What is the impact of a mandatory field trip program on the

environmental awareness and action of students?

Lauren J. Dellert
Biology Teacher
Seminole High School, Seminole, FL, USA
Miami University, Baja III 2015

ABSTRACT
The objective of this study is to show whether a mandatory, county-funded environmental
education program has a perceived significant effect, from the viewpoint of the teachers, on student
environmental attitude and action. The study examines students environmental awareness and
action in Citrus County, where the county provides students in 4th, 7th, and high school science
classes a free-of-charge environmental education field trip to the Marine Science Station. The
Citrus County students will be compared with the environmental attitude and action of students
environmental awareness and action in Pinellas County, which lacks such a program. The
information was collected via online surveys of participating teachers in both counties; teachers
were asked subjective questions regarding their perception of their students understanding of their
impact on the environment. In Citrus County, teachers were asked to fill out the survey, which
answered questions regarding student attitude and awareness before and after their Marine Science
Station experience. In Pinellas County, teachers were asked mirrored questions, replacing any
references to the Marine Science Station with the phrase an outdoor field experience. Although
all Pinellas County teachers surveyed were interested in such a program within Pinellas County
and all Citrus County teachers surveyed strongly recommend the program, the results about their
perceived student environmental awareness and action were not significantly different between the
two counties.

INTRODUCTION
Utilization of outdoor learning spaces through field trips is a difficult, often avoided, and
sometimes impossible task for many educators, despite the numerous studies that proclaim these
experiences to be one of our most effective environmental education tools (Dillion, et al, 2006).
For an educator to conduct such a field trip requires many different stars to align. These conditions
include an excess of the resources of time and money, the approval of school or district for such
activities, assured student wellbeing at the field trip location, the teachers own confidence in the
subject matter, and finally whether or not the field trip fits well enough into the standardized
curriculum during the appropriate time (2006). It could even be said that the state of modern public
education indirectly discourages field trips as they take time away from the state-mandated and
carefully timed curriculum (Sobel, 2004).

At the same time that standardization has a hold on the public education system, globally we are
undergoing major environmental shifts that will require students to have the knowledge to not only
understand environmental science, but to make political and lifestyle decisions to protect their own
wellbeing and the wellbeing of the planet as a whole. What students are currently receiving
through traditional biology and environmental science classroom education is very quickly
becoming insufficient to cope with the reality of their life-long environmental interactions
(Bogner, 1998). Instead, students need to gain an understanding not only for the environment, but
the role that they have within the ecological framework of the planet (1998).

One of the more commonly suggested solutions to the biological and environmental short-comings
of traditional education is the proper application of outdoor learning and environmental education
programs. Where our current system advocates for passivity in the classroom, outdoor educational
programs are hands-on and provides opportunities for active participation (Bogner, 1998). These
types of experiences have been shown in multiple studies to be more effective for developing
cognitive skills than traditional classroom based learning (Dillon, et al, 2006). This has been
demonstrated through higher scores on knowledge tests and increased positive attitudes towards
education (Orion, et. al, 1994). In addition, the field work done within these programs show
increased favorable attitudes towards defending the environment (Manzanal, et al, 1999). Lastly,
outdoor, field experiences increase students interest in biology or environmental science as a
future career (Prokop, et al. 2007).

Despite the increased student success demonstrated in hundreds of research studies, field trips in
general are one of the most expensive activities within the public education system (Dillon, et al,
2006, Orion, et al, 1994). How then do we correctly utilize this tool so that students may gain as
much as possible from it and legislators and curriculum-writers feel that it is a justified means of
education (1994)? The answer comes in both design and execution of the field trip program itself,
both by the classroom educator and the field trip facilitator or location. Programs should be
designed with both students and educators in mind, lasting no less than one but no more than five
days (2006). The programs should either provide or suggest pre-visit activities, which teachers
should use to prepare students for both the location itself and the basic knowledge needed to
appreciate the field trip (2006). These pre-visit activities should be brief, only giving students

exactly what they need for the field trip itself. (Orion, et al, 1994). The field trip itself should
occur in the earlier part of the related curriculum, so that it piques the interest of the students in
the concept but allows for true open investigation and inquiry of species and environment while in
the field (1994, Bogner, 1998). While on the field trip, students should not engage in traditional
classroom work such as worksheets or note-taking, but instead immerse themselves fully with
interactive activities that allow for hands-on, active participation (2006). These activities should
be discussed as part of the field trip, not just from a scientific standpoint but an emotional
standpoint, allowing students to express themselves within the environment (2006). Finally the
field trip should allow students the ability to choose between outside and inside activities, allowing
them to see the link between the two interrelated worlds (2006).
With this long list of must-haves for the type of effective field trip that produces gains in student
achievement and positive attitude towards the environment, it is easy to see why educators may
feel bogged down and incapable of planning a field trip without assistance that justifies both the
time and the cost (Dillon, et al, 2006). However, if assistance were provided by the school district,
such a program has the possibility of achieving the academic and environmental gains of an
effective outdoor educational experience, while taking the pressure off of the classroom educator.
This partnership between classroom educator and school district exists in Citrus County, Florida
through the use of the county-funded Marine Science Station. The objective of this study is to
show whether a mandatory, county-funded environmental education program, such as the one
offered at the Citrus County Marine Science Station, has a perceived significant effect, from the
viewpoint of the teachers, on student environmental attitude and action

METHODS
The first step in the study was to open a line of communication with the Citrus County Schools
Marine Science Station. Earnie Olsen, the supervisor of the Marine Science Station, assisted the
study by providing information about the program and its affiliation with Citrus County Schools,
as well as assessing the programs current method of surveying their teachers. The Marine Science
Station had previously been using an online survey, set up by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection for their educational LIFE (Learning in Floridas Environment)
program. The online survey was revised to bot fit the needs of the study and the needs of the

Marine Science Station, but kept as many of the LIFE program questions as possible; this was to
accommodate for future grant funding for the Marine Science Station and for reliability. (E. Olsen,
personal communications, 17 September 2015).

A control survey with corresponding questions was developed to test teachers in Pinellas County.
This survey mirrored the original questions, but omitted the name of the Marine Science Station
and the before and after language. At the end of the control survey, a brief description of the
program in Citrus County was included. The Pinellas County teachers control survey ended with
a question of whether or not the teachers would be interested in such a program in Pinellas County.
Both surveys were then distributed via e-mail to the appropriate groups; the experimental survey
was sent out to all Citrus County teachers participating in the program during the 1st quarter of the
2015-2016 school year, and the control survey was sent out to a group of Pinellas County teachers
who had provided their e-mails, met the criteria of being 4th grade, 7th grade, or high schools
science teachers and agreed to participate. These teachers were also asked to forward along the
survey to any other Pinellas County teachers who met the requirement and would be willing to
take the survey. Both survey links can be found in the Appendix of this paper for the readers
reference.

Data collection began on Monday, August 24, 2015 and ended on Tuesday, October 20, 2015.
These dates represent the first quarter of the 2015-2016 school year in both participating counties.
Once the data was collected, each of the mirrored responses was quantified using a 1 to 5 scale,
corresponding with the teacher responses of strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and
strongly agree from their surveys. The N/A category elicited a 0 weighted score and did not
impact the overall scores for each category that the teachers ranked. The mirrored questions were
then compared between Citrus County and Pinellas County in regards to their students
environmental awareness or action, and their statistical significance was assessed using the t-test
and comparing against a p-vale of 0.05.

RESULTS
Three completed experimental surveys from Citrus County and seven completed control surveys
from Pinellas County were received back. The Citrus County surveys came from teachers at two

different Citrus County schools. The Pinellas County surveys came from teachers at four different
Pinellas County schools. The names of the participating schools have been omitted to protect the
anonymity of the participants, however the demographic averages of the participating schools are
included in the paragraph below for comparison.

The participating Citrus County schools had an average minority percentage of 13.5% and an
average of 53% of students on free or reduced lunch programs. The participating Pinellas County
schools had a minority average of 26.5% and an average of 25% of the students on free or reduced
lunch programs. One of the responding Citrus County schools was classified as a Title 1 school;
none of the responding Pinellas County schools were classified as Title 1 (School Accountability
Report, 2014).

Two comparisons were run between the mirrored response questions from the two surveys; the
first comparison was to identify significant difference between the responses of the Citrus County
schools before and after their visit to the Marine Science Station, and the second comparison was
to determine if there was a significant difference between the after responses of the Citrus County
schools and the general responses of the Pinellas County schools. The average results and mirrored
question topics are shown on Table 1 below. The responses are shown in quantified form, where
answers were weighted on a scale from 1-5 with 1 being strongly disagree, 2 being disagree, 3
being neutral, 4 being agree, and 5 being strongly agree. This data is represented visually below
in Graphs 1 and 2.

Table 1: Average Perceived Student Environmental Awareness or Action

Citrus County Before MSS

Citrus County After MSS

Pinellas County

(3 responses)

(3 responses)

(7 responses)

3.67

5.0

3.43

2.67

3.67

2.86

3.33

3.67

2.86

Q1: Students are aware of how

their

actions

affect

the

environment
Q2: Students want to make schoolwide

changes

towards

conservation efforts without being

prompted by teacher
Q3:

Students

have

changed

environmental behaviors at home,

such as increased recycling, water

usage, etc.)
Q4:

Students

wish

to

visit

additional natural areas outside of

4.00

4.00

2.86

school

Graph 1: Comparing Citrus County Results (before and after Marine Science Station
program)

Average Perceived Student Environmetal

Awareness/Action: Citrus County Before vs. Citrus County
After Marine Science Station Survey Results
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Citrus After

3.5

4.5

Citrus Before

Graph 2: Comparing Citrus County after Marine Science Station Results with Pinellas
County Results

Average Perceived Student Environmetal

Awareness/Action: Pinellas County vs. Citrus County
After Survey Results
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
0

0.5

1.5

2
Pinellas

2.5

Citrus After

3.5

4.5

Of the three Citrus County teachers surveyed, all agreed or strongly agreed that their curriculum
was enriched by their participation in programs at the Marine Science Station (4.67 weighted
average). In addition, all teachers strongly agreed that the feedback from their students regarding
the program was positive, that their students preferred outdoor inquiry and/or project-based
learning as a result of their participation, and that the students were more aware of how their actions
affected the environment after the program (5 weighted average for each topic). When asked if
the students enthusiasm for learning had increased, the results were 2 neutral and 1 agree (3.33
weighted average). When asked if an increased number of students would like to pursue careers
in science as a result of the program, the results were 1 neutral, 1 agree, and 1 strongly agree (4.0
weighted average). Finally, when asked if students were able to retain information from the
program, all three teachers agreed (3.0 weighted average).

The information from the Pinellas County control survey that was not mirrored with the Citrus
County experimental survey was used to gauge teacher opinion regarding the addition of a program
similar to that at the Marine Science Station within Pinellas County. When asked if teachers felt
their curriculum would be enriched as a result of participating in an outdoor field activity program,
5 teachers responded with strongly agree, 1 teacher with neutral, and 1 teacher with a strongly
disagree (4.14 weighted average). When asked if teachers felt that an outdoor field activity
program would increase academic achievement in participating students, 6 teachers responded
with strongly agree and 1 teacher with a strongly disagree (4.43 weighted average). The same
results were also true for whether the teachers felt the addition of an outdoor field activity program
would increase engagement or enthusiasm for learning among students. When asked if an outdoor
activity program would increase students performance on standardized tests such as FCAT or

EOC exams, the results were 4 strongly agree, 1 agree, 1 disagree, and 1 strongly disagree (3.86
weighted average). When asked if participation in an outdoor activity program would increase the
number of students interested in a career in science, the results were 4 strongly agree, 1 agree, 1
neutral, and 1 strongly disagree (4.0 weighted average). Lastly when asked if the students would
react positively to the inclusion of an outdoor field activity program, the teachers responded with
5 strongly agrees, 1 agree, and 1 strongly disagree (4.29 weighted average).

All surveyed Pinellas County school teachers responded that they would be interested in a program
similar to the Citrus County Schools Marine Science Station if it were offered in Pinellas County.
Additionally, all Citrus County teachers surveyed strongly recommended the program at the
Marine Science Station or a similar program to other teachers, schools, or districts, based upon the
impact of the program on their students.

Using the before and after data from the Citrus County experimental surveys, a t-test was run to
see if the differences between the teachers perception before was statistically different from their
perception after, thereby showing either a statistically significant increase or decrease in perceived
student environmental awareness or action. All t-test results gave a p-value of over 0.05 (p-values
were 0.27, 0.10, 0.42, and 1 for questions 1-4 respectively), meaning that there was no statistically
significant difference between perceived environmental awareness or action in Citrus County
students before and after the Marine Science Station program.

Using the after data from the Citrus County experimental surveys and the control data from the
Pinellas County surveys, a t-test was run to see if the differences between the teachers perception

in Citrus County was statistically different from their perception in Pinellas County, thereby
showing either a statistically significant increase or decrease in perceived student environmental
awareness or action due to the presence of a mandatory, county-funded environmental education
field trip. All t-test results gave a p-value of over 0.05 (p-values were 0.12, 0.81, 0.31, and 0.31
for questions 1-4 respectively), meaning that there was no statistically significant difference
between perceived environmental awareness or action in Citrus County students after the Marine
Science Station and the Pinellas County students.

DISCUSSION
One potential cause for the high p-values is the lack of survey participation. With only three
participating teachers from Citrus County and seven participating teachers from Pinellas County,
there was not nearly enough information collected within the first grading period to constitute a
statistically significant study. Although the Citrus County Marine Science Station does receive an
average of one school group per day during the first quarter, many of the teachers did not fill out
the survey. This may be due in part to the fact that in past years, the surveys are sent out at the
end of the school year, rather than directly after the program. Many teachers may not have
expected the survey to arrive so soon or did not believe that the survey was time sensitive. The
Pinellas County teacher participation was mainly reliant on unaffected teachers to take time out of
their day during the last week of the grading period to answer a five to ten minute survey, as well
as share with other teachers via e-mail; this also led to poor control group participation.

It is possible that Pinellas County control data was also compromised by one teacher failing to
accurately read the rating scale. Although this teacher answered Strongly Disagree for all of the

questions concerning the effectiveness of an outdoor field activity, all seven Pinellas County
teachers would be interested in such a program existing within Pinellas County. As the surveys
are anonymous there is no way to tell, nor do the existing results suggest that it would change the
outcome of the t-tests or resulting p-values.

Had the survey been extended or participation been greater, statistically significant results may
have been possible. This assumption is due to the high level of interest in the program by both
Pinellas County and Citrus County teachers, in accordance with the results of the online survey.
If this study were to be repeated, extending it to last throughout an entire school year is
recommended. This would give additional time for teachers to complete the survey, as well as
allow more Citrus County teachers to visit the Marine Science Station with their classes. The
inclusion of a student survey would be helpful as well, so that the results did not just include the
teachers perception of the students. This study focused on the teachers perception with the
thinking that if there were statistically significant increases as reported by teachers, the county
would be more likely to listen to justifications for a program. However, a combination of both
teacher and student data would be more convincing.

ACTION AND REFLECTION

The original action plan at the start of this project was to take the data to the science coaches of
Pinellas County and rally their support around the creation of a program similar to the Marine
Science Station in Citrus County. At this time, however, the data does not support the initial
argument that such a program would have a statistically significant impact. Further online surveys,
using both student and teacher data, could be utilized to put forward such an idea in the future.

While the data is not statistically significant, mainly due to low survey numbers, current data does
indicate that overall both sets of teachers see the environmental education programs provided by
the Citrus County Marine Science Station positively. This support, though anonymous, is a
starting place and could be used, alongside the research outlined in the introduction of this study,
to gather further teacher support for such a program within Pinellas County. If educators were to
rally behind the idea of researching a program in Pinellas County, that action could be enough to
form a committee that scouts programs or locations, such as those suggested below.

Pinellas County currently has a state park with the Department of Environmental Protections LIFE
program currently available. Honeymoon Island State Park, located just outside of Dunedin,
Florida, uses the LIFE program to reach students, however its reach does not extend to providing
transportation, being free-of-charge to all participants, or being a mandatory part of curriculum,
thus allocating time to classroom educators within their district-mandated timelines. This could
potentially be amended through discussions between the Pinellas County School Board and the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection; LIFE programs are offered in such capacity in
other areas of the state.

Although a location that is already functioning as an educational program site might be preferred
by county officials, there is also the looming possibility of starting an entirely new program at a
previously unavailable location. A possible location for a new field trip location is Clam Bayou
in south Pinellas County, in St. Petersburg. Though the location is technically owned by the
University of South Florida, it is maintained by a small cohort of professors and educators who
founded the Oceanography Camp for Girls, a free summer program for girls transitioning from

middle to high school with an interest and aptitude for science. When contacted, the cohort was
interested in the chance for future collaboration and brought experience in working with the county
to provide free programs to schools.

REFERNCES

Bogner, F. X. (1998). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on longterm variables of environmental perspective. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 29(4), 17-29.

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(320), 107.

Farmer, J., Knapp, D, & Benton, G. (2007). An Elementary School Environmental

Education Field Trip: Long-Term Effects on Ecological and Environmental Knowledge
and Attitude Development. Journal of Environmental Education, 38(3), 33-42.

Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through

environmental education. The journal of environmental education, 21(3), 8-21.

Manzanal, R. F., Rodrguez Barreiro, L. M., & Casal Jimnez, M. (1999). Relationship
between ecology fieldwork and student attitudes toward environmental
protection. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 431-453.

Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field
trip in a natural environment. Journal of research in science teaching, 31(10), 1097-1119.

Priest, S. (1986). Redefining outdoor education: A matter of many relationships. The

Journal of Environmental Education, 17(3), 13-15.

Prokop, P., Tuncer, G., & Kvasnik, R. (2007). Short-term effects of field programme
on students knowledge and attitude toward biology: a Slovak experience. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 16(3), 247-255.

School Accountability Reports. (2014). Florida Department of Education. Retrieved

October 19, 2015.

Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classroom and community. Nature

and Listening, 4.

Tal, R.T. (2004). Using a field trip to a wetland as a guide for conceptual understanding
in environmental education a case study of a pre-service teachers research. Chemistry
Education Research and Practice, 5(2), 127-142.

APPENDIX
Experiment (Citrus County Schools) Survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FX8JS9F
Control (Pinellas County Schools) Survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/K3XMJYF