 |
Asia-Pacific Forum
on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 14, Issue 2, Article 2 (Dec., 2013) |
Presently, many nations have an increasing interest in the outdoor learning environment as a constructive complement to the old-fashioned classroom teaching or indoor learning (Fägerstam, 2012; Jordet, 2010; Martin, 2010; Rickinson et al., 2004). Both types of learning have indeed caught the attention of many educators around the world who are actively researching on their impact on different subject areas of learning and to evaluate the different perspectives about them (Fägerstam, 2012; Beard, 2002; Brown, 2004). The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2013) defines the word ‘indoor’ as to be something ‘relating to the interior of a building’ and the word ‘learning’ as to be the ‘act or experience of one that acquires a new knowledge’ or ‘skill acquired by instruction or study.’ Beard and Wilson (2006:80) also found that ‘typically, indoor learning environments have been strongly associated with lecture theatres, classrooms and textbooks.’ Indoor learning can then be best described as a learning space within a four-walled building whereby children have the opportunity to enhance their knowledge and skills through conventional ways of teaching and learning. On the other hand, outdoor learning is an experiential process of learning by performing acts/experiences that takes place predominantly out of the classroom setting or through exposure to the out-of-doors (Fägerstam, 2012).
Fägerstam’s (2012) investigated different perspectives and experiences on outdoor teaching and learning to discover the after-effects of regular school-based outdoor teaching and learning in a junior high school context. The results from her study suggest that the implementation of outdoor learning on regular basis in schools leads to many potential advantages especially in building students’ social and emotional dimensions of learning as well as increasing students’ motivation and interest to learn through their expression of curiosity, commitment and contentment in the outdoors (Fägerstam, 2012).
This was supported by Hofstein and Rosenfeld (1996 as cited in Abell and Lederman, 2007) who conclude that field trips as one of the many outdoor learning activities to be the most valuable informal science learning and it is voted to be more impactful to students’ learning of science as compared to indoor formal learning in schools. They found out that ‘learning environments that allow students to interact physically and intellectually with instructional materials through hands-on experimentation and minds-on reflection’ make substantial impacts on students’ learning of science (Hofstein and Rosenfeld, 1996:87). Nevertheless, they agree that the blend of both learning contexts and methods of outdoor and indoor learning should be diversified to augment the repertoire of learning opportunities among students (Hofstein and Rosenfeld, 1996).
One of the many gaps that were suggested for further research is ‘to explore students’ experience and perceptions of outdoor teaching (Fägerstam, 2012:70; Brown, 2004). Another gap that they suggest for further research is to investigate the different ways and impacts of both indoor and outdoor learning experiences with the purpose of enhancing the learning of science significantly. Hence, this research paper targets to address these gaps with special attention on the differences and similarities of outdoor learning and indoor learning, its impacts in understanding science as a chosen subject, and different perceptions of students on outdoor learning and indoor learning.
This research aims to answer the following research questions:
- How does indoor and outdoor learning impact students’ academic performance in science?
- What are students’ perceptions about incorporating indoor and outdoor learning in science?
This research paper is based on a framework using Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Cycle that consists of four stages in a cyclic model such as Concrete Experience, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualisation and Active Experimentation. Figure 1 shows the framework of Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle (1984).
Figure 1. Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle
This framework was built upon the earlier work of John Dewey (1859-1952) and Kurt Levin (1890-1947). Kolb (1984:38) emphasises that ‘learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience.’
In line with the aim of this research paper, Kolb (1984) states that effective learning is seen when one progresses through the cyclic cycle firstly by having a concrete experience followed by observation of and reflection on that experience which leads to the formation and analysis of abstract concepts and its generalizations and finally, application of the input of knowledge and skills in the world. These principles of experiential learning are the theoretical basis to compare the impact and students’ perceptions of indoor learning and outdoor learning in understanding science.
