|
|
 |
|
|
|
Outdoor Education Experiences and AP ES
|
|
| |
by Nicholas Smith-Sebasto
Montclair State University
New Jersey School of Conservation
Branchville, New Jersey
|
|
| |
Introduction
In this age of seemingly virtual everything, some may ask if AP Environmental Science (AP ES) instruction must include an outdoor component: Can't students learn what they need to learn in a lab? Do AP ES students who have substantial excursions into the outdoors know more about environmental science, have more positive attitudes about the environment, and/or behave in more environmentally responsible ways than students who do not have such outdoor experiences? My response to the first question is an unequivocal no. My response to the second question recognizes a lack of scholarly research to provide an adequate answer.
There is, however, some published research (not much involving high school students and even less on AP ES students) that suggests that outdoor education experiences do contribute to increased learning about Earth systems, more positive attitudes toward the environment, and temporary increases in the self-reported performance of environmentally responsible behaviors. By including substantial excursions and study in the outdoors, teachers may provide AP ES students with the opportunity to avoid what Leopold ([1953] 1972) identified as "one of the penalties of an ecological education" (165), namely finding "the damage inflicted on land [as] quite invisible" (165). Outdoor education may also help students avoid the alienation, described by Jim Dunlop (1992), that much of modern education may be fostering. In addition, I wish to provide two reasons why AP ES instruction must include an outdoor component.
Environmental Literacy
The first reason concerns environmental literacy. Let me illustrate what may happen when students do not have exposure to outdoor education and instruction. In 1993, I taught a four-credit-hour general ecology course for science majors at a private liberal arts college (now a university). On the first day of class, I asked the students to tell me why they had enrolled in the course (apart from the fact that it was required). Without exception, they said they wanted to "learn more about environmental issues, so we can help to save the environment." (This may or may not be similar to the response that AP ES students might give, but I suspect some, maybe most, students enroll in AP ES because they are at least as interested in the environment as they are in the potential to earn college credit.)
I then asked the students to raise their hands if they could take me out to the campus nature trail and point out a beech tree (Fagus grandifolia, a species very common on the campus and rather difficult to confuse with any other species). Not one hand went up. I then said, "Okay, so you don't know trees. What about birds? How many of you could take me outside and tell me when you hear a robin [Turdus migratorius] singing?" (Yes, it was spring and on my walk to class the chorus of robin songs was noticeable.) Not one hand went up. This finding would probably not surprise Mike Weilbacher (1993), who suggested that he could guarantee "that not one in almost one million kids in Philadelphia-area schools can [identify] a grackle [Quiscalus quiscula] or recognize the song of the titmouse [Parus bicolor], [both] common in all Philadelphia-area habitats" (4)
Playing up my role, I acted frustrated and asked how many students could take me to a mall and show me a CD player. Every hand went up. "Okay," I said, "how many could tune a radio dial until you hear Whitney Houston singing 'I Will Always Love You' [a very big hit at the time]?" Every hand went up. Now I was flabbergasted (or so I acted for the students). I said, "You mean to tell me that you can't identify one of the most common trees on this campus or a birdsong you've been hearing all your life, but you can identify a human-made mechanical device that has only been around for about 10 years and a human song that has been around for a lot less than that?" Remember, I was talking to science majors. "But no one has ever taught us about those things [trees and birds] before," was the typical response. An equally common response was the desire to learn about those things as well as to learn skills such as tracking.
Later that semester, I found myself teaching the water cycle to junior and senior science majors who acted as if they had never seen or heard of it before. Biogeochemical cycles, energy flow, speciation, biodiversity, soil structure, and competition were topics new to these students -- students who had already completed 15 years of formal, structured education. This substantiates Larry Gigliotti's (1990) assertion that "We seem to have produced a citizenry that is emotionally charged but woefully lacking in basic ecological knowledge" (9). I have similar experiences with new students every year.
Reductionism in AP ES
In 1994, I presented at the Campus Earth Summit at Yale University. On the bus from the airport to the campus, I overheard two female students talking about how concerned they were about the environment but how little they knew about it and how much more they wished they knew. Finally, one turned to the other and said, "Look at that tree. I don't even know what kind it is." The tree was a sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), like the beech, hard to misidentify and very common. Yet even these students, who admitted to having an interest in the environment, did not possess this basic level of environmental literacy.
This illiteracy is not unique to students. Robert Hazen, staff scientist at the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington and Robinson Professor of Earth Science at George Mason University, reported that a Nobel Laureate in chemistry told him that he had never heard of plate tectonics and that 25 geophysicists whom he queried could not correctly articulate the difference between DNA and RNA (Pool, 1991, 266). These two experiences are indicative of what happens when science is presented in a reductionistic manner, that is, when various fields of study such as biology, chemistry, environmental science, geology, and physics are treated as distinct and unrelated knowledge bases.
A similar type of reductionism may be present in AP ES courses. This reductionism manifests itself in the notion that students can learn about the life-support systems and ecological processes of the planet in laboratories and in isolation from the myriad processes (some known, many, perhaps even most, unknown) actually occurring on the planet. Biosphere 2 was a sometimes-painful reminder of how little we know about Earth systems. Despite having many of the most recognized planetary scientists working on its conception and design, Biosphere 2 quickly proved to be unable to sustain its human occupants without external interventions. However, it also proved the importance of engaging environmental science students in explorations outside of constructed laboratories and in the ultimate laboratory: the Earth itself.
The notion that outdoor education is vital is not new. More than 50 years ago, L. B. Sharp (1947), considered by some to be the progenitor of the concept, opined: "That which can best be learned inside the classroom should be learned there; and that which can best be learned through direct experience outside the classroom, in contact with native materials and life situations, should there be learned" (43). In 1909, Frederick W. Stack penned a book titled, Wild Flowers Every Child Should Know. Can you imagine suggesting today that every child should know how to identify more than 100 wildflowers?
Educational Reform
Many fields of study have a foundational course upon which all subsequent instruction is based. In medical school, it is gross anatomy. All medical school students, regardless of their intended specialization, must successfully complete a course in gross anatomy. The logic behind this requirement is that, in order to be a physician, one must possess extraordinary knowledge of the human body. Learning about the anatomy of the body is a first step in acquiring that knowledge. Studies of physiology, pathology, and so on logically follow.
Traditionally, students learned gross anatomy by studying human cadavers in laboratories. Recently, however, some medical schools have revised the teaching of gross anatomy. Instead of studying cadavers, students observe living, albeit hospitalized, humans. Reducing medical school education to separate courses (anatomy, physiology, pathology, etc.) is not as educationally productive as a more holistic approach that integrates each of the foci into a comprehensive whole. Thus, anatomy is better taught with a living being. Additionally, studying the anatomy of a cadaver sometimes gives students false impressions, because organs may change in appearance, shape, and even location after death. This revised method also recognizes the human body as a gestalt. That is, studying the living whole is preferable to studying deceased parts.
This type of educational reform can provide a model for AP ES instruction. The commonalities between medical school instruction and AP ES classes are substantial. For example, AP ES often involves laboratory investigations. The anatomy and physiology of Earth are often studied indoors in a lab. Just as medical schools have now recognized that it is advantageous to study a patient as a whole, AP ES instruction should teach the life-support systems of Earth as a whole. This will require a substantial amount of time out of the classroom doing actual field investigations. (See Bahe's article "Drey Land Ecology Field Trip" -- a link is provided below -- for a description of an excellent outdoor experience for AP ES students.)
Reconnecting with Nature
Stewart White (1904), in his wonderful book The Mountains, illustrates my second reason why AP ES instruction must include a substantive outdoor component. In the chapter "On Seeing Deer," he explained:
...supposing that a [person] has the natural ability to receive visual impressions, the tenderfoot fills out his[/her] full capacity with the striking features of his[/her] surroundings. To be able to see anything more obscure in form or color, he[/she] must naturally put aside from his[/her] attention some one or another of these obvious features. He[/she] can, for example, look for a particular kind of flower on a side hill by refusing to see other kinds....As soon as you can forget the naturally obvious and construct an artificially obvious, then you too will see deer. (122-23)
Learning AP ES in constructed laboratories and without actual exposure to the environment may fill students' minds with only the obvious and not the "artificially obvious." In other words, students need outdoor exposure so that they can see not deer but the workings of the planet's life-support systems.
The second reason why much of AP ES should take place outdoors is to help students develop an aesthetic appreciation of, an empathetic connection with, and a sense of wonder about the environment. As Anna Botsford Comstock ([1911] 1994) suggested, outdoor education, and nature study in particular, "makes [a learner] familiar with nature's ways and forces,...cultivates [her/his] imagination,...cultivates...a love of the beautiful, [b]ut, more than all, ...gives...a sense of companionship with life out-of-doors and an abiding love for nature" (1-2). Ellen Doris (1992) amplified this notion when she observed that "The greatest challenge of all teaching, and of science teaching in particular, is to enhance students' wonder about the world around them and help them pursue their own curiosities to make learning an interesting, lifelong process" (26).
The process that Michael Cohen (1995) identified as reconnecting with nature is best, and perhaps only, achieved by actual excursions into nonhuman-dominated settings. I repeatedly expose my students to Cohen's exercises and have the pleasure of students telling me just how epiphanic they are. To experience an epiphany using these exercises does, however, require a very open mind, as some of Cohen's activities are very progressive and require a separation from many commonly held stigmas. James Trefil stated, "If you don't know about something, you don't value it" (Pool, 1991, 266). It is important to consider that if students don't value something, if they are not emotionally attached to it, they also may not effectively learn about it.
References
Cohen, M. J. Reconnecting with Nature. Friday Harbor, WA: Project Nature Connect, 1995.
Comstock, A. B. Handbook of Nature Study. 1911. Reprint, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994.
Doris, E. "Keeping Wonder Alive." Holistic Education Review 5 (September 1992): 26-31.
Dunlop, J. "Lessons from Environmental Education in Industrialised Countries." Environmental Education: An Approach to Sustainable Development. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1992
Gigliotti, L. M. "Environmental education: What Went Wrong? What Can Be Done?" Journal of Environmental Education 22 (1990): 9-12.
Hogan, K. Eco-Inquiry. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1994.
(Author's note: This book was written with elementary and middle school learners as the target. A creative AP ES teacher should, however, be able to modify with little effort some of the activities to make them relevant for AP ES students.)
Leopold, L. B. Round River: From the Journals of Aldo Leopold. 1953. Reprint, New York: Oxford University Press, 1972.
Pool, R. "Science Literacy: The Enemy is Us." Science 251 (January 1991): 266-67.
Rosenthal, D. B. Environmental Science Activities. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995.
Sharp, L. B. "Basic Considerations in Outdoor and Camping Education." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principles 31 (1947): 43-47.
Stapp, W. B., and D. A. Cox. 1974. Environmental Education Activities Manual, Volume VI: Senior High Activities. Farmington Hills, MI: Stapp, 1979.
(Author's note: This book is quite rare and some of the information provided may be out-of-date. Still, it is a fine resource and worth the effort to locate a copy).
Weilbacher, M. "The Renaissance of the Naturalist." Journal of Environmental Education 25 (1993): 4-7.
White, S. E. The Mountains. New York: McClure, Phillips & Company, 1904.
Dr. Nicholas J. Smith-Sebasto is the associate director of the New Jersey School of Conservation, a division of the College of Science and Mathematics at Montclair State University. He has taught environmental science courses at the post-secondary level for more than 10 years. He has been involved with AP ES since its beginning as a Reader, Table Leader, and Question Leader.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Course Home Pages