Morag 2012

This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]
On: 11 February 2015, At: 19:02

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Science

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20
Assessing Learning in the Outdoors with

the Field Trip in Natural Environments
(FiNE) Framework
a a
Orly Morag & Tali Tal
a
Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion ,
Haifa , Israel
Published online: 31 Aug 2011.
To cite this article: Orly Morag & Tali Tal (2012) Assessing Learning in the Outdoors with the Field
Trip in Natural Environments (FiNE) Framework, International Journal of Science Education, 34:5,
745-777, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2011.599046
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.599046
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
International Journal of Science Education
Vol. 34, No. 5, March 2012, pp. 745 –777
Assessing Learning in the Outdoors

with the Field Trip in Natural
Environments (FiNE) Framework
Orly Morag and Tali Tal∗
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 19:02 11 February 2015
Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion, Haifa, Israel
The development and application of a framework that captures main characteristics of learning in
nature—the Field Trip in Natural Environments (FiNE) framework—is the main outcome of this
study that followed up 22 daily field trips of 4–6th grade students to nature parks. The
theoretical and practical framework, which was developed based on the research literature and
the data collected, allows systematic analysis of various phases of the field trip: preparation,
pedagogy, activity and outcomes. The FiNE framework incorporates multiple views of the
researchers and participants and examines the pedagogy employed and the outcomes as reported
by the participating students. The employment of the framework indicates limited preparation
and the use of traditional pedagogies and highlights the importance of social interactions and
physical and learning activity. The FiNE framework provides researchers with a plausible scheme
to assess various components of field trips to nature and to elucidate possible outcomes of such
experiences.
Keywords: Assessment; Informal education; K-12; Field trip; Outdoor; Nature
School field trips to museums, zoos, aquariums and nature parks have always been an
important part of schooling, as evidenced by a long history of education research. Yet,
the relationship between schools and informal learning environments is not always
clear-cut, as described by the recent National Research Council (NRC) report
‘Learning Science in Informal Environments’ (Bell, Lewenstein, Shouse, & Feder,
2009). This difficulty serves as an impediment to integration of what is known
about learning across these settings. Since most studies in this area (including the
∗
Corresponding author: Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion, Haifa
32000, Israel. Email: rtal@technion.ac.il
ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/12/050745–33

# 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.599046
746 O. Morag and T. Tal
NRC report) have focused on designed environments, frameworks for understanding

learning in the outdoors are even scarcer.
Field trips are usually arranged by schools, have educational purposes and take
place in engaging and interactive settings. Various scholars have shown that such
trips can enhance students’ interest, motivation and other aspects of learning
(Dillon et al., 2006; Falk, Martin, & Balling, 1978; Hofstein & Rosenfeld, 1996;
Krepel & Durral, 1981; Rickinson et al., 2004). Regardless of how they are defined
(i.e., informal, non-formal, free-choice—see Storksdieck, 2006), all out-of-school
learning environments have a variety of cognitive, affective, social and behavioural
effects that can make a significant contribution to learning. The common perception
of the field trip is that it has potential to provide learners with hands-on experiences
that improve their understanding of complex and abstract ideas (Bell et al., 2009; Falk
& Balling, 1982; Falk et al., 1978; Orion & Hofstein, 1994). Other benefits widely dis-
cussed in the literature include the contextualization of learning, promoting good
learning design, promoting dialogue and interaction with fellow learners and encoura-
ging lifelong learning (Ash & Wells, 2006; Bamberger & Tal, 2008a, 2008b; Falk &
Dierking, 2000; Martin, 2004). The field trip, as an experiential learning event,
enables students to engage with real natural or sociological phenomena in a relevant
context and allows the instructor to bridge school content with authentic expressions
of more abstract ideas (Knapp & Barrie, 2001).
Within the great variety of out-of-school learning environments, the field trip in
nature differs in many ways from a museum, planetarium or science centre visit, as
it allows direct experiences with natural phenomena and wildlife. As Donaldson
and Donaldson (1958) put it, outdoor education’s methodology is ‘as old as
mankind—learning by using the senses out where the subject matter exists’ (p. 17).
Outdoor education also confronts the participant with potential discomforts and
fears from factors such as insects, heights, dirt, caves and so forth. More than any
other out-of-school setting, the field trip in nature has the potential to enhance pro-
environmental behaviour and awareness of conservation issues (Ballantyne, Packer,
Hughes, & Dierking, 2007). Despite many outdoor education programmes provided
to schools worldwide, and agreement on their value (Knapp & Barrie, 2001; Orion,
1993), relatively little research has focused on identifying and assessing good
outdoor education practice. We believe that our study suggests a general framework
to assess and design an entire field trip event that can be applied in a variety of settings.
We suggest a theoretical and working framework for the assessment of field trips in
nature parks and other outdoor settings within the natural environment (such as
archaeological parks). The framework is designed to elucidate the multifaceted
nature of the field trip experience and offers an instrument that makes it possible to
capture multiple views of the field trip while comprehensively examining its structure
and pedagogical components.
Our framework for learning in nature—the Field trip in Natural Environments
(FiNE) Framework—was inspired in part by the model for field trips in environmental
education (EE) developed by Storksdieck (2006). It reflects, as well, the work of
Brody (2005), who developed a theoretical framework for understanding learning
FiNE Framework 747
in nature. Both Storksdieck and Brody offer important, but incomplete, analyses of
the field trip as a learning experience. Storksdieck’s (2006) model includes the key
variables found in the growing body of literature on museum visits—namely, students’
prior interest and knowledge; components of the field trip itself and its short- and
long-term outcomes. However, this model is based on field trips to a single planetar-
ium show, and it is limited in its ability to assess field trips that occur in a range of
outdoor environments, in different seasons, and facilitated by different nature
guides. Brody (2005) presents a matrix in which the main constituents of meaningful
learning are distilled as acting, thinking and feeling, each interacting with the physical,
individual and social elements of the experience, and doing so across time. Our own
experience in studying field trips to museums and other out-of-school settings sup-
ports Brody’s basic thesis. Yet as we carried out observations of field trips in natural
settings, we realized that Brody’s scheme is not useful for comparing or assessing
different field trip experiences. Although we could identify the various components
in Brody’s model, the lack of any quantitative component meant that we could only
intuitively single out ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ elements. Moreover, while Brody’s matrix
helps to capture the learner’s experience, it offers no opportunity to assess other
factors such as planning and pedagogy that determine whether a field trip is
successful.
Based on our experiences and the literature on informal science education (dis-
cussed subsequently), we believe that to understand the overall learning experience
of the field trip, one needs to look at the planning and coordination that occur
before the field trip as well as at the pedagogical strategies and styles employed in
the field. For this reason, we sought a framework that could be used to assess both
the characteristics of the field trip event itself and the trip’s impact on students.
For the first time, we suggest a framework that focuses on the structural components
of the field trip, as well as on its outcomes; this framework provides a more holistic
view of the field trip experience than most other works do.
We developed and applied the FiNE framework through observations of 22 field
trips to various natural environments and interviews with 41 students. Our framework
incorporates two perspectives: those of (a) the learners, where we were influenced by
Brody’s (2005) matrix and the variables identified by Storksdieck (2006), and (b)
outside observers, whose role is to assess the field trip’s planning and pedagogy.
The aims of this study were twofold: (a) to develop a theoretical and practical frame-
work for evaluating the field trip to natural environments and (b) to use the evaluation
scheme in a variety of field trips and to address the following research questions:
(1) what are the characteristics of field trips to nature parks in Israel?
(2) what are the learning outcomes of such field trips?
Outdoor Learning
Outdoor education programmes occur in a variety of sites. They are sponsored by all
levels of educational institutions, state and local government agencies and private
enterprises, and they commonly employ no nationally standardized curriculum or

measures of competency or knowledge (Ford, 1986). Outdoor education has been
best defined as ‘education in, about, and for the out-of-doors’ (Donaldson & Donald-
son, 1958, p. 17). As Ford (1986) argues, this simple, yet comprehensive, definition
delineates where the learning takes place (in any outdoor setting), the general topic to
be taught (aspects of the natural world or the relationship between culture and the
environment) and the purpose of the activity (developing knowledge, skills and atti-
tudes about the world). Other terms often used in relation to outdoor education
include EE, conservation education, field school, outdoor recreation, outdoor pur-
suits, adventure education, experiential education and environmental interpretation.
The impacts of outdoor education are numerous. While there are many overlapping
benefits, they are usually classified into five different categories: cognitive (knowledge,
understanding and thinking skills); affective (feelings and attitudes); social (interact-
ing with others); physical (sensomotorical experiences) and behavioural (Brody,
Bangert, & Dillon, 2008; Knapp & Barrie, 2001; Rickinson et al., 2004). Rickinson
et al. (2004) argue that the outcomes of outdoor education, particularly outdoor
adventure programmes, in the affective domain include greater independence, confi-
dence, self-esteem, locus of control, self-efficacy, coping strategies and improved
interpersonal and social skills. Other outcomes of such programmes are lifelong mem-
ories, higher achievement, improving environmental attitudes and enhancing pro-
environmental behaviour, especially after extended programmes (Dillon et al.,
2006). Cognitively, outdoor education programmes enhance the ability to apply
theoretical knowledge ‘in the field’, to discover real-life examples of principles and
problems and to see things in a new perspective. The trips provide training in
problem-solving and decision-making within a real-world setting and help students
engage cognitively and emotionally with environmental issues (Ballantyne &
Packer, 2002; Storksdieck, 2006). While some authors include constructed environ-
ments in outdoor learning, in this paper, we will use the term only with regard to open
spaces such as nature parks, the wilderness, agricultural areas, archaeological parks
and gardens.
Previous Studies: Field trip constituents and methodologies

As noted above, there is little theoretical research on the assessment of field trips in the
outdoors from a broad, comparative perspective. Many studies have dealt with
specific programmes, aiming to elucidate their strengths, contributions or impact
(Ballantyne & Packer, 2002; Bogner, 1998, 1999; Emmons, 1997). Others have
studied specific features of programmes such as preparation and post-visit activities
(Anderson, Lucas, Ginns, & Dierking, 2000; Jarvis & Pell, 2005), the field trip activi-
ties themselves (Orion & Hofstein, 1994), the learning environment (Orion, Hofstein,
Tamir, & Giddings, 1997) or the specific content (Knapp & Barrie, 2001). These
studies have contributed a great deal to our understanding of good practice.
Brody (2005) is interested in the learner’s transformation, and in personal and
group experiences that lead to accommodation of ideas with respect to prior
FiNE Framework 749
knowledge, and their assimilation to an existing framework while creating a new

understanding. However, Brody’s (2005) theory of learning in nature is limited to
the student’s perspective. That is, while Brody identified factors that reflect the stu-
dent’s learning process, he did not study other relevant factors such as preparation
for the field trip, factors that affect how the field trip is carried out or how the field
trip is connected to the school curriculum. Storksdieck (2006) is more interested in
the relationships between pre-trip, trip and post-trip variables. The pre-trip variables
he identified include prior interest in environmental issues and prior environmental
attitudes; the trip variables include overall impression and short-term impact and
the post-trip variables include resulting environmental awareness and long-term
impact. Storksdieck found that although contextual factors (students’ prior interests
and attitudes) have a strong effect on attitudes, students who took part in formal and
informal EE programmes were likely to have greater interest in the environment and
more positive attitudes compared to students who had only school-based exposure to
environmental issues and students who were only exposed to informal sources such as
the media. Storksdieck found that 52% of the teachers did not prepare their students
for the visit and that only 13% provided detailed content information. This result is
congruent with previous findings that indicate limited involvement of teachers in pre-
paring students and in taking responsibility for the event itself (Bell et al., 2009; Tal,
Bamberger, & Morag, 2005). Storksdieck did not incorporate background variables
such as specific preparation of the students for the field trip and coordination
between the school and the planetarium into his suggested model.
Different studies have employed a variety of different methodologies. Knapp and
Barrie (2001), reporting on goals and expected outcomes for two programmes, used
multiple-choice items to assess knowledge and other forms of closed-ended items to
assess affect. Brody (2005) employed an interpretative methodology. He provides
helpful examples from students’ essays describing the processes of discovery and
interaction with phenomena and with peers that eventually yielded the desired con-
ceptual understanding. However, this method does not permit quantitative assess-
ment. Storksdieck (2006), in his large-scale quantitative study, used a self-
reported Likert-type questionnaire. Such an instrument cannot provide information
on learning processes and on how learning is associated with the features of the
field trip.
Method: Context, data dollection and analysis

We followed 22 field trips to nature and archeological parks in north and central Israel
during the school years of 2006/2007, 2007/2008 and 2008/2009. The 4–8 hour
trips were carried out by professional facilitators employed by a well-established
environmental organization. The school groups comprised fourth through sixth
graders (ages 9–12) from urban, suburban and rural schools serving populations of
diverse socio-economic status. It should be noted that in Israel, the vast majority of
one-day field trips to any out-of-school setting takes place in elementary school,
mainly in the upper grade levels (this is similar to what Storksdieck [2006] reports
from Germany). There were 20 –30 students in each group, accompanied by at least
one teacher, commonly the homeroom teacher, and one or two parent chaperones.
The meeting point with the facilitator was usually somewhere on the way to the
field trip location, or at the site itself. In all but two cases, this was the first meeting
of the facilitator, the teacher and the students. From that point on, the facilitator
took over the leadership, informed the students about the programme of the day
and guided the walk and accompanying activities. The teacher’s assistance was
limited mainly to maintaining discipline and ensuring the students’ safety.
In each field trip, the core activity involved walking along marked trails. During
these walks, the facilitator offered explanations and demonstrations regarding the
site’s geography, history and/or wildlife. Sometimes, the facilitator led activities
and/or games. During the walk, a chaperone was asked to stay at the back of the
group; often, the teacher joined the parent at the back. All the field trips took place
in the outdoors, and the students carried small backpacks with their lunch and
water bottles.
We received the list of schools that registered for field trips during the study period
from the environmental organization that facilitated the trips. All the schools gave
their consent for data collection in the form of non-participant observation and
short interviews with teachers. Seven schools, randomly chosen from the list, gave
their consent for in-depth interviews with students as well.
Observations were initially carried out by the two authors who are experienced in
outdoor education and by three other experts who observed a few field trips, as will
be described later, in the reliability and validity section. After the two researchers
reached 85% agreement on their scoring of the observed features, the first author,
who has more than 20 years of experience teaching in schools and in the outdoors,
continued observing the field trips. She joined the group on its way to the field trip
site and was present while the facilitator met the students. On the way to the field
trip site, and during the field trip itself, she briefly interviewed teachers and
facilitators.
Student Interviews
Forty-one students from seven schools were interviewed a day before the field trip and
again a day or two after. Both interviews took place in school, in a quiet and comfor-
table place. All the interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. In the interviews, stu-
dents were asked about their expectations for the field trip and about the extent to
which these expectations were fulfilled. They were asked as well about preparations
for the trip in school, the field trip programme itself, its most and least enjoyable fea-
tures, the most memorable activities during the trip, what they learned or what knowl-
edge was reinforced and their thoughts and beliefs about nature and the environment
in the context of the field trip. Each interview lasted 20 –30 minutes. The students
were selected by the teachers, upon our request for verbal individuals who represented
neither the highest nor the lowest achievers in class. The distribution of the inter-
viewed students by school, gender and grade level is presented in Table 1.
FiNE Framework 751
Table 1. Interviewed students by grade, school and gender (N ¼ 41)
Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
School m f m f m f Total
1 2 2 4
2 2 1 1 1 5
3 4 3 7
4 3 2 5
5 3 2 5
6 4 5 9
7 5 1 6
Total 5 1 12 11 7 5 41
Interviewing students so soon after the field trip has both advantages and limit-
ations. On the one hand, students have good recall of the events, thoughts and
personal experiences associated with the field trip, but on the other hand, it is
impossible to measure short- vs. long-term recall as suggested by Bamberger
and Tal (2008a), who found less recall of knowledge-related outcomes after a
year compared with social-related outcomes. The analysis of the interview tran-
scription was done by the two authors with help of few other researchers who
negotiated differences and kept refining the outcomes scoring scheme as will be
described later.
Development of the FiNE Framework

Based on the informal science education literature, we identified 10 major com-
ponents that contribute to learning in out-of-school settings. Table 2 presents the
components and illustrative studies in the field.
These components represent three phases or planes of the field trip: (a) planning
and preparation for the field trip; (b) the pedagogy employed in the field; and (c)
the outcomes of the field trip. In developing our framework, we used these com-
ponents to guide our analysis of the data from our observations and interviews.
One of our main concerns was the need to capture the different perspectives of
students, facilitators, teachers and ourselves as researchers. Some information
could be gathered only by talking to the teacher or the facilitator. For example, infor-
mation about how the field trip was planned and how the topic was chosen could be
obtained only from the teacher. Evidence for student learning, on the contrary,
could be provided only by the students, while the researchers, as expert observers,
were the best source for reliable evidence about the extent to which the facilitator
met key goals, such as connecting the field trip to the students’ everyday experiences.
Our first few observations confirmed previous findings from various out-of-school
settings regarding the minor role of the teacher (Storksdieck, 2006; Tal, 2001;
Table 2. Major field trip components and illustrative studies
Component References
Preparation and its contribution to learning Bell et al. (2009), Jarvis and Pell (2005), Orion
(1993), Orion and Hofstein (1994), Rennie and
McClafferty (1995)
Teacher –facilitator collaboration Bell et al. (2009) Tal et al. (2005), Tal and Steiner
(2006)
Connecting the field trip content to the school Bamberger and Tal (2008b), Bogner (1998),
curriculum (addressing prior knowledge) Dillon et al. (2006), Orion and Hofstein (1994),
Rennie and McClafferty (1996)
Connecting to everyday life Bamberger and Tal (2008b), Brody (2005)
Active and free-choice learning Ballantyne and Packer (2002), Bell et al. (2009),
Brody (2005), Falk (2005), Toffield, Coll, Vyle,
and Bolstad (2003), Rickinson et al. (2004)

Facilitator’s roles and performance Griffin and Symington (1997), Price and Hein
(1991), Tal and Morag (2007)
Physical/adventure activity Brody (2005), Rickinson et al. (2004)
Learning
Cognitive (knowledge and understanding) Knapp and Barrie (2001), Orion and Hofstein
(1994), Rennie, Feher, Dierking, and Falk (2003)
Affective (feelings and values) Bixler, Carlisle, Hammit, and Floyd (1994),
Brody (2005), Falk and Dierking (2000),
Rickinson et al. (2004)
Social (social interactions) Ash and Wells (2006), Bamberger and Tal
(2008b), Brody (2005), Falk and Dierking (2000)
Tal et al., 2005; Tal & Steiner, 2006). Acknowledging that, we limited the teachers’
contribution as informants to providing background information regarding the
coordination of and preparation for the field trip.
Our early observations also helped us refine the framework. Some components that
we considered at the early stages were eventually omitted. For instance, we omitted
‘suitability to the season’ as we realized that all the field trips were well planned
with respect to seasonal features. The students were not asked to hike long un-
shaded trails on hot days, or taught about blooming during the winter months.
Other components were merged. For instance, we originally set logistics (pacing; bal-
ancing activities, walking and rest) as a separate element, but as we proceeded with
our observations, we determined that this function could be merged with the
overall performance of the facilitator.
Finally, we decided to present our suggested framework in the form of three rings
around an inner circle (Figure 1). The outer ring deals with planning and preparation,
the middle ring with pedagogy and the inner ring with activity on the field trip. The
inner circle represents the field trip outcomes. Each of the rings is composed of com-
ponents derived from the research literature and refined through our early obser-
vations. The components will be described very briefly here and then discussed in
more detail under ‘Components and scoring’.
FiNE Framework 753
Figure 1. The rings of the FiNE model
Planning and Preparation

The outer ring addresses the coordination, planning and preparation phase of the field
trip. This ring has three components, as follows:
(1) classroom preparation (by a teacher or a facilitator);

(2) communication and collaboration between the organization/facilitator and the
teacher; and
(3) connection of the field trip topic/content to the school curriculum.
Figure 2 presents the three components of the outer ring.
Information regarding preparation for the field trips was gathered mainly from the
teacher and facilitator and by observing the field trip. Additional information was
obtained from the interviewed students. The teachers described any preparation for
the field trip that took place in school and any connection to the curriculum. The tea-
chers and facilitators provided information about the coordination of the field trip,
including whether their discussions covered details of the programme or merely essen-
tial technical information, such as the length of the trip, physical challenges, meeting
points and so forth. The teachers further reported whether the facilitator had met the
Figure 2. The planning and preparation ring

Figure 3. The pedagogy ring
students before the observed field trip. This could be easily observed by the
researchers as well.
Pedagogy
The second ring deals with the pedagogy employed in the field trip, as interpreted by
the researcher—the external observer. The pedagogy ring (Figure 3) includes the
following components:
(1) clarifying/discussing the field trip goals to ensure that students are familiar with them;
(2) using the immediate environment as a source for learning (referring to observed
phenomena);
(3) making connections to everyday life;
(4) enhancing learning through social interactions; and
(5) facilitator’s overall performance (interpersonal, didactic and logistic skills).
Figure 4. The activity ring

FiNE Framework 755
Figure 5. The outcome circle
Activity
This ring includes both learning activities and physical activity. While learning activi-
ties could be considered under pedagogy, we felt it appropriate to give these items a
separate ring in the framework, based on our experience and the importance the
research literature attributes to students’ active learning in general and to physical
activity and hands-on experiences in authentic out-of-school learning environments
in particular (Grabinger & Dunlap, 1995; Higgins & Nicol, 2002; Kahn, 2002). In
our framework, data on activity are drawn from two sources: student interviews and
the researchers’ observations. The four quadrants of the ring (learning activities
and physical activity, as perceived by students and researchers) are presented in
Figure 4.
Table 3. FiNE framework components

Outcomes
The field trip outcomes, represented by the inner circle, were reported by students in
in-depth interviews. In the analysis of the interview transcripts, we identified state-
ments that addressed both the cognitive and affective domains, as follows:
(1) cognitive domain: learning and understanding of phenomena and ideas; and
(2) affective domain: attitudes, values, beliefs and feelings.
It should be noted that for a follow-up study, we are developing a student questionnaire,
based on the interview data we present here. The outcomes circle is shown in Figure 5.
Table 3 presents the complete set of FiNE framework components and their
arrangement.
Components and Scoring

Planning and Preparation
(1) Classroom preparation. As suggested by many researchers (Falk et al., 1978; Hen-
riksen & Jorde, 2001; Orion, 1993; Orion & Hofstein, 1994), preparation for a field
trip is required to reduce novelty and to enhance learning. Preparation should
cover geographical, psychological and cognitive aspects of the forthcoming trip. Stu-
dents should know what to expect in terms of physical challenges and the learning
activities and task(s) they will be asked to engage in. At the most basic level, they
should know where the field trip will take place, how to dress, what to bring and
what to avoid bringing. Scores for the preparation category and to the other categories
in the planing ring are presented in Table 4a.
An example that indicates lack of preparation in school is as follows.
After getting to the creek, and sitting on the ground, the facilitator asked the
students about the geography of the region.
Facilitator: Where does Kedesh Creek begin?
Student: Where we began walking
The facilitator points to where the creek begins on a map. . .

Facilitator: so, it begins in the Upper Galilee. Where does it end?
Student 1: in Jordan
Student 2: in the Golan Heights
Facilitator: in the Hula Valley [observation 18-05-06-5-5]
In a conversation with the facilitator, at the evening prior to the field trip, he
acknowledged that he never spoke with the teacher about the topic and the contents
of the field trip. During the field trip, we asked the students about preparation in
school and learned that they knew nothing about the exact destination or the topic.
An example of good preparation is:
FiNE Framework 757
Facilitator: What is this place (Yarkon River)?
Students: It is the second biggest river in the country. . . water runs in it all year long. . .
it’s the biggest river on the coastline. . . it runs in the most populated region. . .
it ends in the Mediterranean. . . part of it is polluted. [observation 30-05-06-
1-6-d]
The students seemed eager to express all they knew about the Yarkon river.
(2) Communication and collaboration. Communication and collaboration between the

organization/facilitator and the school/teacher is needed to discuss learning goals and
mutual expectations (Dillon et al., 2006; Kisiel, 2005; Rennie & McClafferty, 1995;
Tal & Steiner, 2006). The teacher can take an active part in the field trip by contribut-
ing his/her own knowledge or by incorporating school-based learning into the
planned programme (Lucas, 2000). Alternatively, the teacher can function only as
a monitor of students’ behaviour and safety or may even unintentionally sabotage
the guide’s intentions. Table 4a presents the scoring of the communication
component.
An example of ‘no communication’ is as follows:
Teacher: I don’t know anything about the programme. The school’s outdoor activity
coordinator was the one who decided on it. I have no idea what we’re going
to do here; it’s a surprise for me. I only know that the hike will not be difficult,
so I wear these sandals [observation 27-05-08-3-4].
Another example shows how the teacher who knew the plan and the timing of
the field trip was able to make a decision when the facilitators were late and the
field trip did not begin on time. This teacher decided to let the students eat
before hiking, so when the facilitators came, they were ready and did not lose
more time. Although this teacher prepared the students in school, only on the
bus ride to the destination did she discuss the topics with the facilitator [obser-
vation 28-05-06-4-6].
An example for strong involvement of teachers comes from a field trip in Mt.
Carmel. The facilitator began explaining, while the students were restless. The tea-
chers, who noticed the students’ behaviour, suggested that the facilitator limits his
explanations and employ active learning, telling him their students are used to
doing inquiry activities in small groups. Consequently, the facilitator took out
activity cards from his backpack and sent the students to identify plants [obser-
vation 22-03-07-2-6]. Although these teachers and the facilitator did not decide
on the activity beforehand, the teachers used their knowledge of the students
and preferred getting involved. In fact, their active participation improved the
facilitator’s pedagogy.
(3) Connection to the school curriculum. This is required to support learning and use the
field experiences to help the student understand abstract phenomena (Anderson
et al., 2000; Orion & Hofstein, 1994; Storksdieck, 2006). Many teachers believe
that field trips improve school learning (DeWitt & Storksdieck, 2008; Rennie & Wil-
liams, 2002) and thus take their students to a variety of out-of-school learning
Table 4a. The planning ring scoring rubric
0 1 2
Planning
No preparation other than Partial preparation. The Thorough preparation. The
collecting a parent’s permission teacher roughly described the teacher provided background
slip and providing technical FT∗ destination and provided information, described the FT
information (scheduling, technical information programme, and discussed
what to bring, etc.) expectations for learning and
behaviour
Collaboration/communication
The organization was solely Partial collaboration. A Full partnership. A telephone
responsible for the event. No telephone conversation took conversation well in advance of
connection was made with the place the day/night before the the trip allowed in-depth
teacher prior to the FT FT. Commonly the facilitator preparation by both sides.
informed the teacher about his/ Details about the students’
her plans and the teacher asked needs, the curriculum and the
general questions or checked teacher’s preferences were
technicalities discussed
Connection to the curriculum
No connection Implicit connection. Topics Explicit connections are made
may be occasionally connected during the FT
but the facilitator is not aware of
and/or does not point out these
connections
∗
Field trip is abbreviated (FT) in this table and those that follow.
environments. Kisiel (2005) found that 90% of the teachers in the sample he studied
were motivated by connecting the field trip to the school curriculum to contribute to
school-based learning. This was a main motive identified by Tal and Steiner (2006) as
well.
There are two ways in which organizations can plan field trips in accordance
with the curriculum: talking with the teacher about the class curriculum and con-
sistent planning of programmes that address the typical school curriculum (this
could be either a required national or state curriculum, or accepted practice).
As the former was scored above under teacher – facilitator communication, in
this category, we emphasize consistent planning of field trips with respect to
the typical (national or standard practice) curriculum. While the extent of prior
communication must be reported by the teacher and the facilitator, connection
to the curriculum can be determined by an expert observer, who can note the
extent to which the facilitator seeks to connect ideas and phenomena that come
up on the trip with concepts learned in school. Connection to the curriculum
is presented in Table 4a.
FiNE Framework 759
An example for good alignment to the curriculum comes from a field trip of
students who learned about the Roman period in history class and about the war
of King Saul on Mt. Gilboa in Bible class. The field trip addressed these topics.
Facilitator: Do you know where we are going?
Students: Beth-Shan
Facilitator: What will we see?
Students: Antiquities
Facilitator: From what period?
Students: Greek and Roman

Facilitator: Great, I know you learned about these periods, so we’ll see today artifacts
from that time [observation 24-10-06-3-6]
Pedagogy
In his critique of EE, Dillon (2003) stresses that for many years, the assumption that
knowledge can be transmitted has been known to be wrong. As Dillon reminds the EE
community, it is clear from the science education literature that learners construct knowl-
edge based on direct experiences with objects and phenomena and through social inter-
actions among learners and between learners and adults (e.g., teachers or mentors).
Referring to social constructivism and situated learning, Dillon argues that ‘educators
who believe in the usefulness of this theory must pay careful attention to the many
aspects of the social interaction that take place rather than focusing simply on the “teach-
ing” or the “learning”’ (2003, p. 219). Yet, it remains the case that in many EE pro-
grammes, instructors disseminate knowledge and expect students to assimilate it.
To allow engagement and social knowledge construction, teachers must shift from
traditional pedagogies into more learner-centred approaches, and they must change
their role from delivering knowledge into mediation of learning. They must take
their cue from the museum education literature, which has long argued that visitors,
including students, should have the opportunity to choose, discover and construct
their own understanding (Falk & Dierking, 2000; Hein, 1998; Price & Hein,
1991). In accordance with social-constructivist ideas, in the current framework we
put special emphasis on pedagogy, a topic not addressed by Brody (2005) or Storks-
dieck (2006). The components of the pedagogy ring and their scoring are presented in
Table 4b and in the next paragraphs.
(1) Clarifying and discussing the field trip’s goals. Discussing and clarifying goals with stu-
dents is important both in the classroom and outdoors. Students should know if they
are expected to participate in learning activities, listen, answer questions or just have
fun. They should be aware of social and behavioural objectives as well as learning aims.
The discussion of goals prior to the field trip, during the preparation stage, was
dealt with under ‘Classroom preparation’ above. Here, we focus on the clarification
of goals during the field trip itself. The extent to which the facilitator ensured that
goals were clear and transparent was scored as shown in Table 4b.
(2) Using the environment as a source for learning. Let us imagine a field trip along a
creek. The trip focuses on water, and its pedagogic goals include familiarizing stu-
dents with concepts such as watershed, aquifer, spring, current and stream. In a
certain spot, a student points out a brightly coloured bird with a long, pointed
beak. The facilitator can identify the bird as a kingfisher and satisfy the student’s
immediate interest. Alternatively, he can applaud the student for her discovery and
then talk about the kingfisher’s relationship with water, elaborate on its appearance
and behaviour and ask the students about other birds they have seen. This can be
Table 4b. The pedagogy ring scoring rubric

0 1 2
Discussing/presenting the goals of the FT

No goals were discussed No goals were discussed, but The facilitator referred explicitly
explicitly, and it was impossible implicit goals could be to specific goals that he/she and
to identify implicit goals detected the teacher discussed prior to
the FT
Addressing the environment
Superficial. Prepared In addition to prepared
explanations given at specific explanations, the facilitator
sites offers meaningful spontaneous
discussions of objects that the
students find
Connection to everyday life
No connection is made Few or superficial Many and meaningful
connections made connections made
Social interactions
No interactions enhanced by the The facilitator runs games Planned tasks in small groups
facilitator and quizzes; these yield some yielding meaningful and strong
interaction among students collaborations
and, primarily, facilitator-
student interaction
Facilitator’s function
Interpersonal skills: impatient, Inconsistent performance in Interpersonal skills: shows
does not treat students equally, all three areas, or poor patience and empathy, treats all
does not show empathy. Didactic performance in one or two students equally. Didactic skills:
skills: uses few demonstrations, areas uses appropriate language and
shows little enthusiasm, uses explains difficult terms, shows
language/terms which are not enthusiasm, shares stories and
understood. Logistic skills: experiences, uses
poor pacing, breaks too long demonstrations. If he/she
or too short, makes the already knows the students, uses
students hurry, does not this knowledge to enhance
complete the programme learning. Logistic skills: good
pacing and balance
FiNE Framework 761
done with almost any organism and with non-living objects as well—a beautiful rock, a
piece of crystal and so forth.
Since all the facilitators in our study addressed the environment to some extent, this
item was scored as level 1 or level 2 only.
An example of the superficial level comes from a field trip in which the facilitator
explained about the plants using a game, in which the students got cards with infor-
mation about the plants and were requested to demonstrate their characteristics in
pantomime.
Facilitator: . . .and we have Salvia in the chaparral
Although she asked a student to demonstrate how Salvia heals stomach ache, as is
written on the card, she did not point to the real plant which could be seen every-
where. Then she asked a student to present the story of the Greek nymph Laurel
(Bay leaf). Although the group was sitting beneath a Laurel tree, she did not pick
bay leaves and let the students touch and smell them.
Facilitator: The next plant is Mint
Parent: Is there mint around here?
The facilitator ignores the question.

Facilitator: Now, a walnut
There were no walnuts in the trail [observation 13-05-07-4-5].

This facilitator stuck to the card games and apparently ignored the real vegetation
that the students could touch and smell.
An example for level 2 shows a facilitator who enthusiastically addressed a student’s
discovery.
A student discovered a wood-mouse’s (Apodemus sp.) den with half eaten oak
acorns. He collected some and approached the facilitator with excitement.
Student: Look, some creatures eat the acorns
Facilitator: really (enthusiastic)?! Bring some!
After a few minutes she asked the students to sit near another den and asked:
Facilitator: Look, who eats the acorns?
Students: mice. . . rats. . .. squirrels. . .
Facilitator: Rats? What do rats eat?
Students: Pine cones
Facilitator: Yes! we know that from a previous trip
Then she continued telling them about the wood-mouse and asked the students to
keep looking for evidence of their activity in the wood [observation 9-12-08-4-5].
(3) Connecting to everyday life is widely discussed in the literature as a variable that con-
tributes to learning in informal settings (Ballantyne et al., 2007; Falk & Dierking,
2000). Even abstract phenomena can be tied to simple experiences such as watching
a TV programme, playing outside, previous family or school trips and so forth. We
scored this item according to the extent to which such connections were made.
Examples are presented in the appendix.
(4) Social interactions are needed for meaningful learning to take place. Such inter-
actions can occur between students and between students and adults (Lemke,
2001). Ash and Wells (2006) argue that in both classroom and museum contexts,
social interactions can promote collaborative knowledge building, mediated by arte-
facts and dialogue, when answers to questions are not known in advance and when
expertise is distributed. In the outdoors, social interactions naturally occur when stu-
dents walk together or gather to listen to the facilitator. Therefore, in this category, we
refer to explicit instruction given by the facilitator to do or discuss things together in
dyads or small groups—whether completing small assignments, joint exploration or
playing games.
In scoring this item, we distinguished between interactions that occur naturally and
facilitator- or activity-enhanced interactions deliberately designed to improve learning
(see Appendix for examples).
(5) The facilitator’s overall performance is crucial to the success of the field trip. This
variable can be measured by the facilitator’s ability in three areas:
(a) interpersonal skills: showing patience, empathy and fairness during interactions
with the students and the teacher;
(b) didactic skills: using suitable and understandable language, demonstrating points,
showing enthusiasm, telling stories and sharing personal experiences;
(c) logistic skills: keeping pace, balancing different activities. This is especially impor-
tant when hiking with children. Reaching a big tree in time for lunch after walking
in the sun, allowing the students to play when they are tired and ending the hike
on time are important for students’ safety, as well as for creating a good learning
environment.
Scores for this item were determined by the degree to which the facilitator demon-
strated ability in all three areas (see Appendix for examples).
Activity
Being an active learner is considered important by various educational and social the-
ories and models (e.g., constructivism, activity theory, active learning). Brody (2005)
puts special emphasis on students’ activity, arguing that:
. . .the individual must interact directly with the physical setting. It (the interaction) must
involve the senses, seeing, touching, smelling and hearing nature in its entirety. The indi-
vidual must do something in and with the physical setting. The learner must be actively
engaged and aware of the key aspects of the setting such as soil, plants and animals.
(p. 611)
FiNE Framework 763
With respect to the social dimension of activity, Brody adds,

. . .for meaningful learning to take place the individual must interact with other people
and directly with the physical setting. It must involve comparisons and interpret-
ations, involving the individual’s senses, seeing, touching, smelling and hearing
nature in its entirety. It involves doing things together so that we can learn from
each other. (p. 215)
The activity ring encompasses two aspects of activity: learning activity and
physical activity. By learning activity, we mean any planned activity that is
likely to engage the student in meaningful and independent construction of
knowledge. Such activities can be performed by individuals, dyads or small
groups. Physical activities might include rolling down a sand dune, crawling
into a dark tunnel, walking or wading through an ancient aqueduct and so
forth. We considered walking along trails as a basic default element of any visit
to a nature or an archaeological park; therefore, we did not score ‘walking’ for
physical activity.
Besides the two aspects of activity, this ring presents two points of view: the
researchers’ and the students’. As described above, 41 students from 7 schools were
interviewed in-depth regarding their perceptions of the field trip. The researchers ana-
lysed transcriptions of these interviews for statements dealing with both physical and
learning activities. Table 4c presents the scoring criteria for physical and learning
activities from the researchers’ and the students’ points of view. Sample student state-
ments are given for each score of 1 or 2.
Outcomes
The inner outcomes circle consists of two hemispheres that reflect outcomes in (a)
the cognitive domain (knowledge and understanding) and (b) the affective domain
(feelings, beliefs and attitudes). Because of the conceptual breadth of these domains,
we scored them somewhat differently from the scoring for the components of the
outer rings. For knowledge and understanding, the total possible score was 3,
while the affective domain had a possible score of 6, as will be described below.
Every statement in each category was separately scored. Then, the student’s
weighted score was calculated. For example, if a student had 5 statements in the
knowledge domain—1 in level 3; 3 in level 2 and 1 in level 1—then the weighted
score was: (3 + 3∗ 2 + 1)/5 ¼ 2.
In order to be able to compare scores for the two domains, for our analyses we stan-
dardized both to a 1–10 scale, which means that a score of 2 out of 3 will be standar-
dized to 6.6 in a 1 –10 scale.
(1) Knowledge and understanding. Each relevant statement of a student was scored
between 0 and 3. A weighted score was then calculated for each student. Finally, stu-
dents’ scores were averaged for each field trip. Table 4d presents our scoring criteria
and sample student statements.
(2) Feelings, beliefs and attitudes. To score this category, we first analysed each state-
ment for the presence of four ideas about nature that emerged from the entire bulk
Table 4c. The activity ring scoring rubric
0 1 2
Physical activity — the researcher’s view

No physical activity The trail incorporates physical The facilitator promotes physical
other than walking activities such as climbing, jumping, experiences and encourages the
along the trail or crawling students to do things that activate
their senses and feelings
Learning activity — the researcher’s view
None. “Walk and Demonstration or quiz. The Small group or individual games or
talk” pattern facilitator demonstrates phenomena assignments that promote
with the help of a student or two. All exploration and active learning
the others observe and listen (e.g., asking students to find and
collect specific items)
Physical activity — the student’s view

No activity. Minor physical activity. Significant physical activity which is
connected to new knowledge,
feelings or social interaction.
“We got into a cave that had many “The stream was an attraction. We
holes. I did not get into any. I took the got into the water, which was a
shortest way out.” (L’, T-1106-6) surprise. It was fun. We got wet and
happy. Being free in the water was a
nice surprise, we could calm down.”
(G-0508-6)
Learning activity — the student’s view
No activity Minor learning activity Significant learning activity which is
connected to new knowledge,
feelings or social interaction
“Each one got a task, a concept that “We had to uncover a secret code.
was there, which we had to find and We got a key and that’s how we
explain. I and my friend had to find a decoded this letter. We worked in
canal and explain about it.” teams and each one did something.
(G’, Y-0507-5) I wrote, and someone else told me
the next letter. It’s fun when
everyone works and together we got
a result.” (Y’, N-0307-6)
of data: (a) nature as a source of resources for human beings; (b) nature’s spiritual and
aesthetic value; (c) nature as having intrinsic value beyond the spiritual and aesthetic;
and (d) nature as a factor in human health. Each idea was worth one point. The fol-
lowing statements serve as examples.
. Nature as a source of resources (e.g., air, water, land for crops, building materials)
‘Plants are important because if we do not have them we will not be able to
breathe. Trees provide our oxygen’. (A’ Y-0507-5)
FiNE Framework 765
Table 4d. Scoring knowledge and understanding — the outcome circle
0 1 2 3
None. Statement is Statement draws simple but Statement addresses in detail a

incorrect, accurate connections between scientific process, points to
incomplete or cause and effect cause-effect relationships, and
simplistic adds examples
“Oak trees provide “Everywhere on that hill, if you “I understood that porcupines
air.” (A’, K-0307- 5) dig you can find an ancient are hunted although it’s
mosaic and other things as well. forbidden since they are
This is how they found the endangered. If they go extinct the
synagogue floor.” (L’, T-1106-6) whole food web will be harmed
because then leopards will not
have food and other animals as
well. Eventually it will harm us.

Once, my dog found a porcupine
and began barking, so I took it
away and let the porcupine go
away.” (E’, Z-0509-4)
. Nature’s spiritual and aesthetic value

‘Nature is superb. It’s beautiful, it has many animals; it’s relaxing. When I go out
and see the beautiful view I say Wow and I forget everything’. (N’ Y-0507-5)
. Nature as having intrinsic value and needing our protection (e.g., wildlife, ecological
systems)
‘Nature is first of all—living things that are important as we are. They need to live
and that we will not harm them’. (N’ N-0307-6)
. Nature as a factor in human health
‘Nature helps us live. . . let’s say, from the Aloe plant they produce aloe vera
products. . .’ (Y’ Z-0509-4)
In addition, we awarded 1 or 2 points for affective statements, bringing the possible
maximum points for this category to 6. Points for affective statements were given as
follows:
1 point—any statement that referred to feelings towards nature. An example: ‘I love
nature, the outdoors, the vegetation, being with friends, play. It’s all together—fun
and learning’. (A’ G-0508-6)
2 points—any expression of deep feeling, or many repetitions of affective statements.
An example:
I love nature. There are such beautiful places, and I often go out to see them. I am
curious; I feel much joy when I see places with beautiful plants and views. There are
places such as the beach, when it’s clean, I love it. When it’s dirty I am disgusted.
(N’ K-0307-5)
Validity and Reliability

We took several measures to increase the validity of the framework and study, based on
Patton (1990) and Guba and Lincoln (2005). First, the study and framework develop-
ment were carried out through extensive fieldwork. In addition, both authors had long
experience as field-centre facilitators, as schoolteachers and as researchers in the field of
outdoor education. We attempted to use as many descriptors as were used by the
research subjects, and we provided numerous quotations to illustrate our analysis.
Triangulation was carried out in various ways. We used multiple sources of data and
multiple data collection methods and cross-checked information to ensure corrobora-
tion. To guarantee inter-rater reliability, both researchers observed a number of field
trips and then compared their scorings and interpretations. Eight field trips were
observed by the authors, two experienced researchers and an experienced facilitator
who documented the event. The first author then reviewed the five documents and
indicated strong agreement among all observers with respect to interactions, the tea-
cher’s and the facilitator’s function, the students’ conversations, their questions and
the learning and physical activity. The two authors achieved above 85% agreement
in the three outer ring’s components. The analysis of the outcome circle to three
levels was validated by a group of six researchers who achieved 84% agreement.
In addition, we videotaped a sample of field trips to help in refining the scoring
rubric and to improve the agreement upon scoring. Only after achieving reasonable
agreement (above 85%) did the first author continue observing the rest of the field
trips. We discussed our findings with two leading educators of the organization and
incorporated their comments in the final scoring scheme. We presented the scheme
in a number of meetings with outdoor educators and made some refinements accord-
ing to their recommendations.
The FiNE framework is well rooted in the research literature, as we have shown
throughout this paper. In addition, many of the categories are well established
through our previous work in out-of-school settings (Bamberger & Tal, 2007,
2008b; Tal et al., 2005). To further ensure validity, we sought participant feedback
(i.e., a member check) from senior facilitators and officials at the environmental
agency that organized the investigated field trips. In addition, colleagues from our
own and other institutions reviewed our framework and offered feedback and cri-
tiques that helped us refine the framework.
Finally, as no two field trips are identical, we cannot argue for replicability of our
findings. However, the study is transferable. The framework components are well
established in the international literature, and the scoring rubric allows employment
in various settings.
Findings
As indicated, we employed the FiNE framework to assess 22 field trips, within which 7
included in-depth interviews. Here, we discuss first the results relevant to the full
sample of 22 schools.
FiNE Framework 767
Table 5 presents the distribution of the 22 field trips with respect to planning. It is
evident from the table that most of the sample scored poorly in this area. In all but a
few cases, the facilitating organization had sole responsibility for the programme.
Good preparation was executed by a minority of teachers, and, in all but one case,
linkage between the field trip and the school curriculum was either implicit or non-
existent.
Table 6 presents the distribution of the sample with respect to pedagogy. Here, the
results were mixed, but on the whole still fairly weak. In all but one of the field trips,
the facilitator failed to clarify or discuss the trip’s goals with the students. In most
cases, there was limited or no attempt to connect the content of the trip to the stu-
dents’ everyday lives. Social interactions were enhanced to a limited extent; only in
four trips did we identify an explicit effort by the facilitator to encourage meaningful
interaction among students as part of a planned activity. On the positive side, the
majority of trips scored high in terms of addressing environmental issues. Half the
facilitators scored high in logistic, didactic and interpersonal skills.
Table 7 presents the observable component of the activity ring—the right-hand
hemisphere in our model (Figure 4). Surprisingly, in only 10 field trips did we
observe any physical activity besides walking, and in only four of those was this activity
empowered by the facilitator. Most of the trips included some type of learning activity,
but the majority of these activities were demonstrations, in which most students
were passive. Substantial activity that involved all students was detected in 8 field
trips.
The in-depth interviews with students from seven schools allowed us to collect data
on the framework components that could not be observed: namely, the left hemisphere
of the activity ring and the central circle (the outcomes). Figure 6 presents the complete
pattern of scores for each component of these seven field trips. Scores are presented as
low (shown in dark colour), medium (shown in no colour) or high (shown in grey). For
the planning, pedagogy and activity rings, these scores are directly equivalent to the
scores of 0, 1 or 2 described above. For the inner circle (outcomes), scores were trans-
lated to a scale of 1–10, as described above. The translated scores were then defined as
follows: 0–3.3 as low (dark colour), 3.3–3.6 as medium (no colour) and 6.6–10 as high
(grey).
As seen in Figure 6, the three outer rings reflect, in general, the results shown in Table
5 –7. For example, in the planning ring, only one school (School 2) received a high score
for preparation in school, and alignment to the school curriculum was insufficient for all
Table 5. Distribution of the field trips by components of the planning ring (N ¼ 22)
Preparation in Organization–school Connection to the school

Level class communication curriculum
0 8 17 10
1 8 1 11
2 6 4 1
Table 6. Distribution of the field trips by components of the pedagogy ring (N ¼ 22)
Clarifying the Using the Connecting to Social Facilitator’s

Level goals environment everyday life interactions performance
0 21 Not relevant 14 9 2
1 1 7 4 9 9
2 15 4 4 11
seven schools (levels low–medium). These results are consistent with the poor showing
of the sample as a whole in these areas, as seen in [Table 5]. Interestingly, Figure 6
makes clear that of the 5 schools which scored a 1 or 2 in school –facilitator collabor-
ation (as seen in [Table 5]), 4 were in the group of seven schools selected for the
in-depth study. In the pedagogy ring, it is apparent that there was no clarification of
goals in any of the seven schools; the other components showed considerable
variety—again, in keeping with the results for the sample as a whole ([Table 6]).
With regard to the activity ring, the interesting question here concerns the degree of
agreement between the observers and students. The researchers and students agreed as
to the degree of physical activity in three schools (Schools 3, 5 and 7) and the degree of
active learning in four schools (Schools 1, 4, 5, and 6). That is, out of 14 possible com-
parisons (seven schools, two types of activity), there was agreement with regard to
seven. In three of these cases, the segments are both grey, indicating substantial physical
and/or learning activity; in three, they are both dark coloured, indicating low physical
activity and/or passive learning and in one case the segments are both not coloured. It
should be noted that for only one school (School 5) are all four activity segments grey,
indicating rich physical and learning activities as perceived by both the researchers and
the students. It should also be noted that in each case in which the observers and stu-
dents differed, they did so by one level only (no colour vs. dark colour or grey vs. no
colour). Interestingly, in each such case, the observers’ scores are higher than the stu-
dents’. This suggests that students tend to be more critical or to have higher expec-
tations of the activity to be offered on a field trip. Alternatively, it may reflect the fact
that some students are naturally more physically active or more eager to take part in
learning games than others. However, it may be that boosting levels of both physical
and learning activities during field trips would enhance students’ perceptions of the
trip a day later and possibly improve their learning and affective outcomes.
The patterns shown in Figure 6 also point to a limitation of the FiNE framework—
namely, its inability to provide a clear link between the characteristics of a given field trip
and its outcomes. That is, the framework cannot measure the extent to which the
Table 7. Distribution of the field trips by the observable dimension of the activity ring (N ¼ 22)
Level Physical activity Learning activity
0 12 3
1 6 11
2 4 8
FiNE Framework 769
Figure 6. FiNE models of seven schools’ field trips. The numbers refer to the components of the
model in Table 3. Scores are colour-coded (see online paper). Dark colour refers to low level, light
grey refer to high level and no colour refers to medium level.
outcomes shown in the inner circle reflect the particular field trip or other factors such
as the students’ socio-economic background and their previous exposure to outdoor
activities. To illustrate the problem, Figures 7 and 8 present the outcome and activity
scores (as perceived by students) for four schools. As can be seen, the outcome
scores in the knowledge hemisphere are similar, but scores in the affective domain
vary between the two figures; the outcome for School 4 is substantially lower than
that for Schools 5, 6 and 7. Yet, a quick glance back to Figure 6 shows wildly different
colour patterns for Schools 5 and 7 and fairly similar patterns for Schools 7 and 4; the
activity scores shown in Figures 7 and 8 reveal the same paradox. What is going on?
As it happens, Schools 5, 6 and 7, shown in Figure 7, have similar characteristics.

They are all located in the north of the country, and they serve small, middle-class and
highly educated communities whose children have high access to outdoor activities.
School 4 (Figure 8), in contrast, is located in a poor urban neighbourhood. Most of
its students come from immigrant families and have few opportunities to explore
the outdoors and visit nature parks. It thus appears that the students’ attitudes,
values and beliefs about the natural world reflect more than one experience. The affec-
tive domain builds on more than a single field trip, even if a single field trip can be
effective in transmitting knowledge.
Figure 7. Field trips (Schools 5, 6, 7) with similar outcomes and different activity levels (as
perceived by students)
FiNE Framework 771
Figure 8. The outcomes of School 4

Of course, the small size of our sample and the somewhat diverse student popu-
lation limit our ability to draw conclusions with respect to the inner circle. To help
resolve this limitation, in a follow-up study, we are developing a questionnaire for dis-
tribution among a larger number of schools. In the questionnaire, we refer to all the
categories presented here. A larger sample will allow considering the respondents’
socio-economic status and their background with respect to exposure to or participat-
ing in previous outdoor learning experiences.
Discussion
Outdoor education is an important constituent of general education worldwide. It is
accepted as a major contributor to cognitive learning (Falk & Balling, 1982; Orion,
1993), as well as to students’ personal and social development (Brody et al., 2008).
Strengthening students’ national pride and knowledge of their homeland have also
been acknowledged as important outcomes of outdoor education for decades (Tal,
2008, 2009), and, more recently, outdoor education has been seen as a means to
develop an ethos of responsibility for the environment (Knapp & Barrie, 2001;
Nundy, 1999). Woodhouse and Knapp (2000) argued that outdoor education, EE
and place-based education are similar ideas that all encourage attachment to a
place and the development of responsibility, despite being influenced by different
theoretical frameworks. Nonetheless, despite the recognized benefits of outdoor edu-
cation, relatively little research has focused on identifying and assessing good practice.
Our study suggests an innovative holistic framework to assess the entire field trip
event: its structural aspects as well as its outcomes that can be applied in a variety
of outdoor settings. The FiNE framework captures the components of the preparation
phase (class preparation; coordination with the facilitator and connection to the cur-
riculum) as well as pedagogical aspects of the guided field trip (ensuring that students
are aware of the trip’s goals; using specific aspects of the field trip environment as a
source for learning; making connections to everyday life; enhancing social interactions
among learners and the facilitator’s performance at the interpersonal, didactic and
logistic levels). In addition, the FiNE framework incorporates a professional
observer’s interpretation and the participants’ own reported experience. Following

ideas about active learning in general and Brody’s (2005) notion of action in particu-
lar, the FiNE framework also puts special emphasis on students’ activity, which is con-
ceptualized as both physical and cognitive activity. In our framework, these
components are assessed by outside observers or researchers. Student reports can
be used to enrich the evaluation of the activity component. Student reports are
further used to assess outcomes in two domains: the students’ knowledge and their
beliefs, values and feelings.
Our study of 22 field trips, all facilitated by the same environmental organization,
enabled us to both apply and refine the FiNE framework. In general, we found that
with regard to planning and preparation, (a) good classroom preparation was uncom-
mon; (b) coordination between facilitators and teachers tended to be limited; and (c)
content was only occasionally connected to the school curriculum. With regard to
pedagogy, we found that (a) goals were rarely discussed or even defined; (b) the
immediate environment was insufficiently used as a learning resource; (c) facilitators
inadequately connected the field trip experiences to students’ everyday life; (d) social
interactions were weakly employed as a means for learning; and (e) most of the facil-
itators showed reasonable or strong interpersonal, didactic and logistic skills—
showing empathy, treating the students with respect, using demonstrations to
explain phenomena and so on.
To help assess the quality of the field trips, we needed to know how students
reflected upon the knowledge they acquired and their feelings towards nature in
general and towards specific issues they encountered in particular. Our interviews
with 41 students a day or two after the field trip provided valuable information on
these outcomes. In the domain of knowledge and understanding, most students
were able to give simple descriptions of scientific processes, draw relationships
between processes and outcomes, provide correct examples to support their claims
and recall many facts and ideas they encountered during the field trip. In the affective
domain, most students had strong positive feelings about nature and were eager to
report on their feelings towards the outdoors. Most of the students also expressed
one or more attitudes that recognize the importance of the natural world: nature as
a source of resources; nature as having spiritual and aesthetic value; nature as
having intrinsic value beyond the aesthetic and nature as a factor in human health.
Outdoor experiences are a key part of both self development and formal education.
As David Orr (1992) puts it, ‘experience in the natural world is both an essential part
of understanding the environment, and conducive to good thinking’ (p. 91). Such
experiences, Orr stresses, should be cognitive, experiential, active, aesthetic and spiri-
tual. In John Dewey’s words,
[w]e cannot overlook the importance for educational purposes of the close and intimate
acquaintance got with nature at first hand, with real things and materials, with the actual
processes of their manipulation, and the knowledge of their social necessities and uses. . .
Verbal memory can be trained in committing tasks, a certain discipline of the reasoning
powers can be acquired through lessons in science and mathematics; but, after all, this is
somewhat remote and shadowy compared with the training of attention and of judgment
FiNE Framework 773
that is acquired in having to do with things with real motive behind and a real outcome
ahead. (Dewey, 2008, pp. 10–11)
The FiNE framework helps elucidate the multifaceted nature of the field trip experi-
ence and offers an instrument that makes it possible to capture multiple views of the
field trip in nature, while comprehensively examining its structure and pedagogy. We
hope that this instrument will help schools and environmental organizations plan
field trips that reflect Dewey’s and Orr’s ideas of good experiences in nature.
Limitations and Further Study

Despite the advantages of the FiNE framework, and our positive experience in using it
as an assessment tool, our study suffers from one major limitation: namely, the small
size of our sample. This limitation restricts our ability to draw reliable conclusions
with respect to how the various components of a field trip—and the activity com-
ponents in particular—affect the trip’s outcomes. The relationship between the
outer rings and the outcome circle, and more particularly, the affective hemisphere,
is not yet clear. It might be that the socio-economic status of the students and their
previous experiences in the outdoors affect their beliefs and views which gradually
form. It might be as well that field trips create idiosyncratic experiences and that
the same students will express different affective outcomes in different circumstances.
Nevertheless, the valuable information we gathered in this study is currently serving
as a platform for the development of a reliable questionnaire that will capture the main
components of the student experience, as reflected in the interviews. Acknowledging
the limited resources of researchers and informal education institutions, this question-
naire should allow a broader and more efficient analysis using the FiNE framework.
At this stage, we are in the midst of the development process. In the near future, we
intend to employ the questionnaire in a variety of field trips to the outdoors facilitated
by a number of informal institutions. We presume that our findings regarding the
large-scale administration of the questionnaire will pave the way for its use in other
countries and contexts.
References
Anderson, D., Lucas, K.B., Ginns, I.S., & Dierking, L.D. (2000). Development of knowledge about
electricity and magnetism during a visit to a science museum and related post-visit activities.
Science Education, 84, 658–679.
Ash, D., & Wells, G. (2006). Dialogic inquiry in classrooms and museums. In Z. Bekerman, N.C.
Burbles, & D. Silberman-Keller (Eds.), Learning in places: The informal education reader
(pp. 35–54). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (2002). Nature-based excursions: school students’ perceptions of learn-
ing in natural environments. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education,
11, 218–236.
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, 367–383.
Bamberger, Y., & Tal, T. (2007). Learning in a personal-context: Levels of choice in a free-choice
learning environment in science and natural history museums. Science Education, 91, 75–95.
Bamberger, Y., & Tal, T. (2008a). The long term effect of a class visit to a science center. Visitors
Studies, 11, 198–212.
Bamberger, Y., & Tal, T. (2008b). Multiple outcomes of class visits to natural history museums: The
students’ view. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 264–274.
Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A.W., & Feder, M.A. (Eds.). (2009). Learning science in informal
environments. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Bixler, R.D., Carlisle, C.K., Hammit, W.E., & Floyd, M.F. (1994). Observed fears and discomforts
among urban students on field trips to wildland areas. Journal of Environmental Education, 30,
4–11.
Bogner, F.X. (1998). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables
of environmental perspective. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29, 17–29.
Bogner, F.X. (1999). Empirical evaluation of an educational conservation programme introduced in
Swiss secondary schools. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1169–1185.
Brody, M. (2005). Learning in nature. Environmental Education Research, 11, 603–621.

Brody, M., Bangert, A., & Dillon, J. (2008). Assessing learning in informal science contexts. Com-
missioned Paper by the National Research Council for Science Learning in Informal Environ-
ments Committee. Retrieved from http://www.informalscience.org/researches/Brody_
Commissioned_Paper.pdf.
Dewey, J. (2008). The school and society. Delhi: AAKAR Books.
DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A short review of school field trips: Key findings from the past
and implications for the future. Visitor Studies, 11, 181–197.
Dillon, J. (2003). On learners and learning in environmental education: Missing theories, ignored
communities. Environmental Education Research, 9, 215–226.
Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M.-Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2006).
The value of outdoor learning: Evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere. School Science
Review, 87, 107–111.
Donaldson, G.W., & Donaldson, L.E. (1958). Outdoor education: A definition. Journal of Health-
Physical Education-Recreation, 17, 63.
Emmons, K.M. (1997). Perceptions of the environment while exploring the outdoors: A case study
in Belize. Environmental Education Research, 3, 327–344.
Falk, J.H. (2005). Free-choice environmental learning: Framing the discussion. Environmental Edu-
cation Research, 11, 265–280.
Falk, J.H., & Balling, J.D. (1982). The field trip milieu: Learning and behaviour as a function of con-
textual events. Journal of Educational Research, 76, 22–28.
Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of
meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Falk, J.H., Martin, W.W., & Balling, J.D. (1978). The novel field-trip phenomenon: Adjustment to
novel settings interferes with task learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15, 127–134.
Ford, P. (1986). Outdoor education: Definition and philosophy. Eric Digests, ED267941.
Grabinger, R.S., & Dunlap, J.C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. ALT-J
Association for Learning Technology Journal, 3, 5–34.
Griffin, J., & Symington, D. (1997). Moving from task-oriented to learning-oriented strategies on
school excursions to museums. Science Education, 81, 763–779.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging con-
fluences. In N. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 191–215).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hein, G.E. (1998). Learning in the museum. London: Routledge.
Henriksen, E.K., & Jorde, D. (2001). High school students’ understanding of radiation and the
environment: Can museums play a role? Science Education, 85, 189–206.
FiNE Framework 775
Higgins, P., & Nicol, R. (2002). Outdoor education: Authentic learning in the context of landscape
(Vol. 2). Kisa, Sweden: Kinda Education Centre.
Hofstein, A., & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the gap between formal and informal science
learning. Studies in Science Education, 28, 87–112.
Jarvis, T., & Pell, A. (2005). Factors influencing elementary school children’s attitudes toward
science before, during, and after a visit to the UK National Space Centre. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 42, 53–83.
Kahn, P.H. (2002). Children’s affiliation with nature. In P.H. Kahn & S.R. Kellert (Eds.), Children
and nature (pp. 93–117). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kisiel, J. (2005). Understanding elementary teacher motivations for science field trips. Science Edu-
cation, 89, 936–955.
Knapp, D., & Barrie, E. (2001). Content evaluation of an environmental science field trip. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 10, 351–357.
Krepel, W.J., & Durral, C.R. (1981). Field trips: A guideline for planning and conducting educational
experiences. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Lemke, J.L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 296–316.
Lucas, K.B. (2000). One teacher’s agenda for a class visit to an interactive science center. Science
Education, 84, 524–544.
Martin, L.M.W. (2004). An emerging research framework for studying informal learning and
schools. Science Education, 88, S71–S82.
Nundy, S. (1999). The fieldwork effect: The role and impact of fieldwork in the upper primary
school. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 8, 190–198.
Orion, N. (1993). A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part
of the science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 325–331.
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, 1097–1119.
Orion, N., Hofstein, A., Tamir, P., & Giddings, G.J. (1997). Development and validation of an
instrument for assessing the learning environment of outdoor science activities. Science Edu-
cation, 81, 161–171.
Orr, D.W. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. Albany, NY:
Sunny Press.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Price, S., & Hein, G.E. (1991). More than a field trip: Science programmes for elementary school
groups at museums. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 505–519.
Rennie, L.J., Feher, E., Dierking, L.D., & Falk, J.H. (2003). Toward an agenda for advancing
research on science learning in out-of-school settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
40, 112–120.
Rennie, L.J., & McClafferty, T.P. (1995). Using visits to interactive science and technology centers,
museums, aquaria, and zoos to promote learning in science. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 6, 175–185.
Rennie, L.J., & McClafferty, T.P. (1996). Science centers and science learning. Studies in Science
Education, 27, 53–98.
Rennie, L.J., & Williams, G.F. (2002). Science centers and scientific literacy: Promoting a relation-
ship with science. Science Education, 86, 706–726.
Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2004).
A review of research on outdoor learning. Shrewsbury: Field Studies Council.
Storksdieck, M. (2006). Field trips in environmental education. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag.
Tal, T. (2001). Incorporating field trips as science learning environment enrichment—an interpre-
tive study. Learning Environments Research, 4, 25–49.
Tal, T. (2009). Three perspectives of environmental education in Israel: Ideologies, national

conflicts and the environmental movement. In D. Zandvliet (Ed.), Diversity in environmental
education research (pp. 25–41). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Tal, T., Bamberger, Y., & Morag, O. (2005). Guided school visits to natural history museums in
Israel: Teachers’ roles. Science Education, 89, 920–935.
Tal, T., & Morag, O. (2007). School visits to natural history museums: Teaching or enriching.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 747 –769.
Tal, T., & Steiner, L. (2006). Patterns of teacher-museum staff relationships: School visits to the
Educational Center of a science museum. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technol-
ogy Education, 6, 25–46.
Toffield, S., Coll, R.K., Vyle, B., & Bolstad, R. (2003). Zoos as a source of free choice learning.
Research in Science and Technological Education, 21, 67–99.
Woodhouse, J.L., & Knapp, C.E. (2000). Place-based curriculum and instruction: Outdoor and
environmental education approaches. Eric Digest, ED448012.
Appendix
Examples from field trips are given as follows

Connecting to Everyday Life
Level 1. Few or superficial. The students come from a town near the river. The facil-
itator asks them where they come from. And they answer: ‘Spring Source’.
Facilitator: What is ‘Spring Source’? We have many springs here.
She connects between the name of their town and the field trip theme. Afterwards,
she addresses various uses of water for domestic and industrial needs but never
addresses the big industrial area which is in proximity to their homes. She refers to
relationships only to limited extent [observation 30-05-06-3,4,5,6].
Level 2. Many and meaningful. The facilitator explained about the archeological
excavations in Zippori (an ancient Roman city). The slope is quite steep.
Student 1: ‘but how can one build here, it’s not flat?’
Student 2: ‘You pour concrete and make it flat’
Facilitator: ‘Making the slope flat is only one option, but there are others as well. In your
village, it’s steep as well, so how houses are built there?’
Student 3: ‘Ahh. . . they build with columns’ [20-11-06-3-5]
Social Interactions
Level 1. A game, a quiz or a demonstration of how a biblical city (Tel) was built, or
how species of oaks differ. Usually, a few students participate and the others observe.
FiNE Framework 777
Level 2. From an interview with a student who indicated a meaningful social

experience in an ‘Indiana Jones’ like game:
With my friends, we were able to solve mysteries and tasks the facilitator gave us. For
example, one of used a flashlight so we were able to see the sign. . . then we read the
next task, and one of us figured out what we have to do, and we all ran after him.
When we were wrong, we decided to split to look elsewhere. . . when we had to read a
script on the ‘ancient’ ceramics we had to find all the letters solve the code and find
‘the blessing’. [interview, L; T1106-6]
The Facilitator’s Overall Performance

Level 0. The facilitator was impatient, and it seemed that the field trip was only a
burden for him. He gave only few explanations, did not use any demonstration
means and hardly communicated with the students. The students felt his reservation
and did not attempt to contact him. A few students complained about boredom
[observation 25-05-06-5-6-(a)].
Level 1. In a field trip to the ‘Crocodile River’, the facilitator was pleasant and
treated the students well. She tried to enhance their interest, but she used only oral
explanations. In addition, her timing and planning were only fair. She began with
long explanations right after the students’ arrival after a long drive, instead of begin-
ning to walk and letting them be active. The only activity appeared much later when
the students were already tired [observation 20-03-06-2-6].
Level 2. ‘Usually, in field trips I don’t remember the facilitators and they are not
meaningful for me, but this time, he was amazing! He was like our friend. Many facil-
itators think that they are above us and he was one of the guys. On the one hand, he
made jokes with us, but on the other hand he taught us. . . we investigated in groups. . .
we had to find a code for an ancient script, and we had a competition between boys
and girls in the hippodrome. We played games, to learn in creative ways and it was
fun. . . this time I listen to everything cause it was interesting and competitive. You
can learn in field trips like in school. . . this field trip was with activities, games and
demonstrations’ [interview N-03076].

Morag 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Morag 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]

On: 11 February 2015, At: 19:02

International Journal of Science

Assessing Learning in the Outdoors with

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.599046

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Assessing Learning in the Outdoors

Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion, Haifa, Israel

Keywords: Assessment; Informal education; K-12; Field trip; Outdoor; Nature

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/12/050745–33

NRC report) have focused on designed environments, frameworks for understanding

enterprises, and they commonly employ no nationally standardized curriculum or

Previous Studies: Field trip constituents and methodologies

knowledge, and their assimilation to an existing framework while creating a new

Method: Context, data dollection and analysis

Table 1. Interviewed students by grade, school and gender (N ¼ 41)

Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6

Development of the FiNE Framework

Table 2. Major field trip components and illustrative studies

and Bolstad (2003), Rickinson et al. (2004)

Figure 1. The rings of the FiNE model

Planning and Preparation

(1) classroom preparation (by a teacher or a facilitator);

Figure 2. The planning and preparation ring

Figure 3. The pedagogy ring

Figure 4. The activity ring

Figure 5. The outcome circle

Table 3. FiNE framework components

Components and Scoring

The facilitator points to where the creek begins on a map. . .

Student 2: in the Golan Heights

Facilitator: in the Hula Valley [observation 18-05-06-5-5]

Facilitator: What is this place (Yarkon River)?

(2) Communication and collaboration. Communication and collaboration between the

Table 4a. The planning ring scoring rubric

Facilitator: What will we see?

Facilitator: From what period?

Students: Greek and Roman

Table 4b. The pedagogy ring scoring rubric

Discussing/presenting the goals of the FT

Parent: Is there mint around here?

The facilitator ignores the question.

There were no walnuts in the trail [observation 13-05-07-4-5].

Facilitator: really (enthusiastic)?! Bring some!

Students: mice. . . rats. . .. squirrels. . .

Facilitator: Rats? What do rats eat?

Students: Pine cones

Facilitator: Yes! we know that from a previous trip

With respect to the social dimension of activity, Brody adds,

Table 4c. The activity ring scoring rubric

Physical activity — the researcher’s view

Physical activity — the student’s view

Table 4d. Scoring knowledge and understanding — the outcome circle

None. Statement is Statement draws simple but Statement addresses in detail a

well. Eventually it will harm us.

. Nature’s spiritual and aesthetic value

Validity and Reliability

Preparation in Organization–school Connection to the school

Clarifying the Using the Connecting to Social Facilitator’s

Level Physical activity Learning activity

As it happens, Schools 5, 6 and 7, shown in Figure 7, have similar characteristics.

Figure 8. The outcomes of School 4

observer’s interpretation and the participants’ own reported experience. Following