Validating an Environmental Education Field Day Observation Tool

Abstract

Environmental Field Days (EFD) are held throughout the country and provide a unique opportunity to involve students in real world science. A study to assess the validity of an observation tool for EFD programs was conducted at the Metro Water Festival with fifth grade students. Items from the observation tool were mapped to students’ evaluation questions to determine the degree to which observed characteristics of the field day are aligned with student perception. The data support the conclusion that the observation tool not only captures the perspective of a trained observer on the educational potential of a field day, but also the perceived experience of the field day audience (the students): Despite the fact that the observation tool was designed to capture an expert perspective on effective pedagogy and educational practice (rather than student satisfaction), 20 out of 26 items correlated between the observer’s and student’s assessment tool.

Keywords

• : observation tool, environmental field day, validity study, informal science, empirical research

Kaynakça

1. References References References
2. Barney, E., Mintzes, J., & Yen, C. (2005) Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and behavior toward charismatic megafauna: The case of dolphins. The Journal of Environmental Education, 36(2), 41-55.
3. Brown, F. S., (1996). The Effect fo an Inquiry-oriented Environmental Science Course On Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Attitudes about Science. Presentation to Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
4. Carlson, S. P. (2008) Environmental field days: Recommendations for success. Applied Environmental Education and Communication4, 94-105.
5. Carlson, S. P., Heimlich, J. E., Storksdieck, M. & Meyer, N. (2009). Best Practices for Field Days: Assessment Tool and Observation Protocol. U on MN Extension #08653.
6. Dorman, J. P. (2003). Cross-national validation of the what is happening in this class? (WIHIC) questionnaire using confirmatory factor analysis. Learning Environments Research, 6(3), 1573-1855.
7. DeWitt, J. & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A short review on school field trips: Key findings from the past and implications for the future. Visitor Studies 11(2): 181-197.
8. DiEnno, C., & Hilton, S. (2005) High school students’ knowledge, attitudes, and levels of enjoyment of an environmental education unit on nonnative plants. The Journal of Environmental Education,37(1), 13-23.

9. Farmer, J., Knapp, D., & Benton, G. (2007) An elementary school environmental education field trip: Long-term effects on ecological and environmental knowledge and attitude development. The Journal of Environmental Education, 38(3), 33-42.
10. Fortner, R. W. (2001). The right tools for the job: How can aquatic resource education Succeed in the classroom? The Ohio State University.
11. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environment Research, 1, 7-33.
12. Fraser, B. J. & Fisher, D.L. (1982). Predicting students’ outcomes from their perceptionof Education Research Journal, 19,468-518. psychosocial environment. American
13. Heimlich, J. E., Carlson, S. P. Tanner, D. & Storksdieck, M. (accepted 2010). Building face, construct and content validity through use of a modified Delphi: Adapting grounded theory to build an observation tool. Environmental Education Research.
14. Henderson, D. G., Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Learning Environment, Student Attitudes and Effects of Students’ Sex and Other Science Study in Environmental Science Classes. Presentation to Annual Meeting of the American Educational research Association, April 13-17.
15. High Scope Educational Research Foundation (2006) Youth Program Quality Assessment. High Scope Press, Ypsilanti, MI.
16. Hintze, J. M. (2005). Psychometrics of Direct Observation. School of Psychology Review, 34(4), 507-519.
17. Knapp, D. H., & Benton, G. (2006) Episodic and semantic memories of a residential environmental education program, Education Research, 12, 165-177. Environmental
18. Lawrenz, F. (1987) Gender effects for student perception of the classroom psychosocial environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 689-697.
19. McDonnell, J.D. (2001). Best practices in marine and coastal science education: Lessons learned from a National Estuarine Research Reserve. In: Fedler, A.J. (Ed.), Defining Best Practices in Boating, Fishing, and Stewardship Education, 173-182.
20. Meyer, N.J. & Pardello, R. (Eds.). (2005). Best practices for field days: A program planning guidebook for organizers, presenters, teachers and volunteers. St Paul: Environmental Science Education Work Group,University of MN Extension.
21. National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Schweingruber, and A.W. Shouse (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. H.A.
22. National Research Council (2009).
23. Learning Science in Informal
24. Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Committee on Learning
25. Science in Informal Environments. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A.W.
26. Shouse, and M.A. Feder (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center
27. for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
28. Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
29. North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE). (1996). Environmental education materials: Guidelines for excellence. Troy, OH: author.
30. Poudel, D.D., Vincent, L.M., Anzalone, C., Huner, J., Wollard, D., Clement, T., DeRamus, A. &Blakewood, G. (Summer, 2005). Hands-on activities and challenge tests in agricultural and environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education. 36(4), 10-22.
31. Siemer, W.F. (2001). Best practices for curriculum, teaching, and evaluation: Components of aquatic stewardship education. Curriculum, Teaching and Evaluation Components. Cornell University.
32. Stevens, M. & Andrews, E. (Eds.). (February, 2006). Outreach that makes a difference: Target audiences for water education – A research meta- analysis. A study conducted for the National Extension Water Outreach Project. University of Wisconsin.
33. Storksdieck, M., Heimlich, J.E., Figueriredo, C., Carlson, S. P. Environmental Field Days Assessment Tool: Reliability Study U of MN Extension, #523-04. (2009).
34. Storksdieck, M., Kaul, V. & Werner, M. (2006). Tackling it together: Local partnerships to improve field trip experiences. NARST 2006 Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, April 3-6, 2006.
35. Storksdieck, M. (2006). Field trips in environmental education. Berlin, Germany: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag.
36. Talton, E.L. & Simpson, R.D. (1987). Relationships of attitude toward classroom environment with attitudes toward and achievement in science among tenth grade biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 507-525.
37. Wahyudi, & Treagust, D.F. (2004). The status of science classroom learning environments in Indonesian lower secondary schools. Learning Environments Research, 7(1), 1387-1579.
38. Wang, H. H. & Carlson, S. P. (2011). Factors that Influence Student’s Learning in an Environmental Field Day.International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education. 1 (2), 129-139.