Search for: All records

Which approaches lead to better outcomes for participants in environmental education (EE) field trips? This manuscript builds upon previous large-sample quantitative research that identified effective elements of single-day EE field trip programs for early adolescent youth across the USA. In this mixed-methods study, we observed 87 EE-focused school field trips in the USA and then surveyed youth participants immediately afterwards. We used the student surveys to quantitatively distinguish the top-performing quartile of programs from the bottom quartile. We then examined in-depth qualitative fieldnotes on each program in the top and bottom quartiles. Our analyses revealed six key principles that distinguished the programs with the most positive student outcomes from those with the least positive: (1) ensuring basic needs (physiological and safety) are met; (2) ensuring instructional clarity; (3) providing emotional support for students; (4) highlighting the novelty of the activities and setting; (5) maintaining or restoring student attention; and (6) providing a cohesive and thematic experience with clear purpose. There are many ways to embody the six principles. We share examples for each. 

Recent research suggests that many environmental education (EE) programs for youth in the United States focus on meeting educational standards rather than using civic engagement and advocacy techniques to promote environmental literacy. We distributed a survey to members of several EE organizations to identify which civic engagement, advocacy, and behavior change techniques a sample of EE providers feel are appropriate to use for youth at different developmental stages (grades 4–5, grades 6–8, and grades 9–12), as well as the extent to which they use them. Educators rated many techniques as less appropriate and were less likely to use them with younger age groups. We also conducted an appropriateness/ use analysis to identify techniques that were deemed highly appropriate but were not used as often. The techniques related to civic engagement and advocacy for diversity, equity, and inclusion appeared underutilized. Implications of these findings for policy and practice are discussed.