teacher, who

enact active learning and psychomotor activity, and make much use of the environment for student

exploration and interaction, are the key to high quality outdoor learning experiences. We provide several

examples to support this claim. Other aspects we highlight are a sense of freedom, time and opportunity to

enjoy nature and the opportunities to have meaningful social interactions. In light of the prevalent critique

toward current outdoor education practice, we suggest the research community learn from good practices.# 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 51: 430–461, 2014

Keywords: field trips; natural environments; FiNE framework; exemplary cases

What is good practice in outdoor teaching? Howmight we recognize it?What are its specific

characteristics? We keep asking these questions, realizing how complex the learning experience

we study is and acknowledging that the answer is not simple. Since we ask the questions with

reference to guided school visits that our research group studied in the last decade, we focus on the

broad question of how to understand, frame and design outdoor learning that corresponds with

school-based learning. We use a systemic approach to outdoor learning that considers as many

variables as possible that affect the quality of the activity and its outcomes. Thesevariables include

(1) the context—the school curriculum, the physical environment, the group’s background and so

forth; (2) the pedagogy and the agents who implement this pedagogy—teachers, field guides, the

students and their interest, and (3) the content of the field trip. Although there is much literature

that describes challenges and misuse of outdoor education experiences, we believe that the

contribution of this body of literature to identifying high quality practices is limited. We already

know much of what’s wrong, but we know little of what works. In this paper we used a different

approach than we used in previous studies by attempting to identify, present and discuss high

quality practices of outdoor education, by looking at how the interplay between different aspects

Contract grant sponsor: Israel ScienceFoundation (ISF);Contract grant number: 1244/10.�Correspondence to: T. Tal; E-mail: [email protected]

DOI 10.1002/tea.21137

Publishedonline 16 January2014 inWileyOnlineLibrary (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

# 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

of the field trips contribute to its high quality. We believe that looking at exemplary patterns and

using a systemic approach will provide the fieldwith new insights into how high quality field trips

to the outdoors should look. After observing 62 field trips, we present a few patterns here that we

point to as “high quality practices” and aimat understandingwhatmakes them“high quality.”

A previous study we conducted on field trips in natural environments was already unique for

its rather large sample of 22 field trips (Morag & Tal, 2012). In that study we found limited

preparation in school, and almost no negotiationbetween the school and the environmental agency

that provided the field trips, no discussion or presentations of goals, limited connection to the

school curriculum or to the students’ everyday life and limited purposefully planned social

interactions to promote learning. We found that in general, most of the guides were pleasant and

treated the students equally and respectfully. They seemed enthusiastic but the common practice

was didactic—the “walk & talk” type, with some demonstrations while students were passive.

Since then, we expanded the sample. We collected data from another 40 field trips provided by a

few environmental organizations, and ones that were guided by schoolteachers. The increased

sample did not expose a substantially different picture about challenges related to school field

trips. However, we were more capable of identifying some excellent field trips in this sample, in

which students were active and highly engaged learners. They substantially interacted with the

environment, the teachers were taking leading roles having clear goals, pedagogical means and

they acted as mediators. The guides, too, used a variety of pedagogies. Finally, in all these field

trips, students also reported on their meaningful experiences and provided much evidence for

learning and for affective and social outcomes.

Consequently, we focused on the question what practices define high quality field trips to

natural environments? To answer this question, we closely investigated the entire bulk of 62 field

trips (22 that we already studied and additional 40) to various environments that we followed to

identify these practices. A consistent study of a large number of field trips, offered by a few

institutions and that took place in various natural settings, allow better understanding of the

arguments we offer. The patterns we present suggest some general principles that can promote the

field of outdoor education in the theoretical aswell as the practical aspects.

Theoretical Underpinning

Outdoor Education and School Field Trips

Outdoor education, which is the focus of this paper, is extensively studied, but not always in

the science education literature. Priest (1986) defined outdoor education as: Amethod of learning;

experiential; takes place primarily in the outdoors; requires use of all senses, is based on

interdisciplinary content; and is a matter of relationships involving people and natural resources.

He illustrates outdoor education as a tree having cognitive, affective, and motoric roots, with two

main branches, one of adventure education and the other of environmental education. Across the

world, field trips to natural environments are appreciated as a positive comprehensive experience,

but the literature points to challenges and missed opportunities resulting from insufficient

planning, traditional teaching in form of “delivering messages,” and teachers’ reluctance to take

their students out of school (Rickinson et al., 2004). Field trips to natural environments in

particular are a challenging experience to teachers, guides offield trips and students, although they

have much value in terms of learning and social development. Teachers face many institutional

challenges related to budget, organization and student safety that discourage them. Quite often

they need to work harder and they are under paid or may even suffer from the physical demands

(DeWitt & Storksdieck, 2008; Dillon et al., 2006; Tal & Morag, 2013). Although there is vast

agreement on the importance of the social interactions among students, quite often teachers are

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

EXEMPLARY PRACTICES IN FIELD TRIPS 431

focusing on the content and neglect social activity (Maynard & Waters, 2007), although social

activity and the opportunity to experience the environment and learn from it is a major factor in

student enjoyment (Brody, 2005; Tal, 2012). Our approach to field trips is influenced by the

sociocultural theory that views learning as participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 2003;

Sfard, 1998).We agreewithColley,Hodkinson, andMalcolm (2002) that the outdoors encourages

separating from the traditional knowledge acquisition model and that researchers should focus on

the type of learning that occurs in field trips rather than on their extent of formality. This call is also

supported by Dillon (2012) who argued that much research was published on outcomes of field

trips rather than on unique educational practices and on the learning opportunities and the

experiences provided to students.We agree that little research has focused on the design, impact or

evaluation of specific aspects of pedagogy in the outdoors. Another aspect of field trips to natural

environments that is not commonly addressed in the science education literature is that of the

adventure and physical experiences which yield many benefits in the cognitive, affective and

social aspects.

In 2009, the National Research Council published the Learning science in informal

environments report that presented six “strands for science learning” that are supported by

informal environments (Bell, Lewenstein, Shouse, & Feder, 2009). These included, for example:

Experience excitement, interest and motivation to learn about phenomena in the natural and

physical world (strand 1); generate, understand, remember, and use concepts, explanations,

arguments, models, and facts related to science (strand 2); participate in scientific activities and

learning practices with others, using scientific language and tools (strand 5). This helpful

framework focuses mainly on designed environments while in this study we focused on un-

designed environments. The difference is important because not all strands can be fully addressed

in the context of a guided walk in nature trails. Exploration and observations can be carried out, of

course (strand 3), but unlike museums in which students can manipulate objects, or have time to

“reflect about the method of science,” in the field, students are more engaged with the experience,

excitement and interest addressed in strand 1. Un-designed environments are described in the

report in the section on family learning settings such as “picking berries” or fishing, but school-

visits are associated in the reportwith designed environments. This inadequate reference to natural

environments reinforces the need to better address the learning that occurs in the outdoors, and

better understand the pedagogy and the characteristics of learning in such environments.

The Field Trip Pedagogy.Gertel (2002, in Hebrew) studied students’ experiences in field trips

to nature sites through 95 students’ essays about their school field trips published in schools’

newspapers during 1930–1980. He identified the following aspects in the students’ writings:

learning content, national values, informal activity, social activity and personalmerits. Apparently,

students reported on social and personal experiences no less than they report nowadays and that

social bonding, physical challenges andbuilding identitywere evident in those essays.

Taking the above into consideration, our study is framed in the sociocultural theory in general,

andmore particularly, we focus on the ideas of interaction, collaboration and (free and structured)

activity that we found meaningful while interpreting our data. In two recently published books,

Doris Ash (Ash, Lombana, & Alcala, 2012; Ash & Lombana, 2012) investigates the meaning of

mediation, a term used in contrast to “didactic telling” of museum educators. She explains how

educators scaffold the visitors instead of explaining or telling them about the exhibit and describes

the difficult transition frombeing a source of information to being amediatorwho listens, observes

and responds according to children’s needs. Such a change, Ash argues, is best enhanced through

participation of educators in communities of practice. Jakobsson andDavidsson (2012) argue that

human mediation occurs when people discuss, collaborate or exchange experiences with objects


432 TAL, LAVIE ALON, AND MORAG

in different ways. FollowingCole (1995) they view artifacts as resources or aspects of the physical

world or as the cultural and historical products that originate from human actions. Falk and

Dierking (2000) developed their conceptualmodel of learning inmuseums based on constructivist

and socio-cultural ideas referring to the personal context that individuals brings to visit to the

museum andwhich influences their learning, as well as to the sociocultural and physical contexts.

The contextual model applies to outdoor environments as well. Physical elements of the

environment can enhance or inhibit learning and engagement. Social interactions of various types

between students and adults and among the involved adults can be developed to scaffold the

learning experience rather than ignore or even suppress it as an unwanted distraction.

Activity

The idea of activity, which is central in this study hasmultiple meanings in the environmental

education literature; while some authors refer mainly to learning activity, others point to the

importance of real (environmental) action, action competency and even activism (Tal &

Abramovitch, 2013). Active participation and learning in real life situations to promote learning

was advocated already by Dewey (1916). The idea that learners should be active in constructing

their own understanding through interactions with objects and real phenomena and while being

engaged in meaningful activities with peers, teachers, and mediators of various sorts is supported

by constructivist and social constructivists (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimor, & Scott, 1994;

Lemke, 2001; Rogoff, Matusov, & White, 1996). Throughout this paper we used the concept of

activity in different ways. Following Glassman (2001), Tal and Abramovitch (2013) who studied

activity and action in teaching environmental sciences, acknowledged that activity has different

meanings in Dewey’s and Vygotsky’s writing, with respect to the place of the facilitator as one

who directs the activity or as one who steps backward and lets the children run the activity.

However, they claimed that since active learning is so rare in outdoor education, amore pragmatic

view of activity should be adopted. This view should see any active learning, whether one that

develops the individual’s competence or one that leads to social development, as welcome in

educational systems in which teaching is teacher-centered. Tal and Abramovitch further develop

the idea of action in the context of environmental education as an activity that causes a change or

solves a problem.

We see the fundamental ideas in the socio-cultural literature—social interaction, mediation,

negotiation, activity and interactivity, learning from artifacts and objects which framemuch of the

research in the informal science education nowadays—as ideas that framewhat active learning is

andwhat teaching for active learning is.

Learning From Best-Practices

Unlike more common research methodology in education that compares practices and

determines which is good and which is insufficient, inadequate or poor, we decided to focus on

exemplary cases of outdoor education events. We adopted the exemplary case approach, which is

used to convey profound information about a case that enables the reader to anchor the described

case in her ownworking or research context and reflect upon good and poor examples of practice.

Such an approach was used in a study of education reform in Kentucky that allowed describing

exemplary school based professional development and exemplary math teaching (Borko, Elliott,

&Uchiyama, 2002; Elliott &Borko, 1999). In aiming to scrutinize professional development that

works, Guskey and Yoon (2009) analyzed lists of characteristics of effective professional

development and highlighted commonalities within successful programs. There are numerous

publications on effective professional development that focus on best practices strategies (Garet,

Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Kennedy, 1999; Stiles, Mundry, Loucks-Horsley,



Hewson, &Love, 2010). Tal, Krajcik, and Blumenfeld (2006) studied exemplary science teachers

teaching in urban schools; and in the field of out-of-school learning, Tal et al. (2005) described one

museumvisit inwhich the teachers’ practicewas outstanding.

Methodology

The study is based on basic assumptions common to most qualitative research traditions,

which is that the focus of the study is a whole phenomenon—the field trip to natural

environments, in this case. Unlike our previous study that showed poor practice in many

components we measured, here, we attempted to focus on the wholeness of the field trip

experience rather than on its parts. We searched for meanings of experience rather than

measuring and explaining them. We obtained deep descriptions of the field trip through first-

person accounts in informal and formal conversations and interviews; and focused on a problem

that evokes our own interest, involvement, and personal commitment (Moustakas, 1994). The

study involved an interpretative inquiry and phenomenograpy as the two perspectives we used.

The phenomenological aspect is represented in the way we used the interview data. We looked

for the interviewees own perspectives, without directing them. We used our own interpretation,

which is influenced by our own research history for analyzing the observation data. In a critical

article about phenomenology and psychological research, Giorgi (1997, p. 239) stressed that

what natural science has brought to the field (of phenomenology) is healthy skepticism andmore

careful, systematic and critical attempts to understand how phenomena come to be what they

are; often, it tries to link things and events to causes and/or conditions. Our research approach is

in this line. We came to the field with long and established background in investigating field

trips. We even used an existing analysis framework that suggests causes and conditions for how

field trips can be assessed. However, we kept our minds open and looked at the field trip

phenomenon as a whole, searching for new understandings and willing to review our previous

assumptions about what makes field trips successful. Following phenomenological traditions,

our study was descriptive; we used phenomenological reductions, we explored intentional (and

unintentional) relationships between participants and situations and searched for essence in the

field trip experience. As Brody, Bangert, and Dillon (2008) indicated, interactions with outdoor

learning environments are

. . . examples of the types of informal science learning experiences that could be studiedwith

phenomenological methods. Describing the unique, yet common, experiences of individua-

ls or groups of individuals participating in informal environments could improve our

understanding of variables that have both positive and negative impacts on informal science

learning (p. 19).

The Field Trips

The five field trips we selected to represent high quality were carried out in different settings

(seeTable 1).

The majority of field trips in Israel are provided by professional informal institutions and by

private tourism companies. Amuch smaller number is planned and carried out by school teachers.

In many high schools and fewer junior high schools there is a special teacher who teaches a topic

called Field-Nation-Society (FNS). Those teachers are trained to teach in the outdoors aswell, and

they are expected to act as their school’s home tour guides. Three field trips were guided by

informal educators from informal institutions and two by teachers: a FNS teacher and a former

environmental education teacher who serves as the school’s “home-guide.” Except for one young



guide (age 19) who was doing the job as part of 1-year national service, all the others were

professional adults. Themain difference between teacher-guidedfield trips and the ones guided by

informal educators is that one can expect that the teachers are familiar with the curriculum and

with the students, and that they communicate better with other teachers if they are present as well.

In all field trips but field trip 5, the homeroom teacherwas present aswell.

The five schools whose field trips we selected as we describe later to demonstrate high quality

practices are not representative of the schools whose field trips we documented. Apparently, four

of the five schools serve mostly middle class population of small places: small towns, kibbutzim,

and villages. Only one school, from a rural village, represents a lower socio-economic status

(SES) community. This was not surprising, as the four middle class schools, as well as similar

schools in other countries have stronger tradition of outdoor education. Table 1 gives some

information about the schools, SES, the field trip sites and the operating organization.

Data Collection and Analysis

We analyzed data from 62 one-day field trips in the outdoors: in nature and archeological

sites, provided to grades 4–8 (age 9–13) in Israel: 22 field trips that we already studied before

(Morag&Tal, 2012) and additional 40. The data collection encompassed observations of the field

Table 1

The five field trips

(Field Trip)School Characteristics Grade (Age) Site Scientific Concepts

(1) Yi Kibbutz regionalschool, medium SES

7 (12–13) Mt. Carmel, a naturereserve few monthsafter a major fire

Habitat, ecosystems, bio-diversity, adaptation, reha-bilitation (of ecosystems),

forestmanagement

(2) Zo Kibbutz regionalschool, medium SES

4 (9–10) The Ancient Mancaves and “Little Swit-zerland” in Mt. Carmel

nature park

Ancient man, evolution,Neanderthals, Homo sapi-

ence, fossils, Karst,re-introduction

(3) KV Small town, med-ium-upper medium

SES

4 (9–10) A historical monumentand Dan River nature

reserve

Penetration, Karst forma-tion of springs, watersheds

and river formation(4) El Rural school, low

and medium lowSES

5 (10–11) Beth She’arim—anarcheological site of aJewish town from

Roman period, and alarge number of an-cient rock-cut tombs,and Zippori, an ancientRoman period Jewish

town

Investigation, evidence,artifacts

(5) Bi Small town, mediumSES

8 (13–14) A nature park with fewsmall archeological

sites

A-biotic and biotic vari-ables, conservation,

extinction, biodiversity,ecological relationships



trips and semi-structured interviews with students, teachers and nature guides, as will be detailed

later. The observation that consisted of a structured protocol and a free observer log allows the

expert researcher’s interpretation of the event—the field trip; and the phenomenological

constituent is the participants’ view as reflected through interviews with students, teachers and

nature guides. The observation protocol we developed is based on the field trip in natural

environments (FiNE) framework that we developed and tested earlier (Morag & Tal, 2012). FiNE

framework was an attempt to describe and explain the various components of the field trip to

natural environments—as a complex learning event. Most of the components outlined in FiNE

were addressed by the contextual model of learning (Falk & Dierking, 2000) and by other

researchers who follow the sociocultural line of thought (i.e., Ash &Wells, 2006; Brody, 2005).

However, the framework offers an analytical tool and a scoring scheme uponwhich one can assess

each of the field trip components on a three level scale. FiNE framework consists of four layers: (a)

planning the field trip and preparation in school, (b) pedagogy, (c) learning and physical activity

and (d) outcomes. Each layer is composed of several components. In this study we used FiNE as a

rubric for the observation that provided information related to the first three layers. Each

component (category) was ranked by the observer on a three level scale (0–2): rank 0 represents

poor performance, rank 1: mediocre-reasonable practice and rank 2: good practice (for more

information see FiNE observation protocol in the Supporting Information and Morag &

Tal, 2012). As we already argued, FiNE framework allowed us consistent look across cases.

Table 2 shows the FiNE framework layers, components and the scoring of the field trips that we

focused on as exemplars. In addition to this analysis, descriptive vignettes enriched our

interpretation of the eventswe studied.

FiNE framework has some limitations as well. For example, the category of guide’s overall

performance that includes interpersonal skills, pedagogical skills and logistic skills is covered as

well by other components of the pedagogy layer. Apparently, all the guides we observed had

excellent interpersonal skills, so actually, the “guide function” component is unnecessary.

Another issue is whether all components have equal weight in determining a good field trip. Is

Table 2

FiNE framework components and scoring�

Component (Layer) Sub-Components

The Five Field Trips’ FiNE Scores (Max¼ 20)

Field Trip

1 2 3 4 5

Planning Classroom preparation 1 2 2 2 2Teacher–guide collaboration 2 2 1 2 2Connection to curriculum 2 2 1 0 2

Pedagogy Clarifying the goals 2 2 1 0 2Using the environment 2 2 2 2 2Connection to everyday life 2 2 2 2 2Social interactions 1 0 1 2 2Facilitator’s performance 2 2 2 2 2

Activity Physical activity 2 2 2 2 1Active learning 2 1 2 2 2

Total 18 17 16 16 19

Low¼ 0;medium¼ 1; good¼ 2.�We described outcomes but did not measure them in this study; we did not include student scoring of the learning and

physical activity.



“Addressing the environment” equal to “Connecting to everyday life?” Acknowledging these

limitations, themain reason for adopting FiNE as an analytical tool here is because its components

are well rooted in the research literature, and because it allows a systematic and comprehensive

analysis offield trips despite their different settings and participants.

Altogether, four researchers from our research group observed the field trips and collected

the data following a training process. Two of them are authors of this paper, one of which

developed the FiNE framework and two others were research assistants who have long

experience in preparing field guides. In the process, couples of us observed a few field trips

together and discussed rankings using a rubric that we developed (see Supporting Information).

Only after we reached about 90% agreement, discussed to resolve the other 10%, and established

common vocabulary and descriptions did we rank field trips individually. In addition to

employing the FiNE coding scheme, additional expanded narratives were recorded in the

observers’ journals. These narratives added valuable qualitative data that allowed us to present

the events more deeply. Each observation was then fed into a Microsoft-Excel-based data base

that enables cross analysis. An accumulated score, based on the FiNE framework was calculated

to each field trip.

Interviews were conducted few days after each field trip with 3–5 students from each group,

with the teacher/s and with the guide. The interviewer was the researcher who observed the field

trip. All the interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. We used the data from students’

interviews to highlight and illustrate our observation analysis.

Selecting the Cases. In the analysis, we asked ourselves first—what were the field trips we

remember as ones that stood out as “good examples.” Ten field tripswere first selected to represent

the higher range of FiNE accumulated score (14–19 out of 20). After having an initial list and data

from these 10 field trips we looked for emerging categories from the extended observation

protocol, and further discussed them in our research group. We realized that some represent the

same categories; for example, meaningful learning activity, enjoyment, or many opportunities for

social interactions. Next, we eliminated repeating patterns, and decided to choose only one

example for high quality practice in each domain. After that, we looked at the total FiNE scores of

those field trips (see Table 2). Eventually, we chose five field trips that apparently, not all had the

highest accumulated score in the FiNE scheme. In fact, as one can see inTable 2, the rangewas 16–

19 out of 20, but other field trips from the list of the “best-ten” represented similar score range as

well. The reason we decided to focus on those five was because each one of them provided good

examples for practice in specific domains, and each was flagged by the research group as

exemplary in that domain. Finally, a full protocol that includes the observers’ complete

descriptions and the interviewdatawas created tomake full profiles of the five field trips. To have a

better understanding ofwhat could be considered lowquality practice, one could read our previous

work (Morag&Tal, 2012) inwhichwe pointed to poor preparation, limited collaboration, didactic

teaching, inadequate use of objects in the environment, and limited connection to the school

curriculum. The picture is not “black and white” as we already showed. Here we wish to

understandwhat exactlymade the 10 field trips fromwhichwe selected five good experiences.We

attempted to highlight good preparation in school, collaboration between guides and teachers,

active learning, proper, and frequent use of objects in the environment, and making connection to

the school curriculumand the students’ own life experiences.

After creating the full profiles, we asked a group of eight other science educators to read them

andhighlightwhat they see as goodpractice. Thegroup cameupwith fewmore criteria that further

helped us to focus onwhatmakes exemplary practice in each field trip, these included for example

—the extent to which the homeroom teacher is engaged in social activity with her students and



dialogues between students that we had evidence for. Only then, did we write a draft narrative of

each field trip that we further used in conjunction with supportive quotes from interview data to

present each case. We believe that the step-by-step analysis and peer debriefing of those five field

trips in the research team andwith other researchers allowed continuous critiquewhich eventually

enabled us to present a comprehensive and credible picture of what makes an effective field trip to

nature sites.

Findings

Five illustrative examples of “good field trips” will be presented. We gave each exemplary

field trip a title that reflects its outstanding attributes that corresponds with the FiNE framework.

However, what we scrutinized based on this framework was not enough. As we indicated earlier,

to learnmore broadly onwhatmakes a high quality field trip, weweremore interested in thewhole

case rather than in its components. These field trips stood out because in one or two aspects we

found excellent practice, regardless of other aspects that could have had lower scores in the FiNE

framework. As one can see, in Table 2, sometimes an excellent example of one component of the

field trip does not necessarilymean that all aspects excelled. Somore than identifying the fivefield

trips with the highest scores in the FiNE framework, we intend to highlight facets of excellence

such that could even conceal other less excellent aspects. While presenting the examples of the

field trips, we italicized key features that we wanted to point to in the data and which we

emphasized in the interpretation to indicate congruence with the theoretical framework, and with

what made us choose the field trip as exemplary. In a few places we entered explanations in

parentheses. Each illustrative example beginswith somebackground information about the school

and the students, the field trip guide, the site/location and main topic/focus of the field trip.

Although in field trip 3 one part was a visit to a heritage site and field trip 4 focused entirely on

investigating archeological sites, we believe that the information presented regarding these field

trips is relevant to science educators regardless of the settings.

High Quality Practices

All of the five field trip we selected represented “high quality” practices, but each was special

in one area that we highlight here and in the following sections. The high quality patterns we

present and illustrate are:

Activity and Action. By activity, we refer to learning activity that engages the students in

thoughtful discussions, in talking together about various topics, and in learning about phenomena

which can be seen and better explained in the outdoors. Activity refers to senso-motor experiences

as well: touching, smelling, walking, jumping, crawling, getting wet in the river are such

experiences. By action we mean activities aimed at enhancing actual care for the environment

such as collecting trash orworking in the forest.

Involved teachers can contribute a great deal to the quality of the field trip, which is mostly

guided by informal educators. An involved teacher brings her own experience and knowledge of

the curriculum and the students. She knows what she taught in class, she has specific goals she

hopes tomeet and she can co-teachwith theguide, or act as amediator.

Using the environment. It was surprising howmany of the guides we followed almost ignored

what could be seen, touched and felt in the field. Too often, they have a list of spots where they are

used to stop and phenomena they want to explain, but they tend to ignore the little things that

sometimes students find more interesting. Quite often they do not seem enthusiastic about

students’ findings, or things that are just there but do not make part of the “big story.” Some of the

guides we highlighted here, emphasized every little thing one can learn from the environment.



Theywere enthusiastic if students found things, they encouraged them to explore and they praised

them for noticing things.

The field trip as a social learning event allows and encourages much interaction among and

between students and adults. Students talk about the field trip content, about physical challenges,

and about their everyday lives. We present a few examples of how guides and teachers in the five

exemplary field trips encouraged such interactions.

We use our observation data to support the abovementioned characteristics in two ways:

quantification of the FiNE components is presented in Table 2 that shows mainly high level but

also mediocre practices. More importantly, we provide thick descriptions of the high quality

patterns based on the documentation of each field trip. Student and adult quotes are used as

additional corroboration, andmore specifically, student quotes are used to verify our assertion that

high quality practice yields a variety of learning outcomes. In the next sections, we describe the

five exemplary field trips. In italics, we highlight aspects that were of uniquely high quality in each

field trip.

Field Trip 1. Addressing the Environment Through Environmental Action

We chose field trip 1 because of the meaningful environmental action that contributed to the

students’ enjoyment and to their sense of value. In “environmental action” wemean not just using

the environment to allow hands on activities such as smelling, touching, collecting specimens, but

rather an activity which involves the students in physical work in nature conservation, or in forest

management. Thework allowsmuch interactionwith the objects in the environment. The field trip

included visiting andworking in theMt. Carmel forest that had been burned in Israel’s largest fire a

fewmonths earlier. Thefirewas also traumatic because 40prison officerswere killed in evacuating

a prison located in the fire zone. The first part of this field trip was dedicated to working in the

forest and cleaning and pruning the trees fromdrymaterial.

In the field trip, A 7th grade class (age 12–13) from a regional Kibbutz school (Yi) was guided

by an experienced guide from JNF, which is the organization that is responsible for all the planted

forests in Israel. Although preparation in schoolwas limited, to technical and general information,

and although forest fires are addressed in the curriculum only as examples for human interference

with the environment, harming natural habitats in general is discussed throughout the science

curriculum.Nevertheless, this firewas an important event discussed everywhere: by themedia and

in schools.

After arriving at the site, H0, the guide, introduced himself and told the students about JNF,

about working in the forest and its importance. He told the students that they are supposed to

“clean the area from beneath so that if new fire begins it will not have fuel.” He said that quantity

(of work) does not bother him. Rather, he expects high quality.Whilewalking, he told the students

how JNF foresters work, about small vehicles for firefighting, and asked the students to listen

carefully to his instructions, so theywill be safewhileworking.

This field trip in which students’ hands were dirty fromworking allowed much interaction

with the environment. By removing dry branches, the students noticed other plants, small

animals (mostly invertebrates) andmany birds, andwere given explanations by the guide about

typical plants and animals. Characteristics of the habitat were highlighted several times, and

the short walk in the burnt creek at the second half of the day allowed pointing to immediate

impacts of the fire. This field trip, particularly the work in the forest, allowed much interaction

between the students and we witnessed some thoughtful discussions that developed while

students were working. For example, few students hesitated out of concern about damaging

plants. Although the guide responded to their question saying that those are “only annual



plants” but not explaining why removing them was okay, the students gave instructions to

each other on how to refrain from unnecessary damage. The activity—working to help

regeneration and to prevent other fires was a meaningful experience. It was addressed by all the

students we interviewed. They were talking about interaction, collaboration, and mutual

enjoyment.

S3: It’s not an activity one does alone, there was much collaboration and we worked

together

R:How?

S3: Someone cut branches and another raked

S4, S1:Weenjoyed it because it waswith friends, it wasmore fun

S2: Itmadeyou see other kids differently

The students were negotiating their concerns and hesitation about harming nature. After

noticing a centipede escaping from the rake they asked: “what? Dowe harm animals?” After one

student told a fewgirls not to rake leafs, one of themasked:

Girl: aren’twe suppose to clean them [the leafs]?

Boy:No, they are supposed to protect the soil, if you’d listen toH0 [the guide] thenyou’dunderstand.

This interaction among students who were negotiating technical (how to work) and content

(harming nature) aspects is not reflected in the pedagogy circle of FiNE that shows medium level

performance in the social interaction component. The score 1 was given because such interaction

occurred despite the fact that there was no planned educational activity that required the students

to share and negotiate thoughts. However, it was clear that regardless of the lack of planned

learning activity of the guide that aimed specifically at enhancing social interaction, working

together was an experience students reflected upon and substantial social interactions occurred

with no further request. During the activity, the students were free to work with whom they chose

andwalk fromone place to another.

After working, the field trip continued, and the guide provided more explanations about the

ecosystem talking about the different species and their relationships. When describing the fire, he

explained about wind direction which is the result of the local climate, and that there was a huge

biomass that was burnt. He provided data about the number of trees burnt, the size of the area and

the unique ecosystems that were damaged. The data impressed most of the students, but when he

noticed that some students lost attention, he added personal stories and invited the students to ask

questions. Thiswas evident in the students’statements:

S2: The Q/A thing was much more engaging, this is because hewas not deliveringwhat

he was supposed to. Rather, he answered what we wanted to know about, which is

more interesting. He demonstrated many things with stuff he took out from his back

pack (models, illustrations).

This student actually talks about pedagogy. She points to the “better” pattern of asking

questions and responding to student questions rather than deliveringmessages.

H0 continued to integrate between ecological knowledge, personal stories and stories about

how people behaved in the fire. This integration maintained the students’ attention, which was

reflected in the knowledge they expressed after the field trip.



The students indicated how their work had contributed to nature conservation, and felt very

proud.

S1: It was like strengthening (empowering), you feel you help the forest against the next

fire

S2: We enjoyed the actual work, with our own hands, and with pruning shears. It was

fun to clear things [vegetation] and also feel you contribute to your country (self-

efficacy).

Views toward nature and nature conservation were not critically addressed in the field trip, so

it wasn’t surprising that talking about the fire that was initiated by mistake by unaware youth and

caused 40 lives, yielded among studentsmainly romantic views onhumans’ need to protect nature.

In the personal context, both students referred to their own empowerment and self-esteem and

student 2 referred to self-efficacy through contributing to the country aswell.

They also reported about scientific and other content they learned.

S1:We learned about how an oak tree is more resistant than pine, and we learned about

their development. . . about how the fire opens the pine cone and then seeds spread

[we learned] about the different trees life cycles. HowOaks, 4 months after [the fire]

regenerate.

S2: about where the fire came from (wind directions), and the diverse treeswe have, and

what were the different tree characteristics and how they behave in fires, and how to

prevent fires. Itwas very interesting!

S4: I learned that nature has its own rules; that even such a hugefire that erased one-third

of Mt. Carmel forest will be rehabilitated by nature. . . I find it very special. This

regeneration is amazing! It was all new to me. We were supposed to come here with

the family, but we canceled because we thought that everything was ruined. I had

such a good surprise [noticing not all is ruined].

The guide’s invitation to ask and critique was reflected in many students’ statements about

learning.

S5: I thought wewould learn what happened because of the fire, like how it affects even

the ozone, sort of. . .we learnedmore about the trees, not about consequences.

Researcher (R): like air pollution?

S5:Yes, like air pollution,maybe there is less oxygen now?

R:Because of fewer trees?

S5:Yes.

R:Andwhat did youfinduseful?

S5:The pictures and explanations. . . Iwant to studybotanyor zoology in college.

Another student referred to a story the guide told about an oak tree that broke into two pieces

in the fire, with one piece flying “like a rocket.” It seemed that the story left a strong impression

and as the student indicated, “hewas shivering.”

Drawing connections and summarizing the educational experience are considered as good

practice. In his summary, the guide referred back to the place the students came from, and gave

examples of JNF actions in managing the lands their own villages were built on. Then he referred

to current actions of JNF in constructing a regional nature park and praised the work the students

did for the environment.With that he addressed the goals he presented at the onset of the field trip.



FiNE pattern of this field trip shows a few high quality parts such as good collaboration

between the teacher and the guide, and presentation of goals with respect to work in the forest at

the beginning of the field trip. However, this field trip excelled mainly because of action—the

physical activity in the forest that was associated with contributing to the environment. It

encouraged much collaboration and thoughtful negotiation among students. The guide added his

thought provoking questions that encouraged further thinking and discussing. Although there

were parts in which he gave lengthy explanations, he asked many questions, listened to the

students’ answers and told personal stories. The working part itself evoked consequential talk

among students. In summary, doing collaborative environmental work, an enthusiastic guide,who

evoked thinking and discussion, and who used many demonstrations made this field trip a good

experience.

Field Trip 2. Teacher-Guide Collaboration—The Involved Teacher

This field trip of fourth graders (age 9–10) from, ZO—aKibbutz regional school, was guided

by a young man in his year long national service (age 19) with the Society for the Protection of

Nature, which is the largest environmental NGO in Israel. The focus of the field trip was

prehistoricman inMt. Carmel caves and its living environment.

This field trip stood out as a good example for continuous negotiation between an involved

teacher, who felt responsible for carrying out a good field trip and the young and responsive guide.

The enthusiastic and pleasant guide was attentive to the students’ questions and the teacher’s

requests. In our sample of 62 field trips we did not findmany teachers who felt accountable for the

entire field trip. This teacher was highly involved by approaching her students and asking

questions and by asking the guide to let her add her own explanations. She knew what she

expected, and she even directed the guide on a few occasions. The guide addressed her requests

and responded the best he could.

In the interviews, students told about the preparation in class that focused on the topic of

prehistoric humans theywere studying at the same time. The teacher indicated that since the topic

is taught anyway, she did more of a “mental preparation” about what to bring, how to dress up and

how to behave. She knewwhat she expected: that the field tripwould allow “investigating the topic

better, and stimulating the students. We are at the beginning of learning this topic.” The guide

addressedmutual planning.He specifically referred to his communicationwith the teacher prior to

the field trip, which was uncommon in our study. The guide indicated “they studied, in school,

about the culture, tools and dressing, in general. I learned about it frommy talk with the teacher, I

asked herwhat shewants and prepared accordinglywith the other guide.”

The teacher expressed her responsibility for the field trip and sawherself as an active agent. In

reply to a question about her role she said:

Teacher: safety, organizing the kids, trying to connect what happens to what I teach in

school, and talk about it with them, to make sure the field trip is within the sequence

of learning, not only fun.

Researcher: and did you do it?

Teacher: yes, few times after the guide asked them and they did not reply, I reminded

themand thenWow, it is all connected!

She also reported about the guide being responsive saying:

Hewas very nice and kind, he talked their own language, and he happily allowed me to

interfere



During the field trip, the teacher maintained good communication with the guide. Whenever

the guide began a conversation, she acted as a mediator by refining or explaining the guide’s

questions, by scaffolding through giving hints and by encouraging the students to think and

answer. The guide has touched upon this in his interview:

. . .to approach the teacher, ask what they learned in school. After I talked with her (the

teacher)we planned togetherwith the other guide (of the other class). The teacherwas active

throughout the day and I liked it when she added to my explanations. Her timing wasn’t

excellent, but she knows the kids the best.

Throughout the field trip, the teacher was watching the students’ behavior and reminding

them to respect each other and not interrupt a student who was already talking. While climbing

the steep trail to the cave site, and later on while hiking in Mt. Carmel, it was evident that she

struggled with the physical effort. However, she said nothing, and even assisted a girl who

struggled as well. She encouraged her students and talked with them while walking. When the

guidewas explaining about an ancient reef and pointed to fossils, it was the teacherwho asked the

students “how do you think they arrived here (on land)?” she then asked the guide if it was okay

that she interfered.

The teacher continuouslymade connections towhat she taught in school, and even pointed to

topics shewill further discuss with the students in class. She, again, was acting as a mediator, who

helps her students think further, identify connections and bridge the classroom and nature, a fact

she pointed to in the interview:

[the teacher’s role is] organizing, watching their safety, trying connectwhat is happening to

what I teach in school, to talk this connection (emphasize), to create a sequence so the field

trip is part of what they learn, not only (social) experience and adventure. Yes, once in a

while,whenhe asked and theydid not answer, I reminded themwhat they learned. . . .

The guide addressed the same issue in the interview. He acknowledged the importance of

connecting the field trip to school learning. He referred as well to his role in making connection

between the students and the natural environment.

My role, as a guide, is to bring them closer to the new spaces, connect the outdoors. . . createactivities suitable to their age and build the proper baseline; every populationwithwhat suits

it. Engagement is an important element—from this, a learning process will begin. The

students should be the center rather than a guidewho lectures.

This guide’s declaration on his educational approach that is focused on the students and their

needs was not common among many guides we documented. He further explained how he

contributed to bridging between the students, the teacher and the environment.

To build this bridge (between students and nature) you need to be on the students’ side and

understand them, create common language and create something together. How do you do

it? Approach the teacher, ask her the day before, about what they learned. . . (the connectionbetween the teacher and the guide) is of collaboration. The guide will not reach them

otherwise. She knows themwell. She knowswhat they need.

Throughout the field trip, the guide continuously addressedwhat could be seen (the caves, the

view and the fossil cliff) and what students pointed to or asked about (fossils, a bat skeleton, etc.).



Hehad a small white board, onwhich he drewhow the ancient seawas bigger than today’s sea, and

demonstrated how sediments created the cliff. He displayed excitement when students called him

to see more fossils they found, and used pictures of ancient men to demonstrate three different

periods and man types. Further on, while driving to the hiking trail, he told the students, in a

theatrical way, about the huge fire of the previous year (described in field trip 1), inwhich 40 prison

guards were killed on their way to help evacuating a prison in the fire zone. He pointed to where

their bus was caught in fire, at the near-by kibbutz that was partially burnt and at the black slopes

covered by burnt pine trees. The students listened very quietly, and after getting off the bus, a few

were still talking with the teacher about the fire. During the hike, the guide displayed enthusiasm

about students’ findings, and he continuously encouraged them while climbing up to the great

lime stone cliff.

Although this field trip was exemplar for the collaboration and negotiation between the

teacher and the guide, and for the active role of the teacher, other aspects were of high quality as

well. The guide made connections to everyday life several times, when asking the students to

compare what they ate and what ancient men ate, and then referring to services nature provides.

When hiking to a site known as “Little Switzerland” he asked if anyone had been in real

Switzerland, and then said “there is no need, here we are in Switzerland.” The teacher referred to

the students’ excitement with hiking near a prison built in the park and the talk that developed

there.

Theywere afraid near the prison. They asked about what if theymet a prisoner on the run on

the trail, and asked why the government built a prison in a nature park? So I asked them if

they thought the city is a better place.

Social interaction occurred while walking and through questions and answers. Although no

activity encouraged such interactions, the teacher told about the opportunity she had to see her

students differently.

. . . the social aspect was brought up. I was not busy teaching, so I could observe them, seewho’s sitting alone?Who respects others?Whodoesn’t. . .

Again, it seems that this teacherwas aware of every aspect and addressed all of them.

The field trip included a rather steep walk up the creek, sometimes, on slippery rocks, which

could be a reason for complaints and even anxiety.However, this guide prepared the students to the

climb and encouraged them. He even emphasized he expected them to help each other. This

special preparation made them excited with no evidence to negative responses while walking.

Some boys took the adventure even further trying to avoid using their hands. Theywerevery proud

about it. In the interview, two students referred to the physical adventure, which the teacher

addressed aswell saying:

It’s seeing yourself in a different place, possible a disaster zone. . . they can fall down, I hadfast heart beats. . . the truth? I sawmyself asmore of amother.

The teacher again expresses her responsibility, but being “like a mother” allowed her to see

her students in a social context, feel their difficulties, while overcoming her own which seemed

real during that climb.

It was not surprising that in the interviews, students provided detailed descriptions and

explanations of what they learned about ancient man, about how Mt. Carmel was formed and

about thewildlife.Many statements indicated impact in the affective domain.



First, I’d say I had lots of fun, and we learned a lot, not only about nature and ancient

men, but also about friendship. I had great time (S2)

I think nature is beautiful, and the view there, but it’s a pity that the mountain was

burned, it was so beautiful and green, and I always loved visiting there. Anyway, I

know that nature gives life and beauty to life, andwhen I see beautiful view I feel I’m

dreaming (S3)

Nature is beautiful when untouched, nicer than gardens. We’re lucky to have such

places (S1).

Although this field trip did not excel in all aspects (i.e., social interactions, active learning), it

was an outstanding example for how the collaboration and the negotiation between the teacher and

the young guide promoted discussions, thinking, and participation of the students. The teacher had

clear expectations, that not all were fulfilled, but she clearly enjoyed offering her own contribution

and expertise, and she clearly enjoyed spending the time outdoors with her students. The guide

enabled her active involvement and she continuously mediated between him and the students and

between the students and the objects of the environment. Her awareness to all aspects of the field

trip, her expectations to meet specific goals, and the way she acted as a role model when facing

difficultieswere unique among the 62field tripswe studied.

Field Trip 3: Using the Environment

We selected this field trip mainly because of the many opportunities given to the students

to explore, talk and experience the environment, because of the thoughtful discussions

and because the freedom given allowed much interaction despite the absence of planned

learning activities. The hike along the water seemed very enjoyable, and the school home-

guide allowed the students get in the water and have fun. She was very relaxed, which could

have influenced the students’ enjoyment throughout the walk along the river. She was attentive

to the students, and used her experience in various ways to enhance learning and physical

experiences.

The field trip of grade 4 (age 9–10) fromKVconsisted of a visit to a heritage site, awalk along

a lush river, unique for its strong water flow and another walk inside water in a springs area (The

Fig springs). This field trip was guided by the school home-guide, a former environmental

education teacher at school who now guides all the school’s field trips. She knows the students and

the homeroom teachers of the school, which makes any field trip part of a sequence of outdoor

learning experiences. The homeroom teacher of the students was present as well, and in the

historical site a local guide facilitated thevisit.

Using the environment was exemplary in this field trip. In its main part, in thewalk in the Dan

River, the school home-guide showed many things to the students. She pointed to structure of

rocks, to the diversity of the habitat, to the Karst formation of the spring and explained about a

mushroom a student found. She encouraged the students to climb a unique tree near the trail, and

gavemuch time for free exploration and enjoying the flowingwater.At the quiet spring source, she

asked the homeroom teacher to choose a few students for a drama representation of a scientific

phenomenon—the merging of three rivers. She took out various accessories from her backpack

and asked the students to use them and act for their peers, while she narrates the story of three

rivers that merge to make the Jordan River. In the story, she incorporated scientific concepts such

as penetration, hard lime stone, Karst (geological) formations and described the unique

geopolitical condition of the border between three countries: Lebanon, Syria and Israel and their

continuous conflict over the water, which is a known socioscientific issue in Israel. Following the

field trip, a student described this activity.



We stopped by the rocks and they presented a show about the three rivers that meet and

become the Jordan. Then they told us about the route of the Jordan and how it goes into the

Sea ofGalilee. Itwas really interesting.

Although therewas no small group or individual activity, the guide and the homeroom teacher

discussed things with the students, and pressed them to think and explain things themselves.

During the nature walk in Dan River, the students asked questions, and in one beautiful spot the

home-guide used a question asked by a student about a tree toadstool to discuss why “unpleasant

creatures” survive:

There is a philosophical thought that God created creatures so they can survive, and others

use Nature instead (to explain). What drives animals and plants is how to survive, have

shelter, food and so on. . .

It appeared that both teachers: the home-guide and the homeroom teacher were pressing their

students to think and explain, and discussed even complex issues such as the geopolitical situation,

or nature conservation policywith these fourth graders.

Guide: (answering the question why getting into the water is forbidden): This law was

not meant to be cruel. It is only to preserve nature. Imagine days with thousands of

visitors, (if they get into the water) it harms nature. People were struggling to keep

this nature reserve. . . there is not enough water in Israel, and it will be a big problemif this water resource will be damaged. . . There are many organisms in the water:

crabs, snails, salamanders. . .

Later on, she asked the students, if they noticedwhat they call this part (of the trail)?When the

students reply: “Paradise” she summarized this nature conservation talk:

People use this term (paradise) when they want to point to a beautiful place. The large

diversity of shading trees, the springs, the little and bigger streamsmake it so beautiful.

The guide’s emphasis of social activity and mutual respect was apparent. The homeroom

teacher indicated this emphasis before going out, and this was reflected in a student’s response as

well:

During the field trip we made peace with . . . a girl we did not speak to for a long time. We

walked in the water, and then she was nice to us. Later, another girl fell and she helped her

out. Then we began talking and became friends. I think it happened in the field trip because

that girl helped the other. In school, shewouldn’t gowith us (S1).

This student reported another social interaction in the context of the field trip content. This

interaction involved learning about each other’s ethnic and historical background.

When we walked in the water, Shir (a girl) suddenly said all sort of things that happened

there (near the Syrian border). When we asked her how she knew, she said her grandmother

emigrated fromSyria. Then, I told hermygrandfatherwas born there too, so I learned things

about her I didn’t knowbefore.

We believe that the pleasant and slow walk that allowed much student talk related to their

everyday lives is no less important than learning another fact or process.



Other aspects of this field tripwere of high quality aswell.

Throughout the visit to the heritage site, the local guide gave many examples of everyday life

in the remote and poor settlement, while sitting in the “dining room” and “kitchen” and talking

with the students. He talked about the importance of long letters written at that time, in contrast to

“messaging” through Facebook, and email. At the cemetery of the heritage site, the homeroom

teacher led a discussion about memorial ceremonies nowadays and in the past. The home-guide

connected the 90-year-old story to the 2006 war in Lebanon which the students remembered and

pointed to the newmonument, at the same cemetery. The students were the ones who asked about

different burial styles in the past and nowadays, and the guide answered all their questions.

Already at the beginning of the visit to Tel-Hai heritage site that was a Jewish settlement that

was conquered and burned by theArabs in 1919, the local guide asked the studentswhat they knew

about it. The students told him about the place, the people involved and about their leader whowas

killed defending it. It was evident they learned about the site in school and they seemed eager to

share their knowledge with the guide. The following quote of a student indicates the good

preparationwith respect to the twoparts of the field trip:

Student: (we had been prepared by) I0 (the EE teacher).We built, in sand, a model of the

Dan River and the other rivers, and she told us what we would do, first visit the Dan

River and then. . .E0 (the homeroom teacher) taught us aboutTel-Hai andTrumpeldor

(the historical site and the leader of thegroup killed in 1919).

Researcher: sowereyou happy about knowing these things during thefield trip?

Student: Yes, because I knew more things about Tel-Hai. . .the guide asked us all thesequestions, he thought we wouldn’t know, but we answered all of them because E0

taught us.

The student was proud of her and her friends’ knowledge and good preparation done by the

two teachers: one that addressed the historical part and the otherwhoprovided the science part.

After the visit, the students connected what they learned in school and what they saw in the

field trip. The first quote is of a student who remembered mainly the historical event. The second

—of a student who referred mainly to everyday life in the old days, and the third refers to the visit

toDanRiver.

I remember the battle in Tel Hai. . . first, the Bedouin intruders came from a nearby

village and told Trumpeldor (the leader) they want to search for Frenchmen (who

occupied the area, and with whom the local Bedouins had a conflict), then

Trumpeldor let them in (the fortified yard), and then they went upstairs into a room

with three guys and two women, I think, and then a gun fire was heard. One of the

defenders was killed. I think her namewasDeborah. . . finally theywere killed (more

defenders).We saw themovie; itwas interesting (S2).

(I learned) how they ate in Tel Hai. Everyone got food, but if there wasn’t enough, then

they would share again and take from each other, so they never began eating before

each had something on his plate (S1).

We learned in school about water, so (visiting Dan River) we now saw it.We had drama

activity to show us how water flows from the mountains to the valley. I was Mt.

Hermon, and other kids were the rivers, which I cannot recall their names that go all

theway to the Sea ofGalilee (S3).

All these quotes demonstrate the students have learned a lot before and during the field trip.

Student 1 described in detail the battle that took place in 1919, and was able to connect the story



with the exhibit. Student 2 was more impressed with how people lived in the remote and poor

community and with how they shared their food and student 3 pointed to being able to see what

was taught in class. She referred to the drama activity and although she did not remember the

names of the rivers, she correctly referred to the scientific ideas of water flowing from high to low

elevation and riversmerging in thewatershed.

Affective outcomes are no less important than the cognitive ones and an evidence for

enhancing care for the environment and proper behaviorwas brought by a student in the interview:

S2: (before the FT) they told us all these things about having to preserve nature and do

things.

Researcher (R): and did you think so yourself?

S2:No, I thoughtwe’re okay.

R: explain

S2: let’s say, when we were in Dan River, the teachers told us. . . it was very important

for them, to keep it clean.

R: So after the FT, you aremore aware of nature?

S2: I think so, andmymother beganusing a shoppingbasket instead of plastic bags.

R: andwhat about you?

S2: I refrain from littering now,more than before.

R: Is it following thefield trip or something youdid before?

S2:No, it’s better after the field trip.

R:Why?

S2: because of the teachers. I sawhowmuch it meant for them, although it’s not their job

to collect garbage.

The personal example the teachers gave, being role models for their students was

acknowledgedby studentswho referred to this example thatmade themchange their behavior.

In summary, the field trip ofKV schoolwas special for having excellent preparation in school

that was apparent throughout the different parts of the field trip. In addition enjoyable experience

in walking along the river and sense of freedom in nature were reported by the students. The

students felt relaxed which gave them an opportunity also to socially interact with each other,

learn about themselves and even solve social conflicts. The fact that the field trip was guided by a

“home-guide” whowas previously a teacher at the school, who knew the students from other field

trips, and who knew the teacher well and communicated well with her, contributed a lot to this

flow.

Field Trip 4: Excellent Learning Activity and Use of the Environment

This field trip of 5th graders (age 10–11) from a small religious lower class agricultural

community (El) stood out for its excellent learning activity, enhanced physical experience and

affective experiences. The field trip included visiting two Roman period archeological sites: an

ancient necropolis (rock cut huge Jewish graveyard), and a Jewish city. It was guided by a Nature

Parks Authority (INPA) guide. INPA is responsible for all the nature reserves and national parks

(archeological sites) in Israel.

Students were extremely engaged in this field trip because of the combination of the physical

element—going into a dark cave and overcoming anxiety, and the learning activity that included

decoding “ancient scripts” prepared and hidden by the guide in the cave. In another cave, another

engaging investigation was enacted. After a short introduction, about the necropolis, in which the

guide told about how the site was discovered and studied, and gave the historical and theological

background, he took the students to a grave cave and asked them to get ready in couples. Only then



did the students realize they were going to enter the cave only with their pair, and got all excited;

words such as “Mom!” “What’s a horror,” and “what a fun” were shouted to the air. The guide

explained the task:

. . . going down into the cave, and looking for a basket with ancient pieces of pottery and

bring up one piece. Then, taking a key sheet that will help decode the ancient script on the

shard.

Another taskwas to examine and explain the sign at the opening of the cave.

The first couplewent down.One student expressed his anxiety, but then, his friend ran back to

the teachers crying, “OhMom, I’m scared!” and didn’t go back.Another student replaced him (the

researcher joins them). Theygo slowly, looking and touching theirway:

Student: Wow. . . it’s dark here. . . Jacob. . . don’t leave me!! Wait for me. . . There’s astep here, be careful. . .

In themeantime, other studentswhowere readywere all excited.

Student: (calling her friend) Shlomit, don’t be afraid, be brave!

Student: I’mnot going, there are demons inside. . .Student: don’tworry, it’s a game (support)

Student: Iwill faint there (asking a teacher to join them)

The students seemed enthusiastic, and after each couple came out, they immediately worked

on decoding the ancient scripts on the pieces of pottery.

After the activity at the cave ended, the guide called the students together and asked them to

“share what they felt and what they learned.” The students talked a lot about the darkness, the

adventure in the cave, and one female student said: “darkness is my greatest fear, and I overcame

it.” The guide’s request to share feelings was exceptional and allowed the students to reflect upon

the experience theyhad.

In the second cave the students got a second assignment, to look for traces in the cave. First,

they were all excited and running everywhere to explore the (weak lighted) cave. Only then could

they read the task and do it, as one student described:

With friends, together we managed to solve the mysteries he brought us. For instance, one

guy had a torch, and suddenly, by mistake, he pointed to something we had to find. This

happened twice when we looked for (signs of) wings and horns. . . (then) I pointed and

Shlomit found. Oncewe did not find it sowewent to the guide saying we didn’t find it, so he

told uswemade amistake.We ran back to the floor light, read the assignment again, and then

onegrasped it and realizedwherewehave to run, andwe all ran after him. . .. (S3).

In his explanations, the guide gave more examples about Jerusalem, assuming the students

were more aware of the antiquities there, and a conversation developed on building on steep

slopes.

This field trip was exemplary for theway the caves were used. One can just bring the group in

and tell them about all the important Rabbis buried there and show the beautiful sarcophagi.

However, this guide used the unique features of the environment: darkness, humidity, some small

passages, and the scary atmosphere to amplify the students’ experiences aswe described above. In

the second site, the Roman city, he used an opportunity that occurred while one student wanted to



take home a mosaic stone that he found to discuss what good behavior is in nature and

archeological parks by also referring to what his organization represents. The talk developed to

discuss conservationversus the right to take away objects.

Guide (G):Did Imention INPA?

Student (S):Many times

G: INPA is responsible forwatching. . .what is there towatch?S:Trash

G: First, trash, because in our small country, this habit of throwing away whatever

we do not need. . . there are places here (dirty). For instance, if the ranger comes,

and it’s only a kid that litters, then he has his parents. There is a law. . . Thereis another thing in nature reserves and archeological sites, whatever is beneath

the ground is protected by law—coins, pottery, mosaic. We want to study this

evidence.

S: and if I found a stone?

G: so, you call me or a teacher, and I will go to the person in charge here and tell him:

lookwhatN0 found, it’s interesting.S: and if Iwant to take it away?

G:You are not allowed

S: but I found it

G: There’s law. . . I am representing the national park, and beyond this, wewish to bring

about thegreat value (of conservation).

Although this field trip was not an excellent example for collaboration between the teacher

and the guidewho at the beginning of the field trip, exempted the teachers fromwork telling them

“you have free time until 2:30 pm,” throughout the day the teachers helped in organizing the

students and in mediating. It was evident especially when the students who come from religious

homes were worried about being ritually impure because of visiting a graveyard. A whole

conversation, led by the teacherwas conducted to solve the religious conflict by pointing to ancient

as well as to modern solutions for the problem. Then, the guide added that in that specific site, it is

possible to find archeological evidence for such solutions. Another example of good communica-

tion between the guide and the teacherwaswhen bothwere encouraging a student (Jacob)who has

behavior problems in school.

Teacher (to Jacob): Great you came today to the field trip (Jacob does not attend all

school activities)

Guide (to Jacob):Didn’t youwant to come?

Teacher:He (Jacob) said hewould rather sleep

Jacob: smiles (embarrassed)

The guide smiles to Jacob, approaches him and gives him high-five. By giving him personal

attention, talking to him and by the simple physical contact, the guidemade Jacob, who according

to the teacherwas “problematic,” smile and even participate in the discussion later.

Later on, some students find small mosaic stones, and the guide tells them the stones are

modern, and produced by an artisan who makes mosaics nowadays. This reminds Jacob of a visit

of his family to the ancient city of Acco (Acre). The short conversation involves Jacob, the teacher

and the guidewho applauded Jacob for remembering andmaking the connection between the two

sites. This is not only an example for good communication between the teacher and the guide, but

tomaking connections to everyday life aswell.



Themeaningful activities and the conversations with the guide left strong impressions which

can be summarizedwith a quote froma student’s interview.

It (the field trip) was much beyond my expectations. The guide facilitated many activities

that helped us learn for ourselves. Not fromhim.Andwe enjoyed it, and not just learned new

things. The landscape was even more (than expected). There were huge spaces, with caves

and forest,we climbed up, and a fewof us even found amosaic (S2).

The student addressed learning new and interesting things, the amplified physical experience

and the aesthetic experience he had as well. Another student provided evidence for being deeply

engaged, and learning the scientificmethod of the archeologists.

I understood that archeologists findmany historical things beneath the ground, so if theyfind

a house at the north side of the site, and then one in the south side, they know that in between

they can look formanyother houses (S3).

This student expressed deep understanding of the research method of archeologists they

discussed in the field.

The exciting experience in the caveswas echoed in all the interviews.

It was fun in the cave, I enjoyed there. The truth? I was afraid, but my friend wasn’t, so

she helped and pushedme and said: “cut off the nonsense, there is no one here.” If she

wasn’t there, I’d stay another hour (outside). Thanks to her I overcamemy fear. That’s

it! I amno longer afraid of caves and dark places (S1)

First, I wasn’t afraid, even after kids were trying to scare me, but then, after I saw they

didn’t knowwhere to go (I began to be frightened). If the guide didn’t say, I wouldn’t

knowwhere to go. . .Thiswas an exceptional experience; Iwill never forget it (S4).

Overall, this field trip was an example of good learning activity that engaged small groups of

students in meaningful exploration and investigation. They explored the caves and investigated

the symbols they found and became aware of ancient scripts and their importance for learning the

past. The sensual experience in the caves that was amplified by the guide was exciting for the

studentswho recalled the adventure theyhad.

Field Trip 5: Social Interactions

This 8th grade (age 13–14) field trip took place in a nature park right beyond the school yard.

We selected this field trip for many reasons that included excellent function of the teachers who

guided the field trip themselves, and because of systematic planning and enactment of the activities.

This field trip was excellent for the many opportunities it allowed for interactions among students

and with the teacher. The sequence between what is learned in school and in the outdoors was

evident. It was clear that the students understood how the topics they studied in school were

demonstrated in the outdoors. The teachers had clear goals that they discussedwith the students, and

they paid attention to both the cognitive and the social and emotional aspects. Their relationships

with the students were multifaceted as well. At times they demanded attention to explanations, but

theyplayed educativegameswith the students and evenmadeherb tea in thefield for their students.

School Bi’s students were guided by two FNS teachers, who are teaching, in secondary

schools, theLand of Israel Studies. Themain purpose of this topic is to create a strong attachment to

the physical, biological and cultural heritage of Israel. The two teachers were highly experienced

andvery confident. Thiswas theonlyfield trip inwhichnohomeroom teacherwaspresent.



The field trip aimed at completing and highlighting topics learned in school. The goals of the

field tripwere explicitlymentioned a few times—to draw relationships between three layers of the

environment: physical, biotic and human, as they were addressed in the school curriculum. The

field trip was carefully designed, and in accordance with the teachers’ explicit pedagogical ideas,

it had to address learning as well as social objectives. The goals were presented to the students at

the beginning,were addressed again in thewrap up talk, andwere reported to the researchers in the

interviews.At the onset of the field trip, one teacher said:

Wewill go in a circle in Ramat-HaNadiv, about 5 km’; it aint much.Wewill have almost no

stops until we reach the sea facing cliff. Then we continue to a beautiful spot, Mansur El

Akeb. It’s an Arab namewe’ll talk about. Then, to the spring you all know.We end at about

14:00. We have nice weather. Remember it’s a school day, and we have much to learn and

lots of fun in nature that begins waking up now. The main focus is the three layers (that their

teacherwhowas not present had referred to in class): physical, biological and the human. . .

In the interview following the field trip, the two teachers referred to exactly the same goals

and addressed the integration of social and cognitivegoals. Theyhighlight curiosity, fun in nature,

experiential learning and social bonding.

(a good field trip) is such that has clear objectives. . . the right portion of social and

learning goals. In addition—keeping with the task and the schedule (referring to

skills). Iwant them to comeback and say, it’s a pity the field trip has ended. . .whatwemainly do is to enhance curiosity (Teacher 1)

There are many parameters (for a good FT): learning new things, but better—to be able

to gooutwith their families and drawconnections. Curiosity is important, and fun. To

enjoy each other, to bond, the creation of social things. . . (Teacher 2)

Throughout the field trip, the teachers addressed plants and animals the students pointed to,

and initiated activities to teach about the plants and the landscape features. They encouraged the

students to explore and used the students’ and their own findings to teach new things. They took

few opportunities to discuss with the students humans’ impact on the environment. They were

aware of the opportunities the field trip provides to amplify students’ enthusiasm and joy of nature,

and in the interviewTeacher 2 said:

(my role is) to expose them to new things they never saw, to new places, and to really allow

them have direct experienceswith nature andwith each other, and to things they find. I don’t

know if you noticed, that suddenly they found the grasshopper andwere all excited about its

size and colors. Now. . . it was not part of anything I planned, but it let them explore new

things and get feedback, there is nothing which is not-relevant in the field trip. . .we did notplan this event, but you can stop, explain, they ask questions, yougive them space

The teachers initiated few activities that enabled social interactions. Onewas an ice-breaking

activity tomemorize plant names. The students helped each other and the teacher said:

Here—there are only 25 students, whichmeans 25 names (to remember), but in Israel, there

are 2,300 species. In the futurewewill learnwhy this diversity is important.

Afterwards, he applauded a student who remembered 22 plant names: “Cheers, look how

much you already remember, let’s see how you remember at the end.” This supportive approach

continued throughout the field trip. While walking, I’ continued to “play” with plant etymology,



and one girl sounded enthusiastic telling her friend about origin of names. Another social activity

was a trivia quiz competition between boys and girls.Making tea in nature is another way for these

two teachers to enhance informal relationships. While Teacher 2 boiled the water, he kept talking

with the students and pointed to a small flock of birds they recognized as a swallows.After the field

trip, Student 3 refers to the tea break and acknowledged its social contribution.

Tea breaks are good things to have, both teachers have them; it’s fun, and it bonds our class. I

think that all thesegames do the same.

Both teachers carried out learning activities that engaged the students in doing things and in

giving scientific explanations such as biodiversity, extinction, and ecological relationships. The

abovementioned plant name game was one example. Another evidence was from another activity

that took place after the tea break, when Teacher 2 demonstrated how the three layers (physical,

biological andhuman) are evident. First he sang awell-knownchildren song “Under the rock” about

the habitat of cyclamens, as one example for relationships between the layers, and thenhe referred to

themud-built nest of the swallow.The teachers kept pointing tohuman impacts on the environment.

I0 (Teacher 1): You see Gisser a’ Zarka (an Arab village)? Do you know the meaning of

theArab name?

Girls answer

I0: and (do you see) theCrocodileRiver?Student:what happened to the crocodiles?

Other students: extinct

I0: you read in the Bible about other species such as lions, bears that are not living hereanymore.

Student:whydid theyhunt crocodiles?

I0: for their skin, for shoes, bags. . . awareness did not exist then, there were no huntinglaws.Humans aremajor factor in species extinction, but in rehabilitation aswell.

A student tells about a programhewatched onTVabout over fishing of Salmon, andTeacher 1

tells that now there is supervision over fishing. A conversation begins about big mammals and

their hunting. Later on, at a memorial stone the students noticed, the teacher told the sad story of

that girlwho fell off the cliff. The storywas echoed in interviewswith students.

To teach about wind directions I’ (Teacher 1) invited the students to “feel and guess” and then

explained how cold air comes from Siberia. He arranged a poll between the students and used his

ownbody and amap to help the students explainwhat theyknow.Heplayed another social game to

train them in locating the north, and summed up by telling the students that back in school, the

teacherswould bring soda, and the studentswould bring a cake to celebrate their proficiency. Here

again, supportive approachand encouragementmade the students collaborate and enjoy.

After the field trip, I’ articulates how “the games, silly as they are, make the students learn”:

He adds:

. . .this informal aspect offield trips, it’s the informalwithin the formal (school field trip).We

do not give up (teaching). The field trip has its framework and rules, but there is flexibility

within this framework.

The other teacher addressed the same point talking about the plant name game as an

“experience of success. It shows them that they can, they have the ability, and suddenly it enhances

this social dynamics between them” (Teacher 2).



The two teachers highlighted this empowerment in nature theywanted to enhance, whichwas

supported by students’ responses as well. Throughout the entire field trip, both teachers showed

consistent practice. They played games with the students, they discussed things with them, they

amplified positive experiences and they enthusiastically applauded their students.

After the field trip, the interviewed students were able to refer to all the topics discussed in the

field trip, including the relationships between humans and the environment.

They talked aboutwhatwe learned in class, about the three layers (S1)

There was. . . how do you call it? The physical, biotic, yes those three layers, and there

weremanyquestions about them (S3)

. . . the biotic, I think these are the flowers, and animals. We saw this grasshopper, and

cockroaches, lots of flowers, it was awesome. Physical it’s nature, if I’m not

mistaken, like air, rocks not vegetation and not human, like the sea we saw and the

mountains (S2).

Although some of the students complained about a “too school like” activity in one site, they

enjoyed the day and discussed many of the topics afterwards. The following list of outcomes

reported by interviewed students reflects students’ learning. They refer to aesthetic, social and

learning experiences and to the many activities throughout the field trip: “I liked it that we talked

about plants that can and cannot grow there, or that suddenly we saw animals, and looked at

footprints. I—personally—like it,” “I knew this trail, but with explanations it was more fun, and

with my class mates,” “you know, it was interesting—the explanations, the games and his

questions. You go out with the family, but it’s not like this. He (the teacher) knows so much.” The

affective outcomes of this field trip were expressedmainly in the context of the stories the teachers

told that left the students discussing their feelings.

S3: The most meaningful thing for me was the story of Miriam. . . it was very deep. Hetold us her story, and you see that the place (of the monument) actually observes her

home.

Researcher (R):what did youmean by “deep?”

S3: that it is very personal, and sad. It’s not just me. It touched many others, it

contributed a lot.

R:what did you think?

S3: That we need to be careful, her mistakewas getting too close to the cliff looking for

cyclamens. It is very real.

All the interviewed students had fun in the field trip, enjoyed the games, the tea break and the

good weather: “It was rather fun, the weather was good, everything was green,” “It was cool that

we hiked, and that cliff, and we saw everywhere from there,” “It was fun being there with friends,

it’s always fun, and theweatherwas great.”

In this field trip, most of the above mentioned high quality practices were evident: good

preparation, clear goals which are transparent to the students aswell, good use of the environment,

excellent learning activities that engage the students in meaningful learning, good connection

between the school curriculum and the field trip and many opportunities for interactions among

students and between them and the teachers. The students were engaged throughout the entire

field trip. They played games, did inquiry activity, engaged in free exploration and had a tea break.

The teachers gave many explanations, but were aware of the students’ limited attention and spent

valuable time in playing games and making tea to enhance enjoyment of nature. The FiNE



diagram of this field trip indicates mostly high level with only one medium level performances.

Indeed, this field trip was an excellent example of a balanced event that incorporated exploration,

games, learning activity, planned social interaction, good alignment to the school curriculum and

fun. The good preparation in school and the fact the two teachers teach both in school and in the

outdoors were evident throughout the field trip. As in the case of field trip 3, that fact that school

teachers who are experienced in outdoor teaching guide the field trip contributed to the students’

learning in and fromnature.

Discussion

The practices we observed that guided the selection and presentation of these field trips

included: environmental action that empowers students and makes them believe they can make a

change (field trip 1), involvement of the teacher combined with thoughtful practice of the guide

who responded to the teacher’s requests but added his own value as a young role model (field trip

2), letting students exhibit what they learned in school on the one hand and giving them freedom to

enjoy nature and learn from it on the other hand (field trip 3), providing exciting experiences

unique to outdoor environments and engaging learning activities (field trip 4), and good planning

and systematic enactment of the entire field trip that included learning activity, social activity,

continuous discussion with the students, good connection to school learning and constructivist

pedagogy (field trip 5). Some features overlapped of course, which indicate commonalities but

moreover highlight some good practices across cases that enable addressing theoretical principles

in the field. Based on Eisenhardt (1989), we argue that understanding of the field trip phenomena

through in-depth case analysis allows one to develop cross case understanding that can lead to

theory development. Actions taken by researchers such as searching for cross case patterns in

addition to within-case analysis strengthen their assertions. In general, we found that the students

were well prepared in most of the five field trips. Non-traditional pedagogies were used allowing

more space for students to express themselves than in other field trips we studied. Affective

outcomes were recognized and welcomed by most of the adults involved, and finally, much

thought was invested in planning the learning activity, which resulted in students’ statements

about substantial learning.

As indicated, we used the FiNE framework to illustrate the high performance in the different

categories rather than to compare field trips. Although out of the ten elements of FiNE, at least six

were of the highest level in all the five field trips, this is not the point we want to make. We now

assume that if only one or two practices were excellent, then the whole field trip could be of high

quality. Excellent use of the environment, good engagement in learning activities or meaningful

collaboration between the guide and the teacher are such examples. Lack of good preparation to

field trip 1 less matters if the activity was perceived as meaningful. If there was no real planned

learning activity in field trip 3, the freedom the students were given to explore and enjoy the river

gave this field trip its unique essence. By that we say that the advantage of FiNE, which is its

consistency, is its limitation as well. It does not allow weighing special contribution of one or few

elements upon the others. As we showed here, all the five field trips were of high quality but each

was exceptional for only few features. Nevertheless, in linewithDillon (2012)who argued that too

much emphasis was directed at measuring outcomes instead of learning educational practices, we

believe that this study provides some insights into good educational practices in field trips to

natural environments, which are: finding suitable ways, despite obvious difficulties associated

with the outdoors, to better engage students through activity, hands on activity, and environmental

action.We believe that students should be able to explore the environment individually or in small

groups while touching, climbing, jumping and collecting things. We think they should have time

and be encouraged to share their experiences and previous outdoor experiences with their peers



and teachers. By activity we mean active learning as well as amplifying physical experiences and

being engaged in environmental action.

Activity

Our emphasis on activity is supported by studies informed by different theoretical

approaches. It is reinforced by Brody (2005) who viewed activity as central to learning in the

outdoors, and by Ballantyne and Packer (2009) who found that most engaging, effective and

enduring learning experiences in natural environments occur through experience based rather

than teacher-directed strategies. It is supported as well by our own study of extended outdoor

education programs in multicultural contexts (Alkaher & Tal, 2013; Morag, Tal, & Keren-

Rotem, 2013). Some of these studies were informed by the sociocultural theory and others by a

few theoretical strands. In this study, it was clear how the students whowere working in the forest

believed their work was important, and how it engaged them in further learning about the nature

park. These students had direct experiences, they had personal and social learning, and the

affective outcomewas evident. In the ancient necropolis, where studentswere crawling into a dark

cave, finding “old scripts” and decoding them, physical activity and adventure were linked to

learning about history. In the Dan River the opportunity to enjoy the water and relax, and at the

same time learn about howwatersheds perform, and even discuss the geopolitical situation needed

time and the direct experiencewith phenomena.

In a broader context, it seems that the field trip to natural environments could become a good

opportunity to emphasize many of the sociocultural ideas. Students are free to interact with their

peers and with adults in the context of (physical or learning) activity; they learn through

interaction and activity, and their learning is not limited to facts and principles. In this study,

learners were active in all five field trips. Some in the more Deweyan approach (field trip 4 for

example) and other in themoreVygotskyanway (field trip 3 for example), andfield trip 1 provided

an example of learning in action and by action. The overall importance of active learning was

evident in all field trips, and we believe that more awareness of teachers and guides to the

importance of activity and actionwould contribute to better outdoor education.

Engagement and Interaction

The idea of engagement is used vastly in the education literature. When properly enacted, in

field trips to outdoor environments students can be engaged in several dimensions or spheres—

cognitively, physically and socially. They interact with objects in various ways: by seeing,

smelling, hearing, touching, stepping, and sitting on; and they interact with peers and with adults

in designed activities and in un-designed and un-planned events. The girls who found out about

their families roots in Syria learned about their history but also learned about each other. The girl

who overcame her fear in the cave learned about her courage and abilities, and the students who

shared their concern about harming the plants while working in the forest learned about

regeneration of plants after fire and about management of natural parks. All these events took

place invarious social constellations. If the field trip is properly arranged, students can be engaged

over time in exploring, playing, learning and discussing “real things.” In field trips 3 and 5, where

teachers who knew their students guided the field trip the fact that the field trip was not a single

event but rather a continuous program, the dialogue and the shared experiences could have even

more impact over time (Ash&Wells, 2006; Falk&Dierking, 2000;Rogoff et al., 1996).

Free-Choice Learning

In many ways, the natural environment cannot be compared to museums with respect to free-

choice learning because of concerns of students’ safety in the outdoors. However, Falk (2001), and



Falk and Storksdieck (2005) suggested to view freedom-of-choice not necessarily as literarily but

rather with respect towhat the environment allows and provides, andwith respect towhat a person

perceives as freedom. Falk does not object to carefully crafted learning activities, but notes that the

teacher would probably not be the center of such activity. He also argues, as in previous work that

learning is idiosyncratic and associated with prior experiences (Falk & Dierking, 2000), which

means, in the context of this study that on the one hand, guide-led activities are appropriate; but on

the other hand, these activities should address different learners with diverse background, and

especially background in field trips.

Guide–Teacher Collaboration

DeWitt and Osborne (2007) who developed a theoretical framework to assist teachers

planning and visiting museums with their classes suggested the Cultural Historical Activity

Theory (CHAT) as the corner stone of this framework. They argued that fromCHAT perspective,

guides and teachers function in different activity systems “They have different roles and

responsibilities, different rules they must follow, and face different organizational constraints”

(p. 691) in their way of applyingmeaningful learning. Therefore, in planning good activity, these

systems must be considered and bridged. Though DeWitt and Osborne (2007) integrated other

theories such as intrinsic motivation and conceptual learning to their Framework for Museum

Practice, the findings of our study reaffirms mainly the sociocultural principles they suggested

such as adopting the teacher’s perspective, encouraging joint productive activity, discussions

among peers and adults, choice and control, personal relevance and supporting dialogue. All

these principles are common in the “sociocultural family of learning theories” (Roth &

Lee, 2007).

Design

In attempting to highlight the more important features that can enhance good practice which

is informed by the sociocultural theory, we suggest few design principles for good field trips in

natural environments.

• Field trips should be planned together by the teachers and the field guides who need to

discuss their goals,means and collaboration pattern

• Field trips should be plannedwith knowledge of and connection to the school curriculum,

in order tomake ideas visual and concrete

• The teacher should be involved throughout the field trip, as amediator in the cognitive and

in the social domains

• The guide should make use of the environment in various ways, including building on

students’discoveries and their attention

• Students should learn from interactions with objects in the environment and from

interactionswith each other

• Field trips should be based on student-centered learning activity, in which students

explore and investigate the environment hands on, sharefindings and thoughts anddiscuss

things

• Field trips should include “amplified” physical experience, adventure activities, and

opportunities to directly experience the unique features of the outdoors.

Summary

In the five exemplary field trips, we observed various activities that encourage social

interaction, sensomotorical experiences and emotion and mediation. From the field of Education



for Sustainability we borrow the idea of connecting the head, hands and heart in transformative

education (Sipos, Battisti, & Grimm, 2008). Head-oriented learning is traditional expository

teaching, discussions, and teaching for critical thinking. Hands-oriented is doing things with

hands, andheart-oriented involves experiencing connections and reflecting uponvalues.However,

Sipos et al. point to the intersections among the three, which are more complex and meaningful.

They suggest a range of methods such as problem-based learning, participatory action research,

action learning and traditional learning of ecology that are arranged in the space between the three

sides of the triangle: heart, hands and head. We combine this idea with the fifth productive

pedagogy (i.e., experience-based learning) in the context of field trips in natural environments and

suggest that field trips that employ a variety of pedagogies that enhance dialogues but do not

neglect the adventure, activity and direct experiences are good examples for transformative

education. One reservation we suggest is that in order for something to be considered as

transformative, it cannot be a single event. Even an excellent field trip cannot cause what we

believe transformation is, and the literature indicates the better contribution of few field trips or

extended outdoor programs in comparison to a single event.

In four of the exemplary field trips we had evidence for good communication between the

teacher and the guide and rather high involvement of teachers in preparing the students and/or in

the field. In the last field trip, the guides were school teachers who naturally connect what they

teach in school and in the field. Based on our work and much work of others we argue that high

teacher involvement is almost an essential condition for a good field trip (i.e., DeWitt &

Storksdieck, 2008;DeWitt&Hohenstein, 2010;Tal et al., 2005).

The idea of freedom in nature emerged while analyzing stories 3 and 5, in which social

activity and learning were strongly incorporated. Optimal experiences occurred within sequences

of activities that were goal-directed and bounded by rules-activities that require the investment of

attention and that could not be done without skills. With this respect, we can point to such

experiences in all the five field tripswe identified as exemplary.

We summarize this article by returning to Rogoff et al. (1996) and Sfard (1998). Rogoff

highlighted the need for students and adults to be active: children in managing their own learning

and coordinating with adults who contribute to the direction of the activity while providing

guidance and orientation. Sfard pointed to the linguistic change with respect to how learning is

described. Instead of “knowledge” and “concept” we find “reflective discussion,” “learning in the

community,” “collective reflection,” and so forth that make us look differently at what learning

means.Moreover, Sfard argues that

The ongoing learning activities are never considered separately from the context within

which they take place. The context, in its turn, is rich andmultifarious, and its importance is

pronounced by talk about situatedness, contextuality, cultural embeddedness and social

mediation (p. 6).

The field trip with this respect affords situated learning in specific contexts, and often cultural

sensitivity and embedded activity. Social mediation naturally occurs, if not intentionally then

suppressed in outdoor learning. In the five field trips we investigated we found strong evidence for

situatedness, socialmediation, and contextuality.

Finally, we believe that field trips in which students are active participants, at least to some

degree and at least in part of the field trip and inwhich the guide and the teacher truly collaborate in

enacting the learning experience are good examples to learn from. In spite of the large sample of

62 field trips we began with, we could not findmore than 5–10 examples of high quality practices

we could really learn from. Therefore, we suggest using the five illustrative exampleswe provided



to highlight aspects that were not sufficiently supported by evidence in the literature on outdoor

learning. Teachers and guides of informal science education institutions can use these examples

and the design principleswe suggested to better plan and enact field trips to natural environments.

This studywas funded by the Israel ScienceFoundation (ISF) grant # 1244/10.

References

Alkaher, I., & Tal, T. (2013). The Impact of socio-environmental projects of Jewish and Bedouin youth

in Israel on students’ local knowledge and views of each other. International Journal of Science Education

publishedon line onMarch 2013, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2013.775610

Ash, D., Lombana, J., & Alcala, L. (2012). Changing practices, changing identities as museum

educators. In E. Davidsson & A. Jakobsson (Eds.), Understanding interactions at science centers and

museums (pp. 23–44).Boston,MA:SensePublishers.

Ash, D., & Wells, G. (2006). Dialogic inquiry in classrooms and museums. In Z. Bekerman, N. C.

Burbles, &D. Silberman-Keller (Eds.), Learning in places: The informal education reader (pp. 35–54). New

York,NY:Peter Lang.

Ash,D.B.,&Lombana, J. (2012).Methodologies for reflective practice andmuseumeducator research:

The role of “noticing” and responding. In D. B. Ash, J. Rahm, & L. M. Melber (Eds.), Putting theory into

practice: Tools for research in informal settings (pp. 29–52).Rotterdam,TheNetherlands: Sense Publishers.

Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (2009). Introducing a fifth pedagogy: Experience-based strategies for

facilitating learning in natural environments. Environmental EducationResearch, 15(2), 243–262.

Bell, P. Lewenstein, B. Shouse, A. W. & Feder, M. A. (Eds.). (2009). Learning science in informal

environments.Washington,DC:NationalResearchCouncil.

Borko, H., Elliott, R., & Uchiyama, K. (2002). Professional development: A key to Kentucky’s

educational reformeffort. Teaching andTeacherEducation, 18(8), 969–987.

Brody,M. (2005). Learning in nature. Environmental EducationResearch, 11, 603–621.

Brody, M., Bangert, A., & Dillon, J. (2008) Assessing learning in informal science contexts.

Commissioned Paper by the National Research Council for Science Learning in Informal Environments

Committee, June 15, 2009.

Cole, M. (1995). Culture and cognitive development: From cross-cultural research to creating systems

of culturalmediation.Culture&Psychology, 1(1), 25–54.

Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm, J., (2002). Non-formal learning: Mapping the conceptual

terrain. Consultation Report, Leeds: University of Leeds Lifelong Learning Institute. Also available in the

InformalEducationArchives: http://www.Infed.org/archives/etexts/colley_informal_learning.htm

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to philosophy of education. New York,

NY:Macmillan.

DeWitt, J., &Hohenstein, J. (2010). Supporting student learning: A comparison of student discussion in

museums and classrooms.Visitor Studies, 13, 41–66.

DeWitt, J., & Osborne, J. (2007). Supporting teachers on science-focused school trips: Towards an

integrated framework of theory and practice. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 29, 685–710.

DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck,M. (2008). A short reviewof school field trips: Keyfindings from the past and

implications for the future.Visitor Studies, 11, 181–197.

Dillon, J. (2012). Science and environmental education beyond the classroom. In B. J. Fraser, K. G.

Tobbin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1081–1093).

Dordrecht, TheNetherlands: Springer.

Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2006). The

value of outdoor learning: Evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere. School Science Review, 87,

107–111.

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimor, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in

the classroom.EducationalResearcher, 23, 5–12.



http://www.Infed.org/archives/etexts/colley_informal_learning.htm

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management

Review, 14, 532–550.

Elliott, R., &Borko, H. (1999). Hands-on pedagogy versus hands-off accountability: Tensions between

competing commitments for exemplarymath teachers inKentucky. PhiDeltaKappan, 80, 394–400.

Falk, J. H. (Ed.). (2001). Free-choice science education, how we learn science outside of school. New

York,NY:TeachersCollegePress.

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of

meaning.WalnutCreek,CA:AltaMira Press.

Falk, J.,&Storksdieck,M. (2005). Using the contextualmodel of learning to understand visitor learning

froma science center exhibition. ScienceEducation, 89, 744–778.

Garet,M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., &Yoon, K. S. (2001).Whatmakes professional

development effective?Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal,

38, 915–945.

Gertel, G. (2002). The school field trip and students, and educator’s meanings (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv,

Isreal: TelAvivUniversity (UnpublishedPhDdissertation).

Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative

research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28(2), 235–260.

Glassman, M. (2001). Dewey and Vygotsky: society, experience, and inquiry in educational practice.

EducationalResearcher, 30(4), 3–14.

Guskey, T.R.,&Yoon,K. S. (2009).Whatworks in professional development. PhiDeltaKappan, 90(7),

495–500.

Jakobsson, A., & Davidsson, E. (2012). Using sociocultural frameworks to understand the significance

of interactions at science and technology centers and museums. In E. Davidsson & A. Jakobsson (Eds.),

Understanding interactions at science centers andmuseums (pp. 3–22). Rotterrdam, The Netherlands: Sense

Publishers.

Kennedy, M. (1999). Form and substance in mathematics and science professional development (NISE

BriefNo. 3(2)).Madison,WI:NationalCenter for ImprovingScienceEducation.

Lave, J., &Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA:

CambridgeUniversity Press.

Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education.

Journal ofResearch in ScienceTeaching, 38, 296–316.

Maynard, T., & Waters, J. (2007). Learning in the outdoor environment: A missed opportunity? Early

Years, 27(3), 255–265.

Morag,O.,&Tal, T. (2012).Assessing learning in the outdoorswith thefield trip in natural environments

(FiNE) framework. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 34, 745–777.

Morag, O., Tal, T., & Keren-Rotem, T. (2013). Long-term educational programs in nature parks:

Characteristics, outcomes and challenges. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 8,

427–449.

Moustakas, C. E. (1994). Phenomenological researchmethods. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications,

Inc.

Priest, S. (1986). Redefining outdoor education: A matter of many relationships. Journal of

Environmental Education, 17, 13–15.

Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M., Sanders, D. . . . Benefield, P., (2004). Areviewof research on outdoor learning. Shrewsbury,UK: Field StudiesCouncil.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of humandevelopment.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversity Press.

Rogoff, B., Matusov, E., & White, C. (1996). Models of teaching and learning: Participation in a

community of learners. TheHandbookofEducation andHumanDevelopment, 388–414.

Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory.

ReviewofEducationalResearch, 77(2), 186–232.

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational

Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.



Sipos, Y., Battisti, B., &Grimm,K. (2008). Achieving transformative sustainability learning: Engaging

head, hands andheart. International Journal of Sustainability inHigherEducation, 9(1), 68–86.

Stiles, K. E.,Mundry, S., Loucks-Horsley, S.,Hewson, P.W.,&Love,N. (2010).Designing professional

development for teachers of science andmathematics. ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications, Inc.

Tal, T. (2012). Imitating the family visit: Small group exploration in an ecological garden. In E.

Davidsson & A. Jakobsson (Eds.), Understanding interactions at science centers and museums—A

sociocultural perspective (pp. 193–205). Boston,MA:Sense Publishers.

Tal, T., & Abramovitch, A. (2013). Activity and action: Bridging environmental sciences and

environmental education.Research inScienceEducation, 43, 1665–1687.

Tal, T., & Morag, O. (2013). A longitudinal study of environmental and outdoor education: A cultural

change. Journal ofResearch in ScienceTeaching, 50, 1019–1046. doi: 10.1002/tea.21111

Tal, R.T., Bamberger, Y.,&Morag, O. (2005). Guided school visits to natural historymuseums in Israel:

Teachers’ roles. ScienceEducation, 89, 920–935.

Tal, T., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Urban schools’ teachers enacting project-based

science. Journal ofResearch inScienceTeaching, 43(7), 722–745.

Supporting Information

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article at the

publisher’sweb-site.



Exemplary practices in field trips to natural environments

Documents

Transcript of Exemplary practices in field trips to natural environments