A comparative study of the impacts and students’ perceptions of indoor and outdoor learning in the science classroom

Over time, the arguments for the prominence of rich learning experiences for students’ healthy development especially in enhancing academic performance and skills through indoor and outdoor learning activities have been escalating (Fägerstam, 2012; Beard, 2002; Brown, 2004). Access to both types of learning also expands the range of active learning opportunities available to stimulate imagination and creativity (Fägerstam, 2012; Malone, 2008). Harmonising indoor and outdoor learning environments diversify the aptitude that students can operate to exhibit authentic inquiry in numerous subject areas (Malone, 2008).

There are a number of similarities and differences between indoor and outdoor learning. Greenaway (1999, as cited in Beard and Wilson, 2006) shows various similar aspects of indoor and outdoor learning through his interesting and insightful perspective of the terms indoors and outdoors. Firstly, both learning environments evoke powerful images and provide neutral settings with distinct advantages and disadvantages for students to explore. Secondly, both environments are able to offer the same opportunity for students to be managers of their own learning by taking charge of their responsibilities as students. Thirdly, the depth of learning in both the learning environments is profoundly determined by students themselves when they make connections of what they observe and learn. Lastly, the diversity and versatility of learning and teaching approaches can be used in both indoors and outdoors to escalate the learning process of students. It is also agreed in one accord by many educators around the world that such learning environments are tailored for the main purpose of educating students effectively in terms of their knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes (Beard and Wilson, 2006; Reid, 2005; Brown, 2004).

Despite the similarities identified by Greenaway (1999), indoors and outdoors are reckoned as two separate worlds for students (Spodek and Saracho, 2006). One of the many differences between these learning environments is that outdoors encourage more different types of play activities than the indoors (Spodek and Saracho, 2006). The large space in the outdoors permits for a greater range of movements for students to learn through play-based activities whereas the indoors are limited by the size of the classroom (Spodek and Saracho, 2006). Sensory learning experiences are readily available in the outdoors too (Bruce, 2010). For example, students can observe different types of plants in the natural environment, feel its textures, differentiate its colours and shapes and also, hear the sound of their feet crunching on dry leaves (Bruce, 2010). It is also easier for students to express themselves when they are in the outdoors rather than the indoors in which they need to first develop the sense of belonging and feel welcomed in the classroom before they can take the next step to open themselves up to learn new things (Bruce, 2010).

There is extensive research on the impact of indoor learning in improving students’ performance in understanding science. It is argued that rich indoor environments have an immediate, positive effect on the quality of students’ learning process (Wardle, 2004). If these indoor classrooms are prudently arranged and designed by the inclusion of few elements of outdoors, it is able to accommodate students’ changing interests and needs (Wardle, 2004). The quality of science activities applied in the indoors needs to be strengthened as it broadly affects the on-going classroom engagement and development in science. Consequently, students from different intelligences are able to draw on important scientific skills such as observing, measuring, recording, drawing conclusions and communicating results (Farmery, 2002). Greenman (1988, as cited in Wardle, 2004) also proposes that every indoor classroom should entail constructive traits whereby students are subjected to expressive learning and playing experiences across the curriculum. Statistics prove that ‘students spend approximately 20,000 hours in classrooms by the time they graduate’ (Fraser, 2001 as cited in Beard and Wilson, 2006:80). The indoors can be equipped with a rich range of resources and materials to support the learning of science in the most appropriate room layouts and organisations unlike the outdoors (Bruce, 2010). Besides that, some physical issues such as furnishings, air quality, lighting and colour also impact the process of learning science indoors. It affects the mood of the learning and thus, defines the pace of students’ learning and academic performance.

Conversely, just as much as indoor learning could improve students’ performance; it could also drain students’ motivation and interest to learn for many reasons (Jackman, 2011). Firstly, the excessive ripple effect of noise level within the classroom setting could indirectly lead to the poor ability of students to remain on-task or concentrate on the work that was given to them (Jackman, 2011). Communication is one of the most important skills to be acquired through the learning of science (Farmery, 2002). Thus, a calm yet proactive classroom is necessary to maximise the learning of science in the indoors. Secondly, indoor learning activities may not be sufficient for kinaesthetic or more outgoing students to explore the world around them and this may limit their amazing potential to advance in their academic performance as they have lesser opportunities to apply their scientific skills (Jackman, 2011). Thirdly, traditional indoor learning applies teacher-centred approaches unlike that of the outdoors with no or little emphasis on the students-centred inquiry process of learning (Shih et. al., 2010). Science, as a subject, is fundamentally fascinating to students and involves them in an adventurous exploration individually or in groups (Farmery, 2002). Such a learning process calls for students to learn science through an open-ended process approach to better understand scientific concepts and grasp essential scientific skills (Farmery, 2002). First-hand experiences should be one of the essentials in teaching (Farmery, 2002). When correct teaching strategies are utilised in the indoors, it will definitely be able to build up students’ academic performance in science (Shih et. al., 2010).

Research has also been carried out to evaluate the impact of outdoor learning in improving students’ performance in understanding science. Commonly, it is reasoned that outdoor learning is the better platform of active and engaging learning that benefits students the most especially in understanding science rather than learning in the indoors (Duschl et al., 2007; Hayden, 2012; Fägerstam, 2012; Abell and Lederman, 2007). According to Duschl et al. (2007), being scientific includes being curious, observant, inquisitive on how things occur, and discovering how to find the answers. In the outdoors, sensory learning experiences are readily available that boosts students’ level of curiosity and excitement to be able to be scientific and actively engage in the practices of science (Bruce, 2010; Duschl et al., 2007). For instance, students have the open access to conduct mini experiments, share ideas with their peers, manage the scientific research process, and discuss the results of the experiments by using the variables and hypothesis (Duschl et al., 2007).

Jeffery (2006) performed a capstone project to gather information from students who have trouble learning in a traditional classroom with the purpose to achieve his main aim in demonstrating the potential advantages of outdoor learning to increase the motivation and enthusiasm of low performance students. Based on his findings, it shows that outdoor learning has enhanced students’ exhilaration and preference to participate in the outdoors rather than learning indoors (Jeffery, 2006). Similarly, Fox and Avramidis (2003:268 as cited in Rickinson, et. al., 2004:25), advocate that in the outdoors, ‘learning objectives are achieved alongside enjoyable and challenging activities which cannot be performed in conventional settings.’ In this argument, as the students enjoy learning science in the outdoors, conceptual development in science occur naturally as a product of the child’s learning experiences as well as the learning objectives as planned by the educators are accomplished successfully (Duschl et al., 2007).

Broda (2007, as cited in Hayden, 2012:3) reveals that ‘outdoor education motivates the reluctant learner, adds variety to teaching and learning, helps increase student achievement … and is compatible with many current practices in education.’ The outdoors offers the space to execute different teaching and learning activities and thus, with the increase of students’ active participation, they show greater commitment to improve in their academic performance too. Such blended learning, packed with fun activities and attainable learning objectives is a big plus point to our current trends in education to ensure the prominent quality of teaching and learning in science.

Notwithstanding, outdoor learning is debated to possess many negative impacts on the developmental process of learning science (White, 2011). First of all, any kind of outdoor learning activity is time-consuming and requires a systematic planning (White, 2011). These outdoor activities need to be well-prepared to promote students-centred inquiry according to their learning needs and capabilities so that they will have the opportunity to take charge of their learning. This would also help to accelerate their academic performance in science by instilling creativity, commitment and cooperation among themselves. Secondly, outdoor learning is also constrained due to health and safety concerns (White, 2011). In field trips or visits, there are few complex areas that need extra attention like facilities, equipment, transportation, insurance policy, emergency arrangements and communication in order to ensure a smooth journey before, during and after the field trip or visit. Thirdly, schools have to consider and resolve the negative consequences if students do not confront and conquer risky physical activities that may lead to a decrease in their interest to participate in outdoor activities (White, 2011).

Research has shown that students perceive outdoor learning in different ways. Hayden (2012:6) examined the students’ attitudes towards outdoor learning in which ‘they were completely immersed in the experience of exploring and discovering the world around them’ indicating positive responses from students about learning in the outdoors. They also showed positive on-task behaviour as a result of having positive perceptions about outdoor learning (Hayden, 2012). Furthermore, students with stronger level of naturalist intelligence enjoy the outdoor learning activities and have stronger, optimistic perspectives than others (Edlund, 2011). Since the natural environment is a perpetual and dynamic stimulator, students are given unlimited opportunities for sensory exploration and creative expression in their learning (Edlund, 2011).

However, Neill (2006) presents his doubts on the intensity of what outdoor learning can offer to students which is in contrast to the common belief that outdoor learning is inherently good. He went on to assert that educational practitioners are not inspired to apply such effective outdoor learning as part of the academic intervention program due to many perceived barriers such as time, liability, defective school policies on outdoor learning and lack of awareness of its effectiveness in improving students’ academic performance (Neill, 2006). These factors exemplify the teachers' lack of interest in encouraging learning in the outdoors and thus, causing their students to receive incorrect perspectives about outdoor learning (Neill, 2006).

On the other hand, students’ perceptions toward indoor learning are not definite as they are very much affected by factors such as classroom management, teaching strategies, and many others (Reid, 2007). If students feel important and influential in the classroom, they would automatically love the learning that takes place in the traditional classroom setting and show the willingness to engage enthusiastically in the classroom activities (Reid, 2007). It also develops a sense of ownership and belonging being part of the classroom community (Reid, 2007). Another example would be teacher’s positive classroom habits (Reid, 2007). Good classroom management skills spread good vibes into the mood or atmosphere of the classroom and invite the involvement of students to pay attention to what is being taught in the classroom (Reid, 2007).

Conversely, consistent old-fashioned teaching and learning strategies will not increase students’ passion to learn in the classroom (Savage and Savage, 2009). To a certain extent, it causes them to feel bored if there are no interesting indoor learning activities employed (Savage and Savage, 2009). Their perceptions toward indoor learning would be more negative than positive. Classroom incivility, as a result of poor classroom management, would also be another determining factor to the way students perceive indoor learning (Bjorklund and Rehling, 2010). Disruptive, rude and troublesome behaviour among some students could possibly affect the perceptions and interest of other students learning in the same classroom with them. Poor communication skills between teachers and students, as one of the many observable unhealthy classroom practices in a traditional four-walled classroom, may also elicit negative perspectives about indoor learning (Kohn, 2000).