Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujrd20

Download by: [100.17.21.4] Date: 05 January 2018, At: 18:07

Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance

ISSN: 0730-3084 (Print) 2168-3816 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrd20

Promoting Physical Activity and Science Learningin an Outdoor Education Program

Kevin E. Finn, Zi Yan & Kyle J. McInnis

To cite this article: Kevin E. Finn, Zi Yan & Kyle J. McInnis (2018) Promoting Physical Activity andScience Learning in an Outdoor Education Program, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation &Dance, 89:1, 35-39, DOI: 10.1080/07303084.2017.1390506

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2017.1390506

Published online: 05 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Kevin e. Finn

Zi Yan

KYle J. Mcinnis

Promoting Physical Activityand Science Learning in an Outdoor Education Program

Kevin E. Finn (finnk@merrimack.edu) is an associate professor and chair, Zi Yan is an assistant professor, and Kyle J. McInnis is associate dean in the Department of Health Sciences at Merrimack College in North Andover, MA.

The outdoor environment provides a great opportunity for school-age children to participate in physical activity. Evidence suggests that children who are physically active outdoors have a lower risk of developing a chronic illness (Strong et  al., 2005). Moreover, it has been shown that participation in activities in na-ture during childhood, such as hiking, camping and gardening, is associated with more positive attitudes toward outdoor activities later in life (Wells & Lekies, 2006). Unfortunately, children have been provided with fewer opportunities for outdoor play in their home environments, schools and local communities (Hofferth, 2008; Little & Wyver, 2008). The evidence shows that children are spending more time participating in indoor activities such as

JOPERD 35

Physical inactivity increases the risk of stroke and other major cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure, diabetes and obesity. It is recommended that children and adolescents par-ticipate in physical activity for at least 60 minutes

daily. However, the physical activity levels of children have been on a steady decline nationwide. Only 28.7% of children actually reported meeting the recommended amount of physical activity in the previous week (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2012). In schools physical education is one method to pro-mote physical activity, but it often falls short in meeting the daily physical activity recommendations.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

100.

17.2

1.4]

at 1

8:07

05

Janu

ary

2018

36 VOlumE 89 NumbER 1 JaNuaRy 2018

watching television and less time in the outdoors exploring and engaging in the natural environment (Frost, Brown, Sutterby, & Thornton, 2004; Ginsberg, 2007). As Kellert (2005) suggested, modern society has become so detached from the natural world that we do not recognize our basic dependence on nature as a con-dition for growth and development.

In addition to providing physical activity opportunities, out-door learning activities can also serve as a means for expanding academic subject matter knowledge. Educational initiatives that are characterized by environment-based education have shown promise for improving student academic achievement (Office for Standards in Education [OFSTED], 2003). The outdoor environ-ment can afford children the opportunities to reinforce, apply and enrich skills learned in the traditional classroom (Stone, 2009). Specifically, the outdoors can be an optimal context for learning that provides opportunities for children to develop science knowl-edge and skills. For example, the outdoor classroom lends itself to inquiry about nature, which provides children with unique op-portunities to gather, interpret, analyze and predict information in meaningful contexts (Burriss & Foulks, 2005). It has been shown that children show more interest in science learning when they col-lect and analyze their own data (Weiss, Banilower, McMahon, & Smith, 2001).

Given the positive effects that the natural environment can have on children’s development and well-being (Taylor & Kuo, 2009; Wells & Evans, 2003), schools and local communities should strongly consider incorporating the outdoors for learning, while at the same time promoting physical activity. There is lim-ited research that has explored the effectiveness of outdoor edu-cation in promoting both physical activity and science learning. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to present the findings of a research study that was conducted in an outdoor education pro-gram aimed at increasing physical activity and improving science knowledge among elementary school children in an economically disadvantaged urban community. The authors hypothesized that (1) participants would be significantly more physically active in the outdoor program compared to the traditional school environ-ment; and (2) an outdoor education program that integrates a science learning component would increase performance on sci-ence tests.

Program DescriptionForty-four children (19 boys, 25 girls, age 9–10 years old) were

enrolled in two fourth-grade classes at an elementary school in an economically disadvantaged urban community in Massachusetts. The participants were 92% Hispanic, 5% African American, and 3% Caucasian. The participants were selected based on their age to match the level of the academic content in the outdoor educa-tion curriculum. Written parental/guardian consent and child as-sent forms were completed prior to students’ participation. Ap-proval for the study was obtained from the college’s Institutional Review Board.

During the intervention, children participated in a five-day, five-hour per day outdoor education program that took place at a local day camp owned by the YMCA. This program was a joint venture between the city’s school district and the local YMCA to provide students with an exciting opportunity to participate in ac-tive learning in a camp setting. This was the first outdoor experi-ence in a camp environment for many students who participated in this program.

The outdoor education program utilized the camp’s program ar-eas and natural ecosystems to provide the children with unique ex-periential learning activities in four main curricular areas: science and mathematics, healthy living, environmental education, and team building. Through these engaging activities and the use of the natural surroundings, the students were encouraged to explore their interests and abilities in a safe and nurturing environment.

Environmental Education. The students were provided the op-portunity to learn about different ecosystems at the camp (e.g., the wetlands, freshwater lake, forest and open field) through a combi-nation of hands-on experiments. Students also took nature hikes and performed on-site field tests, including taking water samples, soil samples and pH testing.

Science and Mathematics. This component of the program in-cluded several physical activities that provided the opportunity for students to learn math and science skills. Some of these activities included:

• Maps — The goal of this module was to teach students how to develop and make maps using scale, topography, measurements and other skills.

• Archery — While participating in archery, students learned about velocity, rate of speed, distance, inertia and gravity.

• Canoeing — While participating in this activity, the goal was for students to learn about propulsion, angles, planes, kinesiology and biomechanics, resistance and friction, wind and currents.

• Ga-ga — While playing the popular camp game, students wore devices, such as a pedometer, to measure heart rate, steps and activity. Students took the data from these devices and then, using the Active Science curriculum, analyzed the data, answered ques-tions, and drew conclusions about the data. Editor’s note: SHAPE America does not support ga-ga ball in a physical education set-ting, because similar to dodgeball, it does not support a positive school climate, the application of appropriate social behaviors, or the goal of physical education. (See SHAPE America, 2017, for SHAPE America’s full position statement: “Dodgeball Is Not an Appropriate Physical Education Activity.”)

Team Building. The goal of the team-building component was to provide a progressive learning experience in which students were encouraged to challenge themselves in a variety of ways. This provided emotional and physical growth and gave each student a feeling of self-worth and self-accomplishment.

Healthy Living. During this component of the program stu-dents were exposed to information about living a healthy lifestyle. This included safety concepts, healthy eating and nutrition, and physical activity. Activities included water and boating safety, gar-den projects, fitness challenges, an Otterthon Relay Race, and field and court games.

In addition to learning the specific goals of the curriculum, the outdoor education program had two overall themes — physi-cal activity promotion and science inquiry learning — that were consistent throughout the four content areas. The goal of the physical activity portion of the curriculum was to engage par-ticipants with different levels of fitness and skills to participate in fun, moderately intense activities during the outdoor educa-tion experience. For example, the participants played a variety of large-group games (e.g., ga-ga ball, sharks and minnows) and sport-oriented games (e.g.,  basketball, volleyball) to promote physical activity. The purpose of the science inquiry lessons was to increase the participants’ science knowledge by having them purposefully participate in the scientific process using their own physical activity data.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

100.

17.2

1.4]

at 1

8:07

05

Janu

ary

2018

JOPERD 37

For the science focus, participants wore a Digiwalker SW-701 (Yamax Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) pedom-eter to track their physical activity data during each day at camp. At the end of the day the children retrieved the data from the pedometer and re-corded their steps, distance and calo-ries in a personal data journal with help from the staff. Once the data were recorded, the participants drew figures and tables that represented their physical activity information. This was completed each day dur-ing the outdoor program to show the physical activity data of the students over the course of a week. The par-ticipants then completed an analysis of the data by answering a variety of questions that focused on gen-eral scientific-inquiry skills, such as graphical interpretation and the abil-ity to draw conclusions from data. In a sample lesson participants were asked to make a hypothesis about how many steps they would take dur-ing that day’s physical activity. At the end of the lesson the participants compared what they hypothesized to what they actually did. They then analyzed these data, which were rep-resented in a graphical display using bar graphs. The follow-up questions asked the students to come up with a conclusion based on the data. They completed these lessons at the end of each day at the camp.

Pre- and Post-testsPhysical Activity Assessment. Prior

to the implementation of the inter-vention, the participants wore a pe-dometer for six hours (8 a.m.–2 p.m.) during a typical school day to gather baseline physical activity informa-tion. At this particular elementary school the children participated in class meetings (math, language arts, etc.), one recess session that included outdoor free play, and a lunch period. The research assistants placed the pe-dometers and accelerometers on the participants before each day to ensure that the devices were worn in the ap-propriate position. At the end of the day the staff removed and recorded the data from the activity monitors.

During the baseline and outdoor education days, each participant wore a pedometer to measure their

A student engaging in the ropes course that was part of the team-building component of the curriculum, where students were encouraged

to challenge themselves in a variety of ways

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

100.

17.2

1.4]

at 1

8:07

05

Janu

ary

2018

38 VOlumE 89 NumbER 1 JaNuaRy 2018

step count. To measure exercise intensity (i.e., minutes of seden-tary and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity), a subset of 14 children also wore an accelerometer (ActiGraph, Pensacola, FL). Seven children from each fourth-grade class were selected in order to equally distribute the number of participants who wore the ac-celerometers during the study. From there, the participants were stratified by sex, and then the researchers randomly selected six boys and eight girls to be included in the subset. The reason six boys and eight girls were chosen was to ensure that the sample was representative of the population in the study. The same 14 children who wore the accelerometer at school wore it at camp as well.

Science Assessment. To assess science-inquiry learning out-comes, a 20-item science test was developed and administered at the beginning and end of the program. The content of the test assessed the skills that were taught throughout the outdoor edu-cation program with a focus on the ability to read and interpret data from figures and tables and to understand and implement the scientific method (e.g., make a hypothesis, record and collect data, draw conclusions). These inquiry skills were focused on be-cause students need to be able to apply science skills that let them analyze a natural phenomenon and determine underlying mecha-nisms and causes. According to the National Research Council (2012), quality science education must address these skills for students to successfully apply their learning to understand and analyze their world.

The test demonstrated good reliability with an internal consis-tency between 0.70 and 0.81. The content of the pre- and post-tests was similar but not identical. Two elementary school teachers assisted in the creation of the science test in order to ensure that the content was age- and grade-appropriate. They were able to align the assessment with national science standards and verified that it represented the content for the appropriate grade level.

Results and Benefits of Outdoor Educationt tests were used to compare the differences in physical activ-

ity and science measures between the outdoor education program and the traditional school day. Since the participants wore the accelerometers for different amounts of time at school (6 hours) compared to the outdoor experience (25 hours), the steps per hour and minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per hour were recorded and analyzed. This was done to ensure that accurate comparisons could be made.

Steps per hour and minutes of MVPA per hour increased ap-proximately threefold from the baseline to the posttest. The aver-age sedentary minutes per hour also decreased. t tests showed that steps/hour and MVPA/hour were significantly higher during the outdoor education program compared to in-school, t(43) = –28.02, t(12) = –29.34, respectively (p < .001). In addition, the sedentary time significantly decreased, t(12) = 9.80, p < .001. The science test score based on 20 items increased approximately 6.5%, t(43) = –4.18, p < .01 (see Table 1).

This project demonstrated an innovative approach to integrate physical activity and science learning in an outdoor environment. The results showed that children were significantly more physically active in the outdoor environment compared to the traditional school environment, which was consistent with previous studies (Cleland et  al., 2008). In addition, as the children in the study tracked and used their own physical activity data to learn scientific concepts, they were motivated to increase their steps taken and distances traveled. The science-learning component of the program reinforced physical activity participation.

The evidence from the current study also supports the effective-ness of science learning through physical activity in the outdoor environment. Previous studies have shown that physical activity and science learning can be integrated in the after-school environ-ment. For example, Finn, Yan and McInnis (2015) followed a simi-lar integration approach at a local YMCA where children com-pleted physical activity in a gymnasium for 30 minutes, then used the data from their pedometer (e.g., steps, calories, and distances) twice a week as a basis for science inquiry lessons. Results showed that children significantly increased their physical activity partici-pation compared to their regular after-school program, and they also learned science by collecting and analyzing their own data. Although there is limited empirical evidence for this application in an outdoor environment, the results of the study described here support the concept that similar approaches can be applied to the outdoor environment to enhance physical activity participation, as well as improve science learning.

With the rapid development of digital technology, children spend more screen time on their gadgets and have become de-tached from the natural world (Ginsberg, 2007). Recognizing the importance of nature to children’s growth and development, teach-ers and parents are challenged to create innovative ways to encour-age children to get back into the natural environment. Previous research has shown that well-designed outdoor programs increase

Table 1.Descriptive Results for Physical Activity and Science Achievement

In-school(Baseline)

Outdoor Education (Intervention) Cohen’s d a

Steps/Hour (n = 44) 391.1 (±220) 1237.3 (±716.1)*** 1.6

MVPA/Hour (n = 14) 3.31 (±0.6) 9.5 (±1.4)*** 5.6

Sedentary Min/Hour (n = 14) 41.2 (±2.1) 28.4 (±2.3) 1.3

Science Score (n = 44) 40.5% (±12.5) 47% (±10.0) 0.6aCohen’s d is an effect size used to indicate the standardized difference between two means. The larger number indicates a bigger group difference.

***Indicates p < .001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

100.

17.2

1.4]

at 1

8:07

05

Janu

ary

2018

JOPERD 39

children’s positive attitudes toward nature, interest in environmen-tal learning, and knowledge (Garner, Taft, & Stevens, 2015). By integrating outdoor physical activity with science learning, the program described here created a unique outdoor experience for children, which may further stimulate their positive attitudes and interests in the environment.

Finally, science education in an outdoor setting is important to support an informal learning environment for children (Soh & Meerah, 2013). According to Hofstein and Rosenfeld (1996), “fu-ture research in science education should focus on how to effec-tively blend learning experiences in formal and informal learning in order to significantly enhance the learning of science” (p. 107). Based on the results of the current study, the outdoor environment shows promise to promote science learning among school-age chil-dren. Future studies should explore how to further incorporate out-door science education into the standard science curricula taught in school, as well as to integrate physical activity and science learning in an enjoyable and innovative way. Additionally, qualitative data should be collected to evaluate gains in areas other than physical activity and science outcomes (e.g., well-being and attitude toward physical activity, science learning, and outdoor activities).

LimitationsOne of the major limitations of this study is the lack of a control

group for the science assessment. It is unclear whether the partici-pants’ science scores increased due to the intervention or to a gen-eral learning effect from classroom activities. In addition, the sci-ence test used was self-developed. Since it was not a standardized assessment tool, its reliability and validity were unclear. Finally, the current study lacked qualitative feedback from the participants to evaluate their experiences in the program.

ConclusionIntegrating physical activity and science learning in an outdoor

education program addresses the two challenges that our chil-dren face today: physical inactivity and poor science performance. These two challenges hinder the physical and mental development of our next generation. As we try to increase the effectiveness of the physical education and science classes in our schools, other extra-curricular approaches are needed to support these efforts. The pro-gram described in this article provides an example of an innovative approach to address these initiatives in the outdoor environment, which also helps children interact with nature. Although further evidence is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach in and outside of school, it is hoped that this program will entice others to integrate physical activity and science learning in an out-door setting.

AcknowledgmentThe authors would like to thank the children, staff and teachers

at the Merrimack Valley YMCA and Leahy for their willingness to participate in this study.

ReferencesBurriss, K. G., & Foulks, B. (Eds.). (2005). Outdoor learning and play:

Ages 8–12. Olney, MD: Association for Childhood Education Interna-tional.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012, June 8). National Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance — United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries, 61(4), 1–168.

Cleland, V., Crawford, D., Baur, L. A., Hume, C., Timperio, A., & Salmon, J. (2008). A prospective examination of children’s time spent outdoors, objectively measured physical activity and overweight. International Journal of Obesity, 32, 1685–1693. doi:10.1038/ijo.2008.171

Finn, K., Yan, Z., & McInnis, K. (2015) Active Science®: Integrating physi-cal activity 280 and science learning into the afterschool environment. American Journal of Health Education, 46, 323–328.

Frost, J., Brown, P., Sutterby, J., & Thornton, C. (2004). The develop-mental benefits of playgrounds. Olney, MD: Association for Childhood Education International.

Garner, M. A., Taft, E. D., & Stevens, C. L. (2015). Do children increase their environmental consciousness during summer camp?: A comparison of two programs. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Lead-ership, 7, 20–34. doi:10.7768/1948-5123.1238

Ginsberg, D. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent–child bonds: Clinical re-port. Retrieved from http://www.aap.org/pressroom/playFINAL.pdf

Hofferth, S. L. (2008). American children’s outdoor and indoor leisure time. In E. Goodenough (Ed.), A place for play. A companion volume to the Michigan television film “Where do the children play?” (pp. 41–44). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Hofstein, A., & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the gap between formal and informal science learning. Studies in Science Education, 28, 87–112. doi:10.1080/03057269608560085

Kellert, S. R. (2005). Building for life: Designing and understanding the human nature connection. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Little, H., & Wyver, S. (2008). Outdoor play: Does avoiding the risks re-duce the benefits? Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(2), 33–40.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science educa-tion: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Office for Standards in Education. (2003). Taking the first step forward ... towards an education for sustainable development: Good prac-tice in primary and secondary schools. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4778/1/Taking_the_first_step_forward_towards_an_education_for_sustainable_development.pdf

SHAPE America – Society of Health and Physical Educators. (2017). Dodge-ball is not an appropriate physical education activity (Position State-ment). Retrieved from http://www.shapeamerica.org/standards/guide lines/upload/Dodgeball-Is-Not-an-Appropriate-Physical-Education- Activity.pdf

Soh, T., & Meerah, T. (2013) Outdoor education: An alternative approach in teaching and learning science. Asian Social Science, 9(17), 1–8.

Stone, M. K. (2009). Smart by nature. Berkeley, CA: Center for Ecoliteracy.Strong, W., Malina, R., Blimkie, C., Daniels, S., Dishman, R., Gutin, R.

... Trudeau, F. (2005). 336 based physical activity for school-age youth. Journal of Pediatrics, 146, 732–737.

Taylor, A., & Kuo, F. (2009). Children with attention deficits concentrate better after walk in the park. Journal of Attention Disorders, 12, 402–409.

Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., & Smith, P. S. (2001). Re-port of the 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

Wells, N. M., & Evans, G. W. (2003). Nearby nature: a buffer of life stress among rural children. Environment and Behaviour, 35, 311–330.

Wells, N., & Lekies, K. (2006). Nature and the life course: Pathways from childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism. Children, Youth and Environments, 16, 1–24. doi:10.1177/0013916503035003001 J

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

100.

17.2

1.4]

at 1

8:07

05

Janu

ary

2018