Assessing Psychosocial Outdoor Learning Environment of Pre-service Science Teachers through The Field Trip Experiences

Rukhaini Fitri Rahmawatı; Muhamad Imaduddin; Arghob Khofya Haqiqi; Achmad Ali Fikri; Ulya Fawaıda; Dody Rahayu Prasetyo; Chatree Faıkhamta

doi:10.17275/per.20.24.7.2

EN

Assessing Psychosocial Outdoor Learning Environment of Pre-service Science Teachers through The Field Trip Experiences

Abstract

Field trip activities are often considered additional activities and are considered recreational activities rather than ones that teach science effectively to students. Field trip activities are one form of effective experience-based learning to train pre-service teachers in the outdoor environment. This study attempted to describe the design of outdoor science learning in the form of the field trip for pre-service science teachers (PSTs) and the condition of psychosocial learning environments in outdoor activities. This research is a case study carried out in a pre-service science teacher training program at Institut Agama Islam Negeri Kudus, Indonesia. The field trip was designed with field visits on six objects for three days in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. The field trip activity was attended by 70 PSTs. Qualitative data is captured through the documentation of activities at each outdoor learning location. Quantitative data collection instruments included seven psychosocial scales, namely (1) Environmental Interaction; (2) Integration; (3) Students cohesiveness; (4) Teacher supportiveness; (5) Open-endedness; (6) Preparation and organization; (7) Material environment. The field trip design for PSTs recommends activities that lead to observation and exploration of visiting objects relating not only to the content of the science but also to the pedagogical aspects of the science. The psychosocial aspects of PSTs indicate that field trip activities show a positive meaning in all aspects, although there are significant differences in the conditions of expectations and reality experienced by PSTs. The integration aspect is not significantly different. The decline in perception is still at the medium level, and the condition of the perception is still at a positive level. Research and development studies that emphasize the process of integrating classroom learning with outdoor activities can be carried out further to be able to give meaning to science learning, which is not limited by classrooms or laboratories.

Keywords

Psychosocial,Outdoor learning environment,Field trip,Pre-service science teachers

Supporting Institution

Institut Agama Islam Negeri Kudus

Project Number

5560/In.37/B/11/2019

Thanks

We would like to thank the financial support of the Institut Agama Islam Negeri Kudus. Secondly, we would also like to thank all of you who have helped collect research data that includes pre-service science teachers from IAIN Kudus who are class A and B, class of 2017/2018; Cibodas Botanical Garden; Center for Demonstration of Science and Technology, Sundial; Natural Sciences Education Study Program, Indonesian University of Education; SEAMEO Regional Center for Quality Improvement of Teachers and Education Personnel (QITEP) in Science; Pudak Scientific; and Boscha Observatory. We are also grateful for the collaboration with Kasetsart University in the preparation of ideas and the design of the instrument script.

References

Ahmad, C. N. C., Osman, K., & Halim, L. (2012). Relationship Between Physical and Psychosocial Aspects in Science Laboratory Learning Environment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1500–1505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.329
Arianti, Y., & Aminatun, T. (2019). An analysis of outdoor learning towards students’ outcomes in learning biology. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1241(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1241/1/012061
Ash, D., & Wells, G. (2006). Dialogic Inquiry in Classroom and Museum. In N. C. Z. Bekerman, B. Burbles, & D. Silberman-Keller (Eds.), The Informal Education Reader (pp. 35–54). Peter Lang.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Hughes, K., & Dierking, L. (2007). Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Environmental Education Research, 13(3), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701430604
Bamberger, Y., & Tal, T. (2008). Multiple outcomes of class visits to natural history museums: The students’ view. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(3), 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9097-3
Behrendt, M., & Franklin, T. (2014). A Review of Research on School Field Trips and Their Value in Education. 3, 235–245. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijese.2014.213a
Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places and Pursuits. The National Academies Press.
Boeve-de Pauw, J., Van Hoof, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2019). Effective field trips in nature: the interplay between novelty and learning. Journal of Biological Education, 53(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1418760
Bozdoğan, A. E. (2016). The Effect of Planetarium Trip on Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Metaphorical Perceptions about Planetariums. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(4), 70–84.
Bozdoğan, A. E. (2018). Determination of Turkish Prospective Teachers’ Past Field Trip Experiences and Examination of Their Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Planning and Organising Educational Field Trips Regarding Various Variables. Participatory Educational Research, 5(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.18.8.5.2

Caires, S., Almeida, L., & Vieira, D. (2012). Becoming a teacher: Student teachers’ experiences and perceptions about teaching practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.643395
Chang, J., Faikhamta, C., Na, J., & Song, J. (2018). A comparison of science classroom environments between Korea and Thailand with a focus on their cultural features. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 4(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-018-0028-1
Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2016). The value of outdoor learning: Evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere. Towards a Convergence Between Science and Environmental Education: The Selected Works of Justin Dillon, January, 179–185. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315730486
Djonko-moore, C. M., & Joseph, N. M. (2016). Out of the Classroom and Into the City : The Use of Field Trips as an Experiential Learning Tool in Teacher Education. SAGE Open, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016649648
Education, S., & Development, C. (2019). Analysis of the influence of outdoor education activities on seventh grade students Erol TAŞ. 6(2), 122–143.
Falk, J. H., & Balling, J. D. (1982). The field trip milieu: Learning and behavior as a function of contextual events. Journal of Educational Research, 76(1), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1982.10885418
Fido, H. S. A., & Gaylord, C. G. (1982). Field work and the biology teacher: A survey in secondary schools in England and Wales. Journal of Biological Education, 16(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1982.9654414
Fraser, B. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1986). Validation and Application of the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI). American Educational Research Association, 1–25.
Glaab, S., & Heyne, T. (2019). Focus wildlife park: Outdoor learning at workstations for primary school children. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2018.1554461
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Hofstein, A., & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the gap between formal and informal science learning. Studies in Science Education, 28(1), 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269608560085
Kangas, M., Vuojärvi, H., & Siklander, P. (2018). Hiking in the wilderness: Interplay between teachers’ and students’ agencies in outdoor learning. Education in the North, 25(3), 7–31.
Knapp, D., & Barrie, E. (2001). Content evaluation of an environmental science field trip. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(4), 351–357. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012247203157
Lei, S. A. (2010). Field trips in college biology and ecology courses: Revisiting benefits anddrawbacks. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(1), 42–48.
Marcus, A. (2008). Rethinking museums’ adult education for K-12 teachers. Journal of Museum Education, 33, 55–78.
Martin, S. (2006). Where practice and theory intersect in the chemistry classroom: Using cogenerative dialogue to identify the critical point in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(4), 693–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-006-9031-z
McKenzie, G., Utgard, R., & Lisowski, M. (1986). The importance of field trip: A geological example. Journal of College Science Teaching, 16, 17–20.
Michie, M. (1998). Factors influencing secondary science teachers to organise and conduct field trips. Australian Science Teacher’s Journal, 44, 43–50.
Morag, O., & Tal, T. (2012). Assessing Learning in the Outdoors with the Field Trip in Natural Environments (FiNE) Framework. International Journal of Science Education, 34(5), 745–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.599046
Nadelson, L. S., Jordan, J. R., & Jordan, J. R. (2012). Student Attitudes Toward and Recall of Outside Day : An Environmental. October 2014, 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.576715
Olgun, Ö. S. (2009). Engaging elementary preservice teachers with active learning teaching methodologies. Teacher Educator, 44(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730902721772
Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1097–1119. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660311005
Orion, N., Hofstein, A., Tamir, P., & Gidding, G. J. (1997). Development and Validation of an Instrument for Assessing Mathematics Classroom Environment in Tertiary Institutions. Science Education, 81, 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0138-1
Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2004). A review of research on outdoor learning (Issue March).

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Other Fields of Education

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Rukhaini Fitri Rahmawatı
0000-0003-1176-7517
Indonesia

Muhamad Imaduddin ^*
0000-0002-3619-9985
Indonesia

Arghob Khofya Haqiqi
0000-0003-2820-2213
Indonesia

Achmad Ali Fikri
0000-0002-2950-4865
Indonesia

Ulya Fawaıda
0000-0001-6115-1409
Indonesia

Dody Rahayu Prasetyo
0000-0003-1887-4219
Indonesia

Chatree Faıkhamta
0000-0001-7364-9140
Thailand

Publication Date

August 1, 2020

Submission Date

January 28, 2020

Acceptance Date

April 25, 2020

Published in Issue

Year 2020 Volume: 7 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.20.24.7.2

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA26EW96AL

APA

Rahmawatı, R. F., Imaduddin, M., Haqiqi, A. K., Fikri, A. A., Fawaıda, U., Prasetyo, D. R., & Faıkhamta, C. (2020). Assessing Psychosocial Outdoor Learning Environment of Pre-service Science Teachers through The Field Trip Experiences. Participatory Educational Research, 7(2), 135-150. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.20.24.7.2

AMA

1.Rahmawatı RF, Imaduddin M, Haqiqi AK, et al. Assessing Psychosocial Outdoor Learning Environment of Pre-service Science Teachers through The Field Trip Experiences. PER. 2020;7(2):135-150. doi:10.17275/per.20.24.7.2

Chicago

Rahmawatı, Rukhaini Fitri, Muhamad Imaduddin, Arghob Khofya Haqiqi, et al. 2020. “Assessing Psychosocial Outdoor Learning Environment of Pre-Service Science Teachers through The Field Trip Experiences”. Participatory Educational Research 7 (2): 135-50. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.20.24.7.2.

EndNote

Rahmawatı RF, Imaduddin M, Haqiqi AK, Fikri AA, Fawaıda U, Prasetyo DR, Faıkhamta C (August 1, 2020) Assessing Psychosocial Outdoor Learning Environment of Pre-service Science Teachers through The Field Trip Experiences. Participatory Educational Research 7 2 135–150.

IEEE

[1]R. F. Rahmawatı et al., “Assessing Psychosocial Outdoor Learning Environment of Pre-service Science Teachers through The Field Trip Experiences”, PER, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 135–150, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.17275/per.20.24.7.2.

ISNAD

Rahmawatı, Rukhaini Fitri - Imaduddin, Muhamad - Haqiqi, Arghob Khofya - Fikri, Achmad Ali - Fawaıda, Ulya - Prasetyo, Dody Rahayu - Faıkhamta, Chatree. “Assessing Psychosocial Outdoor Learning Environment of Pre-Service Science Teachers through The Field Trip Experiences”. Participatory Educational Research 7/2 (August 1, 2020): 135-150. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.20.24.7.2.

JAMA

1.Rahmawatı RF, Imaduddin M, Haqiqi AK, Fikri AA, Fawaıda U, Prasetyo DR, Faıkhamta C. Assessing Psychosocial Outdoor Learning Environment of Pre-service Science Teachers through The Field Trip Experiences. PER. 2020;7:135–150.

MLA

Rahmawatı, Rukhaini Fitri, et al. “Assessing Psychosocial Outdoor Learning Environment of Pre-Service Science Teachers through The Field Trip Experiences”. Participatory Educational Research, vol. 7, no. 2, Aug. 2020, pp. 135-50, doi:10.17275/per.20.24.7.2.

Vancouver

1.Rukhaini Fitri Rahmawatı, Muhamad Imaduddin, Arghob Khofya Haqiqi, Achmad Ali Fikri, Ulya Fawaıda, Dody Rahayu Prasetyo, Chatree Faıkhamta. Assessing Psychosocial Outdoor Learning Environment of Pre-service Science Teachers through The Field Trip Experiences. PER. 2020 Aug. 1;7(2):135-50. doi:10.17275/per.20.24.7.2