-
extracted text
-
CURRICULAR CONNECTIONS BETWEEN
OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND CLASSROOMS:
A CAMP COLMAN CASE STUDY
by
Anne E. Lindberg
A Thesis: Essay of Distinction
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Study
The Evergreen State College
June 200 9
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Study Degree
by
Anne E. Lindberg
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
--+
~
Jean MacGre or
Member of the Faculty
Abstract
Curricular Connections Between
Outdoor Environmental Education and Classrooms:
A Camp Colman Case Study
Anne E. Lindberg
The goal of my research was to determine how GEE Camp Colman (a 2-night, 3-day
outdoor environmental education program in western Washington serving groups
of 4 th through 6 th grade students), can enhance curricular connections between its
program and classrooms. My case study included a review of the literature, in
person interviews with Camp Colman's OEE director and the OEE directors of other
well-regarded programs in the region, phone interviews with teachers who brought
their students to Camp Colman in fall 2008, verbally administered surveys of
teachers
Camp Colman's OEE director, and a review of relevant
websites and documents. Via my research, I was able to identify how OEE Camp
Colman currently connects its program with classroom curricula; why OEE Camp
Colman is interested in expanding and deepening curricular linkages in the future;
the impacts and best practices ofOEE-classroom curricular connections according
to the literature; and the realities, challenges, and goals of participating teachers and
GEE directors with regard to curricular integration. With this information, I created
and elaborated on ten best practices OEE Camp Colman can employ that (a) advance
the goals of both participating teachers and Camp Colman's OEE Director, (b)
address and mollify the concerns of participating teachers and Camp Colman's OEE
Director, and (c) incorporate the findings of previously published studies and the
successful best practices of other OEE organizations in western Washington. Briefly,
these best practices include: (1) post more extensive pre-trip
post-trip
classroom curricula suggestions on the Camp Colman website, (2) post a list of
relevant books and websites on the Camp Colman website, (3) post a list of relevant
vocabulary (with definitions) and species (of plants and animals) on the Camp
Colman website, (4) develop a field journal for students, (5) send OEE instructors to
visit schools pre-trip or post-trip, (6) work with teachers and students to develop
stewardship projects, (7) present at schools' parent nights; meet with teacher the
same day, (8) develop teacher in-service workshops, (9) modify the timing and
of post-trip evaluations, and
assess curricular connections. Clearly,
Colman positively impacts students; Camp Colman can heighten its impact by
stronger curricular connections between its own program and participating
classrooms.
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
VI
LIST OF TABLES
VII
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
VII I
INTRODUCTION
1
LITERATURE REVIEW
3
HISTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND OEE IN THE UNITED STATES AND
3
9
10
14
15
18
19
21
21
22
WASHINGTON STATE
EFFECTIVENESS OF EE AND OEE PROGRAMS
Academic Achievement
Career Development
Self-Esteem, Engagement, and Motivation.
Civic Responsibility and Stewardship
Tea mwork.
Sum mary
CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL OEE P/{OGRAMS
EFFECTS OF LIN KING
WITH CLASSROOM
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
27
RESEARCH ApPRO ACH
27
INTERVIEWS WITH OEE EDUCATION DI RECTO/{S
29
33
INTERVIEWS AND SURVEYS OF TEACIIERS, PRINCIPALS, AND COUNSELORS
OEE PROGRAMS
34
CAMP COLMAN
34
OTHER OEE PRO GRAMS
39
40
44
IslandWood
Olympic Park Institute (OPI)
Mountain School (NCI)
46
OEE DIRECTORS
48
DEFINITIONS OF SUCCESSFUL CURRICULAR INTEG RATION: OEE DIRECTORS'
CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS TO I NTEGRATIO N:
0 EE DIRECTORS' PERSPECTIVES
INTER EST IN EXPANDING INTEGRATION IN THE FUTU RE: CAMP COLMAN'S PERSPECTIVE
TEACHERS/COUNSELORS/PRINCIPALS
TEACH ER DEMOG RAPHICS
CURRICULAR INTEGRATION AS IT PRESENTLY EXISTS: TEACHER PERSPECTIVES
Science Curriculum Integration
Non-Science Curriculum Integration
'I'eam work
", ""
"
Environmental Awareness and Stewardship
Curricular connections to EALRs and GLEs
,
,
".., ,
51
57
63
64
64
65
70
72
74
74
CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS TO INTEGRAT ION: TEACHER PERSPECTIVES
75
INTEREST IN EXPANDING INTEG RATION IN THE FUTURE: TEACHER PERSPECTiVES
77
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
83
CONCLUSION:
97
iv
APPENDIX A - INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR OEE DIRECTORS
102
APPENDIX B - INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR TEACHERS
103
APPENDIX C - VERBAL SURVEY FOR TEACHERS & CAMP COLMAN
104
REFERENCES
105
v
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of Participating OEE Programs and
ls
32
vi
List of Tables
Table la. Comparison of GEE Programs
40
Table lb. Comparison of GEE Programs
40
Table 2. Camp Colman's OEE Director's Interest in Various Integrative Ideas
58
Table 3. Summary Profile of Interview Subjects
64
Table 4. Teacher Interest in Various Integrative Ideas
78
vii
INTRODUCTION
In the 1920s, Outdoor Education (OE) emerged as a place-based, experiential
program fostering the connection of students with their natural e nvironment. Since
then, various manifestations ofOE have evolved, adapting to the values and goals of
unique communities. One such offshoot, Outdoor Environmental Education (OEE),
was formalized as a form of education in 1970, seeking not only to enhance
students' creative exploration and love of the natural environment via immersion in
nature, but to teach basic environmental concepts as well (MacGregor, 2003 and
2009). Numerous studies have linked student participation in OEE programs to
tangible benefits for students, classrooms, and the environment. These benefits
range from enhanced social, behavioral, and personal skills, to increas ed
environmental stewardship, to sharpened knowledge and understanding of science
concepts, to heightened scores in reading, math, language, and spelling (American
Institutes fo r Research, 2005; Bartosh, 2003; Wheeler et 01.,2007).
However, researchers are not only interested in elucidating the benefits of
OEE programs on student achievement, classroom communities, and the natural
environment, they are also interested in identifying specific program features and
teaching practices that enhance these impacts. Examples of program features that
strengthen student achievement include an emphasis on hands-on project-based
learning, a focus on local environme ntal concerns, the inclusion of both independent
an d coop era tive learning experiences, and the extension of the OEE experience via
integration with classroom curricula (Norman et 01.,2006). My thesis will focus on
the latter: curricula r connections between residential outdoor environmental
edu cation programs and
Throughout the past decade, seve ral controlled, peer-reviewed studies have
addressed the effects of linking off-campus field experiences with classroom
curricula (Smith-Sebasto and Caver'1, 2006; Gutierrez de White and Jacobson, 1994;
Farmer and Wott, 1995; Stern et 01.,2008) . Each found a statistically significant
increase in student achievement as a result of such integration. Unfortu nately,
though controlled studies h ave docum ented the benefits of OEE-classroom
curr icular linkages, th ese stud ies do not provide specifics about the range of existing
in tegrative end eavors. Furth er, none of these studies explored the challenges and
barriers to such integration or identified the ways in w hich these barrie rs
Gi n
overcome. Both a lay-of-the-land exploration of curr ent integrative p r actices
be
ld
assessment of real-life barrie rs to such integ,'aLo n remain critical literature gaps
Without a thorough understanding of current practices, challenges, failures,
successes, and goals regarding the integration ofOEE and classroom curricula from
the perspectives of participating teachers and OEE directors, we cannot
oetermine how to exp and and deepen the link between OEE and the classroom . To
that end, my study will explore current OEE-classroom integrative practices,
successes, failures, challenges, and goals.
More specifIcally, I will explore curricular integration between the
experience and the classroom via a case study approach. [n Washington State, m a ny
students attend a residential OEE program with their classmates sometime between
4 th and 8 th grades. Teachers have their choice of dozens of such programs in
Western Washington alone.
be investigating one such program - OEE Camp
Colman. Armed with a new director dedicated to
the OEE experience and
open to constructive suggestions, Camp Colman s an ideal case study subject. My
ob, ective is to determine how OEE Camp Colman
best facilitate curricular
integration between its own program and the classroom to further its OEE goals as
well as the goals of participating teachers. In order to accomplish my objective, !
shall address the following research questions:
[1) Why is OEE Camp Colman interested in expanding and deepening curricular
linkages in the future?
How does OEE Camp Colman currently integrate its program with classroom
curricula?
(3) What are the best practices and what are the challenges regarding
of field and classroom experiences
to the literature?
(4) What can OEE Camp Colman learn about curricular integration
other
from
programs in Western Washington? What are the challenges and barriers
to this integ ration from the perspective ofOEE dire ctors and teachers who currentiy
bring their classes to Camp Colman?
2
(5) How do teachers who bring their classes to Camp Colman currently integrate
classroom curriCUla and the OEE experience? To what extent and in which ways are
they interested in expanding and deepening curricular linkages in the future?
LITERATURE REVIEW
History of Environmental Education and OEE in the United States and
State
My research focuses on Camp Colman's outdoor environmental education
program. "Outdoor environmental education" (OEE) is a relatively recent offshoot
of "environmental education" (EE), an umbrella term for a variety of fields including
"nature study," "conservation education," "outdoor education," "experiential
education," and of course "outdoor environmental education" (Wheeler et 01.,2007;
MacGregor, 2003, 2009). Each of these fields originated from a unique cultural,
educational, and political reality, and each influenced the development of those that
. Below I
discuss each of these fields and ultimately describe how OEE
incorporates aspects of all of them.
Founded in the 1890s by Liberty Hyde Bailey, a horticulture professor at
Cornell University, "nature education" sought to rekindle students' interest in
nature in an era in which the US populace was beginning urbanize, faith in rural
America was beginning to diminish, and the upper middle and upper classes of
Europe (including Charles Darwin) and America were beginning to pursue natural
history. The field aimed to teach students the skills of a naturalist including careful
observation of the natural world, identification and collection of plants and animals,
knowledge of the life histories of these creatures.
few teachers had the
background to teach nature education, it was added to the K-8 curriculum as a new
subject only in the classrooms of those teachers personally interested
invested
in the subject. In most classrooms at that time, teachers taught only reading,
writing, and arithmetic. In order to encourage teachers to teach nature education,
Bailey and his colleagues
Cornell published Rural School Leaflets with basic
information about plan ts, animals, geology, meteorology, etc. and distributed them
to teachers. At this time, natural history museums became increasingly common as
wel l. In th e 1950s, na tu re ed ucation expanded via nature centers and interpretive
.
centers . The field continues to reign strong
commonly cited by environmental educators s
.
of nature educati on
while it imp arts knowledge
about the environment, it does not specificaJy er:courage students to make positive
change with respect to responsible environmenta. behaviors or environmental
problem-solving (MacGregor, 2003 and 2009).
As outdoor education continued to develop, "conservation education"
emerged in the first decades of the 1900s as agency managers (i.e. of the US Forest
Service and the National Park Service) sought to promote
resource
protection and management. Conservation educators taught students
Ame rica's forest, soil, watershed, and wildlife resources and promoted the judicious
use of these resources. Typically agency profession uls visited classrooms to p rovide
lectures and educational pamphlets on resource management strategies; they
taught students that agency professionals practice wise resource management.
Often the agenda was an attempt to increase public understand:ng of and support
for various conservation agency efforts at both state and federal levels. Both
historically and today, conservation education remains a marginal extra in the
typical school science curriculum . A drawback of conservation education commonly
cited by environmental educators is that
often limited to a one-time lesson or
speaker and is therefore generally poorly integrated into the rest of the school
curriculum. That said, more re cen tly, some conservation education projects have
focused on and succeeded
integrating lessons and topics into existing school
curricula, most especiaIJy through the efforts of the Project Learning Tree and
Project WILD curricula, and associated teacher training programs (MacGregor,
and 2009) .
Also in the
and 1920s, "outdoor education" (OE) materialized out of a
subculture of educators involved in progressive education and activity-based
curricula. Early progressive educators in the 1910s and 1920s such as John Dewey
believed that school learning needed to better connect with re al life. They believed
that teaching the existing curriculum in out-of-classroom settings would better
engage learners and lead to more fully developed children . Whereas nature
education sprang from horticulturalists in higher education and conservation
education emerged via agency managers, outdoor education was created by
3
4
educators bent on improving teaching and learning in the classroom. Furthermore,
whereas nature education and conservation education introduced new content,
outdoor education introduced a new pedagogy. Because outdoor education is
defined by its pedagogy rater than its content, its content is highly varied; it may
incorporate content from nature education and conservation education, and it often
includes olltdoor skills such as hiking, map-reading, canoeing, and camping.
Ultimately, its goal is to teach out-of-doors, what can best be learned out-of-doors.
Since the 1920s, outdoor education diverged in two directions. One community of
outdoor educators focused on using the out-of-doors to teach classroom curriculum,
and another group of outdoor educators developed the school camping movement
in which school classes went away together to a rural camp setting for severa] days
to explore the natural world, learn outdoor skills, and learn to live and work
cooperatively. This strand of OE began in the 1940s; both strands of OE continue
today. There are several tensions in outdoor education.
it is typically
considered an "extra" or "luxury" activity. Second, many educators perceive OE to
be about learning outdoor skills; they don't recognize its potential as an avenue for
service-based or community-based learning. Third, because OE activities span
myriad topical emphases, it is difficult to assess OE student learning with traditional
forms of assessment (MacGregor, 2003).
"Experiential education" is another highly diverse educational field that has
evolved into many sub-fields, some with strong connections to environmental
education. Most experiential educators identify the roots of their field in the path
breaking work of Kurt Hahn and the Outward Bound School movement. In the
1930s, the pioneering educator, Kurt Hahn, escaped Nazi Germany a nd soon
thereafter founded the Gordonstoun School in Great Britain. In the early days of
World War II, Hahn was asked to create a training program akin to Gordonstoun's
programs to better prepare young seaman for the British Merchant Marin es and the
British Navy. Hahn's dpproach (through Outward Bound) was to create powerful
experiential learning experiences for youth . He put youth in challenging situations
in natural settings and forced them to work
endura nce, confidence, teamwork, and an ethic of
atively to succeed, thus building
to others. The Outward
Bound conce p t soon spread from England to the US to dozens of other countries
a roun d the w orld. Tod ay these experiential education schools and related programs
5
dOi1't serve just seamen or just youth. Many still do provide programs for teenagers
and young adults, but there are also Outward Bo und programs for adults, corporate
groups, and troubled youth. Since these origins, experiential ed ucation has
branched out to include experiences bearing many names including service
learning, adventure education, wilderness education, and outdoor education among
others. All these forms of experiential education aim to give participants wilderness
skills, teamwork skills, self-esteem, personal discipline, and a sense of purpose and
service to others, in order to overcome the cynicism and ego-centrism that is
common in Western culture. In experiential
programs, participants
e
usually asked to reflect on their experience and they often keep reflective journals .
the objective being not only to have a powerful experience, but also to draw
meaning from it. One challenge with experiential education is follow-up. After th e
experience, students need to be able to translate the values and skills gained to
everyday life. Secondly, even though many graduates of experiential programs cite
it as a pivotal learning experience, few conventional schools have the resources and
staff required to adopt this approach (MacGregor, 2003).
All of these forerunners of
education (nature educatio'l,
con servation education, outdoor education, and experiential education) have had an
influ ence on environmental education, which is a field of its own. "Environmental
" was first coined at a 1948 meeting of the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, though it was 'lot recognized on th e
international level until the 1960s (Sterling and Cooper,l 992;
1997)
Definitions of environmental education (EE) abound [Palmer, 1997; UNESCO, 1975)
but perhaps the best re cognized derives from the 1977 lntergovernme'1tal
Conference on Environmental EducatIOn, organized by the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in Tbilisi, Georgi a
(USSR). At this conference, environmental education was defined as
learning process that increases people's knowledge
awareness about the environment and associated challenges,
develops the necessary skills and expertis e to address the
challenges, and fosters attitudes, motivations, and omf'1itments to
make informed decisions and take responsible action" (UN ESCO,
977).
6
In this definition of environmental education, EE is an extensive process of
skill, knowledge, and attitude development in order to affect responsible
environmental decisions and actions. Environmental education differs from nature
study in that it asks students to think critically about environmental issues, make
decisions, and take constructive action. It differs from conservation education in
that its scope expands significantly beyond natural resources development and
management to focus on environmental problem solving or problem prevention. It
differs from outdoor education in that it need not be conducted out-of-doors; and it
differs from expenential education in that its focus is less on the individual
overcoming physical challenges in the natural environment, and more on
recognizing and working-both individually and collaboratively-to overcome
environmental challenges in the local community, in the nation, and in the world.
This brings us to "outdoor environmental education" (OEE), the focus of my
research . Outdoor environmental education is an offshoot of environmental
education. As the name suggests it combines outdoor education and environmental
education. More specifically, it marries EE and the schooJ-camping-movement
strand of OE Outdoor environmental education programs typically bring school
groups to rural, outdoor settings for a day to over a week to engage in hands-on,
environmental education in nature. Many of these programs incorporate elements
of all of the roots of environmental education discussed above. Outdoor
Environmental Education programs typically integrate components of nature
education (including identifying plants and animals native to the OEE center),
conservation education (including learning about natural resources management,
30metimes in partnership with an agency such as the U.S. Forest Service, the
National Park Service, or the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service), outdoor education
(including acquiring hiking, boating, or camping skills on a multi-day rural outing
with classmates), experiential education (including engaging in challenges courses
to develop teamwork and confidence), and environmental education (including
developing the skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary to make responsible
environmental decisions
affect positive change) . In addition to "outdoor
environmental education,"
programs may be termed "outdoor science
schools," "fi eld science
or "residential environmental education programs"
(Am erican Institutes fo r Res earch, 2005; Stern et 01.,2008).
7
In Washington State, some schools place high value on student participation
in OEE; others take students on day trips to fiel d learning s ites. Still others p refer to
keep student activities on school grounds or inside classroo ms. The 2008 best
selling book by Richard Louv, Last Child in the Woods, and the 2007 "No Child Left
Inside" legislative initiatives, have increas ed participation in OEE nationwide in the
last few years. Washington State reflects this trend (Louv, 2008; Washington State
Legislature, 2007) . Despite this recent upswing, OEE continues to cater to grades
four to six with few (but growing) OEE opportunities for high school students. Some
OEE centers allow high school students to participate as chaperones to middle
school student groups (Environmental Education Association of Washington, 2008b;
YMCA Camp Colman, 2009b) .
Although Washington State schools are not required to participate in OEE
programs, th ey are required to incorporate EE into school curriculum. This
requirement stems from a series of laws passed by the Washington State Legislature
between 1988 and 2007 .
[n
1988, the Washington State Legislature passed its first
law requiring environmental instruction in public schools. The law states that "AI!
co mmon schools shall give instr uction in
science with special reference to the
environment. ... All teachers shall stress
the worth of kindness to all living
creatures and the land" (Washington State Legislature, 1988). In 1990, the State
Legislature passed a second, more specific law stipulating that environmental topi cs
be taught in various disciplines. This law s tates " instruction about conservation,
natural resources, an d the environmen t [must] be provided at all grade levels in an
interdisciplinary manner through science, the social studies, humanities, and other
appropriate areas with an emphasis on solving the problems of human ad aption to
the environment" (Washington State Legislature. 1990). In 2003, the state passed a
third law implementing a grant program to "promote proven and innovative natural
science, wildlife, and environmental education programs that are fully aligned with
the state's essential academic learning requirements... (Washington State
Legislature, 2003). Three years later the legislature passed another law requiring
the Office of the Superintendent of Public lnstruction (OSP!) to conduct a study and
develop a report on the impacts of environmental education on K-12 students
(Washington State Legislature, 2006) . The report was completed in 2007 and I will
address it in more detail in the following section. Finally, in 2007, the legislature
8
passed the No Child Left Inside law requiring the Washington State Parks and
Recreation Commission to establish and administer an outdoor education and
recreation program for underserved students (Washington State Legislature, 2007).
But not only has legislation spurred the advancement of environmental
education in Washington State, non-profit organizations have as well. The
Environmental Education Association of Washington (EEAW) is Washington State's
professional association for environmental educators and stakeholders. It is
dedicated to increasing awareness of and support for "interdisciplinary, hands-on
and place-based" environmental education (Environmental Education Association of
Washington,2008a). In 2008, this organization completed goals and strategies for
10 sectors including the "Environmental, Nature, and Outdoor Centers" sector. [n
this sector, EEAW envisions a network of centers that "are the focal points for
multiple facilitated, direct experiences in nature that provide every person in
Washington with an understanding and appreciation of diverse ecosystems across
the state...
take this learning home and become engaged in their local
communities" (Environmental Education Association of Washington, 2008a). In
brief, their goals for the sector include the following: (1) sustain, expand, dnd
improve the sector, (2) make nature centers and their programs valued and
accessi ble to ]] residents of Washington State, and (3) increase citizen engageme 'lt
in local, statewide and global environmental issues (Environmental Education
Association of Washington, 2008a).
Clearly, throughout the pas t 20 years, Washington State laws have increased
the scope and depth of outdoor and environmental education requirements for K-12
students. Non-profit organizations such as EEAW have worked to spur this
advancement as well. Although residential OEE programs are still not required, a
significant portion of Washington State students (particularly in grades 4-6),
partake in such an OEE experience with their class.
Effectiveness of EE and OEE
In 2006, the Washin gton State Legislature passed Engrossed House Bill 2910
which directed the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSP!) to
9
create a study report on the impacts of enviro nm ental educat ion (EE) on K-12
students. Accordingly, the OS PI develop ed th e Environm ental Education Report,
which summarizes academic r esearch m easurin g the im pact of EE on one or more of
the following: academic achievement; career deve lopme nt; graduation
require ments; selfesteem, engagement and motivation; and civic responsibility a nd
service learning (Wheeler et al., 2007) . In all, 76 relevan t studies were located; the
findings of the most methodologically rigorous studies were weighted most heavily
in the OSPl report. The report's findings suggest that EE is an effective means of
achieving a number of desirabl e outcomes. [n the sections that follow, I will
describe the methodologicaily robust studies that shed light on the impact of EE on
academic achievement, care er development, self-esteem and motivation, civic
responsibility, and teamwork. [will also describe a couple of robust studies not
mentioned within of the Environmental Education Report because they were
completed after its publication. I have chosen not to include a section on the
reiationship between EE pa,ticipation and students' completion of graduation
requirements, as this cannot be determined due to limited evidence. Only one study
explored thi s relationship; it found that participation in EE dec reases high school
dropout rates and increases university enrollment (Wheeler et al., 2007)
Academic Achievement
Regarding the impact of EE on academic achievement, 18 of 20 relevant
studies indica te a correlation between participation in EE and improved academic
achievement. There is robust evidence that EE enhances math and science
achievement, some evidence that EE boosts social studies achiev ement, and mixed
eviC1ence that it augments language arts achievement. Few of the studi es control
factors such as age, socioeconomic status, gender, or level of academic achievement
prior to pa rticip ation in EE, and only four of the studies gathered enough data to
examine statistical significance (Wheeler et al., 2007). The most methodologically
sound (du e to its use ofa matched pairs design and large sample s ize) a nd
statistically robu st of these studies was conducted
an Evergreen MES
Oksana Bartosh, in 2003. This study compared student achievem e nt on two state
Zl rdized tes ts (Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) and iowa
10
Test of Basic Skills (ITBS)) for two groups of students (EE and non-EE) between
1997 and 2002. The study included 77 pairs of schools (with and without EE
programs) matched using US census and other economic, demographic, and
geographic data. Bartosh found that the percentage of students meeting test
standards in all areas including math, reading, writing, and listening, is significantly
higher in schools with EE programs (Bartosh, 2003). A variation of this master's
thesis was published in 2005 (Bartosh, Tudor, Ferguson, and Taylor, 2005).
Although these studies did not investigate the impact of EE on science performance,
Bartosh (2006) did. Here she employed a similar matched pairs design to compare
the WASL scores and GPAs of grade 10 high school students participating, versus
not participating, in yearlong outdoor environment programs. She found the WASL
science and math scores of EE students to be significantly higher than those of non
EE students. There was no significant difference in WASL reading and writing
scores for EE versus non-EE students. This is the only study [ could find that looked
at the relationship between EE and grade point averages (GPAs), and it revealed
that GPA increases during the school year were significantly greater for EE students.
A second study using matched pairs design was conducted by Lieberman,
Boody, and Lieberman in 2005. Although this study investigated only 4 pairs of
schools (as compared to Bartosh's 77 pairs), it too compared student standardized
test scores over a five-year period at traditional versus environmentally-based
schools, and found that students at the environmentally-based schools
outperformed their peers at traditional schools in all subjects investigated (math,
re ading, English language arts, and spelling) (Lieberman, Hoody, and Lieberman,
2005). This study was a follow-up to a previous matched pairs study by Lieberman,
Hoody, and Lieberman (2000) that looked at the impact of a learning model called
the Environment as in Integrative Context for Learning (EIC), on academic
achievement. In the EIC learning model, a significant portion of learning takes place
in the community and natural environment surrounding the school; hands-on
projects and activities are emphasized. Students from 8 ErC schools (including
elementary, middle, and high schools) were paired with analogolls students from 8
traditional schools. In all, the analyses indicated EIC students outperformed
trad ition al students in 76% of language arts assessments, 63% of math assessments,
11
64% of science assessments, and 73% of social studi es assessments (Lieberm a n,
and Lieberman, 2000).
A fourth matched pairs study by Kearney (2009) (not included in the
Environmental Education Report) explored the impact of IslandWood, an OEE
program in western Washington, on students. Although this study did not measure
students' academic achievement via standardized test performance, it
measure
students' factual environmental knowledge via pre- and post- surveys, "clicker
questionnaires" (administered via slides and hand-held clicker devises), and
cognitive mapping tools. In all, 828 students from 14 schools participated
(includ ing 7 treatment schools that attended the OEE program, and 7 school groups
did not attend) . Treatment and control schools were matched based on socio
economic level, location, and grade (5 th or 6 th ). Students were assessed at th e
beginning and end of their OEE experience, and 6 weeks after their OEE experience.
Overall, factual environmental knowledge of OEE participants increased between
28% and 38% directly following the experience; students retained this knowledge 6
weeks after the program's end . Conversely, factual environmental knowledge of
non-OEE students (the control groups) decreased by 4% from pre-test to post-test.
It is unclear whether or how the OEE-participants' newfound environmental
knowledge
their performance on standardized tests or their grade point
averages, but it is clear that the OEE experience significantly increases their
environmental knowledge base and that students retain this knowleuge
r the
medium
Although the studies by Bartosh
2006),
Hoody, and
n. (2000, 2005), and Kearney (2009), are the only ones that have employed
a
pairs" design, two more key studies used a slightly less cigorous pre-trip
versus post-trip design. One of these, conducted by the American Institute for
Research in 2005,
the impacts of three weeklong
education programs on 255 at-risk sixth grade students in
outdoor
from four
elementary schools. The study found that OEE participants raised their science
scores by 27 percent as measured hy a pre- and post-OEE survey administered
immediately after the program. Students maintained these raised science scores
two months after OEE participation as well. Unfortunately, this study does not have
12
a non-DEE control group, so it is unclear whether non-DEE students who receive
science instruction inside the classroom (rather than outdoors during a multi-day
DEE experience) would demonstrate similar gains in science knowledge (American
Institutes for Research, 2005).
A second key study that explored the correlation between academic
achievement and EE, and employed pre-testjpost-test methodology, is a 2004 study
by Emekauwa. This study looked at the impact of school reform from traditional
learning to place-bas ed environmental learning, on academic achievement at five
public elementary and middle schools in Louisiana. Prior to school reform, fourth
grade students at these five schools took the Louisiana LEAP 21 test to evaluate
their knowledge of science, social studies, English language arts, and mathematics .
In the academic year following the pre-test, the five schools built nature trails and
butterfly gardens and the students began studying local rocks and minerals, ecology,
topography, weather, biodiversity, and water quality. The reform program
encouraged teachers to bring students outdoors and into the community to learn. In
order to gain the skills and knowledge to implement this place-based
environmentally focused program, teachers participated in a summer training
program. After two years of place-based program implementation, students took
the LEAP 21 test again. The percentage of fourth grade students performing at
level on the test decreased from 32.6% to 18.4%, 39.0% to 24.9%,
27.5% to 19.4% and 39.4% to 28.1 % in English language arts, math, science, and
studies, respectively. Although students at these place-based,
environmentally focused schools did not necessarily participate in multi-day DEE
programs, they did participate in many hands-on, environmental activities similar to
those offered within DEE programs.
Together, these studies suggest that students who attend DEE programs or
participate in place-based, environmentally focused curriculum at school,
outperform their non-DEE and traditional school peers on standardized tests and on
science and environmental knowledge tests. The two studies that looked
specifically at the impact of DEE programs, fo un d students' science and
environmental knowledge scores (as me asu red by surveys) to increase by 27% to
38% directly fo llowing the experience; students retained this knowledge six weeks
13
later. It is unclear how the GEE experiences impacted students' enviro nmental a nd
science knowledge longer term . The stu di es comparing environmentally focuse d
schools versus traditional schools, suggest that environ m ental schools significantly
enhance students' standardized test performance in math, listening, and social
studies, and science. The impact of environmentally focused school curriculum on
reading and writing varied from positive to neutral; all studies of elementary and
middle schools students found the impact of environmental cUrricula on reading
and language arts to be positive; the one study of high school students found the
impact of environmental curricula on reading and writing to be neutral.
Career Development
My literature review unveiled numerous methodologically robust stcdies
demonstrate the
between GEE and EE participation and academic
achievement; the relationship between EE and career development is less clear. In
fact, I discovered only one study that explored the effect of K-12 GEE
0 '1
choice. This study by Kearney (2009) (the methodology of which I sumLlarized in
the "academic achievement" section above) looked at the impact of IslandWood, a 3
night, 4-day GEE program on Bainbridge Island in western Washington, on career
development. This study found that the environmental career interest of GEE
participants (whose pre-tests indicated room for improvement
career interest) increasedl9% from pre-GEE to post-GEE. This increased :nterest
in environmental careers did not decrease significantly in
medium term (6
weeks post-GEE) . Conversely, there was no statistically significant change in
envirormental career interest in non-GEE students.
Although the Kearney (2009) study is the only methodologically
study that looked at the impact of an GEE program on students' career development,
another study looked at the impact of an environmental science magnet school on
career choice. Seever (1991) evaluated the impact of Nowlin Environmental Science
Magnet middle schuol on student interest in and awareness of environmental
ca :'eers. Forty-five percent of the students reported that they jearned about
environmental science careers via participation in the program, and 23% of eight
grade participants and 30% of sixth and seventh grade participants, reported that
they believe they "might want to have a career in the field of environmental science"
(Seever,1991). Unfortunately. this was not a controlled study, so it is undear
whether similar students at traditional schools would be more or less interested in
environmental careers. Despite the lack of studies regarding the impact of youth
OEE programs on career choice, a couple of studies have examined the effect of EE
targeted at adult populations, on career choice. These studies found that adults
working in environmental fields often cite EE programs as an inf1uence on their
career direction (Wheeler et 01., 2007; Palmer, 2003; Tanner, 1980). One researcher
explored the autobiographical statements of 232 environmental educators in
Engla nd. He discovered participation in school and university outdoor programs to
be one
Of the
most common reasons these individuals pursued environmental
as a career (Palmer, 2003).
Clearly, more studies are needed to understand the impact of EE and OEE on
students' career interests and career paths. Although two studies do suggest that
participation in OEE or environmental magnet schools increases student interest in
environm ental careers by 19% to 30%, longitudinal studies are needed to
determine whether and why these students actually embark on environmental
careers.
Self-Esteem, Engagement, and Motivation
All of the 15 studies reviewed by Wheeler et 01. (2007) that address the
correlation between EE and self-esteem, engagement, and motivation provide some
that EE enhances these characteristics. Much of this may be due to the
outdoor, experiential, adventure activities that EE frequently emphasizes (Wheeler
et 01.,2007). Although most of these studies rely on information that is
lf
reported by students, teachers, or parents, and do not statistically analyze the data,
three of the studies in the report, as well as one study completed after th e t-eport
was published, are particularly methodologically robust. I will summarize these
studies and their significant findings below.
15
One study by Kaly and Heesacker (200 3) explored the effe cts of a s hip-bas ed
adventure program on self-esteem and ego-ide ntity (sel f-explora tio n, and self
development). The study included 265 participants, ages 1 2 to 22 years. Although
this program was not environmental in focus, it can be classified as an OE program
because outdoor adventure activities including hiking, SCUBA diving, water skiing,
and sailing were key components. Further, the program focuses on personal growth
and development via group discussions and activities related to goals, choices,
values, and communication. Before and after this three-week ship experience,
participants completed a quantitative survey testing ego-identity status and self
esteem. They also completed a qualitative questionnaire. The results indicate no
significant change in self-esteem pre-test to post-test. However, participants di d
make some significant gains in ego-identity (self-knowledge and self-develop m ent)
(Kaly and Heesacker, 2003). It is important to recognize that because th is program
is 3-weeks long, it may provide more room for development in these are nas tha n
conventional3-day OEE programs. It is unclear how the length of the program and
the specific outdoor activities participants engage in, impact self-esteem and self
identity development.
Another study by Garst, Scheider, and Baker (2001) looked at the impact of
participation in a 3-day OEE program on 58 adolescents' (ages 12 to 15) self
perception and behavioral conduct. The OEE program in this study differs from OEE
Camp Colman in that the participants in this program voluntarily signed up for OEE
via their city recreation and parks department; it was a sought out summer
experience rather than a required school trip. During the 3-day trip students
participated in hiking, caving, group activities and initiatives, and envi ronmental
education programming. The study's quantitative data stemmed from a participant
pre-test, an immediate post-test, and a delayed post-test (four months post-OEE
experience). The qualitative component explored participant self-percepti on via
particioant observation, leader journaling, and post-trip interviews. Quantitative
results suggest participants' social acceptance and behavioral conduct improved
significantly as a result of the trip; gains in behavioral conduct were maintained four
months later. Qualitative results indicate that the OEE experience enhanced
participant self-perception by providing a means of
from chaotic homes and
16
negative peer pressures, thus allowing participants space to discover and pursue
new talents and interests (Garst, Scheider, and Baker, 2001).
A third study, conducted by the American Institutes for Research (2005),
examined the impact of a five-day GEE program for at-risk sixth grade students in
California on personal and social skills including self-esteem and cooperation. A
total of 255 students from four elementary schools participated. These students as
parents completed three rounds of surveys: pre-GEE,
well as
post-GEE, and delayed post-GEE (adminis tered 10 weeks after program
completion). A control group of students who did not participate in the GEE
experience also completed the surveys. The results indicate that perception of
students' social and emotional growth differed between students, teachers, and
parents. Parents did not observe changes in students' self-esteem, engagement in
learning, or motivation. Teachers did observe statistically significant gains in their
GEE students in each of these areas; they noted no change in the control group. GEE
students self-observed significantly greater gains in their cooperation and conflict
resolution than did non-GEE students. The fact that parent data reveals no change
in participants' social and personal skills whereas teacher data reveals significant
positive growth in all socio-emotional constructs, is intriguing and important to
note. Either positive changes in social and personal skills translate more obviously
to school rather than home activities, teachers were more attuned to such changes
than were parents, or teachers subconsciously looked for and noted more positive
change in
versus non-GEE students.
Whereas the three studies above focused on self-esteem and self-perception,
a particularly recent study (which was not included in the Wheeler et al. 2007
report because it was conducted thereafter) looked at the relationship between GEE
and student engagement in learning. It found no statistically significant global
changes in student engagement in learning as a result of GEE participation
(Kearney, 2009). In this study, pre-, post-, and delayed post- surveys were
administered to 478 fifth and sixth grade students from eight schools. (I have
described th e methodology of this study in more detail in previous sections).
Whe rea s student surveys did suggest that students enjoyed and were engaged by
17
the experiential GEE teaching style, this did not t ranslate into global hanges
attitudes about learning in the classroom.
Combined, these studies show that EE, GE, and GEE programs foster some
social and personal growth in students, but that the nature and extent of this growth
varies from program to program and depends greatly on who is completing the pre
and post- surveys (parents, teachers, or students). Typically, there was more
growth in students' self-understanding than in students' self-esteem. Teacher
s
surveys consistently revealed students' social and personal growth, student
produced mixed results, and parent surveys did not reveal change in students' social
and personal skills.
Civic Responsibility and Stewardship
The Wheeler et aJ. (2007) report reviewed eight studies that inves ti gated
the relationship between EE and civic responsibility. Evidence for increased civic
engagement was mixed and none of the studies were particularly methodologically
robust. The studies that did suggest that EE increased civic engagement relied on
self-reported data rather than measured behavioral changes (Wheeler et al., 2007J,
One such study looked at the effect of an GEE program on students' stewardship of
the environment and their appreciation of the wise use of natural resources. ([
previously described the demographic and methodological details of this study by
American Institutes for Research (2005) including the fact that it tested 255 at-risk
sixth grade students from California who participated in a five-day GEE program).
A comparison of pre- and post- survey responses suggests that environmental
concern increased significantly for both GEE and non-GEE (control)
Despite
increased environmental concern, engagement in environmentally responsible
behavior decreased slightly but significantly for both
and non-GEE groups
during the same time period. Interestingly, 4 to 6 weeks post-trip, the GEE group
showed significant gains in both environmental concern and engagem ent in
environmentally responsible behavior, whereas the non-GEE group showed
decreases in environmental engagement (American Institutes for Research, 2005).
These results suggest GEE programs may elicit environmentally responsible
18
behavior in students, but behavioral changes may not present themselves
immediately. Rather, it may take students weeks or months to synthesize and
internalize their OEE experience and translate their newfound concern for the
environment into environmentally beneficial behavior.
Another study (Duffin, Powers, Tremblay, and Peer Associates, 2004)
suggests that participation in one of four different Place-based Education Evaluation
Collaborative (PEE C) programs that work with K-12 schools, enhances student
stewardship behavior and civic engagement. These four programs were not 3-day
OEE programs for middle school students. Rather two of them were "whole school
change models" designed to foster a whole school, place-based, environmental
learning focus, and two were "professional development models" designed to help
individual teachers create place-based, environmental curricula. Research methods
included case studies, pre- and post- interviews, and surveys (without a control
group). Ultimately, this study found that the PEEC programs enhanced students'
civic engagement, stewardship behavior, and involvement in community planning
and decision making.
A third strong study by Kearney (2009) found that student environmental
concern increased by 11 % from pre-survey to post-survey. Students' sense of
environmental stewardship increased 19%. Both of these gains were maintained 4
to 6 weeks later according to the delayed post-surveys . The control group showed
no change in environmental concern. Despite the fact that
students'
e nvironmental concern and sense of stewardship increJsed significantly, it is
unclear whether these gains translate into enhanced environmentally responsible
behavior, as this study did not investigate behavior per se.
All of these studies give evidence to gains in students' environm e ntal concern
as a result ofOEE and environmental school participation. Further, the studi es that
surveyed for environmentally responsible behavior, found significant positive gains
in such behavior as a result of program participation.
Teamwork
19
The report by Wheeler et al. (2007) did not explo re the effect of EE on
teamwork, but I believe this relationship is important to address b ecause a rec ent
meta-analysis of 44 studies of programs with challenge (ropes) co urses, affirmed
the use of challenge courses for teambuilding purposes (Gillis and Speelman, 2008).
This meta-analysis included only those studies with control groups, quantitative
outcomes, and sufficient data to report effect sizes. Although all of the studies
included pre-tests and immediate post-tests, only 27.3% of the studies in the meta
analysis included delayed post-tests (administered over a month after the
program's end). Where delayed post-tests did exist, the delayed effects of the
courses were consistently lower than the immediate effects. Although not
all EE or GEE programs include challenge courses, many (including GEE Camp
Colman, my case study focus) do.
[n addition the meta-analysis of the impact of challenge courses on
teamwork described above, I found one study that explored the impact of a
residential GEE program on teamwork. This study by Kearney (2009) investigated
the impact of IslandWood (an GEE program for fourth through sixth graders) on
team building and group functioning. I have described the methodology of this study
(which also explored the relationship between GEE and academic achievement,
engagement, etc.) in previous sections. Kearney (2009) discovered that the number
of students who reported that their group was not functioning well dropped from
19% to 7% from the beginning of the 4-day IslandWood experience to the end.
Furthermore, the number of students who reported that their classmates "aren't
nice/don't treat them well," dropped from 15% to 10%. When asked to list reasons
for improvement in-group functioning, over 40% of the students simply noted that
"working together" helped.
Together, the meta-study by Kearney (2009) and the study Gillis and
Speelman (2008J provide substantial evidence that GEE programs and challenge
courses enhance teambuilding. Clearly these programs provide students with
opportunities to work together through challenges; however it is unclear which
specific activities and endeavors best promote teambuilding.
20
Summary
Based on the robust evidence of relationships between K-12 EE and desired
outcomes (particularly improved math and science academic achievement and
enhanced environmental concern) OSPJ's Environmental Education Report (which I
referen ced multiple times in this section) made several recommendations to the
Washington State Legislature. First. the report recommended that the legislature
fund integrated project-based learning opportunities for all students. Second, it
the legislature to provide financial support (i.e. $20 per student) to
school districts for outdoor/experiential education such that all public school
students have the opportunity to participate in "at least one full-day outdoor,
experiential program during their K-12 years" (Wheeler et 01.,2007).
Characteristics of Successful OEE Programs
OSPl's Environmental Education Report identified six characteristics of successful
environmental education programs based on the findings and recommendations of
the studies they reviewed for their report (Wheeler et 01.,2 007) . They are as
follows:
(1) Integrated Approa ch . Here, "integration" refers to using EE as a means
of connecting learning across multiple disciplines. For example, EE issues or
themes (such as healthy watersheds) may be used to draw connections
between teachings and ass ignments in science, social studies, and language
arts.
(2) Effective Communication and Documentation . An e ffe ctive
communication system between teachers, schools, an d the community is
essential. Also, regular planning time for teachers to develop and improve
the program is key. Documenting program
may help with
program assessmen t.
(3) Involvement of Community Partners. Involving th e local community
programs ca n im prove prog ram quality. Community members
organizations may be ab le to provide expertise a nd funding.
21
(4) Professional Development of Environmental Education Teachers. On
going high-quality professional develop ment is cru cial to pr ogram success.
(5) Authentic Assessment.
play an active role in reflecting
on and assessing what they gained from the program. This helps students
develop ownership of learning.
(6) Long-Term Rather than Short-Term Programs. Although there are
a lY
interesting, exciting, and successful short-term programs, long-term
programs have a greater impact on students. Long-term programs are
especially effective at enhancing students' academic performance, anc
helping them master skills and knowledge. Unfortunately, the
report
does not define "long-term" versus "short-term"
Effects of Linking DEE with Classroom Curricula
Throughout the past decade, several controlled, peer-reviewed studies have
addressed the effects of linking off-campus envi:onmentai education
with classroom curricula (Smith-Sebasto and Cavern, 2006, Gutierr ez de
Jacobson 1994, Farmer and Wott, 1995, Stern et al., 2008). Each found a statistically
significant incre ase in student environmental knowledge, environmental
pect, or
interest in learning or discovery as a result of such ntegration.
In 1995, Farmer and Wott conducted a study on the impact of fieldtrip
activities on cognitive ledrning. Participants inclucted 111 fourth grade
students who visited the Washington Park Arboretum for part of one day At the
trained arboretum teachers taught students about seed dispersal
mechanisms and the plant life cycle via discussions, hands-on participatory
(students dispersed seeds in numerous playful ways), and drawing
activities.
teacher also addressed the function and mission of the Washington
Park Arboretum as well as the size and type of its plant collections. Students hunted
for
deciphered plant accession tags, and examined arboretum plants. Prior to
this fieldtrip, all students completed a written short answer pre-test ahout the
science and arboretum components that the fieldtrip would address. Two weeks
1
after the fieldtrip, the treatment group participated in a 45-minute classroom
follow-up activity designed to reinforce fieldtrip learning objectives; the control
group participated in a 45-minute activity unrelated to fieldtrip learning objectives.
Directly after the follow-up activity all students completed a post-test (with the
same questions as the pre-test) (Farmer and Wott, 1995). The pre- and post-test
data suggest that the relevant field-trip follow-up activity significantly enhanced
student learning.
It must be noted, however, that this study's application to my investigation
of classroom-GEE curricular integration is limited for several reasons. First, the
follow-up activity in this study consisted of one 45-minute lesson; the study did not
address the effects of various types and lengths of follow-up activities on student
learning. Second, the post-test was given immediately after the follow-up
and therefore tested short-term memory rather than long term knowledge gains; it
is unclear whether medium and long term knowledge gains would differ between
treatment and comrol groups. Third, this study investigated the impact of a fieldtrip
follow-up activity on knowledge only; it did not look at the impact of the integration
of the fieldtrip and follow-up activities on student's environmental attitudes,
academic performance, career development, self-esteem and motivation, or civic
responsibility and service learning. Finally, it looked only at the impact of a
cbssroomfollow-up activity on le arn ing; it did not explore the impact of pre-trip
preparatory activ ities on student learning.
Another study did explore the impact of a pre-trip activity on student
learn ing; it also looked at the impact of a teacher professional development program
(Gutierrez de White and Jacobso n, 1994). In 1994, Gutierrez de White and Jacobson
inves tigated the effects of adding either a 15-minute pre-trip slideshow, a
professional development training class for teachers, or both, to a 2-hour zoo visit,
on students knowledge and attitudes about wildlife conservation. Participants
included 1015 fourth grade students (9 to
years) in 26 randomly selec ted schools
in Colombia. Students in all four treatment-groups (zoo
it only, zoo visit and pre
tr ip slideshow, zoo visit and teacher professional development training,
visit (control group)) completed a pre-
no zoo
post- trip questionnaire with 18 multiple
ch oice knowledge questions a nd 16 five-point sca le attitude questions. A
23
statistically significant increase in student conservation knowledge
found only among students whose teachers partici pated in the
atti t ude was
ofessional
development training course. This training consisted of 52 hours of instruction over
4 months and stressed hands-on learning. It began by teaching teachers about the
importance of plants and animal-plant relationships. It then introduced ecological
concepts and conservation issues via activities developed at over 30 zoos and
conservation organizations around the world. Finally, teachers were asked to
design their own activities to be used by students at the zoo as well as before and
after their zoo visit. Teachers were not required to use the newly acquired
information in their own classrooms, and there was no attempt to control the
information that teachers provided students in any of the treatment or control
groups, The wildlife related knowledge of students whose teachers participated in
the professional development course increased by 23.2%. Their interest in wildlife
conservation increased from 3.3 to 3.7 on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5,
There were no significant knowledge or attitude changes among students in the
control group or the other treatment groups. The results indicate that knowledge
and positive attitudes towards wildlife conservation can be fostered in youth by
enhancing their teacher's knowledge of the topics (Gutierrez de White and Jacobson)
1994).
This study reveals that the 2-hour zoo visit alone was insufficient to affect
change in students) knowledge or attitudes about wildlife conservation, The pre
trip lesson (in this case a slideshow) did not affect change either. That said, it is
important to recognize that the slide show was limited to 15 minutes of pictures of
endangered wildlife; it is possible that a different type of pre-trip activity or a longer
series of pre-trip activities would have yielded pronounced knowledge or attitude
changes, Further it is possible that a longer or more interactive zoo trip alone
would have affected significant cognitive or attitude changes, As it stands, o:lly the
teacher-training workshop was effective, This is an important outcome because it
suggests that it may be more effective for organizations serving students to invest
time a nd money into training teachers (who will then presumably teach and impact
their students) ra ther than into developing their own pre-trip slideshows,
e
This study is limited in its application to my study of the impact of curricular
3
24
connections between OEE and classrooms. First, the zoo fieldtrip is much shorter
than the 3-day, 2-night OEE experience I investigated. Second, the zoo fieldtrip is
less structured than the OEE experience in that students are not engaging in classes
and hands-on activities at the zoo; at OEE they engage in at least 10 hours of
participatory learning during their visit. That said, both the zoo and OEE are out-of
the-classroom, experiential learning experiences. Third, whereas this study
confirms the considerable impact that teacher knowledge and attitudes can have on
student knowledge and attitudes, it fails to address the specific activities that
teachers bring back to their classrooms (after the teacher training course) to engage
and teach students. As I will describe below, my study will uncover the scope and
types of activities that teachers employ pre- and post-OEE.
A third study is particularly relevant to my OEE Camp Colman case study in
that it explores an OEE program whose duration, participants, and program
activities closely resemble those ofOEE Camp Colman (Smith-Sebasto and Cavern,
2006). In 2006, Smith-Sebasto and Cavern conducted a study that measured the
impact of adding pre-trip and post-trip in-class activities to a 3-day, 2-night OEE
experience at the New Jersey School of Conservation (NJSOC). Study participants
included 168 seventh grade students from a suburban New Jersey school. While at
NJSOC these students were outside 7 hours per day participating in hands-on
environmental sciences, humanities, outdoor, and social sciences activities. The
researchers investigated the effects of GEE participation on students' attitudes
towards the environment, and the effects, if any, of adding pre-trip, post-trip, and
bo th pre- and post-trip activities. Pre-trip and post-trip activities were 45 minutes
each; the pre-trip activity was completed one day before OEE and the post-trip
activity was completed one day after OEE. The pre-trip activity was designed to
activate students' prior knowledge and expectations about spending time outside in
nature. It asked students to consider how their preset expectations might affect
their understanding of situations. The post-trip activity was designed to encourage
students to reflect on their OEE exoerience. It asked students to consider how OEE
changed their beliefs and feelings about the environment. In order to measure
changes in students ' attitudes towa rd the environment, researchers employed the
Childre n's Envir on me ntal Resp ons e Inventory
and looked at the change in
s cores fr om p r e-test to post-test. The study revealed a statistically significant
25
increase in students' respect for the environment only when students participated
in both pre- and post-trip activities
and Cavern, 2006).
This study suggests that integrating GEE w ith clas sroom curriculum has a
positive affect on students'
toward the environment. Howeve r, the study
nas limitations as well. First, it looks only at the impact of connecting classroom
activities with GEE activities on students' environmental attitudes; it does not
investigate the impact of curricular connections on academic performance, career
development, self-esteem and motivation, civic responsibility and service learning,
or teamwork. Secondly, it employs only one type of pre- and post- trip activity,
maybe different activities would affect students' environmental perceptions
differently. Third, activities were limited to 45 minutes, perhaps their
~
;
increase if activities were carried out over several days, weeks, or months .
the study was limited to students in one grade at one school; students in differelt
grade levels and from different locations (i.e. urban and rural) may respond
differently. Fifth, many students (71 of 277) skipped items on the pre- or post
tests. Further, students may not have taken the tests seriously such that their
responses do not reflect their true attitudes (Smith-Sebasto and Cavern, 2006).
Finally, a 2008 study by Stern el 01. looked at the impact
an array of degrees
of pre-GEE preparations. More specifically, it investigated the effect of pre-trip
preparations on students' connection with nature, environmental stewardship,
interest in learning and discovery, and awareness of biodiversity, by asking students
to complete pre-trip and post-trip surveys The participants included 183 fourth
through seventh grade students from 20 school groups. Stude:1ts attended a 3-day
or 5-day GEE progra'n at the Great Smoky Mountains Institute at 'Tremont, taking
numerous classes focusing on cooperative teambuilding and inquiry-based science
in an outdoor, national park setting. Upon their arrival at Tremont, participating
teachers were asked to self-determine the degree to
students for the trip.
prepared their
categories included: 0 (no preparation), 1 (logistics only),
2 (minimal content-related preparation), 3 (moderate content-rebted Dreparation],
4 (extensive content-related preparation), and 5 (focus of semester up until trip).
Stern et 01. found that 6% of teachers rcported no pre-visit preparations, 18%
reported discussing only logistics, 18% reported minimal content-related
preparation, 52% reported moderate content-related preparation, and 6% reported
5
26
extensive content related preparation. The data suggest a statistically significant
correlation between degree of pre-visit preparation and students' scores in "interest
in learning and discovery" post-trip. There were no significant correlations between
pre-visit preparations and scores in other categones (Stern el al., 2008).
One of the primary limitations of this study is that teachers self-ranked the
degree to which they prepared their students. It is unclear how each teacher
defined "minimal" versus "moderate" versus "extensive" pre-trip preparations. It is
possible that what one teacher considered "extensive" another teacher considered
"minimal". A larger sample size and a more rigorous system for determining and
ranking the degree of pre-trip preparation, would better promote an understanding
of the relationship between degree of pre-trip preparation and student
environmental awareness and connection with nature. Another limitation of the
study is its failure to investigate the impact ofOEE follow-up activities.
All of the studies above address the impact of the integration of classroom
curricula with OEE experiences (or nature-based fieldtrips). Despite the studies'
various limitations, the data clearly suggest that curricular connections pre-trip and
post-trip enhance students' environmental knowledge and respect, and their
interest in discovery and learning. My literature search did not reveal any studies
that concluded the contrary. However, despite the demons trated positive impact of
classroom-OEE curricular integration on students' environmental knowledge and
attitudes, no study has provided specifics about the range of existing integrative
endeavors. Further, no study has explored the challenges and barriers to such
integration or identified the ways in which these barriers can be overcome. Both a
exploration of current integrative practices and an assessment of
eal-life barriers to such integration remain critical literature gaps.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Approach
In order better understand curricul ar integration between OEE and the
classroom, including present reali ties, challenges, and barriers, I decided to employ
a case study approach. A case study involves an in depth examination of a single
27
event, situation, person, community, or program (Stake, 1995). In th is case, I chose
to delve deeply into OEE Camp Colman.
I chose the cas e study app r oach becaus e
an in depth exploration of curre nt OEE-class room curricu lar integrative practices,
and an assessment of barriers to this integration, remain key literature gaps. Time
and resource limitations prevented me from thoroughly investigating dozens,
hundreds, or thousands of OEE programs, and a cursory overview of hundreds of
programs would likely prove too superficial to uncover complex realities.
Accordingly, I chose to concentrate on one program in depth. I chose OEE Camp
Colman in particular because (a) it is a local program that I already had some
familiarity with (1 worked as an OEE instructor there in 2004), and (b) the
program's new director is interested in and dedicated to making positive change;
she is open to an outsider's insight into curricular integration and is motivated to
take constructive action that will benefit her own organization and participati ng
school groups.
Case studies incorporate information from multiple sources such as field
observations, interviews of key stakeholders, surveys, peer-reviewed journal
articles, and documents (Stufflebeam et al., 2000). These muitiple
information enable case study researchers to employ
of
By comparing
and contrasting information pertaining to complex phenomena from each source,
they can establish meaning (Stake, 1995). In this case,1 built my facts and
conclusions around the consistencies and inconsistencies (both subtle and
transparent) of data from several sources. I gathered both qualitative and
quantitative data; triangulate information gathered from OEE directors,
participating teachers, and journal articles; and express facts and conclusions in
both qL;alitative and quantitative terms.
Not only have I employed a case study methodology, I have also attempted
to incorporate illuminative evaluation methodology. "Illuminative evaluation,"
coined in 1970, grew out of a dissatisfaction with more traditional approaches to
program evaluation. Traditional evaluation approaches pre-specify problems to be
researched and tidily address only those discrete issues in their
As a
result, their findings are arguably too contrived and restricted in scope to
adequately address complex programs or problem areas. Illuminative evaluation
28
allows more flexibility to post-specify problem areas. It allows the researcher to
discover key tangential information along the way and weave that information into
the larger story. Furthermore, whereas traditional evaluation relies primarily on
quantitative data and test scores, illuminative evaluation incorporates interviews,
surveys, documents,
background information as well (Parlett and Dearden,
1977). My goal in utilizing illuminative evaluation was to examine curricular
integration between Camp Colman and the classroom via data from numerous
sources in order to "il1uminate" the realities of and barriers to curricular integration.
I also wanted to determine how those barriers could be circumnavigated or broken.
Using illuminative evaluation I had the flexibility to discover information and
perspectives tangential to my original questions and to incorporate these findings
into my discussion and analysis in order to produce a complete story.
My research incorporated numerous methods, the first of which was a
literature review of peer-reviewed journal articles. Secondly, I interviewed two
groups of people (1) teachers who bring their middle school students to OEE Camp
Colman, and (2) educationa: directors ofOEE programs in western Washington
(including the OEE director of Camp Colman). Additionally, I administered oral
surveys to the teachers I interviewed and to the OEE Camp Colman director. Finally,
I exami ned curriculum samples from teachers and OEE directors, and I investigated
publicly available information on the websites ofOEE programs and participating
schools . Ultimately, I have attempted to integrate, in a converging fashion, data
from all of these sources to produce a nuanced description of present day curricular
integration between OEE Camp Colman and classrooms, to identify cha llenges and
bar riers to curricular integration, and to suggest realistic means of enhancing
integration based on the goals, needs, and concerns of OEE Camp Colman
and
classroom teachers.
Interviews with OEE Education Directors
In January and
the
2009, I conducted on-site, in person interviews
ciirectors /coo rdinators of four well-established OEE programs in
western Washington :
29
(1) Camp Colman
(2) IslandWood
(3) Olympic Park Institute (OPI)
(4) North Cascades Institute (NCI)
The locations of these programs are marked on the map below (see Figure 1).
chose to interview Camp Colman's OEE director for two reasons. First, in fall
·, I
worked at Camp Colman as an OEE instructor and am thus familiar with its OEE
program. Second, Camp Colman employed a new OEE director in fall 2008 who
not only passionate about OEE, but remains dedicated to making positive changes to
Camp Colman's OEE program. She committed to putting me in contact with teache rs
who bring their students to OEE Camp Colman so that I could interview them.
Further, she expressed genuine interes t in learning from and acting on the findings
of my thesis. I chose to interview education directors/coordinators at IslandWood,
the Olympic Park Institute (OPI), and the North Cascades Institute (NCI) in order to
explore the realities and challenges of curricular integration at other OEE programs
in western Washington. IslandWood} OPI, and Ncr are not only well-respected
ins titutions in the region} but provide OEE programs with duration, audience, and
focus similar to that of Camp Colman. Furthermore, IslandWood and opr are in
session during the winter months such that r was able to observe their OEE
programs in action.
In-person interviews with OEE directors/coordinators ranged in length
from 40- to 64-minutes. Additionally, r conducted a 90-minute informal} in-person,
informational interview with Camp Colman's OEE director in Janu a ry 2008, prior to
conducting the formal interviews. After obtaining consent, I recorded each
interview with a voice recorder and then transcribed the interviews onto my
computer. I did not know any of the subjects prior to the interviews; rather, I
obtained the subjects' names and contact information from the websites of their
respective organizations. Prior to each interview, r e-mailed or talked briefly (over
the phone) with each subject to arrange the interview. In order to maintain
confidentiality, I will identify the OEE directors/coordinators that I interviewed by a
letter (rather than by their real name). The letters [ have chosen are as follows:
30
indicates Camp Colman's OEE Director;
Graduate Program;
indicates IslandWood's Head of
indicates OPI's Education Director; and
indicates NCI's
Mountain School Coordinator. My subjects are all female and range in age from
twenty-six years to middle-aged. I asked each OEE Director jCoordinator 7
quantitative questions and 11 qualitative questions (see Appendix A). In some
cases, I asked my subjec ts additional follow-up questions, inviting them to clarify or
elaborate on key points.
In many cases I was able to verify the quantitative data I obtained from my
subjects during the interviews with data provided on the organizations' websites;
however, not all data was available in writing. In order to analyze the quantitative
data, 1arranged them
a table and then employed demographic statistical
analysis. To analyze the qualitative data, I coded the transcribed interviews and
then organized the data into themes and sub-themes.
31
Map of Participating OEE Programs and Schools
,-------.,
N.ah Bay
Siehekin
Lake Chelan
Ocean
Ocean Shores
Westport
long Beach
Ilwaco
..
Figure 1. This map of western Washington depicts the lo cations of the schools
and the GEE programs that [ in cluded in my study. GEE programs are denoted
with red stars. (1 = GEE Camp Colman; 2 = IslandWood; 3 = Oly mp ic Park [ns t itute;
4 = North Cascades Institute). Schools are denoted with green circ les.
31
32
Interviews and Surveys of Teachers. Principals, and Counselors
Camp Colman worked with twelve schools in fa112008. In February and
March 2009, I interviewed the head teacher, principal, or counselor of seven of these
schools. Despite numerous phone and e-mail attempts to contact participating
teachers at the other five schools, they did not respond. Accordingly, my response
rate was 58%. In order to maintain confidentiality, I will not mention the names of
my subjects or the names of the schools at which they work, although I have marked
the location of each school on a map of western Washington (see Figure 1). I
interviewed teachers at fall 2008 schools rather than spring 2008 or spring 2009
schools because
became Camp Colman's new GEE director in August 2008, so
the fall 2008 schools are the only schools that have worked with MH thus far
Because I wanted to identify challenges to establishing curricular integration
between Camp Colman and classrooms during MH's reign (as each GEE director
alters the GEE program) and then provide suggestions for enhancing integration, I
decided it would be best to speak with teachers who had already worked with
I conducted all interviews of school leaders over the phone. Interviews
ranged in length from 31 to 50 minutes with an average length of 40 (+/- 8)
minutes. After obtaining consent, I recorded each interview by holding a hand-held
recording device up to the phone. I then transcribed the interviews onto my
comnuter. I did not know any of the subjects prior to the interviews; rather,
J
obtained the subjects' names and contact information from Camp Colman's
Prior to each interview, I e-mailed or talked briefly (over the phone) with
each subject to arrange the interview. Generally I interviewed one teacher,
counselor, or principal from each school, but in one case interviewed two teachers
concurrently In this instance the teachers were in the same room talking to me on
speakerphone
Each interview consisted of8 quantitative questions and 13 4ualitative
questions (see AppendiX B) . I asked additional clarifying questions if the subjects'
responses were vague or unclear. At the conclusion of each
I asked
subjects to complete a verbally administered survey. The survey sked subjects to
rate their interest in m ployin p 19 hypothetical means for enhancing curricular
integ ratio n between GE E Camp Colman and the classroom on a scale of 1 to 5, 1
33
meaning "Not Interested", 5 meaning "Extremely Interested" (see Appe ndi x C) .
Additionally, I verbally administered the same survey
MH, Camp Colman's OE E
director.
OEE PROGRAMS
Camp Colman
Camp Colman is a YMCA camp located in Longbranch, Washington, on Puget
Sound's Key Peninsula. It is nestled within a second-growth evergreen forest and
boasts
saltwater lagoon and a half-mile stretch of Puget Sound pebble beach. It
hosts conferences and retreats and offers family camps, wellness weekends, youth
summer camps, as well as a residentia l Outdoor Environmental Education (OEE)
program during the schoo l year. Camp Colman's OEE program operates in the fall
from September through November, and in the spring from March
June.
Most OEE sessions are two nights and three days, though alternative schedules may
be arranged. Last year, 41 schoo ls and nearly 3000 students participated in OEE
Camp Co lman; the majority of the schools bring fourth grade, fifth grade, or sixth
grade students, though a handful bring seventh grade, eighth grade, or high school
Camp Colman can accommodate up to 182 students, teachers, and
chaperones at a time, with sleeping accommodations in rustic (but winterized]
wooden cabins housing about a dozen participants each.
This spring OEE Camp Colman will offer twenty-three classes which it
classifies into four categories: Environment/Science, Outdoor,
Challenge/Communication, and Evening. The classes are as follows :
34
ENVIRONMENT &
SCIENCE:
Super Salmon
Birds of Puget Sound
Beach Walk
Marine Invertebrates
Forest Ecology
Micro Forest
Garden & Sust. Living
Plant Exploration
Geology
Life/Death in Forest
CHALLENGE &
COMMUNICATION:
Challenge & Teamwork
Climbing Wall
Vertical Playpen
The Beast
OUTDOOR
ACTIVITIES :
Orienteering
Outdoor Living Skills
Canoeing
EVENING
ACTIVITIES:
Night Hike
School-Led Fires
Combi-Fire
Dork Dance
Alpha Wolf
Bizarre Bizarre
The "Environment/Science" courses introduce basic ecological concepts
through exploration of the natural environment. These courses encourage respect
for the environment, an understanding of human impact on the environment, and an
appreciation of each individual's ability to make a difference with respect to
environmental stewardship and care. The "O utdoor" courses introduce outdoor
wilderness skills and foster self-esteem and teamwork. The
"Challenge/Communication" courses promote team building and personal growth in
a
atmosphere. These classes incorporate th e climbing wall and the low
elements initiative courses. The "Even ing Activities" vary from purely fun to
educational. The educational evening activities include the "Night Hike" in which
students lea rn about noctu .: nal animals, biolum inesce nce and color perception on a
night hike, and "Alpha
in which students learn about wolves and then
participate in a simulated game, role-playing a wolfpack searching for the alpha
wo lf. The "Campfire and "Combi-fire" involve songs and skits; they mayor may not
inco rp orate environm ental themes depending on the desires of students and
teachers. In "Bizarre Bizarre" students act out words and phrases that are science
or environmental in theme. "Dork Dance" is purely fun; it is a high-en ergy
conglomeration of music and dancing (YMCA Camp Colman, 2009b).
Several months prior to their Camp Colman experience, a teacher or schoo l
member completes a five-page group information packet in which they select
five daytime classes and two evening activities for th eir students. Each daytime
class ranges in length from 1.5 hours to 2 hours; each evening activity lasts 1.25
hours. Upon arrival, teachers div ide students into study groups (with an average
si ze of 15 students).
35
Each study group is led and
by
saine Camp Colman OE E instn ctor
for the duration of the visit. These OEE inst "Jctors arE:: hired and trained by the
di rector; instructors commit to teaching for one season (fall or spring) but may elect
to stay for several seasons. In fall 2008, Camp Colman's instructional staff consistec
of eight instructors,
OEE director, and the assistant OEE director. All ten
instructional staff members were new to OEE Camp Colman that fall, though some
had
as Camp Colman
Because Camp Colman's
camp counselors during summer
director, MH, was new to Camo Colman in fall
2008, she did not hire her own instructional staff that season;
the interim
who preceded her did. Most of the fall 2008
were in their early
twenties and had completed a couple of years of college; one was an "intern" getting
college credit for her work as an OEE instructor. In spring 2009, MH (who is 26
years old with no prior OEE director experience but several years ofOEE instructor
experience both at Camp Colman's sister camp on Orcas Island, OEE Camp
and at Nature's Classroom in Ohio) plans to hire instructional staff"with at least a
bachelor's degree, course work in science, and some OEE experience" (MH, 2009).
For fall 2008, she developed a 1-week training program for instructional staff pre
season; she has elected to lengthen staff training to 2.5 weeks in spring 2009 . In
addition to one OEE instructor per study group, one or two
high school students (chosen and trained by the
parents, or
ci pating school) accompany
each group. The OEE instructors teach the classes, but the chaperones may assist or
help moderate student behavior as needed.
OEE Camp Colman lacks a clear, concise mission statement. Currently its
"mission" consists of one page of OEE-related quotes from uncited authors as well as
a one-page description of the role environmental educators play, written by John
Hug of the Ohio Department of Education. Despite its nebulous mission, OEE Camp
Colman identifies five clear goals:
(1) To promote students' understanding of ecological principals,
environmental components, and their interactions;
(2) To promote students' respect for the environment as the source of
community heaith and quality of life;
36
(3) To teach students how choices and actions affect the environment;
(4) To develop students' communication and cooperation skills;
(5) To encourage students to reach their full potential and become self
aware through development of spirit, mind, and body in the YMCA tradition.
GEE Camp Colman seeks to accomplish these goals by catering to a variety of
learning styles. Activities include role-playing; immersion in the environment; use
of smell, touch, sight, and sound; group discussions; and active demonstrations,
participation, and observation. Interestingly, both the GEE Camp Colman "Mission"
and "Goals" are written only in the YMCA Camp Colman DEE Staff Manual (2003) and
not on
YMCA Camp Colman webpage or in the information provided to teachers,
parents, and students.
Acco rding to my informational interview with Camp Colman GEE Director,
MH, Camp Colman is interested in enhancing the level of integration between GEE
curriculum (at Camp Colman) and curricula in the classroom (at students' schools).
In fact, the Camp Colman GEE Teacher Packet states:
"We strongly suggest that you do pre-activities to help your students
prepare for their resident experience as well as post-activities to
help them follow-up and build upon the experiences that happened
du ri ng their trip. Expanding the experience in thi s way will make
their trip much more meaningful than an intense but isolated 3-5
days" (YMCA Camp Colman: GEE Teacher Packet, 2009).
Currently, Camp Colman's efforts to integrate the two include :
(1) Curriculum Incorporates Washington State's EALRs. Within the 34-page GEE
Teacher Packet there is a comprehensive guide to each class and activity. This guide
includes th e possible learning outcomes, the possible activities in which students
will engage at Cam p Colman) and the possible connection to Washington State's
Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALRs) for each class. Note that this
comprehensive guide to Camp Colman classes and the EALRs that each addresses, is
new for spring 2009. The teachers whom I interviewed who hrought their
to Camp Colman in fall 2008 did not have access to this information.
(2) Pre-T rip Curriculum Ide as.
GEE Teacher Packet there
a half-page
lis t of pre-trip acti vi ti es in which
can engage students. Again, this is new
37
for spring 2009; teachers Imterviewed who brought their students to Cam p Colman
fall 2008 dId not have access to this informat ion. The s uggestions include:
- Letter to Myself. (Pre-trip, students write a letter to themselves about th eir
Camp
hopes and fears. Teach ers return the letter to the
students after the trip).
- journal Writing. (Journals can be used before, during, and after the trip)
- Photo Board or Collage
-
Repo rting. (Student groups can report on Camp Colman topics such
as classes, meals, or instructors).
- Vocabulary. (Specific vocabulary is not provided here but teachers re
encouraged to talk with the OEE director if they would like ideas).
- Environmental Club
(3) OEE Director Talks (On Phone) with Teacher Pre-Trip. Camp Colman's OEE
Director talks on the phone with a staff member from 75% of the schools before
they
to discuss the upcoming program and answer questions.
(4) OEE Director Visits School Pre-Trip . Camp Colman's OEE director visits 30%
35% of the schools prior to their
Colman trip. Typically she goes to the
schools' parent nights to explain the program to parents and answer questions.
Sometimes she meets with individuaj teachers o r groups of teachers as
visit is included in the cost of the program and Camp Colman's OEE
This
'cor is happy
to visit all participating schools that are interested.
(5J Teacher Planning Questionnaire. One page of the five-page Group Information
Sheet asks teachers to describe the curricular connections they make between Camp
Colman and
classroom and to identify their Camp Colman goals. More
speci fically, teachers are asked to respond to five questions such as: "How do the
Colman classes you have selected correspond to what
classroom?";
are doing in the
there a particular activity you are hoping to see in
of your
classes"; and "Are you students bringing a journal? How would you like instructors
to utilize them in Class?" (Camp Colman Group Information Sheet, 2009J. It is
important to note that these questions are new for spring 2009. The teachers I
interviewed who brought their students to Camp Colman in fall 2008 were not
asked to co mplete such a form.
38
Other OEE Programs
The other institutions that I investigated ([slandWood, Olympic Park
Institute, and North Cascades Institute) operate OEE programs similar to Camp
Colman's. Tables ia and ib summarize and compare characteristics of these four
OEE programs including the year each was founded, the number of schools each
works with yearly, the number of students each works with yearly, the typical grade
levels of the students each works with, the percent of public versus private schools
each works with, the number of days each school group stays, the months of the
year that each OEE program operates, and th e cost per student.
39
Comparison of DEE Programs (a)
Per Year
Typical
Grades
% Public
School
41
3000
4th-6th
83%
2002
70
3350
4th-6th
66%
Olympic Park
Institute (OPI)
1987
122
4000
4th-12th
50%
Mountain School
(NCI)
1990
44
1482
4th-6th
86%
Schools
PerYear
Students
OEE Program
Year
Founded
DEE Camp Colman
1995
IslandWood
Table lea).
Comparison of DEE Programs (b)
DEE Program
Average Stay
(# of days)
Months of
Operation
*CostjStudent
(2 nights, 3 days)
DEE Camp Colman
3
Sept-Nov; Mar-fun
$104
IsIandWood
4
Sept-Jun
$157
Olympic Park
Institute (OPI)
3
Sept-Nov; Jan-Aug
$190
3
Sept-Nov; Mar-Jun
$300 (private sch.)
$150 (public sch.)
Mountain School
(NCI)
Table l(b). Tables l(a) and l(b) compare OEE Camp Colman with three other OEE
programs in western Washington (IslandWood, Mountain School (at NCI), and
Olympic Park Institute). Data describing OEE Camp Colman is highlighted in red.
* Note that the costs listed are unsubsidized costs. All of the OEE programs offer
discounts to schools with a high percentage of students in the free and reduced
lunch program.
IslandWood
IslandWood consists of 249 acres of forested land as well as 6 acres of
conference centers, classroom buildings, and lodges. It is situated on the south side
of Bainbridge Island in western Washington's Puget Sound. IslandWood is guided
by a clear, concise mission: "To provide exceptional learning experiences and to
inspire lifelong environmental and community stewardship". To this end,
IslandWood was constructed and is operated with the goals of energy conservation,
40
the harnessing of alternative energy sources, recycling, and composting in mind.
lslandWood hosts teacher in-services, summer camp programs for children and
families, a ten-month residential graduate program in "Education, Environment, and
Community" in partnership with the University of Washington, and an OEE program
for middle school students termed the "School Overnight Program." IslandWood
opened in the summer of 2000, and its OEE program began in the spring of 2002.
Whereas Camp Colman is closed to school groups for four months during the winter
(from mid-November to mid-March), IslandWood's OEE program operates from
September through June with a one-month break from mid-December to mid
January. Last year, IslandWood served 3350 students, 9% more than Camp Colman .
Unlike Camp Colman, IslandWood does not hire OEE instructors. Rather,
IslandWood's graduate students, under the supervision and coaching of experienced
environmental education professionals, teach the School Overnight Program . These
graduate students receive graduate credit toward a masters' degree rather than
monetary compensation in exchange for the extensive teaching that they do. Last
year there were 23 graduate students at IslandWood. In order to enable
IslandWood's
students to both take courses at IslandWood from
IslandWood faculty and teac h the School Overnight Program, they are split into two
groups. One graduate student group spends a week teaching in the School Overnight
Program while the other group takes courses . The next week, the groups switch
roles. Accordingly, all instructors of IslandWood's OEE program are graduate
stu dents pursuing a career in environmental education or a related field .
(lslandWood, 2009; 00,2009).
Like Camp Colman's OEE program, IslandWood's program is geared
toward fourth through sixth grade students. At IslandWood, school
groups typically come for three nights and four days (as opposed to two nights and
three days at Camp Colman). Whereas
Colman groups classes into three
environment/science, challenge/communication, or outdoor, a nd asks
teachers
select 5 of 23 class es in which their students will particip ate during their
visit, IslandWood groups curriculum into two themes: ecosystems and watersheds.
Half of each sch ool's students pa rticipa te in the ecosystems thread for the duration
of thei r visit; the ot her half particip ate in the watersheds thread. Teachers do not
41
select a handful of classes for the: r students to engage in; rather
gracuate student inst'uctors plan each day as they see fi t.
seek to understalld the goals
do
objectives of teachers.
IslandWood believes th at curricular
Like
between the SC:1001 Overnight Program
School Overnight
th e class room is important
website states:
schools
Four-Day Residential Experi e nce, they enter a
with our
fuL-time faculty that cr eates a year-long :earning progression for students
teachers" (Islan dWood, 2009).
At IsIa n dWood, efforts to integrate the School Ove rn ight Program with
curricul a include the following:
(1) Curr iculu m Consultation and Orientation Workshop for
enables
teache r s to voice their goals, objectives, and desired focus for their OEE experience.
(2) Orientation Presen tati o n a bout IsIandWood. Schools
request
for parent groups or others pre-trip. Orientation
presentatIOns are
available for dow 'load on IslandWood's website.
(3) Instructor Pre-Trip School Visits. An IslandWood instructor visits
least once,
schoe' at
sometimes several tunes, pre-trip. Instructors gel acquainted with
the teachers and students, help teachers prepare for the experience, and ensure
alignment of the curricula. Depending on the needs and desires of the
the
ISlandWood instructor may simply orient students to the upcoming experience, or
they may
lessons that in tegrate
curricula with classroom
curricula.
(4) Instructor Post-Trip School Visits. IslandWood instructors return to the
classroom
to reinforce learning and to help students implement related
projects. Last year, instructors visited each school two tv three tilnes on
including both pre-trip and [lost-trip visits.
(5) Pro fessional Development for Teachers. During each 4-day OEE session,
teachers can elect to participate in a free 2.5-'lOur professional development
workshop to help them
a classroom project based on or
to
42
IslandWood experience. Additionally, three times per year, IslandWood hosts a
complementary, full day professional development workshop for teachers called
"Connecting Classrooms." Teachers who participate in this workshop are eligible to
receive 5.5 clock hours. Finally, IslandWood hosts a multiday summer teacher's
conference annually. Last year 195 teachers participated in a professional
development workshop or conference at IslandWood.
(6) Curriculum Kits. IslandWood has created four curriculum kits that teachers can
borrow pre-trip or post-trip. The kits have four themes : soil, water, waste, and
garden, and contain the lessons, worksheets, and equipment necessary to carryout
the activities. Last year, 26 out of 70 schools used the kits.
(7) Make a Difference Summit. Each spring IslandWood invites teachers and student
representatives from each school to return to IslandWood to present their work on
a community stewardship project inspired by or related to their IslandWood
experience. Last year 20 schools engaged in IslandWood-inspired community
stewardship projects, and 10 schools participated in the Make a Difference Summit.
(8) Educational Media . IslandWood's website includes a page with links to five 11
to 60-minute films that explore cultural stories related to IslandWood.
(9) Kids Web Page. This page includes links to IslandWood songs about
decomposers, producers, and banana slugs. It also includes word searches with
vocabulary acquired at IslandWood, a list of commonly seen animals on
Isla ndWoou's campus, a list of the Puget Sound fish species
rooms are named after,
lslandWood's lodge
resource to help identify invertebrates found in local
and soil, a link to past IslandWood data measurements of macro
invertebrates found during water quality testing, and a list and plotted sightings of
mushrooms found at IslandWood. Finally it contains links to 45 different kids
websites related to science, technology, the environment, and the arts.
(10) Children's Book. IslandWood recently published its first hook: The Tree that
Came Home. This book is told through
e eyes of a Douglas fir tree that lived in the
Puget Sound region hundreds of years ago.
43
(11) Student tournaI. IslandWood provides all st udents with a 43 -page journal
containing a wide variety of information and activities related to Isla ndWood.
Additionally, the journal contains a list of key vocabulary with definitions, as well as
a checklist of IslandWood flora and fauna . The IslandWood Teacher's Manual
contains a teacher's edition of the journal with answers to the questions in the
student journal. The teacher's edition also contains suggestions of ways to expand
on each journal activity back in the classroom.
Olympic Park Institute (OPI)
The Olympic Park Institute (OPI) is part of Nature Bridge, which has
r ee
campuses in Nati o nal Parks of western states; OPI's campus is located on the hore :::
of Lake Crescent in Washington State's Olympic National Park. Olympic Park
Institute offers facilities for seminars, retreats, and weddings, as well as wilderness
medical tra inings, professional development workshops for teachers, su mm er youth
programs, an Elderhostel program, and a residential OEE program, which it terms
its "Field Science Program". Founde d in 1987, the OEE program serves groups of
students in grades 4 through 12. Unlike the other three OEE programs I explored
(whi ch ca ter to s tudents in grades 4 through 6),
opr serves junior h igh and high
school groups on a regular basis . Typi cally student groups stay for two nights
three days, but th ey may opt to stay for four nights and five days. At its core, the
mission of OPI's Field Science Program is similar to that of Camp Colman's OEE
program,
's School Overnight Program,
the North Cascade
In stitute 's Mounta in School (described below). The Olympic Park Institute is
"dedicated to providing educational adventures in nature's classroom, to i'lspire
personal connection to the natural world a nd responsible actions to sustain
(Olympic Park Institute, 2009). However, OPI emphasizes science learning more
heavily than do th e oth er p r ograms .
The Olympi c Pa rk Institute e mploys twelve to thirteen Field Science
Educators who all have at least a bachelor's degree and one year of teaching
experience. Field Scie nce
tors teach the sa me study group (12 students on
average) for the du ration of the program, as they do at the other three institutions I
44
researched. Students participate in one of four curriculum tracks at OPI: forest
ecology, watershed science, geology and earth science, or Elwha River science and
geography. Although teachers choose the curriculum track for their students and
may make general requests regarding the activities their students engage in at OPI,
teachers may not elect specific classes or activities from a list as they do at Camp
Colman. Instead, OPl's educators create a unique program for each group of
students with whom t hey work
Like Camp Colman and IslandWood, The Olympic Park Institute recognizes
the benefits of integrating the classroom experience with the OEE experience. In
fact} OPI has an entire webpage dedicated to providing links to resources and
curriculJ that enhance curricular integration between the classroom and OP!. The
integrative ideas are as follows:
(1) Environmental Science Activity Kit Web-Link. Olympic Park Institute provides
Jinks to three websites that sell activity kits and classroom supplies for
environmental science related activities.
(2) Vocabulary and Species Lists. Olympic Park Institute provides a link to a list of
vocabulary relevant to the OPI experience as well as a link to a list of plants and
animals commonly found at OP!.
(3) Books and Web-Resources. Olympic Park Institute provides a link to relevant
In tern et resources and an annotated bibliography of 30 relevant books. The books
are gr ouped into the following themes: general reference, earth sciences, marine
s cience, plants and animals, and pioneer and Native American history.
(4) Pre-Trip Curriculum Ideas. Ten pre-trip lesson plans are grouped into nine
different categories including: preparing for outdoor exploration, art, cooperation
and teamouilding, critical tninking and problem solving, mathematics, observation
activiti es, physical education}science, and writing. Each lesson plan is thorough and
well-organized. Each includes target grade level, expected lesson duration, goals
and learning objectives, backgro u nd infor:11ation, mate r ials} procedures} extensions,
as well Washington State Essenti al Academic Learni ng Requirements covered.
45
(5) Post-trip Curriculum Ideas. The OPI website posts two tho r ough p ost-trip
lessons as well as four discussion questions an d fo ur obse rvation activities. All are
designed for classroom teachers to build on the OPI exper ience. OPt has yet to
evaluate whether, or to what extent, teachers use pre-tr ip and post-trip curriculum
ideas.
(6) Teacher
Questionnaire. Two pages of this five-page Teacher Planning
Questionnaire are dedicated to asking teachers about curricular connections
between OPI and the classroom.
Mountain School (NCI)
The North Cascades Institute (NCr) is located on the shores of Diablo Lake in
North Cascades National Park. The institute hosts family getaways, summer youth
programs, a volunteer stewardship program in partnership with the U.S. Forest
Service, a Masters of Education graduate program in partnership with Western
Washington University, and an OEE program for middle school students termed
"Mountain School" . Mountain School works primarily with fourth through sixth
grade students who participate in a program called Ecosystem Explorations that
introduc es students to diverse ecological communities in the North Cascades.
Mountain School also s erves some seventh through twelfth grade student groups
who participate in a program called "Field Science and Leadership" that provides
students with firsthand experience with scientific forestry equipment and field
study techniques. These students follow either a water quality
carnivore track
Most ufMountain School's OEE groups come for three days and two nights, but they
may elect to come for four days and three nights.
The majority of Mountain School's instructors are graduate students
simultaneously obtair.ing a Masters of Environmental Education from Western
Washington University. The North Cascades Institute does not compensate these
instructors monetarily, but rather with graduate credits. Additionally, Mountain
School hires two intern instructors and two North Cascades Park Rangers each
season to instruct the OEE student groups. The Park Rangers meet each incoming
46
group at the National Park's visitor center for a tour and a scavenger hunt
immediately prior to their arrival at the North Cascades Institute.
Just as the Camp Colman, IslandWood, and OP] websites and OEE directors
explain their interest in providing students with an experience that extends beyond
the three days at camp, so too does Mountain School's website and OEE direc tor.
Mountain SC l'100l'S methods of promoting integration between OEE curriculum and
classroom curricula include the following :
(1) Pre- and Post-Trip Curriculum Resources. These can be found in the Mountain
School Teachers Guide; they are not available on-line. Rather than providing
specific lesson plans, the Teachers Guide directs teachers to the following
curriculum guides and websites: Living with Mountains, Teaching for Wilderness,
Project Learning Tree, Forests of Washington, and Project WILD . It encourages
teachers to build a unit about mountain and forest ecosystems using the ideas those
resources provide. Additionally, the Teachers Guide lists many of the activities and
concepts covered during Mountain School so that teachers can introduce and build
upon them
(2) Curriculum based on EALRs. Mountain School's webpage has a link to a 26-page
document that charts Washington State's Essenti a l Academic Learning
Requ irements (EALRs) for fifth grade students in reading, writing, communicatio;1,
mathema tics, science, history, geography, civics, economics, arts, and health a nd
fitness . The document outlines the Mountain School activities that address each
EA LR.
(3) Mo un tain School Coordinator Visits School Pre-Trip. The Mountain School
Coordinator visits every school pre-trip. These visits include
pre-trip slideshow to
introduce students to Mountain School and the North Cascades Nationai
well as a question and answer session with students. There is also
as
curriculum
compo nen t; the Mountain School Coordinator introduces students to the con cep ts
"biotic" and "abiotic," and talks with students about how all things are connected.
Sometimes instructors visit the schools along with the Mountain School
Coordinator.
47
(4) Students Write Postcards to Themselves . On t he last day of Mo untain School
students write postcards to themselves ab out the ir experience. These postcards are
returned to the students months later during the post-trip visit.
(5) Mountain School Coordinator Visits School Post-Trip. Mountain School staff visit
over 90% of participating schools post-trip. During these visits they bring each
student the postcard they wrote to themselves at Mountain School as well as a letter
from North Cascades National Park. They answer students' questions about present
Mountain School happenings,
talk with students about their memories of their
Mountain School experience. Currently follow-up curriculum is not apart of post
trip visits, though the Mountain School Coordinator is considering adding a
curriculum component in the future.
(6) Student lournals. Mountain School provides all students with journals.
OEE DIRECTORS
As a result of my interviews with OEE Directors DO (lslandWood), KH
(Olympic Park Institute), lC (North Cascades Institute), and MH (Camp Colman), I
came to understand the range and scope of their definitions of successful curricular
integration, as well as the challenges and barriers that limit curricular connections
between these OEE programs and classrooms. My interview with and ve rbally
administered survey ofMH (IslandWood) was particularly informative. [gained
insight into the present reality of Camp Colman's curricular connections with
participating classrooms, the level and scope of MH's interest in expanding
curricular connections in the future, her reasons for preferring certain typ es of
integration over others, and th e factors currently hindering
These findings
b r connections.
presented below.
Definitions of Successful Curricular Integration: DEE Directors' Perspectives
Interviews with DO, the Head of IslandWood's Graduate Program, KH, the
Education Director at Olympic Park Institute, MH, Camp Colman's OEE Director, and
lC, the Coordinator of North Cascades Institute's Mounta in
reveal ed four
48
similar and telling perceptions of "successful curricular integration". The leaders at
all four OEE institutes stressed the importance of forging "connections" between the
residential OEE experience and life at school and at home. IslandWood's DD noted,
"The important thing is that the IsIandWood experience is not isolated. The
important thing is that it is connected to the students' everyday lives and to their
classrooms" (DD, 2009). The Olympic Park Institute's KH voiced a remarkably
similar sentiment: "We don't want the residential experience at OPI to be a bubble
for students. We want the OPI experience to connect to students' home-lives and
school-lives" (KH, 2009). Camp Colman's MH added, "We want to instill students
with knowledge and concern for the environment that transcends camp and
connects to school and home (MH, 2009). Mountain School's JC noted, "When the
Mountain School experience and the classroom experience are linked, the learning
the kids do is expanded so much" (]C, 2009). Clearly, an OEE experience that is
isolated from the classroom experience describes the antithesis of successful
curricular integration and a successful overall outdoor school program.
Three of the four OEE leaders not only emphasized the importance of
bridging OEE curricula and classroom curricula, but they underscored the
relationship between degree of curricular integration and the duration of the
program's impa ct on students. Mountain School's JC stated, "lfwe want to Jffect the
kids' long-term beliefs and behaviors, we have to connect their Mountain School
experience to their home and classroom experiences" (lC, 2009). IslandWood's DD
concurred: "]n order to impact the kids long-term, we aim to make the IslandWood
Experience part of a year-long le arning progression" (DD, 2009). Although these
two OEE leaders did not define "long-term," MH of Camp Colman suggested that the
impact of the OEE experience could last a lifetime. "We want kids to have
experiences in an outdoor setting that create a lifelong connection to and respect for
th e natural world" (MH, 2009).
Interestingly, three of the four OEE leaders intimated that, ultimately, the
classroom teacher plays a significant role in fostering curricular connections for
students; they suggested that OEE institutions should work to support teachers in
t his endeavor. IslandWood's DD state d, "Our goal is to support te achers in making
connections between IslandWood and the classroom" (DD, 2009) . The Olympic
49
Park Institute's KH described the unique but co m plementary r oles of classroom
teachers and OEE staff stating, "Ideally our curricu la would support teache rs' goals,
and classroom curricula would repare students for OP!" (KH, 2009). Ca m p
Col m an's MH pointed out the complementary roles
only
teache r s
and OEE staff, but parents as well. "Successful curricular integration would involve
teachers running preparation activities pre-trip and reflection and extension
activities post-trip, Camp Colman integrating concepts from the classroom into the
OEE setting, and then parents talking with their children about the camp experience
so parents and kids
share and learn together" (MH, 2009). In order for the OEE
experience to maximally impact students' learning and growth long-term, it is
important to promote communication and partnership between students,
OEE staff, and parents.
The OEE leaders I interviewed described multiple
of successful
curricular integration; two of the leaders stressed the academic be nefits. The
IslandWood's graduate school believes that successful curricular
encourages students to "use what they Jearn [at
in their daily lives".
She believes that successful curricular integ ration en hances academic Sliccess as
well. Most likely the kids are "more successfu.1on thei r science and social studies
WASLS" as a result of curricular integration between IslandWooc and the classroom
(00,2009). The Oly:npic Park Institute's Education Director agreed that
integration augments academic performance and critical th :nking
"It is neat
when schools really academically prepare their students for OPI because their level
thinking and academics starts at a much higher level and we can take
of
them so much further [than we could otherwise]" (KH, 2009). Clearly, the leaders of
both
or! and IslandWood recognized that curricular preparation and
classroom
in
knowledge and heighten academic performance.
The leaders of Mountain School and OEE Camp Colman focused less on th e
relationship between curricular integration and academic performance, and Inore
on the relationship betweei1 curricular integration and long-term impact on beliefs
and behaviors. Camp Colman's OEE director explained that OEE Camp Colman
seeks to foster respect in students, a respect that extends beyond the OEE
experience to home-life and school-life. When teachers and
reinforce and
50
expand upon the OEE experience pre- and post-trip, the positive value and behavior
influences ofOEE are heightened.
"Our curriculum focuses on outdoor education,
environmental/science education, and challenge education, but
throughout all of it, we emphasize the underlying values of respect
for self, respect for others, respect for the natural environment, and
respect for the broader community.. .. When teachers integrate the
camp experience into their classrooms the impact of the program
will be stronger. We want kids to leave OEE and go home and
rememb er the respects and make positive choices in their lives.
Teachers and parents can help" (MH, 2009).
Camp Colman's OEE director recognizes that academic achievement is important
and she wants to foster that achievement via curricular integration between OEE
and the classroom, but more than anything she believes that OEE is an experience
that fosters respect and self-awareness.
Challenges and Barriers to Integration: OEE Directors' Perspectives
Leaders of OEE programs described a variety of barriers to implementing
and deepening curricular integration. The primary challenges for all progra ms were
tim e and money. [t takes tim e to effectively communicate with and understand the
unique needs of each school group, and it takes time to tailor curricula accordingly.
It also takes time to develop pre-visit and post-visit curricular suggestions for
teachers to implement in their classrooms. Because time and money are limited
resources for all OEE programs, OEE staff have to set priorities . All OEE leaders I
spoke with avidly support curricular integration between OEE and the classroom,
b u t implementation of integrative measures is just one of many OEE priorities (DO,
2009; lC, 2009; KH, 2009; MH, 2009). The director ofOEE Camp Colman stated:
"The biggest barrier to curricular integration is time. Time is
number one. From February through Nov ember I am go, go, go;
only gives me a couple of months in December and January to catch
my breath and develop the program. Mon ey is another barrier
though. This summer I am going to write grants to try to get money
to develop a new plankton class. I'm not sure how much grant
money is available r ight now though" (MH, 2009).
Time and money were prim ary li m itations for all program directors.
51
In addition to time and money, two OEE leaders iden ti fi ed "instructo r
quality" as a potential limitation to successful curri cular integration. Camp Colman's
OEE director, MH, spoke extensively about the impo rtance of mature, experienced
instructors in the implementation of successful curricu lar
Fall 2008
was MH's first season as Camp Colman's OEE director. When she arrived she
noticed that:
"Her instructors were the youngest OEE instructors she had ever
worked with or seen in any OEE program. Half of them weren't even
out of college. A lot of them came to Camp Colman as summer camp
counselors and stayed on as OEE instructors. They were great camp
people, very dedicated to kids, and very hard-working. They ju st
didn't have a strong science or environmental knowledge base, or
the maturity, life-experience, or teaching experience that a lot of
other OEE staff have" (MH, 2009).
Accordingly, MH hopes to enhance the quality of her staff next season by hiring
instructors with at least a bachelor's degree and some field and teaching experience.
Camp Colman's OEE director recognizes that instructor qualifications are key, but so
too is effective instructor training. Thus, MH plans to increase
instructor
training time from one week to two-and-a-halfweeks and provide
and
evaluations throughout the season as well. Camp Colman OEE Director, MH,
intimated that as instructor quality increases, so too does successful curricular
integration because quality, experienced instructors can find out what each group of
kids
knows and then build upon that base (MH, 2009). The Head of the
Graduate Program at IslandWood concurs that high-quality instructors are
invaluable in implementing successful curricular integration .
"At IslandWood, the kids stay with the same instructor all day each
day, so the instructor has time to get to know the kids and build a n
experience. In my opinion, nothing outweighs the value of an
instructor who really takes the time to get to know her students.
One of the hardest things to teach new educators is how to read
students and how to recognize what is working for them and what is
not. Instructors need to learn to find out what kids already know
and read what they are most interested in. They need to be able to
appeal to the kids' interests and achieve their goals as educators
simultaneously. That is the art of teaching. Our graduate students
get better and better throughout their year here. They improve in
part because of practice and in part because they apply the theory
they learn in graduate school to their teaching. Every
faculty
mentors observe them teach for at least an hour, give them some
52
feedback, and discuss the teaching experience with them" (DO,
2009) .
There is always more that an OEE organization can do to tailor its program to
individual groups, but quality, experienced instructors playa key role.
In addition to limitations of time, money, and instructor experience,
informational limitations significantly hinder curricular integration between OEE
programs and the classroom. Informational limitations take two forms. First, the
OEE staff lacks important information about the school groups (including
information about group dynamics, classroom curricula, and teacher goals and
objectives). The education director ofOPI noted that OPI's fieid educators are
unable to visit schools pre- or post-trip because the classrooms are too far away.
"I think on e huge challenge with regard to successfully integrating
OPI and classroom curricula is that we are far away from the
classrooms. We are not in the same watershed. We are in a national
park which has a different kind of scenery form student's homes.
lot of our staff haven't seen the places our students are coming from.
I think that is a huge challenge. Our educators don't know what it is
like in Port Orchard, for example. We have to have some base
knowledge on which to build connections, and building that base
knowledge is one of our biggest challenges" (KH, 2009).
The Olympic Park Institute is nestled at the north of Olympic National Park such
that visiting schools in the greater Seattle area requires four hours of driving each
way. This is an unreasonable distance due to time and money constraints (as
described above). Not only OPI's director, but the Mountain School coordinator and
the OEE Camp Colman director, also lamented their lack of information about
incoming schools. Both MH of Camp Colman and JC of Mountain School commenced
their respective jobs in Fall 2008, and thus have not yet had the opportunity to get
to know all of the teachers and their classroom curricula. Mountain School's JC
notes:
"We do not know a whole lot about the schools . We know their
medical inform a tion and a little bit about where they a re coming
from, but not much more" (JC, 2009).
Over the next several years both MH and JC expect to grow to know each teacher
and school community. Expla ining her goal,
recalls:
53
"At Nature's Classroom in Ohio where I w as p reviously an instructor,
they know what every school wants like t he back of their hand and
they are always great at communicating this information to
instructors . It is amazing. Over time I hope to come to know the
teachers and their goals as well"(MH, 2009).
Even though MHand JC recognize that they will come to understand teachers'
unique objectives over time, they don't want to "just sit back and develop
connections slowly over the years" (MH, 2009). Rather, MH hopes to "nail down
what each school wants from the get-go" (MH, 2009). However, gathering
comprehensive information about school groups and classroom curricula from
some teachers can be challenging. "Some teachers are very open to meeting with
me. These teachers diligently complete their paperwork on time too . Other
teachers are much harder to get in touch with" (MH, 2009). Both the directo rs of
Mountain School and OEE Camp Colman recognize the value of classroom visits for
communicating with teachers and better understanding (and thus develop ing
connections with) classroom curricula. Although the Mountain School director
already visits most schools, she would like instructors to visit the schools as well.
Camp Colman's MH is also interested in bringing instructors along on pre-trip visits.
ln this way, instructors and students can meet one another, instructors can find out
what the students already know and what the teacher would like them to learn at
camp, and instructors can present introductory curricula and initiate teambuilding
games.
Clearly OEE staff lack information about the curricula and group dynamics of
participating schools pre-trip; a second informational
stems from a lack of
formal evaluation and assessment. Without such assessments, OEE programs do not
know whether or how curricular integration is taking place, or how effective those
integrative measures are. In fact, KH at OPI states:
"We don't have a formal assessment in place [to find out how the
OP] Field Science Program connects with classroom curricula]. I
have no idea what percentage of teachers engage in pre-visit
preparations and post-visit follow-up activities. Interestingly, a new
school arrived today that completed all of the pre-trip activities that
we suggested on-line. That is very unusual, I think" (KH, 2009).
54
The head of IslandWood's graduate program indicates that formal evaluation of
curricular connections between IslandWood and the classroom (which IslandWood
terms the "School Partnership Program") is likewise limited:
"We have a big assessment grant but it is not specifically focused on
our School Partnership Program. I think feedback from teachers
about whether and how the School Partnership Program is working
has beerl pretty informal so far" (DO, 2009).
Despite the explicit lack offormal evaluations of curricular connections
OEE
the
and the classroom, all four outdoor schools do engage in some
informal assessment of curricular integration. First, all programs ask teachers to
complete a pre-trip packet which includes questions about how OEE connects with
student learning in the classroom (YMCA Camp Colman, 2009a; Olympic Park
Institute, 2009b; North Cascades Institute, 2009b; and lslandWood,
Unfortunately, not all teachers answer these questions.
"Half the teachers fill out and half don't. And some of those who do
it out
do so very extensively. They just say 'OEE
supplements our science kits.' Other teachers are great about
providing information and really go into detail. This really helps us
provide a program that caters to their school, their needs, and their
goals" (MH, 2009).
In addition to pre-trip questions about
connections, all four programs ask
teache rs to complete post-trip written evaluations and post-trip exit interviews. At
Camp Colman, teachers complete the post-trip written evaluatiors during IU'1ch on
the last day of camp. The evaluations are less informative than they could be,
notes. "J don't think teachers have enough time or focus at lunch that day to really
thin k about the questions and write thorough answers" (MH, 2009). During the exit
interviews, teachers meet with OEE directors to give immediate verbal feedback
about the program. Currently Camp Colman's
director does not specifically ask
teachers about their plans to forge connections between OEE and the classroom, but
she is interested in asking such questions in the future. Although pre-trip question s,
eXit interviews, and post-trip te acher evaluations
OEE directors with some
information about the scope and extent of curricular integration between OEE and
the classroom, the information provided is
e d because curricular integration is
not typica lly the focu s of the questions an d because many teachers do not answer
the questio ns thoroughly. Without formal assessments of curricular connections
55
between OEE and classrooms, OEE programs cannot reliably determin e the re lative
impact of different integrative activities. Accordi ngly, OE E programs have no me ans
to determine which integrative measures to ado pt and w h ich to scrap.
In addition to limitations of time, money, instructor experience, and
information, curricular integration between OEE programs and the classroom is
challenging because it depends upon a partnership between OEE staff and
classroom teachers. OEE programs can encourage teachers to implement curricular
connections, but the classroom teachers must do their part too. The education
director at OPI states:
"Not every teacher uses our on-line activities. In fact, I don't think
very many schools actually use them. But some schools go through
all of the integrative curricula we provide" (KH, 2009).
All four OEE programs provide teachers with a list of suggested classroom activities
related to the OEE experience (though these suggestions range from thorough and
well organized Jesson plans complete with target grade level, expected lesson
duration, goals and learning objectives, background information, materials,
procedures, extensions, as well Washington State Essential Academic Learnmg
Requirements (OPI and IslandWood), to shorter lists of less-developed suggestions
(Mountain School and Camp Colman)). However, even though all four OEE
programs provide integrative suggestions, curricular integration cannot succeed
unless classroom teachers are likewise dedicated to making it happen.
Finally, a significant challenge to curricular integration is the relationship
between the varying curricular requirements of schools, a nd the limited and uni que
programs that OEE institutions offer. Schools have to each specific units to
students and those units mayor may not have explicit connections to the OEE
programs th e institutions offer. Although Camp Colman would like to provide
curriculum that connects with the classroom curricula of pa rticipating school
groups, Ca mp Colman also recognizes the importance of "taking advantage of the
resources we have here at camp . We don't have a pond or a lake or a river in our
backyard, but we have a salt-water lagoon and a beautiful beach with an outdoor
marine center" (MH, 2009). She wants to develop OEE curriculum that takes
56
advantage of Camp Colman's unique resources and ecosystems; unfortunately not
all classrooms are studying curricula related to these resources and ecosystems.
In order to successfully expand curricular connections between OEE Camp
Colman and the classroom, there must first be a clear understanding of the present
challenges and the reasons for these challenges. As delineated above, the primary
challenges include limitations of time, money, and information; instructor
inexperience; and less than optimal communication between OEE staff and
classroom teachers.
Interest in Expanding Integration in the Future: Camp Colman's Perspective
When I interviewed MH (Camp Colman's OEE directorJ and administered
the verbal survey (see Appendix CJ, I discovered that MH is very much interested in
augmenting and deepening curricular connections between OEE and classrooms.
In order to determine MH's specific integrative inclinations, I asked her to
rate h er interes t in 19 integrative ideas on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 indicating no interest
(lnd 5 indicating extensive interest. MH gave sixteen ideas a 5; she gave the other
three a 4. Clearly, MH is extremely interested in fostering a wide variety of
curricu lar connections. However, I wanted to determine not only MH's interest in
each
, but also her perception of the feasibility of each idea. Accordingly, J asked
her to rate her interest in the 19 integrative ideas again) this time taking feasibility
into account. A summary of the results follows (see Table 2J. The integrative ideas
hi gh lighted in red identify the ideas that the teachers I interviewed rated at least a 4
(on averageJ on the same 1 to 5 scale.
57
(B) Pre/Post Curricular Ideas Mailed. (MH's Rating = 2). Camp Colman's OEE
director prefers to post the ideas on-hne (see "A" above) because it saves time (no
printing, compiling, stapling, or mailing), resources (no paper), and money (no
postage). Also, if the ideas are posted on-line, "teachers won't have to worry about
loosing the piece of paper" (MH, 2009).
(C) Instructors Visit School Pre-Trip. (MH's Rating = 3). According to MH, "This
would be really cool! It would improve our program quite a bit" (MH, 2009) She is
not concerned
visits.
the added transportation costs associated with instructor
she states, "My main concern is that we have a limited number of staff
and we usually need most or all of them on-site" (MH, 2009). After further thought
MH proposed the idea of designating one week of pre-season instructor training to
these
visits.
(D) Instructors Visit School Post-Trip. (MH's Rating = 3). Like pre-trip visits, post
trip visits would
logistically challenging because all instructors are tynically
needed on-site. However,
weeks with fewer than average students on camp,
MH believes such visits could be arranged. "It would be somewhat difficult to do
logistically, but it would benefit students and our instructors would enjoy
(MH,
2009).
(E) Teachers Check-Out Activity Kits. (MH's Rating = 4). OEE Camp Colman's
d irector believes that quality activity kits would take her a year or
to implement
she only has program development time in December and January. She is
curious what percentage of teachers find other OEE programs' activity kits useful
Jecause she does not want to devote significant time and energy to a project that
do not utilize and appreciate.
On-line Teacher Blog. (MH's Rating = 3). MH mentions that she has limited
control over the OEE Camp Colman website; it is designed and controlled by the
greater
YMCA. She notes that she could ask the greater Seattle YMCA to
a teacher blog to the Camp Colman website, but such changes are typically slow.
(C) Teacher In-Services. (MH's Rating = 4). Teacher in- se rvices would be fe as ible
for MH in Oecemb er, January, and April. "I feel like we could give teachers a lot of
s ugg estions
simple activities they could do with students pre-trip . These
59
activities would give students background informatio n so that Camp Colman
instructors could go deeper into topics wi th students. .. . Besides, [during in
services] we could get teachers more excited abo u t the information. My best
teachers have always been the ones who are so passionate about their subject" (MH,
2009).
(H) Kids Conference. (MH's Rating = 5). "Oh, that is cool. To be honest, it would
probably be less work on our part and more on the teacher's part. We are providing
the background and the impetus and the space; the teacher is making the project
happen" (MH, 2009).
Camp Colman's director is interested in initiating such a
conference, but she wonders whether many teachers would have the time and
dedication to make it happen.
(I) "Dear Camp Colman" Letter. (MH's Rating
= 5). "I am very much interested in
asking students to write us letters pre-trip. Our instructors are always really
excited to get letters from students. It makes them feel like what they are doing is
valued" (MH, 2009). Not only does MH think instructors would enjoy hearing from
students, she appreciates that student letters would enable instructors to learn
about students pre-trip through students' own voices and thus better prepare to
teach each group. She wonders whether the letter should be open-ended or
whether she should ask students to respond to specific prompts.
(J) More Extensive Pre-Trip Goals Sheet. (MH's Rating
= 5). In winter 2009, IVIH
added a "goal page" to the Teacher Packet. This page asks teachers to describe
curricular connections between Camp Colman and their classroom and to identify
their Camp Colman goals. Although not all teachers complete this form, and not all
who complete it do so thoroughly, MH says she gains important information (that
she would not otherwise have) from those who take the time to write thoughtful
answers. She would like to ask more probing questions about teachers' goals and
classroom curricular connections.
(K) More Extensive Post-Trip Evaluation. (MH's Rating = 5). Camp Colman's OEE
director is considering asking teachers to complete post-trip evaluations after they
return to their classrooms rather than during lunch on the last day of camp.
Hopefully this change
allow teachers the time and focus to write more
60
thoughtful answers. "We want quality feedback and I think we need to give teachers
more time to think and write [posHrip evaluations]" (MH, 2009).
(L) In-Person Conversation with Teachers
(MH's Rating
= 5).
would
love to go to each school and meet with teachers pre-trip. ] think it is so important
j
am on the same page as the teachers. In the OEE Teachers Packet] encourage
teachers to request in-person visits, but maybe] need to be more proactive about
setting these up with teachers" (MH, 2009) . MH believes that :n-person visits are
especially important with head teachers she has not worked with before; next year
MH will have experience working with many of the teachers, so pre-trip, in-person
conversations will be less important, in her opinion.
(M) Phone Conversation with Teachers Pre-Trip. (MH's Rating
via phone are more
= 5). Conversations
efficient than in-person conversations. She would like to
have a phone conversation with each head teacher she does not meet with in
person.
Students Send Postcard to Seives. (MH's Rating = 4). Camp Colman's OEE
director is interested in exploring this idea. She is curious when other
progrdms allow students to
open-ended reflections
their postc2.rds or
they ask students to respond to specific questions.
(U) Field lourna!. (MH 's Rating = 4). MH noted that half of the schools that
to
Colman already requ;re their students to bring journals. Some of these
ask students to bring hlank Journals and openly
'ler
I ave
on the experience;
schools design journals with specific questions and activities. Many school
her an extra copy of their journal and she has been saving them. MH was
extremely II1terested in creating a Camp Colman journal but noted that it would be
to find the time to develop such a journal in the near future . She was also
concerned
the cost of mailing all of the journals. Subsequently,
came up
with the idea of putting the journ2:s online such that interested teachers could
download and print them on their own time.
(P) Instructor
: director
~
School's Parent
(MH's Rating =S). Camp Colman's
:Jresents Illformat1on about the OEE
of ;,1] ·;chools that
at the parent
her resence (about 35% of participating schools).
61
'S
It is difficult for MH to combine classroo m visits and parent night presen tations into
one school visit because schools are typically dismissed at 3 pm and parent nights d o
not begin until 6pm or 7pm. "This leaves 3 to 4 hours of wasted dead time in
between" (M H, 2009) .
(Q) Related Vocabulary and Species Posted on Web. (MH's Rating
5). In winter of
2009, MH added a curriculum guide with class abstracts to th e OEE Teacher Packet.
The guide includes two to four "main vocabulary and concepts" for each of the 23
classes. She has not defined the vocabulary words in the Teacher Packet but
recognizes that compiling a list of key vocabulary and definitions would be a simple
"cut-and-paste" operation because the Camp Colman Instructor Manual alre ady has
a glossary in the back. Although MH do es not have a list of
Camp Colman
s pecies, s he believes that creating one would be relatively simple.
(R) Related Books & Websites Posted on Web. (MH's Rating
5). "This is a great
idea and it would be easy to implement. We already have ton s of books here at
camp that we could add to the list" (M H, 2009). MH was enthused that such
would not only benefit teachers and students, but new instructors
~
list
well. Her new
hires last season wanted access to resources and lesson plans before they came to
Camp Colman. "Our new instructors would find a list of relevant books and
w ebsites really helpful" (MH, 2009).
(S) Stewardship Project. (MH's Rating
3). Although MH lo ves the idea of a
stewardsh ip project because it would help students connect their OEE experience
with their school and community, she feels she does not have the time to develop
such a program at present. She is, however, excited about implementing a Camp
Colman stewardship project in fall 2009 whereby schools adopt a Camp Caiman tree
or section of camp and vow to maintain it ivy-free. She plans to put a copper leaf
cutout with the school's name on the tree they adopt. Each year students from the
school could rip ivy off their tree during open recreation time.
After I asked MH to rate and discuss her interest in the previous 19
integration id eas, MH mentioned that the suggestions in the survey made her realize
the extent to which OEE Camp Colman can expand the resources they provide
teachers.
"Getting knowledge, tools, information, and activity ideas into
teachers hands will help pre-trip and post-trip connections happen.
There were several questions that touched on that. I guess it was a
false assumption, but I assumed that the teachers who are excited
about camp know what they are doing and have the connections
figur ed out. But in reality, the teachers are constantly seeking to
improve what they are doing too" (MH, 2009).
Clearly, MH recognizes the importance of helping teachers forge OEE-classroom
connections. She is interested in and motivated to implement some of the survey
suggestions .
In addition to implementing some of the survey suggestions, MH noted two
positive program changes that she plans to make in the next year. First, she plans to
work to expand OEE Camp Colman's "Friends of Camp" list.
"At each school there are a few parents or chaperones or teachers
who are particularly gung-ho about camp. They are so appreciative
of camp
what it offers and they are so invested in camp. We
want to start taking down their contact information so that we can
keep them updated and invite them to alumni barbecues and
volunteer nights and other events. We want to keep them interested
and spread the word about Camp Colman" (MH, 2009) .
An expanded
of Camp" list could aid curricular connections between OEE
and the classroom because it could provide Camp Colman
the funds and
volunteers necessary to make more extensive curricular connections a reality. ln
addition to expanding the "Friends of Camp" list, MH is working to provide
participating schools with more information about where they can find scholarship
an d gr ant money for
. Not only will this enable schools with shrinking budgets
to cortiilue to send students to OEE, but it could provide teachers with a little extra
money to develop
connections between OEE and the classroom.
TEACHERS/COUNSELORS/PRINCIPALS
My interviews with OEE directors provided insight into the realities and
challenges of curricL;ar connections between
class rooms, including MIl's
specific curricular integration interests. In order to compare and contrast OEE
directors' insights regarding curricular integration with insights from teachers, I
63
interviewed eight teachers, principals, and couns elors w ho took thei r students t o
GEE Camp Colman in fall 2008.
Teacher Demographics
A summary profile of the teachers, principals, and counselors interviewed
follows (see Table 1) . I will not refer to these school leaders by name to maintain
confidentiality. Rather, I will identify each as "the principal at School #1", or "the
teacher at School #2", or "the teacher at School #3" etc.
Summary Profile ofInterview Subjects
Titles of Subjects:
# Years School Leadership Experie nce:
# Years Bringing Students to GEE Programs:
# Years Bringing Students to GEE Camp Colman:
% Public School vs. Private School Leaders:
Grade Level of Students Brought to Camp Colman:
Level of GEE Training Before Becoming a Teacher:
Level of GEE Training Since Becoming a Teacher:
Level ofOEE-Classroom Curricular Integration:
6=Teach; 1=Princ; 1 =Couns
18 (+/- 8) years
9 (+/- 2) years
6 (+/- 2) years
86%Public
5=Fifth; 1=Sixth; 1=Mid. Sch.
2(+/-1)
3(+/-0)
3 (+/-1)
Table 3. This table provides a summary profile of the eight school leaders I
interviewed. The last three numbers reflect school leaders' se lf-ratings on a
1 to 5. All numbers in parentheses denote standard deviations.
of
Curricular Integration as it Presently Exists: Teacher Perspectives
Th e school leaders I intervi ewed described a wide array of curricular
connections between Camp Colman and classrooms. After the intervi ews, several
teachers mailed me handouts, lesson plans, and student work related to the OEE
Camp Colman experience; these enabled me to see and better understand the scope
of the
ate d curriculum they described. I will begin by
sc r:bing science
curriculum integration at each school; I will then describe non-science curriculum
integration at each institution. Finally, I will de scribe key non-curricular OEE
classroom connections that teachers routinely discussed without prompt.
64
Science Curriculum Integration
School leaders at five of the seven participating schools indicated that the
OEE Camp Colman experience aligned with their science curriculum to some extent.
School #1 is a public elementary school in Everett, Washington, bringing
fifth grade students to Camp Colman, sixty-two percent of whom qualify for free
lunch under the National School Lunch Program . I interviewed the school principal.
During my interview I discovered that the principal at School #1 believes OEE Camp
Colman to be a stand-alone program without curricular integration, though she
touts the potential benefits of enhanced curricular integration. "At my school,
scores on the science WASL [Washington Assessment of Student Learning] are
abysmal ... . My kids are scoring thirty-two percent on average. That is horrific! If
the camp experience can grow from an isolated three day experience to a continuum
of learn ing throughout fifth grade, the kids will see the connection between the
camp and the real world they will inherit" (School #1, 2009). Although she does not
dire ctly say that students will perform better on the science tests if the connection
between
and the classroom is heightened, s he implies that this is likely to he
the case.
the principal's belief that OEE-c1assroom curricular integration is
laCking, one of the school's fifth grade teachers at School #1 noted some connections
betwee n OEE and science class. Each year, these fifth grade students complete two
Full Operations Science System (FOSS) kits, a science curricula developed for
kindergarten through eighth grade students by the Lawrence Hall of Science at
Un iversity of California, Berkeley. The kits emphasize hand s-o n, inquiry-based
learning, and each is designed to be carried out over one school term. For grades
three through six, there are twenty FOSS kits (Lawrence
c:l!1 of Science, 2008). Fifth
grade students from School #1 explore the "Landforms" and "Variables" FOSS kits
[Mukilteo School District 6,2009; School
2009). Via the Landforms kit, these
students gain experience making and reading maps. They also learn abou t concepts
such as erosion, deposition, elevation, a nd conto ur. Because School #1 attends
Colman early in the school year, they do not begin these science kits until after
returning from camp . "We weren't able to pre-teach any of the concepts or
like th at" [School
2009) . Howeve r, the teacher makes a point of talking to the
65
kids about erosion during their free time "beach w alk" at Cam p Colman. "This way,
our kids can better understand the concept of erosion wh en we do learn it in the
classroom because they will be able to think back to w hat they saw with their own
eyes at camp" (School #1, 2009).
Schoo! #2 brings students belonging to a significantly higher socio-economic
group than School #1. School #2 is the only private school included in my study. It
is located in an affluent suburb of Seattle and charges an annual tuition of $19,700.
This school engages sixth grade students in two OEE programs each year: OEE Ca mp
Colman (for one-night and two-days in September), and OPI (for four-nights and
five-days in the spring) . For this school, "Camp Colman is just as much about an
overnight retreat away from school as it is about science education" (School #2,
2009c). However, curricular integration between the OEE experience and the
classroom is important. "I feel like the experience at Camp Colman is richer and
more relevant when the kids have some activities to get them ready for the trip"
(School #2, 2009c). Despite this language arts teacher's recognition of the benefits
of curricular connections, he admitted, "I probably integrate the Camp Colman
experience into my curriculum less than the science teacher does" (School #2,
2009c). Referencing the science teacher's efforts to connect OEE
classroom
curricula, he stated, "Our science teacher's big thing is getting the kids ready for a
type of science they have not had before. To get the kids ready for the outdovr
environmental education experience, he creates a field journal and walks the kids
through it. But there is not time for much more [because the Camp Colman trip is
the second week of school]" (School #2, 2009c). The eight-page journal asks
students to think critically about and reflect in writing upon Camp Colman classes
including the climbing wall, forest ecology/micro forest,
beach walk/marine
invertebrates. After the Camp Colman experience, the science teacher grades the
student journals. Examples of journal activities include reflective responses to
questions about Camp Colman experiences such as "How can the wall be a metaphor
for your experience in middle school this
identification, description, and
activities such as "name and draw three marine invertebrates and their
special adaptations for finding food, protection, and movement"; and scavenger hunt
activities (School #2, 2009a). At School #2, the sixth grade science curriculum
encompasses four units of study: "Puget Sound Geology", "Climatic Zones and
66
Adaptations", "Puget Sound Weather", and "Planetary Motion" (School #2, 2009b).
Interestingly, the Camp Colman curriculum relates to at least one subtopic of each
unit. School #2 not only brings sixth grade students to Camp Colman, but seventh
grade students as well (such that the seventh grade students arrive at camp as
experienced OEE Camp Colman students). One of the school's seventh grade science
units relates particularly well to Camp Colman: "OceanographyjMarine and
Freshwater
. Unfortunately, although he assured me that the classroom and
OEE curricula overlap, the sixth grade language arts teacher I spoke with was unable
to address specific integrative activities between OEE and seventh grade science
(School #2, 2009b).
School #3 is a public school on the Issaquah plateau east of Seattle that
brings fifth grade students to OEE Camp Colman each year. The students come from
a range of socio-economic backgrounds from "low income to fairly well off' (School
#3,2009). The fifth grade teacher I interviewed from School #3 believes that "the
[Camp Colman and classroom] curricula don't have to be completely linked, but
some linkage is important." She considers curricular linkage particularly important
not only because it heightens parent and administrative support for the OEE
experience, but also because "when we go to camp we miss classroom instruction
for three days so we need to be sure that Camp Colman ties into classroom
curriculum somehow" (School #3, 2009). Last year the school considered
eliminating the
Colman experience to save money, but "when we realized that
Camp Colman relates to our oceanography unit, we felt better about continuing to
take our students to camp" (School #3, 2009). Fifth grade students at School #3
pa rticipate in four science modules: "Human Body," "Family Life and Sexual Health,"
"Simple Machines," and "Oceanography." These modules are taught via science kits
deveioped for and by the Issaquah and Highline School Districts. The kits include a
variety of labs and assume an inquiry-based approach to learning (Issaquah School
Oistrict 411,2009). Interestingly, this teacher chooses not to build curricular
connections hetween the classroom and Camp Colman pre-trip. "We start the
oceanography unit one week after we return from Camp Colman. We don' t tell the
kids a Jot about the Camp Colman classes before we go because we want them to be
kind of surpris ed. I guess we could do a bit of pre-teaching but I don't really think it
is ne ede d" (School #3, 2009) . During the oceanography unit that follows the Camp
67
Colman experience, students engage in nea rly a dozen hands-on activities. Two of
the activities that the teacher believes to be most co nnected to the Cam p Colma n
experience include
activity called "Tides" and an activity called "Adapting to Life
in the Ocean." Camp Colman introduces these concepts OEE-style while the
students are on the beach observing the tides and while they are touching marine
creatures in invertebrate tanks, and School #3 expands on these concepts inside the
conventional classroom. Despite her initial denial of pre-trip curricular preparation
in the classroom, ] discovered upon further inquiry that the teacher does engage
students in curricular preparations, though in language arts rather
I will describe this teacher's
science
curricular integrations in the
subsequent section.
School #4, is an elementary school in North Kitsap COl.: nty with a signi ficant
low socioeconomic student population. Over forty percent of students receive free
and reduced lunch under the National School Lunch Program. It is also relatively
ethnically diverse; nearly twenty-five percent of students are of Native American
heritage. I interviewed two teachers from this school concurrently via
speakerphone, both of whom spoke excitedly of curricular connections between
OEE Camp Colman and the classroom science curriculum. One teacher noted:
"Camp Colman curriculum lines up well with the fifth grade science
curriculum. We have a yearlong unit called 'Buck Lake' which
revolves around a nearby lake [of the
name]. [n this unit
students learn about things like forests, meadows, and ponds. So
Camp Colman goes really well with the Buck Lake unit" (School #4,
2009).
Acco rdingly to the North Kitsap School District website, one of the main
of
the Buck Lake Unit is that "the earth is our life support system and we need to learn
it works in order to take good care of it"; students also learn that "literally,
everything is connected" (North Kitsap School District, 2009). These messages
support and are supported by Camp Colman's goal of "encouraging respect for the
environment" (YMCA Camp Colman, 2003).
School #5 is an elementary school located in Issaquah, WA serving primarily
middle to upper-middle class Caucasian students. Because it is located in the same
school district as School
, it engages fifth grade students in the
science
68
modules. The "Oceanography" unit is the science unit most closely connected with
Camo Colman's curriculum. "We could do our oceanography unit without Camp
Colman but [at Camp Colman] the students look at the ocean, touch creatures in the
touch tank, and explore the beach so [Camp Colman] really is an important part of
our curriculum" (School #5, 2009). Teachers have numerous classes from which to
choose at Camp Colman; this teacher selects primarily marine classes "because they
match our curriculum" (School # 5, 2009). The teacher believes that linking Camp
Colman curriculum with classroom curriculum is important because "there is not a
It is great to do fun things like go to camp but these activities have to be
purnosely fun because there is not a lot of extra time" (School #5,2009).
School #6 is a rural, public elementary school in the Bethel School District.
Fifty-six percent of
receive free and reduced lunch via the National School
Lunch Program. The school is not particularly ethnically diverse. "Our student body
'i ly
is
Caucasian" (School #6). Here, I interviewed the school counselor rather
than the school principal because during her nine years at the school, the counselor
has been particularly involved with organizing and carrying out the Camp Colman
trip. When asked whether linking Camp Colman curricula with classroom curricula
is important, the school counselor explained that curricular connections are
importa nt for two reasons: student learping and administrative parent, and PTA
support.
"C lassroom time really at a premium th ese days. Integration is
important for student learning, but it is also important because it
enables us to go on the trip. I cannot imagine being able to go to
camp if camp was not a clear extension of our acad e mic curriculum . .
. . The prin cipal and the school board and the community might think
frivolou s ... especially hecause there is so much pressure to
s ucceed
on the WASL. The PTA supports us
generously . . . but much of that is because camp connects very well
with science standards.. . While we of course have a fabulous time
at camp, more importantly, we
learnin g a t camp . We talk about
those connections constantly" (School #6, 2009).
Because the school counselor is not a science te acher, she could not
.e
sixth grade science curriculum. Furthermore, thi s was the only school that did not
post its curri culum
.-Jine That said, the school counselor was able to expl ain, in
consid era ble detail, how Camp Colman curriculum co nnects with the sixth grade
69
curriculum in other subjects. I will explain the no n-science cu rricular
' ::;
in the section that follows.
School #7 is a rural, public elementary school that brings its fifth grade
students to Camp Colman. According to the teacher I mterviewed, the school
teaches
from a range of socioeCOllOmic backgrounds. "Some of our kids
definitely live in poverty. Some are middle or upper-middle class. Mostly our kids
are white-bread Americans" (School #7, 2009) . Interestingly, this is the only
teacher I spoke with who reported no connection between Camp Colman and the
classroom science curriculum. This school goes to Camp Colman to promote
teambuilding and class bonding. They select a variety of
"challenge/communication" and "outdoor" classes, but no "science/environment"
classes. When asked whether integrating Camp Colman curriculum and classroo m
cucriculum is important, this teacher responded, "For us it really isn't because we do
physical science, not life science, in fifth grade. We don't do a lot with forest ecology
or wildlife or adaptations or any of that" (School #7, 2009).
Non-Science Curriculum Integration
At Schools #1 through #5, science was the discipline in which teachers
voiced the strongest curricular connections between GEE and the classroom.
However, teachers at three schools (Schools #2, #3, and #6) described some
connections in other disciplines as well.
The principal from School #1 was unaware of curricular connections
between GEE and Camp Colman. At present she considers Camp Colman a stand
alone experience. In fact, she gave a curricular integration rating of J. 5 on
1 to 5; this is the lowest integration rating that any school leader gave.
scale of
average
rating was 3 (+1- 1).
The language arts teacher from School #2 mention ed that he engages his
students in a lot of writing exercises about nature and life outdoors. Furthermore,
on the school website I discovered that the cross-discipline, yearlong theme for sixth
grade students at the school is "adaptation"; for seventh grade students, it is
70
"cultivation" (School #2, 2009b). The Camp Colman curriculum highlights
adaptation in the majority of its "science/environment" classes and cultivation in its
garden class, so theoretically connections between Camp Colman curriculum and
the school themes could be made in science and non-science classes, though I do not
Know whether or how these connections play out in practice.
#3 teaches a poetry unit and asks students to write free verse poems
about Camp Colman both pre-trip and post-trip. The teacher shared one of her
student's poems with me:
Before:
Camp Colman
a week away
I hope it's a blast
Hopefully that's what I think
\/\Then it's past
Who
I going to hang out with
Who in the classroom
Who in the cabin
Hopefully I'll come back. ..
Reluctantly
After:
Camp Colman was pretty nice
At the dork dance I wore a skirt
Tt was comfortable
Hee...
The beds weren't half that bad
The food was okay
The rock wall as a blast
All the activities were really fun
In Ebert cabin guys were guys ...
literally
Camp rocked
In addition to scribing free verse poems related to Camp Colman, students read a
book called A Week in the Woods by Andrew Clements, pre-trip. This book describes
a fifth grade boy who, during an overnight environmental fieldtrip with his class,
gets mad at his teacher, runs into the woods, and gets lost.
Fifth grade teachers at School #4 and School #5 were unable to recollect
curricular connections bet\tveen Camp Colman and the classroom outside of SCIence
class
, on
scale of 1 through 5, these teachers at School #4 rated the
level of curricular integration between Camp
the teacher
and the classroom a 3.0, and
.1 #5 rated it a 4.5. These are two of
three highest curricular
integration ratings. Clearly teachers from these schools pcrce;ved a high level of
integration because of Colman connections to science rather than non
science ciasses.
The cou nselor from School #6 easily rattled off a handful of connections
between Camp Colman curr icu lum a nd non-science classroom curriculum. She
71
noted that sixth grade students at her school study lette r writing. Accordingly,
returning from Camp Colman, students write letters to the Pa rent Teache rs
Association (PTA) about their camp expe r ience. Add itiona lly, the sixth grade
~
participate in a Camp Colman related math unit. "Students break into groups and
each group has to design a survey question such as 'What was your favorite evening
activity?' or 'What was your favorite meal at camp?' Then they report their data on
a bar graph" (School #6, 2009). The counselor noted that the school integrates
Camp Colman into their technology curriculum as well. The student groups develo p
PowerPoint presentations of the previously described math surveys. They use Exce l
to graph their data. On a scale of 1 through 5, the counselor from School #6 rated
the level of curricular integration between Camp Colman and the classroom a 4.5.
This rating ties for the highest curricular integration rating.
The teacher from School #7 did not report curricular connections between
Camp Colman and the classroom in science or any other discipline. "Curriculum
wise, Camp Colman is a stand-alone experience. But as an effective teaching tool it
is not stand-a:one" (School #7, 2009). When asked her to elaborate she stated,
"We feel it is more important to focus on teamwork than academics at the beginning
of the school year. Camp Colman helps teach kids to work together in teams"
(School #7, 2009) . Obviously, the teacher at this school believes "teamwork" to be a
quasi-curricular connection. Other teachers shared this sentiment as I will
in the following section.
Teamwork
Describing the importance of th e tea mwork connection between Camp
Colman and the classroom, the teacher from School #7 continued:
"Our [Physical Education] PE teacher does some follow-up activities.
He plays teamwork games with th e kids. He calls one of his games
'Mission Impossible.' I ca n't tell you too much about it but [ know it
involves teamwork and things like that. Teamwork is important at
camp, in PE, and back in the classroom" (School #7, 2009).
Several other school leaders described teamwork connections as well. In
without my asking them, six of the seven school leaders volunteered that Camp
Colman enhances teamwork and class cohesion.
School #2 takes students to Camp Colman both to facilitate hands-on science
lea rning and to promote student bonding early in the school year (School #2, 2009).
The teacher from School #3 stated,
"The kids use the teamwork skills they learn at Camp Colman
throughout the whole school year. We do lots of group projects and
group activities throughout the school year; and, not to bring
tea mwork up again, but teamwork is something that kids bring back
to the classroom and use all the time" (School #3, 2009).
One of the teachers from School #4 added,
"Camp Colman is always a very, very positive experience for kids.
There is a lot of teambuilding that goes on. They come back to
school and have sometimes made friends they never would have
thought of having as friends. Basically, Camp Colman helps us build
a community in the beginning of the year" (School #4,2009).
The teacher from School #5 also notices that Camp Colman affects positive
behavioral changes, partic ularly regarding tea mbuilding. "We go [to Camp Colman]
in the beginning of the school year for teambuilding. The biggest connections
between Camp Colman and the classroom come through teambuilding, though we
do tie Camp Colman to our oceanography curriculum too" (School #5, 2009). In this
case, it seems that curricul ar connections between OEE and the classroom are
presen t, but Jess important to the teacher than teambuilding co nnections. The
counselor from School #6 concurs: "Camp Colman connects very will with the
classroom as far as building an environment for learning" (School #6, 2009).
Finally, School #7 attends Camp Colman specifically for teambuilding. In fact, they
usually select only "challenge/communication" and "outdoor activities" classes,
fo rgoing all "science/environment" activities. "Our primary objective in taking kids
to Camp Colman is to give kids life skills that they can bring to the classroo m and
beyond like listening and teamwork and paddling a ca noe and those kind s of things"
(School #7, 2009)
Ev en though teambuilding is no t an academic discipline or curriculum per
se, it is a key com ponent of many Cllrricular activities. In fact, the pedagogy of
73
cooperative learning underscores the value of wo rking as a team (M acG r egcr,
2009). Accordingly, it is highly significant that the maj ority of the teachers I
interviewed perceive teamwork to oe an important (and in several cases, the most
important) connection between 0 EE and the classroom, and all of them brought it
up without my inviting them to do so.
Environmental Awareness and Stewardship
In addition to heightened teamwork and class cohesion, one teacher
discussed another OEE-classroom connection without my prompting: enhanced
student environmental awareness and stewardship. The teacher from School #4
noted that after Camp Colman, her students were significantly more conscious of
how much energy it takes to make things. "Whether ... their clothing or their foo d..
.., they [the students] are more conscious of not wasting. They become very aware
of what can and can't be recycled. They talk about what is being wasted in the
school cafeteria like crazy. I notice they are very conscious of their lunch waste and
of not taking too much. I guess [just notice that they are more awace" (School #4,
2009). Clearly, enhanced student environmental awareness and stewardship was a
key OEE outcome and OEE-classroom connection at this school. Other teach ers may
have noticed related OEE outcomes, but I did not ask them dire ctly and they did not
voiunteer the information without my prompting.
Curricular connections to EALRs
GLEs
Clearly, teachers note varying types and degr ees of
connections
between Camp Colman and the classroom . Surprisingly, checking off Essential
Academic Lea rning Requirements (EALRs) and Grade Level Expectations (GLEs) is
not particularly important to any of the teachers with whom I spoke. The
developed via the Basic Education Act of 1993, provide an overview of what
students in Washington State should know and be able to do at each grade level.
The GLEs detail what students are expected to know and be able to do at each grade
level for each content area (Teaching and Learning, 2009). A teacher from the
74
private school noted that because their school is private, they are not bound to
GLEs; he is thus unconcerned with checking them off. Interestingly, school leaders
from all six public schools concurred that checking off GLEs does not play
significantly into their decision to take students to camp. One stated, "Honestly,
plead ignorant as to [which
ifany] we check off at Camp Colman" (Schoo; #5,
2009). Another stated, "I probably could check offGLEs via the Camp Colman
experience, but ....
(School #7,2009). Her voice trailed off, suggesting that she
does not use Camp Colman to check offGLEs even though she could. Another
"For me, checking off EALRs is not important because the
experience the kids get at camp is far greater than an EALR or a piece of paper
saying that a learning standard was covered... .But 1 think it is important for anyone
who is concerned that takirg kids to camp is not valuable (School #3,2009).
Despite the fact that the school leaders 1spoke with are not personally concerned
with fulfilling state requirements or standards via the Camp Colman experience,
three of the leaders recognized that checking off standards may be important to
others includilg some teachers, the
some parents, some administrators, and
school board. The principal at School #1 explained, "We have to submit a
proposal to the school board to get permission to take this extended fieldtrin. Our
includes a list of EALRs covered at camp. I'm not sure how these
curricular connections play out in reality, but they are important to the school
board" (School #1, 2009). Another teacher noted, "Although it is not important to
m e, I'm sure [checking off GLEs] is important to other teach ers" (School #5, 2009).
Challenges and Barri ers to Integration: Teacher Perspectives
As elucidated above, all school leaders 1 spoke with noted some type of
curricular connection between Camp Colman and their classroom. School leaders
three of the seven schoois mentioned that they would like to augment
curricular connections, but time and curricular requirements have hindered this
effort. School1eaders from the other four schools i!1dicated that they do not
experience any harriers to
curricular integration ; they simply have not
rlon p so.
75
First, let us look at the challenge curricula r requirements present. The
teacher from School #7 views Camp Colman as prim a rily a teamb uilding and
bonding experience, rather than an academic experience. Outside of Camp Colman,
she does not feel that there is time in the school year to engage in fun , teambuilding
games. "We have so much to cover, there just isn't time" (School #7, 2009). That
said, she does incorporate teamwork into daily activities. So, in that way, Camp
Colman and the classroom are connected on a daily basis. The principal at School
#1 believes that integration is important, but so too is accomplishing district, state,
and national curricular requirements. "The children have to meet standard on the
WASL and they are not" (School #1, 2009). She indicates that better integration
between Camp Colman and the classroom co uld enhance students' interest in
science and the natural world, thus elevating their science skills and WASL
performance. Unfortunately, Camp Colman is a once-a-year, stand-alon e experience
for her students. She believes that environmental education lacks district, state, and
national support and thus is not incorporated into curricular requirements. IfO EE
were required for ail students there would naturally be greate r focus on curricular
connections. As it now stands, teachers have to find or make time for integrative
activities.
In addition to curricular requirements, time constraints also created a
considerable barrier for some teachers. The counselor at School #6 noted that
teachers are busy and the development of strong, integrated activities takes time.
"It takes awhile to think up activities from scratch and it would save a lot of time if
tea chers didn't have to totally recreate integrative activities" (Schuol #6, 2009).
This year te ac hers at her school have additional Professional Learning Time (PLT)
built into the school week so that grade level teams get together to discuss
curriculum development. During PLT teachers have some
a tee time to develop
integrative activities.
Teachers from School #2 through School #5 stated that they did not see any
barriers to
curricular integration between Camp Colman and the
classroom. The teacher from School #5 stated, "Personally I have not faced any
challenges . All the teachers and parents participate in all the activities at camp so
we know what is going on at camp and when we get back to the classro om we can
76
expand on it" (School #5, 2009). This teacher felt that curricular integration
between Camp Colman and the classroom was already excellent. She gave
integration a 4.5 on a scale of 1 to 5. The teacher from School #3 did not see any
barriers to integration either. She believes that curricular integration is "just an
added bonus" (School #3, 2009). She does not feel that spending a lot of time and
energy on developing curricular connections is worthwhile. Currently she rates the
level of integration 2.5
feels that is sufficient. When asked to discuss barriers to
curricular integration, the teachers from School #4 say, "I don't think we have any"
(School #4, 2009) .
Interest in
Integration in the Future: Teacher Perspectives
Some teachers report barriers to developing and carrying out curricular
activities that connect GEE to the classroom, and others do not. Regardless, all
teachers noted that they were "extremely interested" in implementing several to
over a dozen of the curricuiar integration ideas proposed in the survey (see
Appendix C). All noted that it would be helpful if Camp Colman helped them
heighten curricular integration. Accordingly, I asked school leaders to rate their
interest in 19 integrative ideas on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 indicating no interest and
indicating extensive interest. The school leaders' average ratings are listed in Table
4 below. The integrative ideas highlighted in red are those ideas that MH, Camp
Colman's GEE Director,
a 5 on the same 1 to 5 scale.
77
Teacher Interest in Various Integrative Ideas
ID
A
D
R
C
0
S
P
Q
N
K
L
I
E
Integrative
Idea
PrefPost Curricular Ideas Posted on Web
Instructor Visits School Post-Trip
Related Books & Websites Posted on Web
Instructor Visits School Pre-Trip
Field Journal
Stewardship Project
Phone Conversation wi OEE Director Pre-Trip
Instructor Attends School's Parent Night
Related Vocabulary and Species Posted on Web
J
Students Send Postcard to Selves
More Extensive Post-Trip Evaluation
In-Person Conversation wi OEE Director Pre-Trip
"Dear Camp Colman" Letter
Teachers Check-Out Activity Kits
Teacher In-Services
PrelPost Curricular Ideas Mailed
More Extensive Pre-Trip Goals Sheet
H
F
Kids Conference
On-line Teacher Blog
G
B
Avg.
atin2
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.0
4.0
3.8
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.7
Std.
Dev.
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.8
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.1 .
0.8
1.5
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
Table 4. This table summarizes the ratings teachers/counselors/principals gave
each integrative idea in the survey. The left column provides th e letter that
corres ponds to the survey question (see Appendix C). The second column briefly
des cribes each integrative idea. The third column provides the average ratings
teachers/counselors/principals gave each integrative idea on a scale of 1 to 5; 1
indicating "no interest" and 5 signifying "extensive interest". The right column
denotes the standard deviations of each rating. The integrative ideas highlighted in
red are those ideas that MH, Camp Colman's OEE Director, rated a 5 on the same 1 to
5 scale .
Some of the teachers provided an explanation for or commentary about their
ratings. Below I will discuss significant comments and comment trends related to
these integrative ideas. Note that each idea is labeled with the letter that
corresponds to the respective question in the verbal survey (see Appendix C).
(A) Pre/Post Curricular Ideas Posted on Web. (Avg. Rating = 4.7). Two teachers
were ambivalent as to whether the ideas should be posted on the OEE website, or
mailed . The other five teachers asked that the ideas be posted on the website. The
majority of the teachers did not offer curriculum content suggestions, but one
teacher (School # 7) did express particular interest in pre-trip and post-trip
activities that promote teambuilding and group cohesion.
78
(B) Pre/Post Curricular Ideas Mailed. (Avg. Rating = 3.0). See question
above.
(C) Instructor Pre-Trip School Visits. (Avg. Rating = 4.4). Three schools (Schools #3,
#6, and #7) would prefer post-trip visits to pre-trip visits. They believe that post
trip visits, complete with teambuilding games and curricular extensions, would help
keep the impact ofOEE alive throughout the school year (as the impact of the
experience has
tendency to wane with time). One school (School #4J would
prefer a pre-trip viSit because meeting Camp Colman staff pre-trip would likely
relieve students' anxiety about the camp experience. The other three schools were
enthused about both pre-trip and post-trip visits with no preference for one over
the other.
(D) Instructor Post-Trip School Visits . (Avg. Rating = 4.6). See question
above.
[EJ Teachers Check-Out Activity Kits. (Avg. Rating = 3.4J. Four schools were
concerned about the logistics of transporting the kits between Camp Colman and the
classroom; all four noted that they would prefer it if the kits could be easily mailed.
One teacher asked that the kits complement required curriculum. To this end she
suggested that Camp Colman develop several kits with different focuses so that
teachers can select the most interesting and relevant one. Finally, one teacher
suggested that
Colman instructors visit the schools to carry out the kit
activities with students.
(F) On-iine Teacher Blog. (Avg. Rating = 2.7J. Several teachers noted that although a
teacher blog is mtriguing, they realistically would not take the time to visit the blog
e '1.
(GJ
In-Services. (Avg. Rating = 3.1). Teachers voiced preferred in-service
locations . They requested that the in-services be located near their work places
ra ther th a n at Camp Colman; they were reluctant to drive the signifIcant distance to
Camp Colman to participate. One teacher added that ifit were his fIr st year taking
students to
a pre-trip in-service at Camp Colman would have been ideal; now
that he ha s Camp Colman experience, he considers an on-site in-service to he
Teache rs not only expressed opinions about the location of the in
s ervic es, bu t about th eir co ntent as we ll.
teachers voiced interest in in
services focused o n class roo m curri cula r connections to Camp Colman. They would
79
like Camp Colman to provide ideas, they would be interested in brainstorming w ith
other teachers, and they would like work to develop activities for use in their own
classrooms. Generally teachers were uninterested in listen ing to Camp Colman staff
explain Camp Colman class offerings (as they are already familiar with the
offerings). One teacher not only discussed in-service location and content; she
recommended a date as well. She explained that she would appreciate it if the in
services were offered on her school's scheduled teacher in-service days. Finally, two
teachers suggested clock-hours be offered for participation. "C lock-hours
professionalize and legitimize the experience so teachers don't feel they are doing
something for nothing" (School #1,2009) .
(H) Kids Conference. (Avg. Rating = 2.8). Transportation time and cost could curtai l
schooi participation as several teachers expressed concern about the logistics of
bringing students to Camp Colman for the conference.
(I) "Dear Camp Colman" Letter. (Avg. Rating = 3.4). Several teachers
letter writing would
that
nicely into their language arts curriculum. Two teachers
underlined the importance of developing a template with specific questions such
that student letters are focused and useful. Not only were teachers interested in
pre-trip letter writing; three teachers voiced interest in
letter writing as
well. One of these teachers explained that because the Camp Colman trip is in
September, there is not time to engage students in pre-trip letter writing; she
believes post-trip letter writing, on the other hand, could be a feasible and powerful
reflectiun activity.
en More Extensive Pre-Trip Goals Sheet.
(Avg. Rating = 3.0). One teacher
emphasized that it is critical that Camp Colman staff actually read and respond to
teachers' goals and concerns. Teachers must feel that the time spent completing the
form is worthwhile.
(K) More Extensive Post-Trip Evaluation. (Avg. Rating = 3.7). Three teachers
explained that they would rather complete the post-trip evaluation after returning
to school. One of these teachers added that she feels rushed and unfocused trying to
complete the evaluation during lunch on the last day of camp. Not only did teachers
suggest alternate eval u ation times and locations, one teacher advocated an alternate
80
medium as well.
would much prefer a Survey Monkey evaluation that comes to
my e-maIl that I can complete in 10 to 15 minutes, to a paper evaluation that will get
lost in a folder" (School #2, 2009). This teacher not only requests that post-trip
evaluations be administered electronically, but that all paperwork be administered
electronically.
(L) In-Person Conversation with OEE Director Pre-Trip. (Avg. Rating = 3.5). All
teachers were "extremely interested" in either pre-trip in-person meetings, or pre
trip phone conversations, with Camp Colman's OEE director.
from two
schools (Schools # 1 and #4) preferred pre-trip in-person meetings. Teachers from
two different schools (Schools #2 and #6) desired pre-trip phone
Both of the teachers who favored phone conversations
meeting
first
that an in-person
have been ideal before taking their students to Camp Colman for the
now however, they consider a phone conversation to be equally effective
anO more efficient. The other three teachers had no preference for phone versus in
person conversations, but definitely sought to partake in one of the two.
(M) Phone Conversation with OEE Director Pre-Trip. (Avg. Rating
=4.2). See
"L" above
(N) Students Send Postcard to Selves. (Avg. Rating = 3.8) . Two teachers raved about
this idea. One offered, "There is great power
writing to yourself and then hearing
from yourself later on" (School #1, 2009) . The other teacher concurred that the
:J ostcard would
rekindle the OEE experience for students. Whereas some
s.mpJy
#7)
;iJed
the self-addressed postcard plan, one teacher (School
constructive suggestion. She explained that the prompt is
order for students to benefit from receiving and
in the spring, they have to write about
their own self-addressed
d
significant OEE growth experience
new awareness about themselves or others. She
to be written
"The prompt needs
a way that is accessible to students. It also needs to guide
compel the students to write something meaningful" (School #7, 2009).
(0) Field lournal. (Avg. Rating = 4 .3). One teacher (School #3) lamented that her
school cannot allocate resource s to pay ext r 2 money for journals; if the journals are
included in the cost of the p rogram she will enthusiastically use them. Another
81
teacher (School #6) appreciates that journals wou ld p rovi de her with a
conventional means of assessing her students' OEE exp erie nce - she cou ld evaluate
her students' written journal work. She is, h owever, w ary that journ als could
become a hassle for teachers and OEE staff. Students might loose or accidentally
drop the journals in the mud or in the ocean; chaperones and teachers would have
to spend time and energy finding and replacing them . To minimize this disturbance,
she suggests that instructors collect the journals at the end of each class period.
Finally, several teachers asked that the journal not be designed solely for camp.
Rather, they recommend that it also include extension activities that can be
completed in the classroom pre-trip and post-trip.
(P) Ins tructor Attends School's Parent Night. (Avg. Rating = 4.0). Several
.
recogn ized that parent night presentations greatly ease parents' minds about OEE.
One teacher revealed that she already presents information about the
her school's parent night, so it is unnecessary for a Camp Colman staffr:1ember to
come do so. She added that, conversely, ifher school (School #6) were attending
Camp Colman for the first time, a presentation by a Camp Colman staff member
would be exceptionally valuable. Another te acher
that her school
(School #1) invites hath parents and students to the presentation. She recommends
this strategy because it encourages parents and s tudents to communicate about the
experience with one another.
(Q) Related Vocabulary and Species Posted on Web . (Avg. Rating
= 4.0).
One
teac her noted that a Jist of key science vo cab ul ary with definitions would help
teachers prepare students for OEE and for the sc ience WASL. This teacher
continued, "One of the biggest things almost all of our students lack is
Many of our students come from poverty or speak English as a second language. To
succeed in school they really need to learn vocabulary. School is hard for these
ch ildren and an improved vocabulary would help them a
(School #1, 2009) .
more teachers underscored their excitement about Camp Colman potentially
relevant vocabulary and definitions to their website.
(R) Related Books & Websites
on Web . (Avg. Rating = 4.5). All but one
teacher expressed "extreme interest" in this OEE-classroom integrative strategy.
Only one teacher provided specific content suggestions. She (School #7) asked that
82
books and websites
to teambuilding activities to be included on the
webpage.
(S) Stewardship Project. (Avg. Rating
= 4.3).
Teachers unanimously expressed
excitement about creating a project that would relate to Camp Colman and
simultaneously benefit their school and local communities. "Real world applications
like this are so important. They really raise the level of learning" (School #J, 2009).
Several teachers admitted
they were at a loss for relevant ideas and would
appreciate help brainstorming and developing a stewardship project.
In addition to these integrative ideas, some teachers expresse d ideas of their
own . For example, fifth grade teachers at School #4 hoped to connect Camp Colman
to sc hool via the creation
a school garden and the exploration of an existing
nature trail or campus. "It would be nice to be able to come up
some activities
that we could do outside the walls of the classroom whether it be composting or
utilizing
nature trail right behind the school. Anything to
what the kids
do at
would be great" (School #4, 2009) . Although this school has not
partaken
the gardering class that Camp Colman offers, they are considering the
next year.
teacher from School #7 noted that she would like to
implement a compass course in the fieid behind the school. She beiieves this han ds
on, minds-on activity would engage students and effectively build upon the Camp
:l11 orienteering class. She has ordered the compasses but has yet to plot the
course.
DISCUSSION and RECOMME NDATIONS
goal of this research was to determine how GEE Camp Colman can best
facilitate curricular integration betwe en its program and classrooms. By
triangulating data from the literature, participating
have
and GEE di'-ectors, I
able to identify ten best practices that Camp Colman can pursue to
enhal1ce these curricular connections.
The best pr acti ces that I suggest srem, in
I adm inistered to teachers and to Camp
from the results of the survey
GEE director. Survey results
revealed six curricular integration ideas that both Ca mp Colman's OEE Director an d
participating teachers ranked at least 4 (on an inte rest scale of 1 to 5) . These
include: (1) posting more extensive pre-trip and post- trip classroom curricula
suggestions on the Camp Caiman website, (2) posting
of relevant books and
websites on the Camp Colman website, (3) posting a list of relevant vocabulary
(with definitions) and species on the Camp Colman website, (4) developing a field
journal for students, (5) sending OEE Camp Colman staff to the schools' Parent
Nights, and (6) engaging in pre-trip phone conversations with teachers.
Additionally, three more curricular integration ideas were ranked at least a 4 by
teachers (on an interest scale of 1 to 5) yet a mere 3 by MH, the director of Camp
Colman. Camp Colman's director noted that despite the potential benefits of all
three, she did not rank them higher because these ideas strike her as logistically
challenging. These include: (7) sending OEE instructors to visit classrooms pre-trip;
(8) sending OEE instructors to visit classrooms post-trip, and (9) working with
teachers
students to develop stewardship projects.
The best practices that I
below take into account the above
listed curricular integration ideas that both teachers and MH strongly support (as
determined via the survey). However, I have variously modified, condensed, and
expanded upon these ideas in order to creatively incorporate the suggestions of
teachers, Camp Colman's OEE director, other OEE directors, and published literature
findings. Ultimately, the ten best practices that 1 identify (a) advance the goals of
both participating teachers and Camp Colman's OEE Director, (b) address and
mollify the concerns of participating teachers and Camp Colman's OEE Director, and
(c) incorporate the findings of previously published studies and the successful best
practices of other
organizations in western Washington.
These best practices are also in line with the Environmental Education
Association of Washington's (EEAW) goals and strategies for environmental, nature,
and outdoor centers. One of EEAW's three goals for the environmental and outdoor
centers sector is to "sustain, expand, and improve the sector" which can be
achieved, in part, by "identify[ing] and sharing best practices within the sector"
(Environmental Education Association of Washington, 2008a) . Clearly, my research,
analysis, and recommendations further this goal.
84
The best practices I suggest are as follows:
(1) Post more extensIve pre-trip and post-trip classroom curricula suggestions on
the Camp Colman website.
One of the six characteristics of successful environmental education
programs identified by OSPl's Environmental Education Report is an "integrated
approach" tr:at connects learning across multiple disciplines (Wheeler et al., 2007).
The EEAV\llikewise recommends increased multidisciplinary experiences as a
strategy for enhancing the quality of environmental, nature, and outdoor centers
Education Association of Washington, 2008d) . Accordingly, not
only recommend deveioping pre- and post-trip activity suggestions geared to Camp
Colman's major outdoor lessons, which several studies (Farmer and Wott, 1995,
Smith-Sebasto and Cavern, 2006; and Stern et al., 2008) have
to enhance
student environmental knowledge and environmental respect, I also advise that
least some of these activity suggestions be multidisciplinary in that they not
incorporate science concepts, but also math, language arts, social studies, art, and
music concepts. Because different schools have different curricula and focus on
different topics through the school year, it is important to provide an array of
suggestions such that teachers can select activities that fit well with their
reql:irements and their curriculum calendar. For example, with regard to Colman
related science curricu;a,
of the schools I explored have oceanography units,
has a landforms unit (including erosion, deposition, and elevation), one has a
forest ami fresh water ecology unit, and one studies Puget Sound weather and
geology. Not only should the menu of suggested learning activities be topically
multidisciplinary in content, it should include activities of various
varied
lengths and depths such that teachers can select curricular connections tnat fit their
timeframe.
In addition to including thematically diverse lessons, multidisciplinary
act;vities, and activities ofvarious lengths and depths, I also recommend that some
pre- and post-trip activity suggestions explicitly incorpo rate a pedagogy of
cooperative learning
with a focus on teambuilding. This is important because
six of the seven school leaders I interviewed volunteered that they appreciate that
85
Camp Colman enhances teamwork and class coh esion; one s ch ool atte nds Camp
Colman primarily for team building
Because all of the teachers that I interviewed bring their students to Camp
Colman
the fall, they were particularly interested in follow-up (rather than
preparatory) activities. One activity suggestion that promotes classroom follow-up
that both teachers and MH supported is a "postcard to self." Students write a
postcard to themselves on the last day of camp about an especially memorable OEE
learning experience; teachers return the postcards to the students several months
later as a segue into an OEE follow-up activity. Students can write about or d is cuss
with classmates the OEE experience they penned on their self-addressed postcard,
and the ways that experience has since impacted them. Now the students
prepared and excited to begin an OEE-related activity, even months after the camp
experience. In this way, teachers who have Colman-related curriculum units
scheduled for the spring (months after camp) can encourage students to
connections between the classroom coursework and OEE.
Since many of the teachers I spoke with expressed interest in linking
classroom curriculum to Camp Colman pre-trip, yet lamented their meager pre-trip
timeframe, they
quick yet effective pre-trip activity suggestions. One such
activity that both teachers and Camp Colman's OEE director supported, is a "letter to
Camp Colman" in advance of the outdoor school visit. Several teachers
recommended that a template for the letter be developed in order to focus students.
Not only can these letters be incorporated into classroom language arts curricula,
but they can aid Camp Colman in forging connections between their program and
individual classrooms. When students send letters to Camp Colman pre-trip, Camp
Colman instructors gain knowledge about students' expectations, learning goals,
and existing knowledge such that they can better tailor the OEE program to fit the
needs of the unique group. In turn, students begin anticipating the outdoor school
experi e nce and identify for themselves both connections with in-school learning and
questions that they might have.
Finally, Camp Colman can learn from perusing the pre-trip and post-trip
curricula that other OEE programs post online. After exploring the pre-trip and
post-trip activity suggestions that three well-respected western Washington OEE
86
programs offer on
websites, I found that those activities recommended by the
Olympic Park Institute (OPI] stand out as particularly thorough and well organized.
Each of the lesson plans that OPI posts include target grade level, expected lesson
duration, goals and learning objectives, background information, materials,
procedures, optional extensions, as well the Washington State EALRs covered.
recommend that Camp Colman consider including each of these as well.
(2) Post a list of relevant books and websites on the Camp Colman website.
Camp Colman's OEE director rated this feature a 5 (on an interest scale of 1
to 5) and teachers rated it a 4.5 on average. Accordingly, [ recommend that Camp
Colman create three web-links with books and websites related to the Camp Colman
experience: one link for teachers, one for students, and one for parents.
The web-link for teachers could include an annotated list of books, organized
subject matter, which provide more information about the various topics Camp
Colman covers. Again, because both OSPI's Environmental Education Report a nd the
EEAW tout the benefits multidisciplinary learning, I recommend listing books and
websites related to Camp Colman's major lessons and OEE in general, which connect
to art, music, science, math, social studies, and language arts classes (Wheeler et 01.,
2007; Environmental Education Association of Washington, 2008a). Potential topic
headings could include:
forests, geology, gardening, salmon, birds,
tea mbuilding, community service and the environment, environmental art, music
and the environment/nature (this section could be followed by a list of songs rather
th an a list of books), math and the environment, and fiction books for youth relate d
to the environment/nature. Teachers could select the most relevant and intriguing
books; by exploring these books, teachers would gain knowledge and excitement
about these topics such that they could develop in-depth OEE-extension activities
for their students. In addition to an annotated list of topically organized books, the
web-link for teachers could include an annotated list of topically organized websites
(with links). Ideally, this list
include
inte rnational non-profit, for-profit, and
de dic at ed to conserving or protcctil1g
websites of local, national, and
al organizations that are
or that conduct
87
environmental research of interest to K-12 students (ideally in which K-1 2 students
can participate); (b) websites that provide info rmatio n about Colman topics; a nd (c)
websites with specific environmental curriculu m suggestions. For example, the
North Cascade Institute's (NCI) Mountain School suggests that teachers peruse the
websites of environmental education programs such as Project Learning Tree and
Project WILD, which provide environmentally focused curriculum suggestions and
resources for K-12 educators. Furthermore, OPI provides links to websites that sell
activity kits and classroom supplies for environmental science related activities
I recommend a similar "books and websites" web-link that targets
:;'
in grades 4-6 (the population Camp Colman typically serves). This web-link can
provide an annotated list of books and websites as described above, but it should
include only those books of interest to the elementary and middle school audience.
The annotations should be written in a style that is accessible and appealing to th is
young audience. Teachers might specifically ask students to search this website
post-trip and pick one book or website to delve into more deeply. Students could
then create a bri ef presentation about their chosen source, providing their
classmates with a summary of the source and explanation of why it is interesting
and how it relates to Camp Colman .
Finally, I recommend a "books and websites" web-link for parents. This
web-link should focus on books and websites that parents might enjoy exploring
with their Camp Colman kids (either pre- or post-trip). A web-link geared
specifically to parents would encourage parents to learn about Camp Colman topics
and to communicate about and investigate these topics with their kids Such parent
student communication is in line with the Environmental Education Report's push
for "effective communication" (Wheeler et al., 2007J.
designing three discrete web-links with Camp Colman-related books and
websites, teachers, parents, and students will feel that Camp Colman is reaching out
to them specifically. Furthermore, new Camp Colman OEE instru ctors could peruse
these web-links as well, to familiarize themselves with resources that could
augment their Colman-related knowledge; MH noted that her new hires last season
requested access to such resources.
88
(3) Post a list of relevant vocabulary (with definitions) and species (of plants and
animals) on the Camp Colman website.
80th teachers and MH strongly supported this integrative suggestion; one
teacher emphasized her conviction that expanding her students' science vocabulary
would significantly improve their typically poor scores on the science WASL.
I would suggest grouping the vocabulary by theme or by Camp Colman
lesson title (i.e. marine, forest ecology, teambuilding, the scientific process etc.) such
that teachers can easily select vocabulary relevant to their students' GEE
experience. Several teachers requested that the words' definitions be included on
the webpage as well.
Ideally, the list of plant and animal species commonly found at Camp
Colman, would include common
scientific names as well as a drawings or
photographs. I recommend that the species list be accompanied by a message to
teachers suggesting that, as an GEE-classroom connection activity, they ask students
to observe and note similarities and differences between the plant and animal
communities at Camp Colman and in their school and home communities.
(4) Develop a field journal for students.
I suggest that Camp Colman create an optional field journal for students to
use at camp, and ideally back at school post-trip as well. Teachers should be able to
elect whether or not their students use the Colman field journal because some
teachers J spoke with have created a field journal of th eir own that they are
with, and one teacher I interviewed wants the GEE experience to be
complete
respite from the perceived burden of doing written work. Furthermore, because
one teacher lamented that her school could not
resources to pay extra for
field journals, I recommend providing the journals to students at no extra charge. If
this is not possible
to the significant cost of journal creation and printing,
making the journals option al
sch ools to opt out as their financial resources
dictate.
89
If a given teacher wants their students to use the Camp Col man fie ld
journals, I recommend that OEE instructors p r ovide studen ts wi th the fie ld journals
during their first Camp Colm an course. By providing journ al s to the students
camp (rather than mailing them to teachers ahead of time for pre-trip classroom
use), occasions for losing the journals in transit diminishes. (One teacher was
concerned that her students would loose their journals and that finding or replacing
them would become an unwelcome hassle for teachers and chaperones). To this
end, I also suggest that OEE instructors offer to collect student journals at the end of
each class session so that students do not misplace the journals betwe e n classes.
The field journal could include written activities that help students focus on
and think critically about the main points of each Camp Colman class. It could also
include blank pages for reflection. Ultimately, the field journal would provide
teachers with a conventional means of assessing students'
experience; teache r s
could evaluate their students' written work.
In order for the field journal to serve most effectively as a bridge between
OEE and the classroom, the journal must be used or built upon post-trip in the
classroom. To facilitate post-trip journal work, I recommend providing teachers
with a teacher's guide to the student journal. The IslandWood program provides a
superb example of such a guide. Whereas IslandWood's student field journal is 6 by
7 inches in dimension, their teachers' guide to the field journal is 8.5 by 11 inches.
In the "extra space" the teacher's guide provides (a) an answer key, and (b)
suggestions for ways teachers can expand upon each field-journal activity post-trip
in the classroom. As such, following the camp experience, students will not only
have OEE curricular memorabilia (in the form of a field journal) that they can reflect
upon post-trip, but their teachers will be able to effectively guide them in classroCJm
journal extension activities.
(5) Send OEE instructors to visit schools pre-trip or post-trip.
Teachers considered these visits to be especially appealing for fostering
OEE-classroCJm curricular connections. However, Ca mp Colman's OEE director only
90
rated the idea a 3 due to perceived logistical challenges. Nevertheless, perhaps
Camp Colman can send instructors to schools either pre-trip or post-trip. This
would reduce the logistical burden of sending instructors to each school twice, and
it would allow teachers with a specific preference for a pre- versus post-trip visit to
choose accordingly. Because OEE Camp Colman typically needs all or most of its
instructors on-site during the fall and spring seasons, I suggest Camp Colman devote
a few days before and after each season for these visits.
The OSPI's Environmental Education Report identified "long-term rather
than short-term programs" to be particularly effective at enhancing students'
academic performance and helping them to master skills and knowledge. Although
pre-
post-trip visits do not extend the on-site OEE experience, they do lengthen
the students' involvement with OEE Camp Colman and with the curricular content
that it presents.
Clearly, the content of the pre-trip and post-trip visits should depend, in
part, on the group dynamics and curricular background of each student group .
Camp Colman Instructors could speak with the school's head teacher before the visit
to find out whether the teacher would like to emphasize
particular topic or
activity. Ideally, these visits would be opportunities for instructors to work with
teachers to develop a Colman-related stewardship project (see recommendation
#6).
(6) Work with teachers and students to develop stewardship projects .
One of the EEAW's three environmental education goals for the
environmental, nature, and outdoor centers sector, is to "increase application and
citizen engagement"; this includes facilitating opportunities for EE-related service
learning (Environmental Education Association of Washington, 2008a) . Besides,
researchers including Wheeler et al. (2007) have repeatedly determined that strong
community connections improve environmental education programs. To this end,
Camp Colman- r elated stewardship projects would encourage students to recognize
91
connections between their OEE experience and,
only their classroom, b ut the
larger community as well.
Clearly, the successful implementation of a stewardship project that
integrates Camp Colman with students' school and home communities requires
planning, preparation, and communication; nevertheless
overwhelmingly
about this integrative idea, rating it 4.3 (on average) on an
interest scale of 1 to 5. However, teachers did state that they would appreciate help
selecting and planning the project, particularly the first year. Examples ofOEE
related stewardship projects that students could carry out in their school
communities include adopting a section of campus and maintaining it ivy-free (as
suggested by MH), creating an organic community garden, planting native
ees,
cleaning up a nature trail, designing and adding interpretive signs about plants an d
animals to a local nature trail, etc. Perhaps, teacher in-service workshops (see
recommendation #8 below) could be devoted to helping teachers brainstorm and
create stewardship projects . Additionally, Camp
instructors could p rovide
motivation for and help with stewardship projects during pre-trip
post-trip
classroom visits (see recommendation #5 above).
Stewardship projects could benefit students, schools, communities, and
Camp Colman in several ways. First, published studies have demonstrated that
students' environmentally responsible behavior increases as a result of
participation in environmental education programs, including school-facilitated
projects such as this stewardship project (American Institutes for Research, 2005;
Duffin et al., 2004; Kearney, 2009). Secondly, the projects could provide
Colman with significant positive community attention. By encouraging teachers to
make their larger school and local communities aware of their students'
stewardship efforts, both the school and Camp Colman could receive positive
publicity which could in turn attract volunteers and funds. Finally, stewardship
projects would inherently benefit the schools and communities involved because
stewards (the students) actively and responsibly care for their charge. The students
could even serve as role models, inspiring additional community stewardship
projects.
92
(7) Present at schools' Parent's Nights; meet with head teacher the same day.
The OSPI Environmental Education Report touts the importance of effective
communication between OEE programs, teachers, students, and the community
(Wheeler et al., 2007). Informing parents about their students' upcoming Camp
Colman experience would not only ease parents' minds about their students' GEE
adventures, but it would promote parent-child communication and discussion about
the experience as well. Ideally, the parent night presentation would provide parents
with (a) basic information about the logistics and content of the upcoming
experience (with an opportunity for questions and answers), and (b) information
about ways they can get involved (i.e. become a chaperone, explore related books
and websites with their child (see recommendation #2), volunteer to help facilitate
a Colman-related stewardship project (see recommendation #6), discuss the GEE
experience with their child both pre-trip and post-trip). This way, parents would be
prepared to help students forge connections between their GEE experience and
their home and school lives.
In the GEE
Colman teacher's manual, MH encourages teachers to
contact her to arrange parent night presentations. Unfortunately, only 30% of
schools request such visits. I recommend that MH proactively contact teachers or
the school principal to suggest a parent night presentation, because, according to
MH, many teachers do not read the teacher's manual at all.
Ideally, MH can meet with participating teachers the same day that she
presents to parents. In this way she can consolidate her trips. That said, some of
the teachers l interviewed prefer phone-meetings to in-person meetings, believing
them to be more time-efficient. Perhaps, if MH is already coming to the school to
give a parent night presentation, these teachers would opt for an in-person meeting
instead. Ifnot, a phone conversation could work well too. During these MH-teacher
conversations, I suggest that MH talk with teachers extensively about their students
and their needs and the classroom curriculum . r recommend that teachers describe
their goals for OEE
thei r plans (if any) for connecting the GEE experience with
their classroom curriculu m. During these conversations, MH could provide teachers
who have not
y developed strong GEE-classroom curricular connections with
93
resources (i.e. pre-trip and post-trip curriculum suggestio ns, informatio n abou t
relevant books and web sites, a list of relevant vocabula ry, information about fie ld
journals, information about optional pre-trip and post-trip instructor visits, and
information about teacher in-services) to build and enhance those connections.
(8) Develop teacher in-service workshops.
The GSPJ's Environmental Education Report considers ongoing high-quali ty
professional development to be crucial to program success and the EEAW seeks to
improve environmental education by "[improving] professional
and
training" (Wheeler et aI., 2007; Environmental Education Association of
Washington,2008a) . I too would suggest developing teacher in-service workshops
because (a) several teachers were extremely interested in learning how to connect
classroom curricula with GEE Camp Colman curricula, and (b) the literature
suggests that relevant professional development for teachers can significantly
enhance the impact of the environmental education experience on students
(Gutierrez de White and Jacobson, 1994).
In-service offerings located at Camp Colman should he geared to teachers
who anticipate bringing their students to Camp Colman for the first time. In thi s
way, new teachers can familiarize themselves with the Colman campus and GEE
activity choices. Veteran Camp Colman teachers would welcome in-service offerings
as well, but they would appreciate these in-services to be located closer to Seattle,
Tacoma, or Issaquah, where the majority of the participating schools
located.
Teachers who are already familiar with GEE Camp Colman and :ts classes would
rather not drive the significant distance to Camp Colman for an in-service day. The
veteran teachers I interviewed noted that they were uninterested in listening to
Camp Colman staff talk about Camp Colman class offerings (as they are already
familiar with the offerings) but would a ppreciate in-services focused on building
GEE-classroom connections. They would welcome ideas, time to brainstorm with
other teachers, and time to develop GEE-related activities that they can use in their
94
own classrooms. Teacher in-services would also be a prime opportunity for
introducing and encouraging stewardship projects (see recommendation #6).
Additionally, I recommend that teachers be awarded clock-hours for their
participation in the in-service activities. To maintain a valid Washington State
teaching ce rtificate, teachers need to complete 150 approved clock-hours of
continuing education or 15 quarter hours of academic credits every five years
(Superintende nt of Public Instruction: State of Washington, 2009). One teacher
explained that clock-hours significantly increase the appeal and credibility of an in
service.
(9) Modify post-trip evaluations.
Although teachers were only moderately interested in more extensive post
trip evaluations (3.7 on an interest scale of 1 to 5), MH rated this idea a 5. Thus, I
recommend that Camp Colman mod erately (but not excessively) expand the content
of the post-trip eva luations to include assessment ofOEE-ciassroom connections
(such as pre- and post- curriculum ideas, field journals, etc).
Currently OEE Camp Colman asks teachers to complete evaluations during
lun ch
the last day of camp. Three teachers explained that they would rather
com plete the post-trip evaluation after returning to school, as they feel rushed at
th is end-of-the-visit lunch. I would encourage Camp Colman to send the
to teachers via e-mail (rather th an handing them a paper copy) as teachers
co ns istently
electronic correspondence. Perhaps de veloping the post-trip
eval uation on a program such as Survey Monkey would facilitate compilation,
organization, and a nalysis of responses.
(10) Assess curricu lar co nnections.
Clearly, continued assessm ent of OEE-classroo m connections is important as
we ll. Teachers already comp lete routine post-trip evaluations (see
95
recommendation #9), but [ suggest implementing more in-de pt h assessm e nts,
focused specifically on GEE-classroom connections, every couple of y ears.
Questions that could be asked of teachers in such assessm e nts in clude the following :
To what extent do you utilize Camp Colman's pre-trip a n d post-trip curricular
connection suggestions? Which activity suggestions are most useful and why? Do
you have recommend addendums or modifications to the proposed curricular
integration ideas? Are there specific words you would like to add to the Camp
Colman vocabulary list? If so, which ones? Do you have recommendations for
relevant books or websites that could be added to the Camp Colman webpage? [f so,
please list. Do you engage your students in a stewardship project inspired by GEE
Camp Colman? [f so, which project did you choose? [n which ways was the
stewardship project successful and in which ways can it be improved? What d o you
like about the field journal? What suggestions do you have for field journ al
improvement? Did you attend an GEE Camp Colman teacher in-service? If so, how
was it beneficial; what could be improved? Assessments provide valuable feedback
that allows organizations to continuously enhance their program.
In addition to the ten best practices identified above, I would encourage GEE
Camp Colman to continue to pursue its plans to expand its "friends of camp"
netwo r k and to compile a list of potential grant and funding sources for teachers
seeking money to co ntinue to bring students to camp. After all, teachers at six of the
seven schools mentioned that funding was a concern, and at three of the seven
schools, over forty percent of students receive free and reduced lunch under the
Nation al School Lunch Program. Further, one of the EEAW's three goals for
environmental centers is to create programs that are valued by and accessible to all
Washington State residents. A key strategy to maintain and increase access is to
"ensure dIverse funding sources" (Environmental Education Association of
Washington,2008a). [t is also important to recognize that activities and projects
which enhance the greater community's awareness and positive perception of GEE
Camp Colman, could naturally help herald funds. Examples of such activities include
presentations at parent nights and stewardship projects.
Clearly, adopting these best practices into the Camp Colman program will
take time and commitment. Fortunately, all of these best practices are works in
96
progress; they can and should be improved and expanded upon based on feedback
from participating parents, students, and teachers. It is thus not imperative, or even
realistic, to require that these best practices be "perfectly developed" before initially
implemented . On the contrary, it is important to start small. In fact, my hope is that
Camp Colman is not overwhelmed by the breadth and depth of these suggestions,
but rather welcomes them as potential medium-term goals. Furthermore, because
several of these suggestions (including developi ng pre-trip and post-trip curricular
suggestions, creating a field journal, and organizing teacher in-services) require
significant time and focused energy, it may be beneficial to elicit the help of
volunteers. At two of the OEE organizations I explored, AmeriCorps volunteers
contributed significantly to the programs' OEE-classroom connections. For
example, at IslandWood, an AmeriCorps volunteer created all four of the activity kits
that teachers check out to use in their classrooms.
CONCLUSION:
My objective was to determine how OEE Camp Colman can enhance
curricular integration between its program and classrooms in order to further
accomplish its OEE goals as well as the goals of participating teachers. Whereas
previous studies hav e documented benefits of OEE-classroom curricular linkages
(Sm ith-Sebasto and Cavern, 2006; Gutierrez de White and Jacobson, 1994; Farmer
and Watt, 1995; Stern et al., 2008), they have not provided specifics about the range
of existing OEE-classroom integrative endeavors; they hav e not explored the
ba rriers to such integration; and they have not identified ways in which these
barriers can be overcome. This case study of OEE Camp Coiman helped fill these
critical literature gaps. The study included a review of the literature, in-person
interviews with Camp Colman's OEE director and the
directors of other well
regarded programs in the region, phone interviews with teachers who brought their
students to Camp Colman in fall 2008, verbally administered surveys of
participating teachers and Camp Colman's OEE director, and a review of relevant
websites and documents. Via my investigation, I was ab le to identify how OEE Camp
Colman currently connects its progra m with classroom curricula; why OEE Camp
Colman is interested in expanding an d deepening curricular linkages in the future ;
97
the impacts and best practices of OE E-classroom cu rricular co nnections according
to the literature; and the realities, challenges, and goals of participat ing teachers and
OEE directors with regard to curricular in tegrati on. With this information, I
identified and elaborated on ten best practices that OE E Camp Colman can employ
to bolster curricular connections between its program and classrooms. These
recommendations (a) advance the goals of both participating t eachers and Camp
Colman's OEE Director, (b) address and mollify the concerns of participating
teachers and Camp Colman's OEE Director, and (c) inco rporate the findings of
previously published studies and the successful best practices of other well
regarded OEE organizations in western Washington. In brief, my recommendati o 'E
are that Camp Colman undertake the following : (1) post more extensive
post-trip classroom curriculum suggestions on the Camp Colman website, (2)
st
list of relevant books and websites on the Camp Colman webSite, (3) post a
relevant vocabulary (with definitions) and species (of plants and animals)
of
the
Camp Colman website, (4) develop a field journal for students, (5) send
instructors to visit schools pre-trip or post-trip, (6) work with teachers and students
to develop stewardship projects, (7) present at schools' parent nights; meet with
teachers the same day, (8) develop teacher in-service worksho ps, (9) modify the
timing and content of post-trip evaluations, and (10) assess curricular connections.
Clearly, this research has allowed me to analyze cu rri cular connections
between OEE Camp Colman and participating classrooms, and to develop well
informed recommendations as to how Camp Colman
enhance these connections.
However, my research does have limitations. Below I will discuss its primary
limitations and provide suggestions for further research that co uld shed light on
lingering and newly acquired questions regarding curricular connections between
OEE programs and classrooms.
First, this study revealed that the OEE programs I investigated do not assess
whether participating teachers use the pre- and post-trip curricula made availahle
on their websites . I did not interview te achers who bring their students to
IslandWood, the Olympic Park Institute (OPI), the North Cascades Institute (NCI), or
ocher OEE programs that post classroom curriculum suggestions; rather I
interviewed teachers who bring th ei r s tud ents to Camp Colman (a program that did
98
not post curricular suggestions until after I completed my interviews). Accordingly,
I was unable to determine why (or why not), and to what extent, teachers employ
pre- and post-trip curricular suggestions. I was also unable to determine which pre
and post-activities suggested by OEE programs teachers find particularly effective.
In the future, I recommend that researchers interview teachers who bring their
students to OEE programs that provide pre- and post-trip curricular suggestions.
The researchers can ask teachers to explain whether and why they engage students
in the suggested activities, whether and how they recommend the activities be
improved, how the activities tie into their classroom curricula, and what types of
additional activities they would like the OEE programs to create and post. Because
OEE Camp Colman began providing pre- and post-trip curriculum suggestions in
February 2009, teachers who bring their students to Camp Colman in spring 2009
and thereafter, could be included in this proposed follow-up investigation.
Another study limitation stems from the fact that I interviewed only
teachers whose students participate in OEE Camp Colman in the fall. Perhaps
teachers who bring their students to camp in the spring have distinct goals,
concerns, and challenges. For example, whereas
majority of the teachers I
interviewed noted that they do not have time to engage students in extensive pre
trip activities, teachers who bring their class to camp in th e spring likely have
substa ntially more time for pre-trip curricular preparations, but less time for post
tr ip extensions. Furthermore, I would hypothesize that "fall schools" are more
interested ir engaging students in teambuilding activities (in order to promote
gr oup cohesion and communication at the beginning of the school year) than are
s pring schools. Differences between fall and spring schools, such as these, would
impact the curricular connections that Camp Colman can make with each.
Accordingly, I recommend that follow-up studies include teach e rs at both
and
"spring" schools.
A third limitation is one of sample size. I was only able to interview school
leaders at 7 of 12 fall schools. The teachers at the five schools who did not
to my interview requests may have different realities, barriers, and goals related to
curricular connections between OEE and the classroom than the teachers who
agr eed to participate in my study. Although I was able to glean significant
99
information from the teachers I did interview, I suggest that follow-up studies seek
to include a higher percentage of participating teache rs.
Fourth, my study has only moderate external validity due to its case study
nature. The case study approach proved ideal for my purposes - to determine how
OEE Camp Colman can best facilitate curricular connections between its program
and the classroom in order to further its own goals as well as the goals of
participating teachers. However, by expanding the study to include interviews with
teachers who bring their students to a range of OEE programs, researchers can gain
insight into how the varied curricular connection-opportunities that diverse OEE
programs provide influence the curricular connections that teachers select.
Furthermore, my data is limited to findings from the literature and to the
perspectives of teachers and OEE directors. In the future, I recommend
students be interviewed as well. Although student interviews were beyond the
scope of this study, they would shed light on the curricular connections that
students (as opposed to teachers and OEE directors) perceive. Additionally, they
would enable researchers to determine which pre-trip and post-trip activities
significantly impacted students from their own perspectives.
Finally, now that I have identified why
Camp Colman is interested in
expanding and deepening curricular linkages in the future; how OEE Camp Colman
currently connects its program with classroom curricula; what the literature reveals
with regard to the best practices and challenges ofOEE-classroom curricular
integration; and the realities, concerns, interests, and goals of participating teachers
and other western Washington OEE directors with regard to curricular integration;
there is sufficient background information to design a statisticJlly robust, controlled
study. I recommend that such a study incorporate a matched pairs design, assigning
treatment groups at participating schools to engage in specific pre- and post-trip
activities (of various scopes and depths) and control groups at participating schools
to engage in no relevant pre- and post-trip activities. Students in both treatment
and control groups could take tests or participate in interviews pre-trip,
immediately post-trip, and several months after the trip, to determine the impact of
various curricular connection activities. The tests might assess any or all of the
100
following: academic achievement, career interests, self-esteem and motivation,
evidence of environmental stewardship or interest in participating in environmental
stewardship, or teamwork. Although several controlled, peer-reviewed studies
address the effects of linking off-campus field experiences with classroom curricula
(Smith-Sebasto and Cavern, 2006, Gutierrez de White and Jacobson 1994, Farmer
and Wott, 1995, Stern et al., 2008), they do not provide insight into or compare the
varying impacts of different types and scopes of integrative activities.
The future research that I suggest could significantly advance understanding
ofOEE-classroom curricular connections. That said, the current study has already
filled two critical research gaps: a lay-of-the-land exploration of current OEE
classroom integrative practices and an assessment of real-life barriers to such
integration. But not only does the study shed light on previously unanswered
questions, ;t provides concrete, well-founded recommendations for bolstering
curricular connections between Camp Colman and classrooms. Clearly,OEE
programs such as OEE Camp Colman positively impact hundreds of thousands of
students each year; enhanced curricular connections between these programs and
the classrooms they serve cou
su bstantially augment that impact.
101
Appendix A - Interview Questions for DEE Directors
Quantitative Questi ons:
(A) How
y different school s does your QEE
work wi th
h year?
(B) How
y plivate vs. public schools does your QEE program wo rk with each year?
(C) How many students come to yo ur QEE program each year?
(D) Which grades does your QEE program work with?
(E) What s the avcrage number of students per study group?
(F) When was your
program found ed?
(G) How much do you charge sc hoo ls, student
2-night, 3-day OEF program')
Qualitati ve Questions:
(I)
your ro le in your orga ni za tion') How long have you been working for your organi za tion? How .Iong have you
been working for your organizatio n in this capacity?
organization deve lop and make available pre and post actiVities that
(2) Does YOUI'
curriculum back in the classroo m? Why or why not?
th e OE E program with
you use for cuni cular integrati on" between your OEE progrnm and classroom cUITicu la? [)o you
(3) What language
use " integrati on" or do yo u use another term (i.e. "ex tens ion" or pre-trip and post-trip acti viti es" or "co nnec tion" 01' "the
sc hool pal1nership program" etc.)"
(4) When did your
orga lli za tion begin providing suggestions for cUllicular int egration pretri ggered thi s and why?
post-trip? What
(5) Who developed the pre- and pos t- acti viti es? How
thi s.·these person/ people decide hi ch
and co ncepts
were impol1alltto includ e') IfO EE staff deve loped the activities, did you vet the activities with teachers?
to ssess whether cUITi cul ar
between your
program and the class room ?
gration is taking
(6) Do yo u
Ifso, how? What are you
g about th e effec tiveness orthe cUITicular integration ? .\re you considering assessing thi s
integration in the future ?
perc entage of teac hers engage in pre-visit preparations? To what degree and in which
(7) Do you know
teachers prepare their studcnts?
(9) In your opinion, what would successfu l cunicu lar
(8) What arc
classroom and
(10)
biggest challenges your
cUl1icula')
HolY do the OEE
~
do
look like?
program faces with regard to successfully enabling th e integration of
otructors.'educators vi ew the integration of tile OEf curriculum with CU1Ticu ium back in the
(II) In
ways are you able to tailor your
program to suit the curricu lar needs of eac h individual sc hoo l and
teacher and the lea1l1ing needs of the children? What are the greatest bal1'iers to tailoring your program to each teacher?
102
Appendix B - Interview Questions for Teachers
Quantitative Qu esti ons:
(A) How many yea rs have yo u been tea ching?
(8) How
years have you been taking your student s to QEL schools?
(C) How many years
e you been taking your
(D) Is your sc hoo l public of
udent s to QEL Camp Co lm an?
vme?
(E) What l<lde do yo u teach?
g before becomi ng a teacher. This includes co llege courses, internships, OE E instructor
(F) Rate you r level of OEE
experience, etc (1-5). (I =No JOxperience; 5
Ex peri ence).
(G) Rate yo ur level of OEE
!! since becoming
e th e level of integration af OrE
(H)
(I =No Integrati on; 5
Integrat ion).
Qualitative
teacher (1-5). (I =No Experience; 5=Extensive Experience).
Co lman cUlliculum with your classroom cUJTiculum (1-5).
estio.!:!o.:
( I) What is the ame of your schoo l"
(2) How wou ld you
th e socia-economic <lnge of your students'.' Is
of a pal1i c:u lar ethnic min ority?
(3) What was the
ofyuur
nl$ '
significant propol1ion of your student body
mp and camping expos ure plior 10 <amp Co lman?
10
residential OlE
lm<ln req uired by your sc hoo l or your
(4) Is
gram lik e mp
choose to o? Is your school anrl'or sllict SuppoJ1iv e" Explai:1.
(5) There are many OEE
(6) Which
(7)
v iti~s
in
did your tud ent s
? If not, why do you
Was hingt on. Why do you choose Camp Colman?
in
( 'amp Colman" Why did you choosc
est'
Do you think that li nki ng Ca mp Colman curricu lum with lassroom cu ni culum is important') Why or why
(8) Is your
Colman experience
of or linkcd to a large r classroom unit , or is il a ,;tand-alon e experi ence? If it is
l1 of larger unit , will U ; cribe the unit ')
(9) Do you
ve copies of your
( 10) What chall enges or
c lassroolll UITi culum ?
(II) How can
lE-related
do you
acti vities, or obj ectives
(or fores ee)
yo u could
di ng th e integrdti on of
p Colman help you expand nd deepen th e links between its program
(12) If th ere is ne thing
(13) Do yo u "check
students to OEE
could e clone to beller
of your
lman ? Which
your
~ nts
for Camp
mp
ai l or
lmon curriculum with
classroom curri culum ?
lmon,
would it
l Academic Lea lll ing Requirements (EARLS) or GLEs by
To
extent is thi s
an t?
your
103
Appendix C - Verbal Survey for Teachers & Camp Colman
Rate your interest in the following on a scale of 1-5 (I =Not Interested , 5= Extremely lnterested)
(A) Camp Co lman posts pre-tlip and post-trip curricu la on their website.
(B) Camp Colman mails you a packet of pre-trip and posl-tl'ip cunicula.
(C) Camp Colman
instructors to your school pre-trip to engage students in OEE-related activities.
(D) Camp Colman sends instructors to your SellOO! post-trip to
(E) Camp Co lman develops activity kits with lesso ns
back to their classrooms.
students in OEE-related activities
suppl ies that teachers can check-out and bling
Co lman develops an on-line teacher blog on which teachers who bring their stud ents to Camp
Colman can connect with one another and share ideas about activ ities that
Camp Colman with
the Classroom.
(f)
(G) Camp Colman develops teach er in-services in which teache rs can come to Camp Col man for a day or a
weekend to leam more about Camp Colman's cUll'iculum and to engage in ex ample hands-on activiti es
that integrate
Colman cUll'icuJum with cla ssroom cUll'icu lum.
(H) Camp Co lman dcvelops Kid s Summit (or co nferenc e) in late spring in which a teac her and few
student representatives from each sc hool come back to Camp Colman for a day to give a presentation on
a project they
worked on back at school that stems from or is related to something they Ieamed or
ex perienced at
Colman. This way kids from different schools n lea m from each other.
(I) Camp Colman asks tudents to write a ear Camp Colman" letter before they come. ([l) thi s letter they
list their hopes and fears about th e upcoming experience, th ey describe their previous camp and camp ing
ex peri encc, and they cntion what they are most interested in lea min g at Camp Colman).
(1)
Camp Co lman asks you (the teacher) to fill out
more
nsive goals and objectives sh eet pre-trip.
(K )
Co lman asks you (the teac her) to fill ou t a more extensive eva luation posl-tlip.
(L)
Co lman' s OE E Director
ls
ec tives.
( iVI) Camp Co lman
to your schoo l to
Director talks over the
in pers on with you the
her) pre-trip
with you (the eacher) pre-trip to di scuss
\0
ls
objectives.
(i\ ) Onlhe la st day or camp, Cam p Colman
mailed to students (o r to th e sc hoo l) months
(0)
amp
st udents to wri te a ostcn rd to them se lves. Th ese will be
er.
devclops a fi eld journal that teachers ca n work on
·
pre- tlip and posl-tlip.
(P) Calnp Colman sends a staff member to yo ur sc hool's parent ni ght to talk to parents about the upcoming
Camp Colman tlip.
(Q) Camp Colman develops
li st of vocabul aly and species (plants and animals) relevant to Ca mp Colman.
(R) Ca mp Colman develops
li st of books and websites elated to
Colman cU1Ticulull1.
Camp Colman wo rks with teacbers and students to dev elop a stewardship proj ec t thai both
the stud ents' loca l/school communities, and is related to Camp Colman cU l1iculum.
Whi ch idea(s) above appeal(s) to you most? Why?
Do you
other comments aboul
of the abo ve ideas')
Can you think of anot her idea to help enhance the connec ti on bet ween Camp
interes ted in pursuing? If so, please describe.
and the cla ssroo m that yOll would be
J 04
References
American Institutes for Research. (2005). Effects ofoutdoor education programs for
children in California. Palo Alto, CA: Author.
http: //www .tcoe.net/SCICON/AB 1330FinaIReport.pdf. Accessed 5/2/2009.
Bartosh, O. (2003) . Environmental education: Improving student achievement.
Unpublished master's thesis , The Evergreen State College, Olympia, W A
Bartosh, O. (2006). What do students learn in a high school environmental program?
Paper presented at the NOlih American Association for Environmental Education,
Washington, DC.
Bartosh, 0., T udor, M., Ferguson, L. , and Taylor, C. (2005). Improving test scores
through environmental education: Is it possible? Applied Environmental
Education and Communication, 5(3): 161-169.
DD. (2009). [IslandWood Head of Graduate Programl Personal communication,
1/20/2009.
Duffin, M., Powers, A, Tremblay, G., and PEER Associates . (2004). Place-based
education evaluation collabora tive (PEEC) report on cross-program
research and other program evaluation activities, 2003-2004.
http: //www.peecworks.orgIPEEC/PEEC Reports/OO 19440A-007EA7AB.0/03
04%20P EEC%20Cross%20Program%20Eval%20web.pdf. Accessed
4/ 10/2009.
Emekauwa, E. (2004). They remember wha t they tOllch: Th e impact o(place-based
leaning in east Feliciana Parish . Whitepaper sponsored by the Rural Schoo l and
Community Trust.
http://www .promiseofp lace.org/pd f/EastFel icianaParish2004.pdf.
Accessed 4/20/2009.
Environmental Education Association of Washington. (2008a). Goals and strategies'
For environmental, nature, and outdoor centers . Enviromnental, Nature, and
Outdoor Centers Chapter of the E3 Washington Report.
Environmental Education Association of Washington. (2008b). Lay o(the land: For
environ mental, nature, and outdoor centers . Envirorunental, N ature, and
Outdoor Centers Chapter of the E3 Washington Report.
Farmer, A., and Wott, A (1995). Field trips and follow-up activities: FOlih graders
in a public garden. The Journal Environmental Education, 27(1): 33-35.
Garst, B., Scheider, 1., and Baker, D. (2001). Outdoor adventure program
participation impacts on adolescent self-perception . Journal ofExperiential
Education, 24(1): 41-49.
Gillis, H . and Speelman, E. (2008). Are challenge (ropcs) courses an effective tool ?
A meta-analysis. Jo urnal of Experiential Education, 31(2): 111-135.
Gough, A. (1977). Founders of env ironmenta l education: Nan-ati ves of the Australian
environmental education movement. Environmental Education Research,
105
3(1): 43-58.
Gutierrez de White, T., and Jacobson, S. (1994) . Evaluating conservation
education programs at a South American zoo . The Journal ofEnvironmental
Education, 25(4): 18-22.
Is1a ndWood. (2009a). Welcome to IslandWood. http://islandwood.org. Accessed
3/28/2009.
IslandWood. (2009b). School enrollment form
http: //islandwood.org!school programs/educators/administration/pdf/Sc
hooIEnrollmentForm.pdf/view. Accessed 4/ 12/2 009.
Issaquah School District 411 . (2009). Science.
http://www .issaquah. wednet. edu/academics/core/science/Default.aspx.
Accessed 4/812009.
JC. (2009). [North Cascades Institute Mountain School Coordinator]. Personal
communication, 1/3012009.
Kaly, P., and Heesacker, M. (2003). Effects of a ship-based adventure program on
adolescent self-esteem and ego-identity development. Journal of Experiential
Education, 26(2): 97-104.
Kearney, A. (2009). Island Wood evaluation project: Assessment ofstudent
outcomesfrom IslandWood 's school overnight program.
http ://is land wood.org! schooI programs/educators/assessment/pdf/Advis
ory%20Board%20Meeting%20Notes%205 .9.07.pdflview . Accessed
5/ 1/2009.
KH. (2009). [Olympic Park Institu te Education Director]. Personal communication,
2/2/2009.
Lawrence Hall of Science. (2008). Welcome to FOSSWeb . http ://www.fossweb.com/.
Accessed 4/6/2009 .
the
Lieberman, G., and Hoody, L. (1998). Closing th e achievement gap:
environment as an integrating context/or learning, executive summary . Poway,
CA: Science Wizards. http://www.seer.org!extras/execsum.pdf. Accessed
5/1/2009.
Lieberman, G ., Hoody, L., and Liebennan G.M. (2000). California student assessm ent
project: The eff ect ofenvironment-based education on student achievement. San
Diego, CA: State Education and Environment Roundtable (SEER).
http: //www .seer.org/pages/csap.pdf. Accessed 5/1/2009.
Lieberman, G., Hoody, L., and Liebennan. G.M. (2005). California student assessment
project phase two: The effects 0/ environment-based education 0/7 student
ach ievement. http ://www .seer.org!pages/research/CSAPII2005 .pdf.
Accessed 5/1 /2009.
Louv, R. (2008). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit
disorder (2" d ed.). New York: Algonquin Books.
106
MacGregor, J. (2003). Environmental education's precursors and cousins . Lecture
Notes, The Evergreen State College.
MacGregor, J. (2009). [Evergreen State College faculty]. Personal communication,
4/2009.
MH. (2009a). [Camp Colman OEE Director]. Personal communication, 1/19/2009.
MH. (2009b). [Camp Colman OEE Director]. Personal conununication, 4/16/2009.
Mukilteo School District 6. (2009) . Science distribution center.
http://www.muki Iteo.wednet. edu/departments/curr/web/ScienceCenter/
5thgrade.htm. Accessed 4/812009.
Norman, N., Jennings, A., and Wahl, L. (2006). The impact o/environm entally-related
education on academic achievement: A literature survey. Berkeley, CA:
Community Resources for Science.
http://wwwstatic.kem.org/gems/region9b/ImpactofEEonAcadAchApndx.pdf.
Accessed 5/28/2009.
North Cascades Institute. (2008). Mountain scho ol programs: 2008 final report.
Program Brochure. Accessed 1/29/2009.
North Cascades Institute. (2009a). Mountain School. Program Brochure. Accessed
1/29/2009.
North Cascades Institute. (2009b). Mountain School teacher's guide. Program
Document. Accessed 4/7/2009.
NOlih Cascades Institute. (2009c). North Cascades Institute.
http://www.ncascacles.org/. Accessed 3/30/2009.
North Kitsap School District. (2009). Buck Lake.
http ://www.nkschools.org/I5891 063 1549 19560/blanklbrowse.asp?a=38
3&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&c=59829. Accessed 4/8/2009.
Olympic Park Institute. (2009a). Olympic Park Institute.' Welcom e to Our Classroom.
http://yni.org/opi/index.php. Accessed 3/28/2009.
Olympic Park Institute. (200%). Tea ch er planning workbook.
http ://yni .org/opi/fielclscience/organize/planning workbook.php. Accessed
4/12/2009.
Palmer, J. (1993) . Development of concern for the environment and formative
experiences of educators. The Journal o[Environmental Education , 23(4):
26-30.
Palmer, J. (1997). Environm ental education in th e
Routledge.
t
centUiY. New York:
Parlett, M ., and Dearden, G. (Ed.). (1977). Introduction to illuminative evaluation.
Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA: Pacific Surroundings Press.
School # 1. (2009).
Park Elementary]. Personal communication, 2/2412009.
107
School #2. (2009a). Camp Colman journal. Accessed 3/3/2009.
School #2. (2009b). Curriculum guide.
http://www.vistaacademy.org/documents/Curriculum Guide 2008 2009 fi
nal.pdf. Accessed 4/8/2009.
School #2. (2009c). [Vista Academy]. Personal communication, 2/ 13/2009.
1h
School #3. (2009a). [Untitled Curriculum Documents from 5 Grade Teacher]. Accessed
2/28/2009.
School #3. (2009b). [Maple Hills Elementary]. Personal communication, 2/ 18/2009.
School #4. (2009). [Wolff Elementary]. Personal communication, 2/11/2009 .
School #5. (2009). [Clark Elementary]. Personal communication, 3/5/2009.
School #6. (2009). [Roy Elementary]. Personal communication, 3/18/2009.
School #7. (2009). [Eatonville Elementary]. Persona l communication, 2/23/2009.
Seever, M. (1991). Nowlin Environmental Science Magnet middle school: 1990-1991.
formative evaluation. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City School District.
http://www.eric.ed.gov: 80IERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sgl/content storage 0 I/000
00 19b/80/38/2e/9b.pdf. Accessed 5/2/2009.
Smith-S ebasto, N., and Cavern, L. (2006). Effects of pre- and post-trip activities
associated w ith a residential environmental education experience on
students ' attitudes toward the environment. The Journal ofEnvironmental
Educa tion, 37: 3-17.
Stake, R. (1995). Th e art ofcase study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Sterling, S. and Cooper, G. (1992).1n touch: Environmental educationfor Europe.
Surrey, UK: WWF, Panda House.
Stem, M. , Powell, R., and Ardoin, N . (2008). What difference does it make? Assessing
outcomes from participation in a residential environmental education
program. Th e Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 39(4): 31-43.
Stufflebeam, D., Madaus, G., and Kella ghan, T. (Ed.). (2000). Evaluationl11odels.
Viewpoints on educationa l and human sen/ices evaluation (2" d Ed.). Boston,
MA: Kluwer Academic Publi shers.
Superintendent of Public Instruction: State of Washington (2009). Certifica tion.
http ://www.kI2.wa .us/certi fication/teacher/ContinuingClockhours .aspx#
maintain . Accessed 5/ 10/2009.
Tanner, T. (1980). Significant life experiences: A new research area in EE. The Journal
o/Environmental Education, 11 (4): 20-24.
Teaching and Learning. (2009). Essential academic learning requirements and grade
level expectations.
108
http://www.k12.wa.us/Curricu1uminstruct/EALR GLE.aspx. Accessed
4/9/2009.
UNESCO. (1975). The Belgrade charter: Aframeworkjor environmental education.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/OOO 1/000177/0 17772eb.pdf. Accessed
4/1912009.
UNESCO. (1977). Intergovernmental conference on environmental education.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ima ges/0003/0003 27/032763eo.pdf. Accessed
4/19/2009.
Washington State Legislature. (1988). RCW 28A.230.020: Common school curriculum.
http: //apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defauILaspx?cite=28A.230.020 . Accessed
4/l6/2009.
Washington State Legislature. (1990). WAC 392-410-115: Mandatory areas ojstudy in
the common school. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/defauILaspx?cite=392- 410
115 . Accessed 4/l612009.
Legislature. (2003). Certification ojenrollment engrossed house bill
Washington
1466: Environmental education.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2003
04/Pdf/BillslHouse%20Passed%20Legislature/ 1466-S.PL.pdf. Accessed
4/l 6/2009.
Washington State Legislature. (2006). Certification ofenrollment engrossed house bill
2910: Environmental education study.
http: //www1. leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/200S
06/Htrn/Bills/Session%20Law%202006/2910.SL.htm. Accessed 4/16/2009.
Washington State Legislature. (2007). Certification ojenrollment second substitute
hill 1677: Outdoor education and recreation program.
http: //apps.leg. wa. gov/documents/billdocs/2007
08/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Law%202007/ 1677-S2.SL.pdf. Accessed
4116/2009.
Washington State Legislature. (2007). PESB standard v.' Teacher education program
standards.
http://www .pesb.wa.gov/ProgramReview/documents/StandardV.pdf. Accessed
4! 16/2009.
Thumlerr, c., Glaser, L., Schoellhamer, M., and Bartosh, O. (2007).
Wheeler,
Environmental education report: Empirical evidence, exemplOly models, and
recommendations on the impact oj environmental education on K- 12
students. Olympia, W A: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sgl/content storage 01 /000
00 19b/8 0/3c/7c/21 .pdf. Accessed 4/5/2009.
YMCA
Colman. (2003). YMCA Camp Colman OEE staffmanual. Accessed
1/19/2009.
YMCA Camp Colman. (2009a). Group
sheet.
http://www .seatt leYmca. org/fi les/40/Group%20Information%20SheeLpdf.
109
Accessed 4/2/2009.
YMCA Camp Colman (2009b) OEE teacher packet.
http ://www .seattleYmca.org/files/40/0 EE%20Teacher%20PackeLpdf.
Accessed 4/2/2009.
YMCA Camp Colman (2009c) Outdoor environmental education .
http://www .seattleYmca.org/page.cfm?ID=0732 . Accessed 3/27/2009 .
110
