Hands-On Outdoor Science Learning in Elementary Education

Introduction to Hands-On Learning

Hands-on science learning has become a common phrase in science education. Hands-on learning is not simply manipulating objects. It is being involved in in-depth investigations about objects, materials, phenomena, and concepts, and interpreting meaning and understanding from these experiences. Although this approach goes back to the earliest days of public education, for a time it lost its place to textbooks and examinations. Now, however, it is making a comeback in schools that recognize the need for first-hand student involvement in order to promote the best learning environment.

Historical Roots and Research Evidence

The concept of hands-on learning stems from early education philosophy. In the early 1800s, Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi argued that rather than dealing with words, students should learn through activity and things. They need to be free to follow their own interests and draw their own conclusions. He placed a strong focus on the child's spontaneity and self-activity. Teachers should not give students ready-made answers, but have them locate the answers themselves. In order to do this, it is necessary to cultivate and encourage their powers of seeing, judging, and reasoning (Silber, 1965, p. 140). The goal is to educate the entire child — hands, heart, and head.

Later, McMurry introduced the project method of learning and stated in 1921: "The project conceived and executed by the child on the ground of his own experience is a still better basis of our educational efforts because it sets up in children self-determination and purposeful activity in a complete, natural and well-rounded unit of effort" (p. 3). For the remainder of the 20th century, variations of hands-on learning continued, especially with the introduction of the computer.

Studies have demonstrated the value of hands-on activities compared to primary book learning or rote instruction. Carpenter's (1963) research of fourth-grade students found that an activity mode of instruction led to the greatest gains in content learning. Slower learners particularly thrived in activity-oriented science classes. Bredderman (1985) reported a 14% improvement by students in activity-based programs compared to textbook and lecture programs. There was significant improvement for female, disadvantaged, and minority students. The study suggested that gains may be lost if inquiry-based curricula are not continued in later grades.

More recently, similar results have been found. Hake (1992) concluded from a survey of 6,000 students in introductory physics that those in courses involving interactive engagement made substantial gains in problem-solving abilities as well as in the learning of physics. Shymansky, Hedges, and Woodworth (1990) combined 81 research studies that contrasted the performance of students in hands-on, activity-based programs with that of students in textbook-based classrooms. Primary-grade children exposed to hands-on instruction displayed a positive effect size of 1.4 standard deviations in science achievement. More notable was the achievement gains by students of teachers who had taken in-service training on the hands-on curricula. Wise's (1996) research of middle- and high-school science found 140 published comparisons between traditional teaching and alternative instruction using an inquiry-oriented approach. Inquiry instructional strategies averaged thirteen percentile points higher in achievement measures over traditional text/lecture modes of instruction.

Testing Pressures and the Case for Balance

Recently, due to increased testing and the No Child Left Behind program, a greater emphasis has been placed on standardized testing. So much so, in fact, that many teachers are teaching to the test. This has placed a greater emphasis on rote learning in the sciences in order to learn the correct facts. As always, there must be a balance. Students cannot be taught only through rote memorization, nor entirely through hands-on learning without the value of reading. There must be a blended approach that uses a variety of teaching strategies and forms of delivery.

In recent years, the State of North Carolina has placed a much greater emphasis on testing and scores on standardized tests. This, as noted, has caused more teachers to focus on test results. In science, this means greater stress on learning facts and less emphasis on observing and doing. As Irv Besecker wrote in the Greensboro News:

"Each year the state gets more frantic in its efforts to convince people that the tests actually mean something. The propaganda machine shifts into high gear as state officials try to persuade the taxpayers of North Carolina that they are getting their money's worth for the millions of dollars they are investing in testing and accountability."

After revisiting our approach to teaching science, the science committee decided that we, too, were spending too much time on test preparation and not enough on hands-on programs. Therefore, we decided to incorporate more discovery-type learning and less pencil-and-paper education. We started by purchasing some science kits, but that was just the beginning.

Adopting Outdoor Learning: The UTOTES Program

We felt that outdoor learning was the best approach, since that is where many of the actual objects being studied are located and because children are increasingly losing contact with nature. According to the Institute of Outdoor Learning, outdoor learning is an all-encompassing term that includes areas such as early-years outdoor play, playground projects, environmental education, recreational and adventure activities, personal and social development activities, expeditions, team building, leadership training, education for sustainability, and adventure therapy.

All forms of outdoor learning value direct experience, which can provide a significant contrast to indoor activities. Direct experience outdoors is more motivating and has more impact and credibility. Through skilled teaching, interpretation, or facilitation, outdoor experiences quickly become a stimulating source of fascination, personal growth, and learning breakthroughs. Outdoor learning is active, because participants gain knowledge through what they do, encounter, and discover. They learn about the outdoors, themselves, and one another, while at the same time acquiring outdoor skills. Such active knowledge gathering develops the learning skills of inquiry, experiment, feedback, reflection, review, and cooperation.

Outdoor learning happens in natural environments where students can see, hear, touch, and smell the real thing, and where actions have real results and consequences. It can help bring many school subjects alive, in addition to offering experiential opportunities and new interests. There is no limit to the experiences and curiosities that outdoor environments and activities can arouse. Students often discover potential skills and interests that come as a surprise.

We found a wonderful program — Using the Outdoors to Teach Experiential Science (UTOTES) — run through the North Carolina Museum of Natural Science, which greatly supports our desire for outdoor learning. Since 1991, more than 4,100 educators at 184 selected sites across North Carolina have taken part in the UTOTES experience. UTOTES goals are very similar to ours: (1) to promote positive attitudes of teachers and students toward living things; (2) to increase the use of the environment in teaching all subjects; (3) to develop site-based science leadership; and (4) to enhance the value of school grounds as a learning resource through native plantings and the creation of wildlife habitats.

We decided to partner with UTOTES, since it aligned so closely with our own approach. A group of 16 to 24 staff members at the school met with the museum. In total, the two-year program includes six different teacher education workshops during the first year, including one focused on creating a wildlife habitat selected by the school; a summer residential program for two teachers; and a follow-up workshop in the second year. Topics may include attracting butterflies and birds, identifying trees and wildflowers, landscaping with native plants, observing and recording seasonal changes, creating wetlands on school grounds, integrating the outdoors into the curriculum, and creating nature journals.

Conclusion

The importance of giving students direct experiences with materials, objects, and phenomena is supported by both experience and an understanding of how learning takes place. While information can be gained through books and lectures, true knowledge and the ability to apply information in new situations requires learning in which students study concepts in depth and over time. Hands-on learning allows students to build applicable understanding, develop their capacity for independent inquiry, and become self-directed learners. We look forward to promoting our students' learning through hands-on science programs and projects in the coming years.

References

Besecker, I. (June 11, 2000). Greensboro News and Record. Insanity of Testing Mania.

Bredderman, T. (1985). Laboratory programs for elementary school science: A meta-analysis of effects on learning. Science Education, 69(4), 577–591.

Carpenter, R. (1963). A reading method and an activity method in elementary science instruction. Science Education, April.

Hake, R. (1992). Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics laboratory. The Physics Teacher, 30(9), 546–552.

Institute of Outdoor Learning. Website retrieved March 27, 2007, from

Shymansky, J., Hedges, L., and Woodworth, G. (1990). A reassessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curricula of the 60's on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(2), 127–144.

Silber, K. (1965). Pestalozzi: The man and his work (2nd ed.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Wise, K. C. (1996). Strategies for teaching science: What works? The Clearing House, July/August, 337–338.