’s Alpha has been calculated separately for each of the factors in addition to the whole data (see Table 3).
The three factors were also tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnovin test and proved to be based on normal distribution data.
In the methodology, the critical value for Cronbach’s Alpha is considered to be above the 0.7 level. As the results of Table 3 show, all the items and variables turned out to be reliable in this study.
In addition, the correlations between the variables turned out to be suitable. Nearly all the correlations among the variables included in each of the three factors were between 0.2 and 0.6. These values fulfil the Tabanik-Fid- ell criteria for valid and reliable factor analysis. In addition, the correlations are not so high as to be at risk of multicollinearity.
The variables have been pre-tested and measured using an existing ordinal scale. The variables and items were also divided according to the normal distribution. The data did not contain any outliers or observations crucially distant from the rest of the data.
The traditional way of evaluating the reliability is the split-half method. In this case, a practical way of viewing the data was to analyse the data from the years 2010 and 2011 separately.
All the items of the factor analysis were crosschecked using the independent samples t-test. Only one item showed statistically significant difference, which is most probably only because of random variation while operating on the risk level p < 0.05 (The item was number 13, Organisational changes).
The factor analysis of the entire data (years 2010 and 2011) also produced very similar results to the 2011 data alone. All three factors (Role, Environment, Innovativeness) were loaded according to exactly the same schema and values. The items excluded were also nearly identical: in the original data the variables rejected were 12, 25, 26, and in the united data they were 4, 12, 26.
The results related to the age of the subjects were the most interesting. However, the distribution of the age groups was within a narrow range: under 22 years old, 23 to 30 years old and over 30 years old. The outcome related to age was so clear that it indicates that the older, in-service teachers should be the target audience of further study of the NEMP-model.
ANOVA-tests are not totally robust and immune to data that is not formed according to the normal distribution (Field, 2009: pp. 359-360, 559) . In the items in our data, positive answers dominated in some variables, causing the forms of distributions to be skewed to the left. To avoid any wrong, unreliable interpretations, the results produced by the ANOVA-tests have been double-checked using non-parametric tests (Clark-Carter, 2010) . As a replacement of the t-test, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z-test was utilised when evaluating the age group differences (Field, 2009: p. 548) . In addition, ANOVA-tests were filtered through the Jonckheere-Terpsta- test, because there was a presumption that the trends within the groups would grow systematically (Field, 2009: p. 568) . In summary, the non-parametric tests produced identical answers to the demanding matching methods of the original tests.
How does the tool known as New Educational Models or Paradigms, originally developed for ICT-education research purposes, and here used in a modified version, fit for the research of Outdoor Education (OE) for the
Table 3. Cronbach’s alpha separately for all variables and the three factors of outdoor education (OE).
teacher professional development? The empirical results of this study support the theoretical part of the New Educational Models or Paradigms presented in the paper. The factor analysis and the other outcomes of the data confirm the design of the study. The entity certainly gives new evidence for the development of outdoor education.
The data was collected during two different autumns. This gave an opportunity to view the data according to the split-half method. Theoretically, for several reasons, there was no motivation to hold the presumption that the results would be different: 1) the students were selected for university using the same type of tests and examinations, 2) the official content of the course has remained the same and 3) the lecturer in charge of the outdoor education did not change. The empirical data supported the hypothesis. There was no difference between the results in the data collected in 2010 and 2011.
Even the items excluded from the factor analysis provide new thoughts for the further development of the NEMP theory. Items number 4 (“instruction tool”), 12 (“technological innovation”) and 26 (“Multi-disciplinary approaches”) were excluded from the factor analysis as reported in the Results chapter. These variables were left out of the factor analysis because they did not correlate with their own factor. Otherwise, the following items were eligible: variance was high enough, and the form (skewness: kurtosis) reached above average-level values. Items number 4 and 12 did not correlate with the variables they should have, and conversely, item 26 did correlate with practically all of the items. This is the mathematical and statistical explanation for excluding these three items.
What are the pedagogical benefits of using Outdoor Education (OE) applications in teaching biology at school? The items excluded from the factor analysis provide new thoughts for the further development of the NEMP theory. First of all, the fact that the item Multi-disciplinary approaches correlated with nearly all other items indicates that outdoor education is very integrative by nature. It combines several topics, such as biology, geography, geology and environmental education. Outdoor education also seems to have a very holistic nature; it captures the students’ imagination and engages them immediately in real action. There is no essential need for ‘instruction tool’, as represented by item 4. Outdoor education also takes place in nature, and the item technological innovation might sound irrelevant and out-of context.
The differences related to age and schoolwork experience gave certain indications. Teachers with more practical classroom experience clearly see more options to break routines by using the new alternatives and challenges offered by outdoor education. As was reported earlier in the Results section, these differences turned up especially in the context of the items Knowledge market place, Communication forum and Information bank. Those teachers with more experience, and perhaps also with more self-confidence, felt that outdoor education contains knowledge-based elements which do not exist in the classroom environment, in text books or in audiovisual or ICT-materials.
There was also a statistically significant difference related to age and work experience in regard to the items Outdoor education as provider of feedback and Outdoor education as tool. It seems that real work as a teacher gives more vision about how to apply outdoor education solutions.
The results strongly support the vision of utilising short-term PD-efforts (Lauer, Christopher, Firpo-Triplet, & Buchting, 2014) instead or side-by-side with long lasting courses (Guskey & Yoon, 2009) . The results of this study encourage the use of intervention type activities in teacher professional development.
The results contain clear hints that the study should be repeated among teachers in in-service training. This might provide new evidence for the practice of outdoor education and strengthen the methods of the NEMP approach that came out of this study, thus making it a reliable tool and valid theory.
In Finland, the new trend (National Board of Education, 2015) underlines interactive teaching environments and learning out of school as a resource for teaching. Learning should be multifaceted and combined to place and time. Besides the traditional subject orientated teaching the curricula give guidelines about how to use an approach called “phenomenon based learning”.
How does the role of Outdoor Education (OE) in teaching biology at school differ from the role of using traditional classroom applications? Environmental problems such as the loss of habitats and biodiversity, climate change and all the other environmental challenges will have to be faced by everyone today and in the future (Hanski, 2011; Harley, 2011) .
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
|||Ahtee, M., Suomela, L., Juuti, K., Lampiselk?, J., & Lavonen, J. (2009). Primary School Student Teachers’ Views about Making Observations. NorDiNa, 5, 128-141.|
|||Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (2002). Nature-Based Excursions: School Students’ Perceptions of Learning in Natural Environments. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 11, 218-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10382040208667488|
|||Baram-Tsabari, A., & Segev, E. (2011). Exploring New Web-Based Tools to Identify Public Interest in Science. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 130-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662509346496|
|||Barker, S., Slingsby, D., & Tilling, S. (2002). Teaching Biology outside the Classroom. Is It Heading for Extinction? A Report on Biology Fieldwork in the 14-19 Curriculum. British Ecological Society.|
|||Bilton, H. (2010). Outdoor Learning in the Early Years. Management and Innovation (3rd Edition). New York: Routledge.|
|||Bitgood, S. (1988). A Comparison of Formal and Informal Learning. Technical Report 88-10. Jacksonville, AL: Center for Social Design.|
|||Bogner, F. X. (1998). The Influence of Short-Term Outdoor Ecology Education on Long-Term Variables of Environmental Perspective. Journal of Environmental Education, 29, 17-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958969809599124|
|||Bogner, F. X., & Wiseman, M. (2004). Outdoor Ecology Education and Pupils’ Environmental Perception in Preservation and Utilization. Science Education International, 15, 27-48.|
|||Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2007). Towards a More Authentic Science Curriculum: The Contribution of Out-of-School Learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1373-1388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690500498419|
|||Catling, S. (1998). Geography in the National Curriculum and beyond. In Carter, R. (Eds.), Handbook of Primary Geography (pp. 29-41). Hong Kong: Colorcraft Limited.|
|||Cavas, B. (2011). Outdoor Education in Natural Life Park: An Experience from Turkey. Science Education International, 22, 152-160.|
|||Chawla, L., & Flanders, D. (2007). Educating for Strategic Environmental Behavior. Environmental Education Research, 13, 437-452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620701581539|
|||Clark-Carter, D. (2010). Quantitative Psychological Research: The Complete Student’s Companion. Sussex: Psychology Press—Taylor & Francis.|
|||Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education (7th ed.). London: Routledge.|
|||Crane, V., Nicholson, H., Chen, M., & Bitgood, S. (1994). Informal Science Learning. Dedham, MA: Research Communications.|
|||D’Amato, L. G., & Krasny, M. E. (2011). Outdoor Adventure Education: Applying Transformative Learning Theory to Understanding Instrumental Learning and Personal Growth in Environmental Education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 42, 237-254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2011.581313|
|||Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2007). SDT-Theory. http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/|
|||Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (1997). School Field Trips: Assessing Their Long-Term Impact. Curator, 40, 211-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1997.tb01304.x|
|||Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Young 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.|
|||Dye, V., Herrington, M., Hughes, J., Kendall, A., Lacey, C., & Smith, R. (2010). Collaborative Writing and Dis-Continuing Professional Development: Challenging the Rituals and Rules of the Education Game? Professional Development in Education, 36, 289-306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415250903457497|
|||Eaton, D. (1998). Cognitive and Affective Learning in Outdoor Education. Dissertation, Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, Toronto: University of Toronto.|
|||Erdogan, M., Erentay, N., Barss, M., & Nechita, A. (2008).Students’Awareness of Endangered Species and Threatened Environments: A Comparative Case-Study. International Journal on Hands-on Science, 1, 1-8.|
|||Falk, J. (1982). Environmental Education: Formal vs. Informal Learning. Environmental Education and Information, 2, 171- 178.|
|||Falk, J. (2005). Free-Choice Environmental Learning: Framing the Discussion. Environmental Education research, 13, 437- 452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620500081129|
|||Fenichel, M., & Scheingruber, H. (2010). Surrounded by Science. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.|
|||Fenyvesi, K., Koskimaa, R., & Lavicza, Z. (2015). Experiential Education of Mathematics: Art and Games for Digital Natives. Kasvatus & Aika, 9, 107-134.|
|||Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications.|
|||Frantz-Pittner, A., Grabner, S., & Bachmann, G. (2011). Science Center Didaktik. Hohengehren: Schneider Verlag.|
|||Gafoor, K. A., & Smitha, N. (2012). Out-of-School Experience Categories Influencing Interest in Science of Upper Primary Students by Gender and Locale: Exploration on an INDIAN Sample. Science Education International, 23, 191-204.|
|||Gardner, H. (1991). The Unschooled Mind. How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach. New York: Basic Books.|
|||Goldschmidt, M., & Bogner, F. (2015). Learning about Genetic Engineering in an Outreach Laboratory: Influence of Motivation and Gender on Students’ Cognitive Achievement. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 6, Advance Online Pub.|
|||Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional Development and Teacher Change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8, 381- 391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512|
|||Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What Works in Professional Development? Phi delta kappan, 90, 495-500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003172170909000709|
|||Hanski, I. (2011). Habitat Loss, the Dynamics of Biodiversity, and a Perspective on Conservation. Ambio, 40, 248-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0147-3|
|||Harley, C. D. G. (2011). Climate Change, Keystone Predation, and Biodiversity Loss. Science, 334, 1124-1127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1210199|
|||Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The Meaning of Scientific Literacy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4, 275-288.|
|||Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling Society. New York: Harper and Row.|
|||Jarvis, T., & Pell, A. (2004).Primary Teachers’ Changing Attitudes and Cognition during a Two-Year Science In-Service Programme and Their Effect on Pupils. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1787-1811. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000243763|
|||Job, D. (1999). New Directions in Geographical Fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.|
Kaasinen, A., & Suomela, L. (2012). Examples of Implementing Outdoor Education. In H. Salmi (Ed.), Implementing Inquiry beyond the School (pp. 12-18). EU: The Fibonacci Project.
|||Lambert, D., & Balderstone, D. (2010). Learning to Teach Geography in the Secondary School (2nd ed.). A Companion to School Experience, London: Routledge.|
|||Larson, L. R., Green, G. T., & Castleberry, S. B. (2009). “I’m too Old to Go Outside!” Examining Age-Related Differences in Children’s Environmental Orientations. In C. E. Watts Jr., & C. L. Fisher (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (pp. 42-46). Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-66. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.|
|||Larson, L. R., Green, G. T., & Castleberry, S. B. (2011). Construction and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Environmental Orientations in a Diverse Group of Children. Environment and Behavior, 43, 72-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916509345212|
|||Lauer, P. A., Christopher, D. E., Firpo-Triplett, R., & Buchting, F. (2014). The Impact of Short-Term Professional Development on Participant Outcomes: A Review of the Literature. Professional Development in Education, 40, 207-227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2013.776619|
|||Lom, E., & Sullenger, K. (2010). Informal Spaces in Collaborations: Exploring the Edges/Boundaries of Professional Development. Professional Development in Education, 37, 55-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2010.489811|
|||Luehmann, A., & Markowitz, D. (2007). Science Teacher’s Perceived Benefits of an Out-of-School Enrichment Programme: Identity Needs and University Affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1133-1161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690600944429|
|||Melton, A. (1935). Problems of Installation in Museums of Art: Studies in Museum Education. In E. Robinson (Eds.), New Series 1e.Classical Reprint (pp. 4-23). Washington DC: American Association of Museums. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11526-000|
|||National Board of Education (2004). http://www.oph.fi/english|
|||National Board of Education (2015). National Curriculum 2016. http://www.oph.fi/english/curricula_and_qualifications/basic_education|
|||Neal, P., & Palmer, J. (1990). Environmental Education in the Primary School. Trowbridge: Dotesios.|
|||Newsom, B., & Silver, Z. (Eds.) (1978). Art Museum as an Educator: A Collection of Studies as Guides to Practice and Policy. Berkeley: University of California Press.|
|||Niklasson, L., & Sandberg, A. (2010). Children and the Outdoor Environment. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18, 485-496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2010.525945|
|||Osborne, J. F., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science Education in Europe. London: Nuffield Foundation.|
|||Ozden, M. (2008). Environmental Awareness and Attitudes of Student Teachers: An Empirical Research. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 17, 40-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/irgee227.0|
|||Rennie, L. (2014). Learning Science Outside of School, 120-144. In N. Lederman, & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 120-144). Vol. 2, New York: Routledge.|
|||Rennie, L., Feher, E., Dirking, L., & Falk, J. (2003). Towards an Agenda for Advancing Research on Science Learning in Out-of-School Settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 112-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.10067|
|||Richardson, P. (1998). Fieldwork. In R. Carter (Eds.), Handbook of Primary Geography (pp. 181-195). Geographical Association, Hong Kong: Colorcraft Limited.|
|||Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2004). A Review of Research on Outdoor Learning. National Foundation for Educational Research and King’s College London.|
|||Salmi, H. (1993). Science Centre Education, Motivation and Learning in Informal Education. Research Report 119, Department of Teacher Education, Helsinki: University of Helsinki.|
|||Salmi, H. (2003). Science Centres as Learning Laboratories. International Journal of Technology Management, 25, 460-476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2003.003113|
|||Salmi, H. (2011). Evidence of Bridging the Gap between Formal and Informal Learning through Teacher Education. Reflecting Education, 8, 45-61.|
|||Salmi, H., Kaasinen, A., & Kallunki, V. (2012). Towards an Open Learning Environment via Augmented Reality (AR): Visualising the Invisible in Science Centres and Schools for Teacher Education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 45, 284-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.565|
|||Salmi, H., Vainikainen, M.-P., & Thuneberg, H. (2015). Mathematical Thinking Skills, Self-Concept and Learning Outcomes of 12-Year-Olds Visiting a Mathematics Science Centre Exhibition in Latvia and Sweden. Journal of Science Com- munication, 14, 1-19.|
|||Sturm, H., & Bogner, F. X. (2010). Learning at Workstations in Two Different Environments: A Museum and a Classroom. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 36, 14-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2010.09.002|
|||Tal, R. T. (2001). Incorporating Field Trips as Science Learning Environment Enrichment: An Interpretive Study. Learning Environments Research, 4, 25-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011454625413|
|||Thuneberg, H. (2007). Is a Majority Enough? Psychological Well-Being and Its Relation to Academic and Prosocial Motivation, Self-Regulation and Achievement at School. Research Report 281, Department of Education, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.|
|||Tran, N. (2011). The Relationship between Students’ Connections to Out-of-School Experiences and Factors Associated with Science Learning. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1625-1651. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.516030|
|||Turner, C. (2006). Informal Learning and Its Relevance to the Early Professional Development of Teachers in Secondary Schools in England and Wales. Journal of In-Service Education, 32, 301-319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13674580600841885|
|||Yerkes, R., & Haras, K. (1997). Outdoor Education and Environmental Responsibility. Charleston, WV: ERIC Digest.|
|||Zoldasova, K., & Prokop, P. (2006). Education in the Field Influences Children′s Ideas and Interest toward Science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 304-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9017-3|
Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.