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

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 135 - 150, 01.08.2020

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

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

Cited By: 3

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

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

Destekleyen Kurum

Institut Agama Islam Negeri Kudus

Proje Numarası

5560/In.37/B/11/2019

Teşekkür

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.

Kaynakça

• 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).