See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/350878439

Real World Learning in Outdoor Environmental Education Programs

Book · April 2021

DOI: 10.5817/[Link].M210-9758-2021

CITATIONS READS

0 96

6 authors, including:

Jan Cincera Bruce Johnson

Masaryk University The University of Arizona
108 PUBLICATIONS 772 CITATIONS 46 PUBLICATIONS 1,091 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Roman Kroufek Petra Šimonová

Jan Evangelista Purkyně University Masaryk University
80 PUBLICATIONS 161 CITATIONS 14 PUBLICATIONS 63 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

European Network for Environmental Citizenship View project

EARTHKEEPERS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jan Cincera on 15 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS
This book analyzes the theoretical frameworks shaping
the practice of outdoor environmental education programs.
For the analyses, the authors applied the Real World
Learning Model that defines the quality criteria for this
kind of practice. They also further examined the Model
from the perspectives of relevant theory and research,
as well as from the perspectives of program leaders,
accompanying teachers, and participating students.
Specifically, the authors selected five programs, all three
to five days long, offered by Czech outdoor environmental
education centers for students in the 3rd to 7th grades REAL WORLD
and focused on shaping students’ environmental LEARNING IN OUTDOOR
values and behavior. ENVIRONMENTAL
EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Jan Činčera (Ed.)

92/19/81/2

Masaryk
Muni
Press
Muni
FSS M university
Press
Real World Learning in Outdoor Environmental Education Programs
The Practice from the Perspective of Educational Research
REAL WORLD LEARNING
IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL
EDUCATION PROGRAMS
The Practice from the Perspective
of Educational Research

Jan Činčera (Ed.)

Masaryk University Press

Brno 2021
Reviewers:
Doc. PhDr. Kateřina Jančaříková, Ph.D., Charles University
RNDr. Tomáš Matějček, Ph.D., Charles University

Činčera, J. (Ed.) (2021). Real World Learning in Outdoor Environmental

Education Programs. The Practice from the Perspective of Educational
Research. Brno: Masaryk University.

The book is one of the outputs of the project Promoting Behavioral

and Value Change through Outdoor Environmental Education
which is supported by grant no. GA18-15374S provided
by the Czech Science Foundation.

© 2021 Masaryk University

© 2021 Jan Činčera (Masaryk University), Bruce Johnson (University
of Arizona), Roman Kroufek (University of J. E. Purkyně), Miloslav
Kolenatý (University of J. E. Purkyně), Petra Šimonová (Masaryk
University), Jan Zálešák (Masaryk University)

ISBN 978-80-210-9758-2
ISBN 978-80-210-9757-5 (paperback)
[Link]
 5

ABSTRACT

This book analyzes the theoretical frameworks shaping the practice

of outdoor environmental education programs. For the analyses,
we applied the Real World Learning Model that defines the quality
criteria for this kind of practice. We also further examined the Model
from the perspectives of relevant theory and research, as well as
from the perspectives of program leaders, accompanying teachers,
and participating students. Specifically, we selected five programs,
all three to five days long, offered by Czech outdoor environmental
education centers for students in the 3rd to 7th grades and focused
on shaping students’ environmental values and behavior. Each
program was observed by two independent observers. To obtain
qualitative data, we interviewed 17 program leaders from the observed
programs and 17 school teachers who accompanied their students
during one of the programs. We also organized eight focus groups
for 68 students who participated in the programs. Additionally,
we collected 336 questionnaires from the program participants
and interviewed 22 experts on outdoor environmental education
who were not connected with the analyzed programs.
The first chapter introduces the main methodological approach
used throughout the book, outlining the strengths and the weaknesses
of the Real World Learning Model, and it describes the natural setting
and overall design of each of the selected outdoor environmental
education programs. The second chapter then examines in more detail
the external factors influencing the quality of these programs, such
as weather, the novelty of the place, and the participants’ characteristics.
The main issues discussed include the length of the programs, the
programs’ connectedness to school curricula, and the ambivalent
impact of weather conditions on student experience.
6 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

The third chapter opens the question of the distribution of power

among all the stakeholders: outdoor environmental education program
designers, leaders, accompanying teachers, and participating students.
The chapter compares the assumptions and implications of different
models of power distribution. We argue that while sharing power with
students is a possible and, in some respects, beneficial strategy, it also
leads to specific issues and it is not directly connected with student
satisfaction with these programs.
The fourth chapter focuses on the common but ambiguous practice
of framing the learning experience. It summarizes the main points of
framing theory and the theory’s implications for environmental
communication and education. On the example of the observed
programs, the chapter discusses the various strategies applied for
defining and interconnecting particular surface frames and deep
frames. Based on our findings, we argue that such elaborated frames
are important for certain types of outdoor environmental education
programs, and we point out the issues connected with inappropriate
framing.
The fifth chapter deals with values communication in outdoor
environmental education programs. Mainly, it considers values
formation versus indoctrination in the programs under our
investigation. It shows that, regardless of the leaders’ beliefs, these
programs are rooted in the values of universalism and cannot be
implemented as value-free. Drawing on our findings, we highlight
what factors support values promotion in these programs and discuss
the implications for practice.
The sixth and seventh chapters focus on the process of learning
that emerges in the programs. We have found that this process is
shaped partly by the leaders’ beliefs regarding what experiential
learning means. Particularly, we describe three distinctive leaders’
theories of experiential learning and provide examples of how they
are reflected in the examined programs. We then discuss the problems
connected with conceptual learning in these programs. Based on
conceptual learning theory and our findings, we identify the difficulties
in challenging students’ misconceptions in residential programs
and highlight the importance of properly linking the programs with
school curricula.
REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 7

The eighth chapter summarizes the relevant literature and our

findings related to the participating students’ and the accompanying
teachers’ perceptions of the analyzed programs. We have found that
teachers’, students’, and program leaders’ expectations regarding
these kinds of programs somewhat differ. Overall, both the teachers
and the students highly appreciate the programs and consider them
to be an important part of the school curricula.
The concluding chapter summarizes the implications of the
preceding chapters (the design of the program frames, the distribution
of power in the programs, etc.) and discusses the relationships among
all the threads that are interwoven in the book.
CONTENTS

1 Introduction: Outdoor Environmental Education Programs –

Bridging Theory and Practice...................................................................13
1.1 Outdoor Environmental Education in the Contemporary
World............................................................................................14
1.2 Learning in the Real World: How We Started Our Journey..... 15
1.3 Learning through Research: How Our Journey Continued......17
1.4 About the Colors: What Programs Guided Our Research....... 20
1.4.1 The Yellow Program............................................................. 20
1.4.2 The Green Program.............................................................. 21
1.4.3 The Orange Program........................................................... 22
1.4.4 The Blue Program................................................................. 23
1.4.5 The White Program............................................................. 24
1.5 The Data Behind This Book..................................................... 25

2 People, Place, and the Program: External Factors That Influence

the Effectiveness of Outdoor Environmental Education Programs............. 27
2.1 Introduction .............................................................................. 28
2.2 Students Learn, Students Shape............................................... 28
2.3 Teachers and Leaders: The Adults to Be Followed?............... 32
2.4 The Role of Place........................................................................ 36
2.5 Program Design......................................................................... 39
2.6 Conclusion.................................................................................. 41

3 Power and Empowerment in Outdoor Environmental Education

Programs............................................................................................... 43
3.1 Introduction: The Question of Power-Sharing...................... 44
3.2 Power: To Exert or To Empower?............................................ 45
3.3 The Children or the Adults: How Much Student Autonomy
Is Good?...................................................................................... 47
3.4 The Adults and the Adults: Who Is in Charge?......................51
 3.4.1 The Teachers and the Leaders: Opportunities
for Cooperation, Sources of Tension............................. 52
3.4.2 The Designers, the Leaders, and the Parents
in the Background............................................................ 55
3.5 Conclusion.................................................................................. 56

4 Framing Outdoor Experiences in Outdoor Environmental Education

Programs............................................................................................... 59
4.1 Introduction............................................................................... 60
4.2 Frames Matter.............................................................................61
4.3 Frames in Outdoor Environmental Education...................... 63
4.4 Frames in Practice..................................................................... 66
4.5 Conclusion.................................................................................. 71

5 Values in Outdoor Environmental Education Programs:

Between Education and Advocacy........................................................... 73
5.1 Values Are Controversial – and Necessary.............................74
5.2 The Theory of Universal Values and Its Implications........... 75
5.3 Values Education and Environmental Education................. 78
5.4 Values in Outdoor Environmental Education Practice.........81
5.4.1 Value-Free Outdoor Environmental Education............81
5.4.2 Pluralistic Outdoor Environmental Education............ 82
5.4.3 Normative Outdoor Environmental Education
and the Issue of Inculcation............................................ 84
5.4.4 Does Normativity Matter?.............................................. 87
5.5 Conclusion.................................................................................. 90

6 Experiential Learning in Outdoor Environmental Education

Programs: A Source of Learning and Confusion........................................ 91
6.1 Introduction............................................................................... 92
6.2 What Matters Is What the Teachers Believe.......................... 94
6.3 Experiential Learning as Reflected in Outdoor Program
Leaders’ Personal Theories and in Their Practice................. 96
6.3.1 The Theory of Authentic Learning............................... 96
6.3.2 The Theory of Transformative Experiences................ 99
6.3.3 The Theory of Supportive Experiences...................... 102
6.4 Conclusion................................................................................ 105
7 Conceptual Learning in Outdoor Environmental Education
Programs..............................................................................................107
7.1 Introduction............................................................................. 108
7.2 The Role of Conceptual Learning.......................................... 109
7.3 Conceptual Learning in Outdoor Environmental
Education: What Do Students Learn?....................................110
7.4 Conceptual Learning in Outdoor Environmental
Education: How Do Program Leaders Teach?......................113
7.4.1 Learning Models for Conceptual Change....................113
7.4.2 Supporting Conceptual Learning in Outdoor
Programs...........................................................................117
7.5 Conclusion.................................................................................118

8 Outdoor Environmental Education Programs from the Perspective

of the Participating Students and the Accompanying Teachers................ 119
8.1 Introduction............................................................................. 120
8.2 Why Teachers Choose Particular Outdoor Programs
and What Students Like about Them.................................... 121
8.3 Students, Teachers, and the Outdoor Program................... 123
8.3.1 The Outdoor Program as Experiential Learning...... 123
8.3.2 The Outdoor Program as a Social Game................... 126
8.3.3 The Outdoor Program as a Nature Experience......... 129
8.4 Conclusion................................................................................ 132

9 Discussion and Conclusion: Weaving the Threads Together......................133

9.1 Introduction............................................................................. 134
9.2 The Crossroads and the Threads........................................... 134
9.2.1 The Question of Aims, the Question
of Perspective.................................................................. 134
9.2.2 The Distribution of Power in Outdoor Programs...... 138
9.2.3 The Significance of Strong Experiences
in Outdoor Programs.....................................................141
9.2.4 Framing the Learning Experience in Outdoor
Programs......................................................................... 144
9.2.5 Values Education in Outdoor Programs......................147
9.2.6 Learning in Outdoor Environmental Education....... 150
9.3 Conclusion.................................................................................151
Acknowledgements .......................................................................... 153

Appendix 1
The Research Methodology Applied in the Project:
An Overview of the Instruments......................................................... 155

References........................................................................................ 173

Figures and Tables............................................................................. 191

 13

1 INTRODUCTION:
OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS –
BRIDGING THEORY AND PRACTICE

JAN ČINČERA
Masaryk University Brno, Faculty of Social Studies, Department of Environmental
Studies, Joštova 218/10, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic

Chapter Abstract

Outdoor programs are a traditional form of environmental education.

In this chapter, we open the main question of this book: How should
these programs be designed to fulfill their potential? The chapter outlines
the methodological approach applied, describes the Real World Learning
Model developed to promote the quality of these programs, and introduces
the programs we analyzed to find the answers.
14 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

1.1 OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD
It was a great adventure, and I will never forget it. (a 10-year-old
student, after participating in the Earthkeepers Program)
A few years ago, I visited a forest school on Harakka Island in Helsinki,
Finland (see Figure 1). The natural beauty of this place astonished me.
Big white birds were circling and protecting their nests. A small group
of leaders was running a program for a class of primary school children.
I could see a mixture of feelings in the children’s faces. Excitement.
Interest. Fear. Some were enthusiastic about the opportunity to see
and touch the amazing nature all around. Others were frightened by
the hissing birds and were looking for a hide-out behind the adults.
When the day was over, the group boarded a boat and went back
to Helsinki. What did they take home with them from this experience?

Figure 1 The Outdoor Environmental Education Program on Harakka Island. Photo: Jan Činčera.
1 INTRODUCTION: OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS – BRIDGING THEORY AND PRACTICE 15

How does it help them to be better prepared for the challenges an

uncertain future will bring? Could the program be reshaped to
emphasize or eliminate some of its outputs?
As we tried to tackle these questions, an additional layer of issues
came up. Designing good outdoor environmental education programs
calls for finding solutions to certain dilemmas which have a strong
impact on how the programs work. For example, who shapes, or should
shape, these programs – the children or the adults? What does it
mean to teach experientially? Is it possible to plan what students will
experience in the program? How are values to be dealt with in these
programs? Is it okay to promote a particular set of values or should
the programs be value-free? Without giving away the following
chapters, let us say here that our main finding was that these questions
do not offer easy answers. At the same time, these questions are the
most important ones we must ask.
Let us look at this book as a kind of bridge between theory and
practice. We hope it will be practical and useful for those who design,
lead, and organize outdoor environmental education programs.
We hope these people can find here theoretical insights into their
daily practice that will help them critically assess their work. Yet we
hope this book will also be interesting for students and scholars.
Not all the theoretical frameworks with which we started our
research survived the contact with practitioners’ experience.
We strongly believe that theory and practice cannot thrive
separately. Let us start the journey aiming to bring them together.

1.2 LEARNING IN THE REAL WORLD:

HOW WE STARTED OUR JOURNEY
In 2012, seven European outdoor centers from six countries established
a network focused on outdoor education for sustainability. The network
grew and soon consisted of more than twenty organizations, connecting
practitioners with scholars from fourteen countries, including Croatia,
the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands,
Nigeria, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United
16 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Kingdom (Real World Learning, 2020). The members spent several

years discussing various aspects of outdoor environmental education.
The main purpose of the questions that were discussed in this
network was very closely related to the purpose of this book. What does
quality mean for these programs? How can we know that a program
is good? Are there any distinctive categories of quality, any essential
features of a good outdoor environmental education program?
To answer these questions, the network agreed on certain initial
assumptions. A good program should promote behavioral change
(“behavioral change is a key goal”), develop student competence,
connect students with a place, and focus on science (Real World
Learning Network, 2020). To outline these quality criteria in more
detail, a good program should:
• focus on the scientific concepts of life (understanding);
• promote transferability between local and immediate events
on the one side, and the broader context and consequences on
the other side (transferability);
• promote self-transcendent values (values);
• apply experiential methods to help students connect with
outdoor settings (experience);
• empower students to shape a sustainable future (empowerment);
and
• be connected by a story that ties all of the elements of the program
together (frames). (Real World Learning Network, 2020)

However highly inspiring the Real World Learning Model may be,
it also raises further questions. For example, on the one hand, the
Model recommends allowing students “to take ownership of their
learning”. On the other hand, the Model supports designing carefully
prepared programs promoting particular values, communicating
well-crafted messages, and covering pre-determined scientific concepts
(Činčera, 2015). Do these recommendations align? As Winks (2015)
argued, the Model uses a “blended approach” going beyond theoretical
contradictions, and its usefulness lies in the way it inspires practice.
However, we sensed that what the Model gave us was not the end but
just another step on the journey towards a better understanding of
how to improve outdoor environmental education programs.
1 INTRODUCTION: OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS – BRIDGING THEORY AND PRACTICE 17

1.3 LEARNING THROUGH RESEARCH:

HOW OUR JOURNEY CONTINUED
In this book, we summarize the results of our attempt to identify sound
practices for outdoor environmental education programs. We decided
to take the next step following from the Real World Learning Model
and analyze the quality criteria it suggested.
Not everything on our journey was predictable. We quickly realized
that we must step outside our comfortable role as university scholars
and look at the programs from multiple perspectives (see Figure 2).

Concepts

Impact Theory Practice

Perception

Figure 2 The Interplay of the Perspectives Employed.

Theory brings only one possible perspective to the subject of our

research, i.e., the quality criteria of a program. In addition to the
theories described in scientific journals, there are the theories held
by practitioners. The practitioners’ personal concepts of “how to do
something”, or more specifically, “how to apply a particular principle
in practice”, are more important for the practice itself than the most
frequently cited studies in scholarly journals with the highest impact
factor.
18 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

However, program leaders’ personal concepts of “how to do

something” may not always correspond with “what they actually do”
in their program. Observations of program leaders’ practice provided
an important perspective for our research. Furthermore, “what they
actually do” is not always interpreted in the same way by those
who participate in the programs. It is critical to understand how
the experience in the program is perceived and interpreted by the
participating students and the accompanying teachers.
Moreover, program leaders’ personal theories are driven by the
theories’ expected impact. For example, we may assume that when
students are given more autonomy in an outdoor environmental
education program, they will be more satisfied and may develop more
competences than if the program was completely in the hands of
the program leaders. This assumption may or may not work. First,
following the logic of our analyses, the program leaders may or may
not grasp the intended meaning of autonomy or they may interpret the
theory differently. Second, the program leaders may believe they give
the students plenty of autonomy, while in fact the opposite is true simply
because the leaders are not fully aware of what such autonomy might
look like. Third, even if the students have numerous opportunities to
shape the program by themselves, they may not be satisfied because
they may not be able to use that autonomy effectively. Finally, even the
theory itself may not be suitable for these kinds of programs.
In our research, we started with the Real World Learning Model
quality criteria and investigated them from the following perspec-
tives: What theoretical support do they have? What do practitioners
(outdoor program leaders) think about the criteria? How do they apply
them in their practice? How is this practice experienced by the
participating students and the accompanying teachers (perception)?
In the process, we realized two important things. First, we found
many other factors at play. For example, the Model defined the role of
students. However, what about the role of the accompanying teachers?
As a result, we tried to identify other salient factors for what makes
an outdoor environmental education program good.
Second, we realized that some of the crucial decisions about these
programs are interconnected. Simply put, some of them are a kind of
crossroad; by applying one, we imply the other(s). Therefore, we also
1 INTRODUCTION: OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS – BRIDGING THEORY AND PRACTICE 19

focused on the ways in which the various quality criteria interact with
one another in outdoor environmental education programs.
To do this, we needed data. While everyone in our research team
had experience in the field and had spent considerable time reviewing
the existing literature, we needed to look at some concrete programs
more closely and examine them from all the aforementioned
perspectives. We selected five programs for students in the 3rd to 7th
grades provided by five different outdoor environmental education
centers in the Czech Republic. To ensure that the group of programs
was similar, we searched only for three-to-five-day programs
intentionally focused on shaping the environmental values and
behavior of their participants.
The relationship between researchers and practitioners is not
always easy. Some practitioners may not feel comfortable when their
practice is observed and analyzed. Others may worry about the impact
of the research on their reputation. We were very happy to find partners
interested in cooperating with us. To protect our partners, we decided
to anonymize all the information about the centers and programs
involved. We have changed all of our respondents’ names. Instead of
the programs’ real names, we use a different color for each program.
We hope you will love the Yellow, Green, Orange, Blue, and White
Programs as much as we do (for their overview, see Table 1).

Program Environment Aims Duration

(Days)
Blue Mountains Sense of Place 3
Green Floodplain • Ecological Principles 5
Forest • Environmental Values
Orange Sandstone • Ecological Principles 3
Rocks • Environmental Values and Behavior
Yellow Rural • Outdoor Skills 5
• Affinity with Nature
White Karst Area • Outdoor Skills 5
• Affinity with Nature

Table 1 An Overview of the Analyzed Programs.

20 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

1.4 ABOUT THE COLORS:

WHAT PROGRAMS GUIDED OUR RESEARCH
1.4.1 The Yellow Program

When I first visited the center offering the Yellow Program, I enjoyed
a nice three-hour trip through the forests of the gently undulating
countryside in Central Bohemia. I was welcomed by the bleating of
goats on the small farm associated with the center. The center is one
of the oldest in the Czech Republic. The organization itself consists of
eight branches and employs more than twenty leaders.
In the Yellow Program, students develop their outdoor skills.
They learn the names of edible plants, practice archery, and experience
finding their way with a map and a compass, making a fire, and
sleeping outdoors. The program leaders hope the program will decrease
students’ fear of nature and increase their motivation to spend time
outdoors.
The five-day residential program is framed by the Native American
concept of woodcraft. While this may sound strange for Central
Europe, stories about the Wild West and Native Americans were highly
popular in Czech culture in the 20th century, and some aspects of
this popularity have remained to this day.
In the program, the leaders divide the students into four groups.
Each group identifies as a Native American tribe. Their task is to collect
“eagle feathers” (in fact, they are goose feathers) for achieving different
tasks.
During the first couple of days, students learn to make a fire with
a striker, find their bearings with a map and a compass, build a shelter,
and collect and cook edible plants. The high point of the program is
a two-day hike. Each group splits into smaller teams that hike several
kilometers from the center to a location the students had chosen by
themselves. After they meet the other teams, they cook their food on
a fire and, weather permitting, sleep in the open air.
In the remainder of the program, the students play an adventure
night-time game and a treasure-hunting game, and they track “a deer”.
1 INTRODUCTION: OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS – BRIDGING THEORY AND PRACTICE 21

1.4.2 The Green Program

The Green Program is offered by an outdoor environmental education

center located close to a floodplain forest. The center itself is quite
interesting. It is housed in a much-admired, environmentally friendly
building with a strong emphasis on energy and water conservation.
The area around this building is a kind of open-air museum combining
natural elements with art. I spent several beautiful evenings rambling
around the area. Had I been lucky, I could have watched beavers in
a small pond nearby … but I did find evidence of them living a short
distance from the center.
The center is one of the largest in the Czech Republic. It has about
twenty staff members, five of whom work as program leaders.
The five-day residential Green Program is introduced by a story of
a volcanic eruption in a faraway country. Every morning, the leaders
read the next part of the story, the students sing a song about sailors
sailing to the sea ... and the day’s program activities begin.
In the course of the program, students learn the story of gradual
succession, of life slowly returning to the place where it had been
eradicated by the volcanic eruption. The story loosely links all the
program activities. The students learn to identify plants, observe
earthworms, and look for various life forms in nature. In the mid-
point of the program, they go on a day hike to the floodplain forest.
The leaders show the students what beaver tracks look like and teach
them how the forest is adapted to the regular floods. In the remaining
days, the students learn to cook food, they raft on a small pond, and
the new knowledge they have gained is reinforced by a concluding
game.
The participating students and the accompanying teachers stay
at the center for five days, but the program activities always end in the
afternoon, and the leaders leave the center. Therefore, during the
evenings the accompanying teachers organize their own student
activities which are not connected with the program.
22 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

1.4.3 The Orange Program

The Orange Program is the longest-running program in our research

sample. It was designed in the 1980s and 1990s in the United States
and then spread all over the world. In the Czech Republic, it has been
offered since 2012.
The program develops students’ environmental understanding,
attitudes, values, and behavior. As far as we know from repeated
evaluations from different countries, the program is successful in
bringing about changes that last at least a year after participation
(Manoli et al., 2014; Cincera & Johnson, 2013; Johnson & Cincera, 2015).
Before the program begins, the whole class of students gets a letter
from a mysterious person, E.M., who invites them to a training center
to become Earthkeepers. When the students arrive at the center,
E.M. is out, but E.M.’s lab is open. Here the students are welcomed
to the center and learn that they can earn four keys to become
Earthkeepers: one for gaining knowledge, one for experiencing
the activities, one for their behavior (yourself), and the last one for
sharing with others (Van Matre & Johnson, 1988).
In this two-and-a-half-day program, students go through a carefully
crafted series of experiential activities that are focused on either
developing a conceptual understanding of energy flow, material cycles,
change, and interconnectedness, or on environmental attitudes
(feelings). The students experience solitude in nature (the “Magic
Spot” activity), different types of sensory perception of nature (“Earth
Walks”), and various other activities.
Twice during the program, the students are invited to a small
ceremony during which they get two of the keys. However, when the
program is over, they learn that to earn the other two keys, they must
change something in their behavior and share what they have learned
with someone else in the following weeks and months back at
school and at home. After they have done this, their teachers organize
a final ceremony, and the students become Earthkeepers (Van Matre
& Johnson, 1988).
In the Czech Republic, the program is offered in a beautiful setting,
a summer camp close to a sandstone nature preserve. The environmental
education center situated in the camp provides a plain but comfortable
facility.
1 INTRODUCTION: OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS – BRIDGING THEORY AND PRACTICE 23

1.4.4 The Blue Program

The Blue Program is held in what undoubtedly is one of the most

amazing natural areas in the Czech Republic. The center is situated
in the heart of high mountains known for their rugged and romantic
environment. If you are lucky, there may be sunshine. However, if
you are even luckier, you will experience the mountains in their more
usual, cloudy mood, on foggy and rainy days. The area is famous for
its deep peat moors, waterfalls, and stories, usually sad and dark stories
about the hard life in this area in the past (see Figure 3).
The center is a simple historic house in a small village in the
mountains. Schools choose to send their students to the Blue Program
because they want to show them the mountainous area; the program
tries to meet this expectation.

Figure 3 The Romantic Setting of the Blue Program. Photo: Jan Činčera.
24 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Originally, the program began at school. The students learned

a story about a mystery tree that had lost its roots. Would the students
help the tree to find them? Then later at the center, the students
experienced a set of thematic field trips presenting stories of place
and sensory activities in nature (“Earth Walks”). They learned that
“having our roots somewhere” means knowing the stories of that
place and having experienced something good there. At the end of the
program, to finish their task, the students prepared a follow-up
community-based project at their school that focused on learning
and sharing something about their community with others.
When we evaluated this version of the program six years ago,
we found it had a positive effect on the students’ place-attachment
(Cincera, Johnson, & Kovacikova, 2015). However, the center was
never large, and when the grant project supporting the program was
over, only one of the original three leaders remained. As a result,
the program changed and only the two-and-a-half-day part in the
outdoor center was kept.
In many respects, the Blue Program seems to be in transition
from a more elaborate to a less elaborate design. However limited, the
program still provides students with many experiences and allows
them to enjoy the beautiful natural area.

1.4.5 The White Program

The White Program is organized by a small center in a karst landscape.

The center’s facility is a renovated villa of a former entrepreneur
and inventor. The dramatic story of his life during the turbulent events
of the mid-20th century plays a significant role in the center’s sense
of place. Nowadays, the center is a leader among environmental
education centers in the application of eco-technologies. Its
sophisticated technological solutions for heating and water
consumption are presented in all the programs the center offers.
The center is situated in a long valley created by a small underground
water flow. Students explore and investigate the area’s rich, diverse
ecosystems, and they can enjoy caving or roping down the steep rocks.
At this center, the White Program is a new and experimental
program for primary-school students. The other programs usually
1 INTRODUCTION: OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS – BRIDGING THEORY AND PRACTICE 25

work with older students. In the five-day White Program, the leaders
tell the students about an old diary kept by a (fictitious) youth club
that used to play in this area fifty years ago. Every day, the leaders
introduce the program activities by using stories from the diary.
The students learn a set of outdoor skills to feel more comfortable
in nature. At first, they practice building a tent, cooking food, and
planning a trip. In small groups, they, by themselves, plan a day trip,
including the food they need to take with them. After returning, they
cook their dinner, and then go to sleep in tents. On the last evening,
they decipher a secret message that leads them to a small cave where
they learn from a recorded interview with a local person how children
used to spend their free time outdoors in the past. However, it remains
a secret whether the youth club actually existed or not.

1.5 THE DATA BEHIND THIS BOOK

The Yellow, Green, Orange, Blue, and White Programs were the main
sources of our research. Two of us observed each of the programs and
recorded the program leaders’ practice: how they facilitated students’
experience, what values they promoted, or how they shared power
with their students. To get data for the other perspectives, we used a
wide range of methods:
• To analyze the theory behind the leaders’ personal concepts,
we researched relevant literature and organized four focus
groups with educational experts. Altogether, 22 experts
participated in the focus groups.
• To analyze the leaders’ personal concepts of a good outdoor
environmental education program, we interviewed 17 program
leaders, program designers, and center directors.
• To get data regarding the accompanying teachers’ perceptions
of the programs, we interviewed 17 teachers. To get data
regarding the participating students’ perceptions, we organized
eight focus groups with 68 students in total. Also, we collected
336 questionnaires from the students participating in the
programs.
26 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

For the analyses, we used a mixture of qualitative and quantitative

methods. All the interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded.
Initially, we focused on the criteria defined by the Real World Learning
Model. However, we soon realized we must be more open and flexible.
Some of what emerged in the process surprised us. In other cases,
we had to adjust our original assumptions.
For analyzing statistical data, we again applied a mixture of
methods, including confirmatory factor analyses, multiple regression
analyses, or simple non-parametric methods, like the Mann Whitney
U-Test. For more details about the methodology used, see Appendix 1.
Chapter 7, which focuses on conceptual learning, is based on
a different methodological approach and on data we collected in
2003–2008 as part of analyzing three sequential outdoor environ-
mental education programs (including a version of the Orange
Program) in the United States. In this study, 20 students who had
participated in all three programs were repeatedly interviewed
within a five-year period to identify their conceptual models of matter
and energy (for more details, see Chapter 7). In the analyses, we
focused on how the students’ concepts evolved in time and how their
participation in the programs influenced the process of conceptual
change. While this chapter differs from the others in this book,
we believe that it provides an important supplementary perspective
on outdoor environmental education.
In addition to Chapter 7, we occasionally included examples
from other than the observed set of programs throughout the book.
The reason was to introduce the chapter topics in a more enjoyable
way than with a literature review. Thus, the chapters usually open with
short anecdotes connected with the particular chapter’s authors.
Apart from these exceptions, all the data for this book were
collected in 2018–2019 in the research study conducted in the Czech
Republic that was described above.
Altogether, we found more questions than answers.
We invite you to start this journey with us.
 27

2 PEOPLE, PLACE, AND THE PROGRAM:

EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL
EDUCATION PROGRAMS

JAN ČINČERA and PETRA ŠIMONOVÁ

Masaryk University Brno, Faculty of Social Studies, Department of Environmental
Studies, Joštova 218/10, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic

Chapter Abstract

Drawing on the existing scholarship and the authors’ professional

experience, this chapter discusses the external factors that influence
outdoor environmental education programs: students, teachers and
leaders, and nature. It examines some of the issues that have emerged
in our research, such as the unpreparedness of student groups to learn
in outdoor settings, the market-based framing of the relationship
between schools and outdoor centers, and the ambiguous effects of
pushing students beyond their comfort zones in the outdoors. The chapter
concludes by highlighting some of the key decisions related to program
design, namely the program’s length and the program’s linking with
school curricula.
28 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Let us go back to Jan’s experience with the outdoor program on
Harakka Island. What the students participating in a day of observing
the birds and sea life learned was likely influenced by several mutually
interconnected factors. Later in this book, we will focus on certain
selected factors in detail. But in this chapter, we will briefly summarize
some of the other factors that also play a role.
As in the following chapters, we will combine findings from the
relevant literature, our research study, and our program observations.
We do not want to judge the programs analyzed and label some of
their strategies as good or bad. Rather, we see some of the program-
related decisions as crossroads leading to further implications.
Moreover, not everything that happens in these programs is based
on the intentional decisions of the people involved. Whatever inner
qualities the program on Harakka Island had, the program was
co-constructed by other, external drivers. Let us start with them now.

2.2 STUDENTS LEARN, STUDENTS SHAPE

What surprised Jan most on Harakka Island was how much the
students were unprepared for the outdoor experience. When some of
them approached closer to the nests and the birds hissed their warning,
the students reacted with a mixture of shock and hysteria. Despite the
beauty of the island, the lack of the students’ preparedness for the
outdoor program turned their experience there into fear. Similarly,
students’ fears or phobias related to nature have been reported by other
authors (Rickinson et al., 2004).
The level of students’ previous experience and their preparedness
for participating in an outdoor environmental education program
seems to be important. Participants with previous experience from
these programs may feel more comfortable and, as a result, learn more
(Kruse & Card, 2004; Ardoin et al., 2015).
2 PEOPLE, PLACE, AND THE PROGRAM: EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE EFFECTIVENESS ... 29

The unpreparedness of the students for the outdoor environmental

education program was often mentioned by the program leaders and
environmental education experts we interviewed. Three types of
unpreparedness emerged in these interviews.
According to the program leaders, students often arrive not adequately
dressed for outdoor conditions. The leaders of the Blue Program which
is situated in a cold and wet mountainous area mentioned that their
students quite usually come with clothes suitable for spending a week
in a city (see Figure 4). Inadequate boots, not enough spare clothes to
change into, together with no Wi-Fi signal in the facility, are the main
sources of students’ discomfort. While, as Winks (2018) suggests,
some level of discomfort may become an opportunity to challenge
students’ attitudes, it also means a practical constraint in terms of
student satisfaction, safety, and teachers’ attitudes toward the program.

Figure 4 Natural Conditions in the Area of the Blue Program in May. Photo: Jan Činčera.
30 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

The second area of concern is students’ unpreparedness to learn

outdoors. As the program leaders noted, students come to the outdoor
environmental education center with the expectation of having a
summer camp with a lot of free time and fun games. As Vendy, an
experienced leader in the Orange Program, comments:

I would say that the program supposes that children come to the
eco-center prepared to protect nature. (…) However, this is not the
ambition the students have. They are rather like, OK, we will go for
some kind of trip, something will happen, and then they are surprised
what the program is like. (Vendy, leader, Orange Program)

In the programs we observed, we noticed various methods being

used to make students’ expectations more realistic, or to “hook”
the students from the very beginning of the programs. For example,
the Orange Program intentionally builds up a feeling of adventure
and mystery, which may in some way correspond with students’
“summer camp” expectations, while this strategy is intentionally
employed to frame their experience towards the program aims.
However, the students’ expectations, likely based on their lack of
experience with learning outdoors, are still at play and have certain
consequences regarding sharing power in the program.
The third and the most frequently mentioned issue was the
students’ unpreparedness to cooperate. All the outdoor environmental
education programs we observed assume a high level of students’
cooperation. However, the students seem far too often unprepared for
these cooperative methods and the group effort is hampered by
problems connected with group dynamics.
Erika is an experienced leader working at an environmental
education center organized by a regional museum. She often leads the
center’s two-day residential program in a nearby forest. According to
her,
Our experience with the residential programs has been that eight out
of ten groups are practically dysfunctional, i.e., they cannot work in
small groups, they have five or more disruptive individuals, so the
leaders are practically forced to improvise with whole groups. (Erika,
program leader, regional museum)
2 PEOPLE, PLACE, AND THE PROGRAM: EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE EFFECTIVENESS ... 31

As a result, Erika and the other program leaders have to apply a

flexible strategy that is based on their identification of the group
dynamics and that interlays the activities focused on achieving the
program’s learning goals with intentionally developing the students’
ability to cooperate. Erika feels that by including this group-dynamics
dimension, she compromises the program’s environmental dimension:

To build a program on concurrently developing group work and

managing environmental education goals is dangerous because as
the children realize they are making progress in the group work, it
becomes the dominant topic for them. (Erika, program leader, regional
museum)

This dilemma was mentioned also by other program leaders in our

study. As we could see, the program designers apply a wide variety
of solutions. The Orange Program intentionally does not employ
team-working activities and focuses on environmental goals only.
As a result, the Orange Program contains the fewest activities
expecting students’ team cooperation of all the programs we observed.
However, as the leaders in this program reported, this strategy is one
of the weaknesses of the program because students are often not
used to cooperating and the conceptual learning activities at the
beginning of the program tend to be less well accepted by students.
The other programs we observed, particularly the Green and the
Blue Programs, try to incorporate some elements of group develop-
ment. At the beginning, the program leaders offer several activities
practicing students’ cooperative skills, and they facilitate debriefing
on what the group has done and what it could do better in the future.
These activities are well accepted by the students, but they also are not
much connected with the rest of the program.
A third possible strategy is applied in the White Program. Here
the program leaders do not use any particular team-building activities,
but all the activities the students do to practice their outdoor skills
(cooking a dinner, building a tent) contain a strong element of group
work, and the students occasionally reflect on that.
As a result, we could see three distinctive strategies for dealing with
a group unprepared to cooperate: avoidance, inclusion, and integration.
32 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

It is not possible to say which of these strategies works best. We

assume that it depends on the program’s goals; likely, the program
leaders’ experience and beliefs influence the decision. At the same
time, the chosen strategy for dealing with the dilemma of unprepared
groups is probably one of the central program crossroads affecting
the whole program design.
In addition to the level of preparedness of the student group as a
whole, the students’ individual characteristics may affect the program.
Age, gender, preferred learning styles, phobias, physical disabilities,
and ethnic and cultural identity have often been mentioned in this
respect (Rickinson et al., 2004). According to Rickinson et al. (2004),
gender does not matter. However, this has been contradicted by our
findings which show that girls tend to be more satisfied with outdoor
programs than boys.
The size of the group and the related leader-student ratio may also
influence the program. However, well-prepared conditions for social
learning may reverse the negative effects of big groups in outdoor
environmental education (Stern, Powell, & Ardoin, 2008).

2.3 TEACHERS AND LEADERS: THE ADULTS TO BE FOLLOWED?

Longer stays and active engagement of visiting teachers in on-site
instruction enhanced most outcomes. (Stern, Powell, & Ardoin, 2008)

This story happened to Jan when he observed a one-day outdoor

environmental education program in a natural area with dunes and
pine forests. The program leader organized the group of teenagers
into a semi-circle and started to explain the uniqueness of the dune
in the area, how it evolved, and what animals live in it. After a short
time, the students started to get bored. To be honest, Jan expected
them to grow bored long before then. The leader had arranged the
group so that everyone could see her. However, the students had
the dune behind them the whole time, and so they could not see what
the lecture was about (see Figure 5). The effect of outdoor environ-
mental education programs depends to a large degree on effective
2 PEOPLE, PLACE, AND THE PROGRAM: EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE EFFECTIVENESS ... 33

implementation, and this means the quality of the program leaders’

work (Rickinson et al., 2004).
Leaders and teachers are the adults accompanying students in
outdoor environmental education programs. We will focus on their
interaction in the next chapter, but let us look at some of the other
associated issues here.
Leadership skills and authenticity are the most often mentioned
crucial features of good leaders. As was demonstrated by Jan’s
experience described above, lack of leadership skills can have a
devastating effect. In the programs we observed, we could see many
examples of brilliant leadership work. The program leaders were
appreciative, organized the students into a circle for discussions, and
used simple, easy-to-understand language. However, in some cases,
we could also see examples of lack of good leadership.

Figure 5 The Dune Is Behind the Students. Photo: Jan Činčera.

34 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

In one case, the observer described the style of a young program

leader as boring and resigned, expressing the feeling that the group
of students would find the activity stupid. Another leader would run
ahead of the group on the field trips and started his lectures before
the last students arrived. Some of the leaders tended to use directive
language, phrases like “now you will do”, instead of “now you can”.
The practice of many program leaders is likely to be influenced by
the learning concepts they hold. Lucie, an experienced evaluator
of environmental education programs, commented that some of the
leaders believed they applied a particular learning method (for
example, the Flow Learning Model by Joseph Cornell, 2012), but in
fact, they did not keep to it and had modified it so much that they
compromised its effect. We will analyze the issue of program leaders’
personal concepts in one of the following chapters.
However, according to the majority of our respondents, the most
important element is the program leaders’ authenticity. As Lucie puts
it:
Naturally, the personality of the leader. When the leader has no trust
in children, it is a big barrier to everything. The leader must be
authentic but must be also trustworthy for the children. (Lucie,
program evaluator)

Program leaders must like their work, despite usually being poorly
paid for it. They must love nature, the locality, and model this love
for the students. They must like children and working with them.
The ethos of the leaders’ work is strong and inspired by the perceived
mission of the center to protect nature and prevent its destruction by
environmental problems.
It should be mentioned that, from the students’ perspective, the
outdoor leaders in all the observed programs in our study were skilled
and caring. With a few exceptions, the students described their
program leaders as friendly, enjoyable, patient, and caring. They also
believed the leaders were capable and dedicated managers, experts
with a rich knowledge of the locality and of science, and good teachers.
According to Michal, a 12-year-old student participating in the White
Program:
2 PEOPLE, PLACE, AND THE PROGRAM: EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE EFFECTIVENESS ... 35

When we were on the field trip, (…) they explained to us everything,

everything in detail, they added some interesting points, and they
were very friendly, kind. (Michal, student, about White Program)

Negative comments by students were rare and usually connected

with the students’ unfulfilled wish to have the leaders’ attention all
the time. For example, one of the student respondents criticized
a leader for being unable to remember everyone’s names. In another
case, a student criticized a leader who sometimes hid “in the corner”
to check his smartphone.
The role of the accompanying teachers is sometimes difficult and
we will discuss some of its aspects in the next chapter. To a certain
degree, the teachers influence the program before, during, and after;
in light of this, their role is far from marginal. As Lucie described her
experience from evaluating an environmental education program:

The teacher who supported her class, kept up their motivation (…),
then her students were more successful than when another teacher
said, we did not get it, we had no capacity. At the same time, when a
school arrives to a residential program [it makes a difference] whether
or not the teachers go and watch, it is interesting for them to take
inspiration, to link it with their lessons. However, I was on programs
when the teachers disappeared and were happy to just relax. (Lucie,
program evaluator)

Similarly to the program leaders’ role, two aspects seem to be crucial

here: the teachers’ expertise and their attitudes towards outdoor
environmental education. According to the leaders, the accompanying
teachers often lack the competence for teaching outdoors or for
developing their students’ competence for outdoor learning. Erika
supposes it is because the teachers are much more experienced in
transmitting knowledge to students than in developing the students’
competences and skills, i.e., the areas essential for environmental
education. Some of the teachers are unable to specify what such a
program should achieve; they sort of want to have any kind of
environmental education just to fulfill the mandatory part of the
national curricula.
36 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Based on our observations, with the exception of the White Program,

most of the accompanying teachers were silent observers of the
programs rather than participating as the leaders’ active partners.
Some of the leaders also complained about the teachers’ disruptive
behavior, which was mostly connected with the teachers’ lack of
experience with outdoor activities and with their unreasonable safety
concerns:

Sometimes it may be hampered by the accompanying teacher who

does not want to go outdoors, is not inclined toward it, and it may
influence the atmosphere in the class – if the teacher does not want to,
the children may get the same feeling. (Peter, leader, Green Program)

Most of the accompanying teachers we interviewed were satisfied

with this passive role and did not want to be more actively engaged.
At the same time, this did not imply a lack of interest in the program.
The teachers’ shared attitude was that the school booked the programs
as a kind of service provided by the center, the programs are
professionally designed and led, and there is not much reason to
interfere.

2.4 THE ROLE OF PLACE

Even though Jan did not participate actively in the program, the
beautiful environment of Harakka Island moved him deeply, a feeling
he carried with him upon leaving. He felt he could spend the whole
day on this magical island doing nothing, just sitting and watching
the birds and the sea. In many respects, place plays an important role
in the effect an outdoor environmental education program has on the
participants.
As some studies indicate, the role of the natural conditions may
be both supportive and disruptive. At first, the novelty of a place for
students may attract their attention, but it may also harm their learning
(Rickinson et al., 2004). According to Boeve-de Pauw et al. (2018),
while some novelty is positive, too much of it may complicate
students’ cognitive learning. However, this question is a complex one.
2 PEOPLE, PLACE, AND THE PROGRAM: EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE EFFECTIVENESS ... 37

Dale et al. (2020) found that the novelty of a place is one of the factors
positively contributing to the effectiveness of a program. In their
study, they also analyzed the overall features of the kind of place that
enhances a program’s success. Together with the uniqueness and
novelty of the place, it is also the natural state of the place (not
disturbed by humans), and a well-prepared linking of the program
activities with the specifics of the place (place-based learning).
This last aspect of linking the program with the place was mentioned
also by the respondents in our study. According to some of them,
an outdoor program should be attractive in some way, but it does
not necessarily need to be unique. For example, Erika reported she
often goes with students to the places near their schools:

If they come to us once and experience something here, that is great.

However, if we show them something close to their school that is
interesting to them, then the impact is much stronger because they
can go there regularly, and then something reveals itself there. At one
school, we showed the students a place where frogs migrate, and then
it started to be an important place and the children started to visit it.
(Erika, program leader, regional museum)

This support for a place-based learning strategy was further

highlighted by Pavel, a young teacher accompanying his students
in the White Program. He much appreciated the way the program
connects general environmental topics with the place, giving the
students a chance to see for themselves the effects of the drought.
The influence of the weather, or, more broadly, pushing students
outside of their comfort zones due to unexpected natural conditions,
is another much-discussed topic. There is no clear answer here, either.
As we mentioned above, some authors believe in the importance
of experiencing a certain level of discomfort in outdoor learning
(Winks, 2018). Others see potential risks. Talebpour et al. (2020)
presented findings showing that participants in an outdoor program
who experienced heavy rains reported a decrease in their nature-
connectedness after the program. As the authors suggest, while mild
weather conditions may not affect students’ experience, weather
perceived as “bad” may have a detrimental effect.
38 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Both poles of this discussion are reflected in our respondents’

opinions. For Erika and some of the other program leaders, the
experience of being caught in the rain outdoors might be unique in
the students’ life:

So the 2nd grader tells us that this is the first time he has been caught
in the rain. So he intentionally takes off his raincoat and walks in
the rain for the first time in his life, and it is his strongest experience
in the two-day program. So, this pushing beyond the comfort zones,
too – for them it is the unusual activities – is the ‘bonus’ of these
programs. (Erika, program leader, regional museum)

However, other respondents in our study reported that some of

the outdoor experience is too far beyond the comfort zone of the
majority of society. As a result, even a relatively common situation
like being caught in the rain outdoors must be experienced before
the group is prepared for further, more intensive experience.
Besides the outdoor environment, the center’s facility also plays
a role in the effectiveness of the programs organized at the center.
In our research study, the students enjoyed the immediate surroundings
of the centers, particularly because the surroundings provided
opportunities for free play in nature. Some students also mentioned
the effort of the center to apply the principles of environmentally
friendly management.
However, most of the students commented negatively on the less
comfortable aspects of the facility. Namely, the unusual local or
organic (and perceived as tasteless) food was often mentioned. The
student respondents from one of the programs also disliked their
accommodation in shared rooms for a rather large number of students.
Last but not least, the weak or missing Wi-Fi signal was repeatedly
a subject of students’ complaints.

2.5 PROGRAM DESIGN

The distinctive qualities of effective outdoor environmental education
programs and the main decisions regarding such programs’ design
are the main focus of this book. In this section we touch upon three
2 PEOPLE, PLACE, AND THE PROGRAM: EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE EFFECTIVENESS ... 39

particular factors that we are not going to return to later on but that
seem to be supported across research studies and program leaders’
opinions.
The length of the program is the first one. Most authors agree that
longer programs are more effective than short ones; specifically,
five-day program versions have a stronger effect than three-day
versions (Rickinson et al., 2004; Bogner, 1998; Bogner & Wiseman,
2004; Bogner & Wiseman, 2006; Stern, Powell, & Ardoin, 2008;
Sellman & Bogner, 2013). According to the meta-evaluation conducted
by Zelezny (1999), programs with a measurable behavioral effect lasted
at least ten hours, which corresponds with at least a two-day residential
program. While some effects have been found even in shorter outdoor
environmental education programs (Stern, Powell, & Ardoin, 2008;
Sellman & Bogner, 2013), the advantage of longer programs prevails.
Of the observed programs in our study, only the Orange Program
was designed as a three-day program. The Blue Program was originally
five days, but then the center started to offer it also in a shorter,
three-day version. Nowadays, the program is almost completely
conducted in the shorter version. According to the program leaders,
schools want to save money and time, and so they prefer shorter stays
over longer ones, even though longer programs are more effective.
The pressure by schools to shorten the programs was mentioned
also by other program leaders. As Lucie noticed, while many programs
are often initially designed as five-day programs, when a school insists
on a shorter version, the center tries to fulfill this request and adjust
the program. However, such an adjustment often compromises the
logic of the program:

They pick some activities, or the school says what it wants, but the
organization does not think about the gross of the program, what
students should learn if they are there for three days instead of a week.
(Lucie, program evaluator)

From a certain perspective, the centers work in a market environ-

ment (Činčera, 2013a). They offer their programs to schools and are
dependent on the income from the schools. As a result, they often find
themselves being forced to compromise the quality of the program
40 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

to meet the wishes of their customer. Moreover, this market-based

framing for outdoor environmental education programs may
contribute to the perception of the accompanying teachers as distanced
from the program, not as real partners.
Additionally, other preconditions of running a successful program
include the level of the program’s internal consistency, its elaborateness,
and the logic of the assumed relationship between the program’s goals
and activities (Rickinson et al., 2004).
This finding was confirmed by the program leaders in our research
study. Josef is a highly experienced director and program designer at
a large environmental education center. His center has run residential
programs for almost thirty years. According to him, a major challenge
in designing residential programs is:

To make them not like a mosaic of unconnected pieces, but to design

them according to a logical framework, to get to our understanding
of what a program wants to achieve, but also to the demanding journey
of how the individual program blocks and activities can contribute,
and I think, it is a never-ending struggle. (Josef, program director
and designer)

The program leaders we interviewed also suggested that a well-

designed program should have a clear message of what it wants to
communicate, and a well-prepared flow of activities.
The final important factor we want to mention in this section is
linking environmental education programs with school curricula,
particularly by providing pre-program and follow-up activities at
school. This idea is again supported by substantial research findings
(Rickinson et al., 2004; Menzies et al., 2017; Dettman-Easler & Pease,
1999; Stern, Powell, & Ardoin, 2008; Smith-Sebasto & Cavern, 2006),
and it was echoed by the program leaders in our study.
Regarding this topic, Jarek, an educational expert responsible for
the department of science education in his agency, points out:

It (the program) must be put into the context of the timeline, so as

they (students) dealt with this topic in their school, it must be linked
with the program. (…) This cooperation between teachers and leaders
is essential (…) because, I believe, this is the meaning, it should not
2 PEOPLE, PLACE, AND THE PROGRAM: EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE EFFECTIVENESS ... 41

be something separate to teach outdoors (…), it should fit together.

(Jarek, educational expert)

However, of the programs we observed, only the Orange Program

contains pre-program and follow-up activities for teachers. While the
leaders of the other programs agreed that such activities are important,
they also found it difficult to design them and to persuade the teachers
to include them in their curricula.

2.6 CONCLUSION
Factors such as the natural characteristics of the setting of outdoor
environmental education programs, the competences and attitudes
of the program leaders and of the accompanying teachers, student
group cohesion, and the distinctive features of the particular program
all influence the programs’ effectiveness.
For some of these factors, the existing research findings and the
program leaders’ opinions seem to be quite clear. To maximize its
potential, a program should be longer rather than shorter, well-
prepared, and linked with school curricula. In other areas, however,
we have found contradictions or issues with much less-clear solutions.
For instance, there is no clear answer regarding how to deal with
students’ unpreparedness for cooperative work in outdoor settings –
each of the above-mentioned approaches has its limitations.
There is also little agreement on whether or how much students
should be pushed beyond their comfort zones; the answer seems to be
hidden somewhere in between the two extremes.
One of the most challenging issues is the relationship between
the program leaders and the accompanying teachers. It seems to be
affected by a market-based framing which influences the distribution
of roles and power in the programs.
In the following chapters, we will analyze in more detail some of
the issues that emerged in the course of our research.
 43

3 POWER AND EMPOWERMENT

IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
PROGRAMS

JAN ČINČERA1, PETRA ŠIMONOVÁ1,

BRUCE JOHNSON2, ROMAN KROUFEK3
1
Masaryk University Brno, Faculty of Social Studies, Department of Environmental
Studies, Joštova 218/10, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic
2
University of Arizona, College of Education, P.O. Box 210069, Tucson, Arizona,
USA
3
University of J. E. Purkyně, Faculty of Education, Department of Preschool and
Primary Education, Pasteurova 1, 400 96 Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic

Chapter Abstract

Student empowerment as an outcome of outdoor environmental

education programs is connected with the question of who has control
over these programs. In this chapter, we analyze how power is distributed
among program designers, leaders, participating students, and
accompanying teachers. We show that no model of dealing with the
dynamic relationships among these program stakeholders can be
considered wrong per se but that each brings with it particular
implications for the other aspects of program design and implementation.
44 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

3.1 INTRODUCTION: THE QUESTION OF POWER-SHARING

Empowerment brings the learners to the center of the learning
experience: it’s about recognizing and realizing their humanity and
their ability to take action for positive change. Empowering learners
enables them to cooperate and to take ownership of their learning.
Everybody can make a change. To experience this can help learners
to shape the future in a sustainable way. (Real World Learning Model,
2020b)

I think when it (the program) is strictly set, then everyone is prepared

for it, everyone knows what will happen. If they (students) had to
decide by themselves, I think it would cause conflicts, so that one
group would be angry with the other that they decided it that way or
that they were voted down, so it would bring discord into their
cooperation. (teacher, 5 years of practice)

There is a fundamental question that everyone responsible for designing

an outdoor environmental education program needs to consider:
Who is in charge? In other words: Who decides what aims should be
achieved and what activities should be implemented? Who decides
when to investigate the local pond and when to set out for a field trip?
Who has this decision-making power over the program, and how and
with whom is this power shared?
To questions such as these, there are no easy answers. When Jan
first participated in an outdoor environmental education program
in his teens, everything seemed to be clear. The program leaders,
called “the instructors”, prepared an elaborate series of games and
other activities, and the students played and enjoyed them. However,
is this the only way? Should the students not have a part in shaping
the program they are participating in?
In this chapter, we investigate the question of power-sharing from
four perspectives: that of program designers, program leaders, accom-
panying teachers, and students. We will look into the dynamics of
the process of negotiation for influence over the program. But before
this, we will introduce the ongoing debate on empowerment.
3 POWER AND EMPOWERMENT IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 45

3.2 POWER: TO EXERT OR TO EMPOWER?

According to many scholars, empowerment is a central goal of outdoor
environmental education (Shellman, 2014; Daniel et al., 2014; Sibthorp
& Arthur-Banning, 2004). Empowerment is usually defined as a sense
of personal control, one’s belief in having the opportunity to promote
desirable changes in one’s life situation. While the terminology has
not been completely settled, empowerment is often associated with
psychological concepts like self-efficacy, self-determination, sense of
ownership, or locus of control (Broom, 2015; Kohn, 1991; Shellman,
2014; Sibthorp & Arthur-Banning, 2004). Simultaneously, these
concepts are usually considered the main preconditions of responsible
environmental behavior (Allen & Ferrand, 1999; Boeve-de Pauw,
Donche, & van Petegem, 2011; Chiang et al., 2019; Cottrell & Graeffe,
1997; Hsu, 2004; Marcinkowski, 2009).
In light of this, it seems clear that sound outdoor environmental
education programs should support student empowerment (Real
World Learning Model, 2020b; Kendall & Rodger, 2015; Menzies,
Bowen-Viner, & Shaw, 2017). Therefore, students should have
a substantial level of control over their learning. They should have an
opportunity to participate in decision-making about the program
goals and activities, and they should have a high level of autonomy in
the learning process (Daniel et al., 2014; Povilaitis & Hodge, 2019;
Sibthorp & Arthur-Banning, 2004; Kohn, 1991; Sibthorp et al., 2008;
Thomas, 2010).
In the context of outdoor environmental education programs,
this autonomy may be provided in many ways. Students may be involved
in the planning of their program. The program may consist of activities
assuming a high degree of student autonomy, such as a solo hiking
expedition or various personal challenges. Students may become leaders
of the program activities. Adult leaders may minimize autocratic
leadership styles and promote discussions with students (Kohn, 1991;
Priest & Gass, 2005; Thomas, 2010; Daniel et al., 2014). While the
evidence is still limited, it is presupposed that a higher level of student
autonomy positively correlates with student satisfaction, action
competence, and feeling of empowerment (Cincera & Kovacikova, 2014;
Cincera & Krajhanzl, 2013; Cincera et al., 2017; Cincera et al., 2019).
46 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

However, the recommendation to promote student autonomy is

often ignored in practice. Schools usually expect that an outdoor
environmental education program will achieve certain specific
goals and the outdoor centers select the best activities to fulfill this
expectation. From this perspective, well-designed programs with
developed and inter-linked activities are more likely to achieve their
goals (Rickinson et al., 2004). Many studies support this view (Bogner,
1998; Bogner & Wiseman, 2004; Bogner & Wiseman, 2006; Dettman-
Easler & Pease, 1999; Emmons, 1997; Ferreira, 2012; Manoli, Johnson,
& Hadjichambis, 2014). In light of this, one could argue that outdoor
environmental education programs should be designed by experts
experienced in outdoor learning methods and knowledgeable about
the locality where a particular program takes place.
Furthermore, given the limited length of most programs, it is often
difficult for outdoor program leaders to use a participative approach
with students whom they do not know well and without having a prior
chance to assess the students’ competence. Not only may the students
not be prepared to make reasonable choices, but their lack of competence
may also lead them to safety risks (Thomas, 2010; Daniel et al., 2014;
Menzies, Bowen-Viner, & Shaw, 2017; Loewenberg Ball, Thames, &
Phelps, 2008; Hill & Chin 2018).
To sum up, while student empowerment is considered a highly
valuable goal, it is not clear how it should be achieved in outdoor
environmental education programs. While some authors believe that
the right way is to use well-developed programs designed by experienced
experts, others believe in the importance of student autonomy and
student participation in the decision-making about the program’s
goals and activities.
To make this issue even more complex, it is not always obvious
who the experienced experts are. Should it be the program leaders,
with their immediate understanding of the weather conditions and
of the reactions of the particular student group? Should it be the
accompanying teachers, who have the most qualified knowledge of
their students’ learning capacity and educational needs? Or the
students’ parents? Or specialists in program design? Let us look at this
issue from the perspectives of the involved groups themselves.
3 POWER AND EMPOWERMENT IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 47

3.3 THE CHILDREN OR THE ADULTS:

HOW MUCH STUDENT AUTONOMY IS GOOD?
While the participative approach that provides students with a high
level of autonomy in outdoor environmental education programs has
been widely recommended by researchers as a sound strategy that
empowers students, it has also been questioned by some authors. Even
more importantly, according to some surveys, this participative approach
is not much used in practice (Menzies, Bowen-Viner, & Shaw, 2017).
These findings correspond with our observations. Of the five
programs we analyzed, only the White Program provided students
with some level of autonomy. In this program, the program leaders’
(and accompanying teachers’) effort to share their power was obvious
and intentional. Marek, a highly experienced leader and the designer
of the program, admitted being influenced by his experience abroad
and by published recommendations. According to him, the need for
student autonomy goes hand in hand with the need for the authenticity
of the students’ experience and of the program itself:

I think the program is strong in providing students with a considerably

high level of autonomy and shared responsibility for the program.
And this is what builds their feeling that they manage something or
that they accomplished it. (…) And they do not have a feeling that
someone prepared something for them, something that they are
supposed to do (…), and they feel that they experience it on their own,
that this experiencing is their own business. (Marek, designer and
leader, White Program)

However, even in the White Program, the opportunities for

students’ decisions were limited and the leaders differed in the ways
in which they offered these opportunities to the students. Nevertheless,
some of the participative features of the White Program were
remarkable. When we compare the White Program with the Yellow
Program, we see that while both have a similar focus on outdoor skills,
they differ in the level of student autonomy permitted. When the
students planned their field trip in the White Program, they (in small
groups) could decide what places they wanted to visit and where to
go. They could also decide what food to take with them and what to
48 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

carry in their bags. In contrast, the students in the Yellow Program

were assigned the locations they had to visit and were given all the
food by the program leaders. The only thing left for the students to do
was to find their way. In the Blue Program and the Green Program,
the field trips were fully organized by the program leaders and the
students had no opportunity to influence where to go or what to do.
Overall, in the programs we observed we found the following
strategies for sharing some degree of power with the students:
• Responsibility for simple tasks. In the Green, Yellow, and Blue
Programs, students had no right to decide what to do. However,
when given a task, they had the freedom to decide how to do it.
This freedom was limited to rather simple activities, like making
a fire or finding their way to the assigned destination.
• Responsibility for complex tasks. In the White Program, the
students were given loosely defined tasks, such as organizing
a day hike. They could decide where to go, which way to go, and
what food to take with them. The leaders provided guidance
but respected the students’ choices.
• Responsibility for follow-up tasks. In the Orange Program (and
in the original version of the Blue Program), the students had
no freedom to shape the residential part of the program
beyond their responsibility for simple tasks. However, at the
end of the residential part, they were encouraged to choose
their own follow-up tasks (to find a way to decrease their energy
consumption at home).

Our observations were limited to five programs for young students.

Based on our experience, other strategies are also used in other
programs, especially programs for older students. For example,
in a five-day inquiry-based outdoor program for secondary school
students that Jan visited in Scotland (see Figure 6), the students could
substantially shape their inquiry project, including formulating
their hypothesis, designing their research, etc. As Mirek (Yellow
Program) told us, his center offers similarly designed programs with
a significantly higher level of student autonomy than we could see
in the Yellow Program. This shows that the strategy of “responsibility
for shaping the process” is also a viable option.
3 POWER AND EMPOWERMENT IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 49

Figure 6 A High School Student Is Independently Collecting Data in an Inquiry-Based Outdoor

Program. Photo: Jan Činčera.

However, it is difficult to assess which strategy is most successful.

Based on our observations, students liked their programs regardless
of the approach used. Our statistical analyses did not find a relationship
between perceived student autonomy and student satisfaction in any
of the five observed programs. While these results contradict the
previous findings from our Eco-School research (Cincera & Kovaci-
kova, 2014; Cincera & Krajhanzl, 2013; Cincera et al., 2017; Cincera
et al., 2019), they may be explained by the different nature of these
residential programs that last several days and take place in an
unfamiliar environment, in contrast to students’ long-term work at
school, which was the case with the Eco-School program. In addition,
the students’ age may be an important factor, too. Older students
may expect to be given more autonomy than younger ones.
50 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Let us look at David and Pavel, two boys of the same age who
participated in a field trip organized as part of their respective outdoor
programs. David experienced some level of autonomy in the White
Program, as we described above:

The best for me was (…) the full-day expedition, that we could plan
it ourselves. (David, student, about White Program)

David enjoyed the autonomy provided by the program leaders.

However, he also reported clashes in his group among students with
different kinds of motivation and different levels of the capacity to
enjoy a long field trip.
Pavel participated in the Blue Program which provided almost no
autonomy as the program was composed of completely pre-arranged
activities. Nevertheless, Pavel enjoyed his leader-directed program,
too. He appreciated the activities prepared by the leaders during the
field trip, and he liked that the trip was not only about going somewhere,
but it was also fun.
This is not to say that the level of student autonomy does not matter.
Almost all the students we interviewed agreed that they would
appreciate having more freedom to shape their program by themselves
– by adding more time for playing cards or mobile-phone games, and
for other social activities with their peers. Students tend to interpret
the outdoor program as a kind of school trip. They accept that the
program is organized by the leaders and they appreciate it when the
activities are fun and the leaders are friendly. However, students
want to have some time for themselves, too, not just for learning.
What do school teachers and program leaders think about this?
Generally, all the teachers we interviewed were skeptical about
student autonomy in outdoor environmental education programs.
They appreciated that the programs were well-prepared and questioned
the ability of their students to decide about the program activities in
a meaningful way.
The opinions of the outdoor program leaders and educational
experts we interviewed were mixed. Many of the leaders assumed
that programs must be well-prepared to be effective. As they saw it,
while the leaders should decide on the program goals and activities,
3 POWER AND EMPOWERMENT IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 51

the students should have the right to do the tasks on their own and to
perceive and interpret them on their own. For example, according to
Peter, a relatively new leader in the Green Program, if he gave students
more autonomy:

It would go somewhere where I do not want it to go, and (…) I still

have some goals, (I want to) lead students somewhere, whether to
(obtain new) knowledge or skills, and I worry that if the youngsters
could decide, they would decide on something I do not want. (Peter,
leader, Green Program)

Similarly, Irena, an experienced leader in the Yellow Program, is

highly skeptical of the students’ capacity to participate meaningfully
in decision-making:

I cannot imagine designing this program according to children,

I do not know how to do this. They usually want to do nothing, just
to play ball, and they are satisfied. (Irena, leader, 5 years of practice,
Yellow Program)

Other program leaders and educational experts in our study

believed that providing autonomy to students is worthwhile but
difficult to do in practice. The experts mentioned safety concerns and
the responsibility that the program leaders have for the students.
Additional barriers often include the program leaders’ lack of
familiarity with the student group, and the group’s unpreparedness
to participate in decision-making. Last but not least, some of the leaders
admitted they did not know how to work with students in this way.
If the effectiveness of giving students the opportunity to have some
control over the program is questioned, then how should power be
distributed among the adults involved?

3.4 THE ADULTS AND THE ADULTS: WHO IS IN CHARGE?

The distribution of power in outdoor environmental education
programs among the stakeholders who are adults presents another
interesting issue. Four groups of adults share some level of control
52 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

over these programs. Program designers prepare the programs and

define the program goals and activities. Program leaders implement
them and make daily, immediate decisions based on particular
contexts and student groups. The accompanying teachers have the
main responsibility for the students and their learning. Additionally,
the students’ parents have the right to decide whether the students
will participate or not. The parents are also the main influencing factor
regarding the way the students interpret their outdoor experience
and regarding the long-term effect of their learning.

3.4.1 The Teachers and the Leaders: Opportunities

for Cooperation, Sources of Tension

According to Kendall and Rodger (2015), effective outdoor environ-

mental education programs should involve the accompanying teachers
in the process of planning the program. However, in many cases,
the programs are designed by the external outdoor organization only
(Menzies, Bowen-Viner, & Shaw, 2017).
When it comes to the relationship between school teachers and
program leaders, or schools and centers, there are several options.
As Ballantyne and Packer (2006) suggest, there are three possible
models according to which the cooperation between outdoor environ-
mental education centers and schools may operate:
• the destination model in which the schools see the centers as
providers of external programs in attractive localities;
• the expert/advisory model in which the schools try to obtain
inspiration and advice from the centers regarding environmental
management and teaching methods; and
• the partnership model which is based on close cooperation
between the schools and the centers.

Ballantyne and Packer (2006) recommend the partnership model

in which the on-site program is just one part of a broader learning
experience that influences the whole school community.
However, this kind of partnership interaction between teachers
and program leaders may be difficult as the two sides may differ in
their respective expectations about the program. For example, Slattery
3 POWER AND EMPOWERMENT IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 53

(2002) found that park rangers responsible for interpretative programs

expect a higher level of shared responsibility for the program than
what the accompanying teachers can offer. Moreover, the park
rangers reported that the teachers sometimes interpret the program
inadequately and focus on the recreational rather than the ecological
value of national parks.
Based on our findings, the destination model dominates. Most
of the teachers we interviewed admitted that they are happy that the
outdoor environmental education program is led by someone else.
Some of the accompanying teachers mentioned that their role in the
program is very demanding as it is because of their responsibility
for the students the whole time and because of the associated paper-
work. One teacher even suggested that the programs should be
completely prepared by the outdoor center to minimize the accom-
panying teachers’ work.
From the perspective of most of the program leaders, the best role
the accompanying teachers can play is not to interrupt the program
and to limit their interventions during the program. As Valerie,
a young leader in the Orange Program, believes:

When they participate or when there are more teachers, they should
not disturb the program by chatting and not being interested in
what is going on. So, it should not be a completely active but also not
a completely passive participation. Not to interrupt the leaders’
leadership, leave it to them, but to be there, and, when I can see there
are unexpected situations, to be at hand. (Valerie, leader, Orange
Program)

This position is understandable. If the programs are carefully

prepared and the program activities closely interconnected, if the
programs call for specific leader competences, for the leaders’
knowledge of place and professional experience, and for many
elaborated props, then the accompanying teachers’ intervention may
be difficult or even disruptive (see Figure 7). At the same time, the
program leaders in our study sometimes criticized the accompanying
teachers for their lack of interest in what is going on.
54 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Figure 7 A Program with Elaborated Props Makes the Accompanying Teachers’ Involvement
Difficult. Photo: SEV Český Ráj.

Of the programs we observed, only the Orange and White Programs

required the accompanying teachers to become actively involved.
The Orange Program required the teachers to facilitate the activities
before the program and then back at school. In the White Program,
the teachers were intentionally motivated to lead some of the program
activities to be seen as on the same level as the program leaders. Again,
this approach was inspired by the existing published recommendations
and the experience of the program designer.
While most of the accompanying teachers were satisfied with the
roles they played in the programs, they tried to create their own space
for shaping the program. This was obvious in the Green Program in
which the program activities finished in the afternoons and the teachers
organized the evening activities themselves. As a result, two types of
tension emerged. First, the students were sometimes disappointed that
3 POWER AND EMPOWERMENT IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 55

the teachers organized their free time, i.e., the time they hoped to have
under their own control. Second, some of the teachers’ activities we
observed (a discotheque, a night-time “trail of courage”) contradicted
the values the program leaders wanted to communicate to the students.

3.4.2 The Designers, the Leaders, and the Parents

in the Background

From the perspective of program designers, to prepare a sound

environmental education program takes a level of expertise beyond
the capacity of common program leaders. An approach based on
expertise makes it possible to prepare a highly effective program
that will ensure the achievement of the program’s educational goals.
Four of the five programs we analyzed were designed by someone
other than the current program leaders.
In our research study, the relationship between program designers
and program leaders was ambivalent. On the whole, the leaders liked
the programs and the way they were designed. Nevertheless, they
tended to criticize some of the program elements and expressed a wish
to be able at times to modify the programs to make them better-suited
for a particular context.
For example, the Blue Program was originally designed as a combi-
nation of (preferably) a five-day residential program and a follow-up
community-based project. However, the budget for the program ran
out, and the leaders realized they did not have enough resources to
keep offering the program in its original form. Moreover, while the
accompanying teachers appreciated the residential part, they were
not very motivated to facilitate the time-consuming follow-up
community-based project. As a result, the leaders decided to leave
out this project and keep the residential activities only. The leaders
worried that they may have compromised the program, but they felt
there was no other way to deal with the situation.
The Orange Program has been designed by an international center
and the program leaders run the authorized Czech version. The
program is supposed to be conducted as it is, without any modifications,
to keep its quality. Alena, an experienced leader of the program, has
mixed feelings about this approach:
56 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

That the program is so prepared is a big advantage for the leaders,

they do not need to invent anything, they just learn to lead it. (…)
Of course, the disadvantage is that it is not possible to improvise in
the activities, that it must be conducted as it is prepared, (…) it does
not allow one to flexibly react to the weather, to the situation that
emerges in the group, etc. (Alena, leader, Orange Program)

Alena appreciates the quality of the program and does not question
that to design a program on the same level of elaboration is beyond
her capacity and competence. At the same time, she feels a need to be
allowed to adjust the program to the immediate conditions, be it the
weather or the currently participating group. If she is not allowed
to make such adjustments, she feels tension in her relationship with
the program designers.
Finally, we should not forget the role of the students’ parents. While
their control over the programs is rather indirect, it is still crucial.
First, the parents decide if a student can participate in the program.
Whatever the reason for a potential decline may be (ideological,
financial), it has consequences for the overall effectiveness of the
program because these programs expect most of the school class
to participate together. Second, the parents interpret the meaning
of the program and influence how long its effects last. For example,
when the participants in the Orange Program attempted to challenge
some of the behavioral patterns in their families (like burning plastic
bottles in a stove), their attempts were rejected by their parents
and siblings who were unwilling to change their daily routines.
From this perspective, the family members in the background are the
real winners of the negotiations related to influence over the program.

3.5 CONCLUSION
This chapter was about power and empowerment. It also became a
chapter about a crossroad as we realized that the issue of power
distribution among the program stakeholders does not offer easy
solutions. Our conclusion was somewhat Solomonic: none of the ways
leading from the crossroad of power is wrong per se, but each of them
3 POWER AND EMPOWERMENT IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 57

is demanding and complex. In the following chapters, we will look

at some other questions so as to consider this issue also from other
perspectives.
To empower students by giving them the knowledge, tools, and
skills to shape a sustainable life is an essential goal of environmental
education. There is no single or easy way to do this in outdoor
environmental education programs. However, it is far from being
a lost cause.
 59

4 FRAMING OUTDOOR EXPERIENCES

IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
PROGRAMS

JAN ČINČERA1, MILOSLAV KOLENATÝ2,

ROMAN KROUFEK 3, BRUCE JOHNSON4
1
Masaryk University Brno, Faculty of Social Studies, Department of Environmental
Studies, Joštova 218/10, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic
2
University of J. E. Purkyně, Faculty of Environment, Department of Environ-
mental Studies, Králova výšina 3132/7, 400 96 Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic
3
University of J. E. Purkyně, Faculty of Education, Department of Preschool and
Primary Education, Pasteurova 1, 400 96 Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic
4
University of Arizona, College of Education, P.O. Box 210069, Tucson, Arizona,
USA

Chapter Abstract

How our outdoor experiences affect us depends on the meaning we

derive from them. This meaning may be influenced externally by the
frames created by program designers or leaders. In this chapter, we look
at the design of outdoor environmental education programs from the
perspective of framing theory. Accordingly, we analyze the ways in which
program designers and leaders work with surface and deep frames, and
how they use these frames to communicate the main messages of their
programs. Based on our analyses, frames are considered important
by program leaders. However, the application of frames in the practice
of outdoor environmental education raises specific issues. This chapter
briefly presents some of these issues and discusses their implications.
60 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Frames play a powerful part in how we understand and interpret the
world around us. (…) Imagine you are working at a stream keeping
in mind the frame ‘Small changes can have a big impact’. Ask your
learners to experience this idea; e.g., they might change the water flow
by removing a stone. Encourage them to transfer this finding to other
areas of their own lives and to consider its relevance in terms of care
for nature. Although the process of learning is quite open, you know
where you are heading and your learners feel that this outdoor
experience might be much more meaningful for their lives than just
‘learning something about a stream’. (Real World Learning Model,
2020b)

When Jan was a young boy, he would walk in the White Carpathians
with his wise grandfather. These potentially boring trips turned out
to be wonderful experiences of nature investigation and of Jan’s
growing love for the green meadows and forested hills. Thirty-five
years later, Jan still vividly recalls watching with fascination a grass
snake squirming in front of his feet or a horn-beetle crawling on an
old oak. To learn from an experience requires more than just to
experience something: the same experience may be easily forgotten
as meaningless for us or it may stay with us for a lifetime.
Jan’s grandfather framed Jan’s experiences in nature so that Jan
could transfer sensory experiences into meaningful ones for himself.
For some authors, framing plays a crucial role in outdoor environ-
mental education. Rachel Carson (1965) described showing her
adopted son, Roger, nature’s beauty to nurture his “sense of wonder”.
Louis Chawla (1999) found that the ways in which children’s experiences
in nature are framed by significant adults can have a profound impact
on the development of the children’s environmental values and
behavior.
In light of this, what does framing mean for the practice of outdoor
environmental education programs? What frames are used and how
are they applied in practice? Let us look at this aspect of these programs
in more detail.
4 FRAMING OUTDOOR EXPERIENCES IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 61

4.2 FRAMES MATTER

Imagine two programs about the forest. In one, leader Eliška describes
the forest as a valuable resource that we need to exploit carefully.
In the other program, leader Blanka presents the forest as a home to
many living creatures. The language a program leader uses is important.
Eliška’s words promote some of the same values that have led to the
environmental crisis (Bowers, 2001; Cachelin, Norvell, & Darling,
2010). It might happen unintentionally, if Eliška is not aware of this
relationship, or intentionally, if Eliška believes in consuming natural
resources responsibly. Whatever the reason, Eliška applies a particular
frame for the interpretation of the students’ experiences in the forest.
The metaphors that are used for the forest in this hypothetical
scenario, calling it either “a resource” or “a home”, likely bring up
different feelings and values among the students. Conscious or
unconscious interpretation of metaphorical signs is an essential
part of human life from early childhood – as linguistics, semiotics,
psychology, and cognitive science have shown, people usually think
(and express things) metaphorically. We perceive and experience
things in relation to other things, not just in language but also in
thought and action (Lakoff, 1980). Moreover, metaphorical signs
not only transfer meaning, they also carry associated attributes,
feelings, and values. This issue can be studied from the perspective of
framing theory. The theory of cognitive frames first appeared during
the 1970s (Bateson, 1972; Goffman, 1974), and since then, it has
influenced cognitive psychology, linguistics, and social studies, as well
as mass communication strategies in advertising, political and
advocacy campaigns, and marketing. According to Bateson (1972),
frames are cognitive models which allow a person to interpret and
evaluate a message. Frames are connected with further associations
leading to narratives, metaphors, or themes that provide the deep
meaning of the perceived message or reality (Cox, 2010; Cachelin
& Ruddell, 2013; Arowolo, 2017; Real World Learning Model, 2020a).
Frames motivate people’s reactions to messages; they are essential
for the way people interpret, understand, and respond to events and
information (Adlon & Dietsch, 2015; Cachelin et al., 2011). It is likely
that the different frames of our two scenarios – “the forest is a resource”
62 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

and “the forest is a home” – will lead to different interpretations by

students about what a forest is and how we should treat it.
Further, framing theories point out that the audience’s frames
may overlap with or contradict the sender’s frames, and that frames
are reinforced every time they are activated, whether positively
or negatively. People usually view the world through their frames,
and new information is made to fit into these frames or is otherwise
ignored. The only way to combat a frame is to reframe an issue in
a different, more powerful and compelling way (Goffman, 1974).
From the perspective of a child taught to interpret the forest through
the “resource” frame, it could be difficult to accept the alternative
perspective of the “home” frame. The process of building individual
and collective associations, attributes, feelings, and values around
a metaphorical sign (“the forest”) can take time and is not always
straightforward, but once the attributes are implanted, it is usually
very difficult to modify them – they can become set in stone (Real
World Learning Model, 2020b).
Frame analysis has frequently been used in the field of environ-
mental communication and interpretation. Crompton (2010) analyzed
the frames used in the campaigns of environmental organizations
in the United Kingdom; Sangkil et al. (2016) compared various
frames used to promote biofuels; Yocco et al. (2015) compared different
frames used by selected zoological gardens to promote environmental
concern; and Hart (2010) analyzed the many ways climate change
is framed in the media. Similarly, other researchers compared the
frames used in interpretative signs aiming to control visitor behavior
in protected areas (Cialdini et al., 2006; Winter, 2006; Winter et al.,
1998).
This body of research shows, overall, that frames matter. Different
ways of framing an issue, such as using positive frames (most people
act responsibly) or negative frames (people harm the environment),
had different impacts on visitor behavior (Cialdini et al., 2006;
Winter, 2006; Winter et al., 1998). Moreover, messages evoking
biocentrically focused frames had a higher impact on the environmental
concern of visitors to zoological gardens than egoistically focused
frames. Texts associated with humans-as-part-of-nature frames
evoked different associations from texts communicating humans-
4 FRAMING OUTDOOR EXPERIENCES IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 63

-as-apart-from nature frames (Cachelin, Rose, & Paisley, 2015).

Metaphorical frames enable the communicating partners to share
perspectives and make their communication and interpretation
efficient and fluent, but such frames can also narrow the communicated
content to one central aspect and “hide” other aspects (Lakoff, 1980).
The application of frame analysis in the field of environmental
education is still a relatively new field of research, only recently
launched by Cachelin et al. (2010; 2011; 2013; 2015). However, the effort
to intentionally influence the way in which students interpret their
outdoor experiences is not new at all and can be associated with many
well-established educational approaches.

4.3 FRAMES IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Developing and using frames, and evaluating their impact, connects
environmental education to linguistics, semiotics, anthropology,
psychology, and psychoanalysis because frames as organizing
cognitive structures are interlinked with the concept of signs. The
concept of signs which transfer information has come to be understood
as a fundamental cognitive postulate (Saussure, 1966; Heidegger,
1971; Jung, 1969; Eco, 1979), and it has strong implications for the
development, application, and analysis of frames in outdoor environ-
mental education. According to the Real World Learning Model
(2020b), outdoor environmental education programs should be
organized around a frame that provides a connecting story. This story
should communicate the principles and values of sustainability. For
example, the diversity frame communicates the following message:
“In diversity is the preservation of life”. The frames should be associa-
ted with values such as respect for nature or equal opportunities for
all people. Further, they should be associated with self-transcending
values as defined by Schwartz (2012, 2014), such as “unity with nature”,
“a world of beauty”, or “protecting the environment”. The Model also
suggests differentiating between surface frames (related to everyday
practice) and deep frames (related to a deeper meaning).
64 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

As described by the Real World Learning Model, surface frames

provide a narrative for the learning experience that, through transfer
of information via signs, leads students to grasp the deep frames
associated with sustainability values. Crompton (2010) defines surface
frames as introductory frames that get the attention of the audience,
and deep frames as general concepts which carry certain feelings
and values based on our experience. The concept of deep frames is
connected with George Lakoff’s (1980) “conceptual metaphors”, i.e.,
the deep, central metaphors which organize the way we view and
interpret the world and structure human experience in spatial,
ontological, cultural, and personal domains (Lakoff, 1980).
The concept of framing a learning experience or using an activity
as a metaphor to communicate something meaningful is not new
in the educational field. Let us look at a few examples of how various
educational approaches work with this concept.
Framing is one of the basic methods applied in adventure education
programs (Gass & Priest, 1993; Schoel & Maizell, 2002; Priest & Gass,
2005; Gass & Priest, 2006). The theory of adventure education
differentiates between various types of framing (metaphorical,
isomorphic, etc.). Intentional use of framing is meant to help students
to get involved in the activity and then to transfer their experience.
Let us consider the activity called Spider’s Web (Rohnke, 1989).
In this activity, the participants go through small holes in an artificial
web made of ropes. It is good fun, and it contains a strong element
of adventure and team spirit because one cannot solve the problem
without help from the others. The activity can be introduced as a
fantasy-like story or as a metaphor for solving a difficult work problem.
The metaphorical frame of escaping from a spider’s trap may evoke
associations leading to the other, deep frame of dealing with difficult
problems. This strategy is very powerful. Opening an activity with
a metaphorical, easy-to-accept frame may help participants to uncover
the deep frame, one that resonates with their real-life issues and that
they might have been unwilling or unable to tackle directly.
Similar principles, while differently labeled, are used worldwide.
One of the programs in our study, the Orange Program, has been
designed according to the principles of the earth education approach
founded in the 1970s by Steve Van Matre (1990). In this approach,
4 FRAMING OUTDOOR EXPERIENCES IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 65

framing (even if called differently) plays an important role. The whole

program is introduced as a “magical learning adventure” with elements
of mystery. These stories are strongly connected with the deep
frames that are associated with the program’s intended educational
outcomes (responsible environmental behavior). We will look at this
more carefully when we analyze the Orange Program.
These principles also strongly resonate with the educational
approach used in scouting. A “symbolic framework” is applied to
farming activities, summer camps, or the ongoing work of scout
groups. A single activity or the whole summer camp can be situated
within a symbolic framework, usually a fictional adventure story with
a deeper meaning. This story motivates the children while communi-
cating deeper ideas connected with the learning goals (Horavova &
Klapste, 2006; World Scout Committee, 2011).
In other educational approaches, the idea of framing the learning
experience is part of an attempt to organize an educational program
around a communicated theme, e.g., a strong central concept of the
main message that the participants should understand. This approach
is essential for thematic interpretation in which all the activities are
designed to communicate one main message (the theme) that is crucial
for understanding the importance of the interpreted phenomena
(Ham, 1992; 2013). This approach has been shown to be more effective
than disjointed transmission of dry facts (Tarlton & Ward, 2006).
In the Czech Republic, the idea of framing experiences in nature
is well known due to the highly influential works of the Czech non-
formal educator Jaroslav Foglar. Foglar intentionally framed boys’
outdoor experiences as adventure quests, encouraging the boys to
strive to develop their personal qualities in order to become as good
as the idealized hero of the story. Particularly popular were the
idealized portraits of Native Americans as bearers of personal wisdom,
woodcraft, and responsible life (Pecha, 1999; Martin, Leberman, &
Neill, 2002; Martin, 2011; Jirásek & Turcova, 2017).
The symbolic framework, the central theme, or similar concepts
are often used as an organizational principle applied in summer camps
and outdoor environmental education programs. Now we will look
at how they work in the five programs we analyze in this book.
66 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

4.4 FRAMES IN PRACTICE

All the programs in our study used elaborated surface frames, including
apprentice training obtained from a mystery person (Orange), the
story of life returning on a destroyed volcanic island (Green), a mystery
tree with cut-off roots (Blue), the wisdom of Native Americans
(Yellow), and the adventures of a youth club in the outdoors fifty years
ago (White).

Figure 8 Symbolic Surface Frames May Be Expressed by Various Tools, Including Drama
and Fun. Photo: SEV Jizerka.

These surface frames were communicated by various tools (see

Figure 8). Most of the programs used props and sets (a picture of the
island, the mystery person’s lab, long sticks with feathers, etc.), songs,
diaries, and rituals to communicate the frames. The most common
general principles used in communicating the surface frames seemed
4 FRAMING OUTDOOR EXPERIENCES IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 67

to be adventure and mystery. These principles were used by the

program designers to attract students’ interest to participate in the
program activities. Other reasons for using these frames included
efforts to organize the program into one whole and to explain the
meaning of the individual activities. The opinion of Jarmila, a leader
in the Green Program, summarizes the view of most of the program
leaders we interviewed:

I like that the program is motivated by a story, and that whether it is

something that really happened is a little bit mysterious for the
children. And this fascinates them… (Jarmila, leader, Green Program)

This feeling was supported by most of the participating students.

When the program’s surface frame was well-elaborated, with a sense
of mystery and adventure, the students tended to get engaged in it
(see Figure 9). In the Orange Program, in which the students learned
from a mystery person named E.M. the secrets of the essence of what

Figure 9 The Mysterious Atmosphere of E.M.’s Lab. Photo: Jan Činčera.

68 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

“being an Earthkeeper” means, the students spontaneously asked if

the program leaders knew this person, what gender E.M. was, etc.
According to the program leaders, after some time the students started
to realize that E.M. was an imaginary person. However, for the most
part, they continued to follow the imaginary scenario. The truth about
who E.M. was remained a tacit, unspoken, and shared understanding
between the students and the program leaders.
Regardless of whether the students still believed in the existence
of E.M., the surface frame continued to motivate them to “become
Earthkeepers”. It also worked as an easy way to explain the meaning
of the activities prepared by the program leaders.
However, the delicate game of using made-up surface frames does
not always work and may in fact become a source of certain problems.
As we could see in the previous chapter, for Marek in the White
Program, it was important that the program be based on an authentic
experience. To motivate students and to provide them with the key to
the deep frame of the White Program, the program designers fabricated
a journal of a youth club documenting the children’s adventures in that
same geographical area fifty years ago. Petra, a young leader cooperating
on designing the White Program, reflected on her dilemma:

We came to this point quite late in the process of designing the

program that, yes, we are lying to these children. But (…) we tell them
we found the journal, which is not true, but at the same time, we tell
them we do not know if it is the truth, that someone may have made
it up. (…) So, from my perspective, it does not matter (…), we keep it
concealed by mystery, and they can trust it or not. (Petra, designer
and leader, White Program)

This tension was also commented on by some of the students.

For example, when the students in the White Program discovered that
the existence of the youth club from the past could not be verified, one
of the ten-year-old students participating in the program reacted
negatively:

I was angry, (…) they told us we would find one of the people from
this (youth club), but we did not find them, and so that (…) this secret,
nobody knows yet. (male student, about White Program)
4 FRAMING OUTDOOR EXPERIENCES IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 69

The issue of authenticity is one of the problems associated with

using surface frames. Another problem is the relationship between
the surface frames and the deep frames.
While the majority of the program leaders in our study agreed
that their program should have a deep frame functioning as a kind of
central message or a theme expressing the main idea, most of them
were unable to articulate what the deep frame of their program was.
Except for the Orange Program, the deep frames remained rather
implicit, or different program leaders of the same program had
different interpretations of what the deep frame of their program was.
An interesting situation emerged in the Yellow Program. The
original surface frame of the program was “Survival in Nature”.
However, after some time, the leaders realized that this frame did not
motivate school teachers to select the program, probably because
they were afraid of what might happen to their students during the
program activities. As a result, the team re-framed the program, using
the frame of “Woodcraft”. While this helped to attract more teachers,
both the frames remained at play, with some of the program leaders
preferring to speak about survival in nature while others spoke
about the wisdom of Native Americans. Consequently, the deep frame
of the program was also unclear and somehow two-fold. While the
“Woodcraft” frame encouraged students to relate to nature through
wisdom and responsible life, the “Survival in Nature” frame did the
same through challenges to be overcome. However, these deep frames
may be associated with different sets of values: the first one with the
values of universalism (responsibility, wisdom, nature connectedness),
the other with achievement.
This dilemma was further reflected in the program activities when
some of them were competitive and motivated students to achieve
something, while others focused on understanding nature.
Interestingly, the problem of double frames in the Yellow Program
did not seem to have a high impact on the students. When we asked
the participants “what the program was about” and “what they
learned”, most of them answered that the program was about caring
about and responsible behavior in nature (“we should behave well in
nature”, “it is important to help nature”, “we take from nature only
what we need”), or they reported general statements expressing the
70 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

importance of nature (“nature is my home”, “nature is important”).

Only about ten percent of the students summarized their experience
in a way that echoed the “survival framework”, saying that the program
was about “how to survive in nature or what of nature can be used
for food”, that “it was about surviving in nature”.
The uncertainty about the deep frame of the program (i.e., what
the program wanted to say) was reflected in how clearly the surface
frame was linked with the deep frame. This link was carefully
elaborated in the Orange and Green Programs. As we could see, the
Orange Program linked both frames in terms of a master-apprentice
relationship in which a mystery person, E.M., indirectly taught the
students to appreciate and understand nature (see Figure 10).

Surface Frame Deep Frame

Learning from the Understanding and

mysterious E.M. to become appreciation of nature lead to
Earthkeepers. responsible behavior.

Figure 10 The Master-Apprentice Relationship between the Surface and Deep Frames
in the Orange Program.

The Green Program built this link between the surface and deep
frames through a generalization of the concept communicated by the
surface frame (a volcanic eruption and the gradual return of life to
the island) to refer to the deep frame of the return of life:
4 FRAMING OUTDOOR EXPERIENCES IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 71

The story that the program is about is not made up, but it describes
the return of life, succession, on a specific example, so it makes sense
to me. (Jarmila, leader, Green Program)

In the White Program, the link between the surface and deep
frames did not work so well. The idea was based on showing the
students a mirror of what children of their age did in the past and
what they can do now. However, the students were not encouraged
to discuss this comparison in the program, and so the deep frame
(an adventure in nature) remained implicit.
In the Blue Program, Daniel, an experienced program leader, gave
up on communicating the deep frame:

It did not work well, I think. This main message, we often repeated
it, but (…) when the message was too complicated, the children did
not get it. (…) For the young children, (…) it was not the most
important thing that they took away. And for the older ones, difficult
to say. (Daniel, leader, Blue Program)

In this program, the original relationship between the surface

and deep frames was based on allegory. The program leaders presented
the story of an old mystery tree that had lost its roots, which represented
the metaphor of the need to belong somewhere, leading to the deep
frame of “the sense of place”. However, the program was reduced by
budget cuts, the activities introducing the frame were partly eliminated,
the allegory was not discussed with the students, and it became difficult
to grasp. Consequently, while the students seemed to enjoy the
program activities, they did not reflect on their deeper meaning.
As a result, the program lost its central theme and was just a set of
loosely connected activities.

4.5 CONCLUSION
Designing outdoor environmental education programs from the
perspective of framing theory is important, but it is also a very
challenging undertaking. Overall, our study backs up the recommen-
72 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

dations of the Real World Learning Model (2020b). However, the

implementation of these recommendations may differ depending on
whether a particular program is shaped by the designers and leaders
or whether control over the program is shared with the participating
students (or teachers). Accordingly, the program frames can be
elaborated by the adults, or the students may be encouraged to create
their own metaphors for what the program is about. It is possible that
elaborated frames do not work well in the participative approach.
Nevertheless, for the programs that are shaped by the adults, frames
are instrumental in boosting student motivation, explaining the
meaning of the program activities, and supporting the program’s
learning outcomes.
To allow students to connect the program activities with the
learning goals, program designers should create not only a surface
frame but also a clear deep frame communicating the message
summarizing the program goals. Additionally, the surface and deep
frames should be tied together. We could see that this is not always
the case, as the program designers and leaders in some of the programs
had difficulty in expressing “what the program is about” or how
a surface frame should evoke the deeper meaning of the program.
However, we could also see that other factors communicating the
meaning of the experience are at play as well. Students seem to be able
to predict what the program will be about. They also seem to be
influenced by the program leaders as their role models, and by the
overall approach of the environmental education center. In light
of this, elaborated and well-communicated frames are likely just one
of the means that shape students’ interpretation of their outdoor
experiences.
 73

5 VALUES IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL

EDUCATION PROGRAMS: BETWEEN EDUCATION
AND ADVOCACY

JAN ČINČERA1, BRUCE JOHNSON2, ROMAN KROUFEK3

1
Masaryk University Brno, Faculty of Social Studies, Department of Environmental
Studies, Joštova 218/10, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic
2
University of Arizona, College of Education, P.O. Box 210069, Tucson, Arizona,
USA
3
University of J. E. Purkyně, Faculty of Education, Department of Preschool and
Primary Education, Pasteurova 1, 400 96 Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic

Chapter Abstract

Should or shouldn’t outdoor environmental education programs promote

particular values? This chapter focuses on the tension between trying
to avoid manipulation and trying to pursue the aims of environmental
education. We summarize the discussion of values in environmental
education and outline Schwartz’s theory of universal values, then we
analyze what program leaders think about values and how they deal
with the issue in their practice. We argue that no education is value-free.
Based on our research study, we found a normative, value-laden
approach in outdoor environmental education to be controversial but
still the most suitable approach for these types of programs. In the
conclusion, we examine various methods of shaping environmental
values in outdoor programs.
74 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

5.1 VALUES ARE CONTROVERSIAL – AND NECESSARY

Environmental educators, therefore, need to be as ‘value-fair’ or
‘value-free’ as they can when working in this role. They must
scrupulously strive to get all the facts, examine and illuminate all the
viewpoints, and keep from letting their particular position (as an
environmentalist) from mixing with their educator role. (Hug, 1977)

The goals of environmental education are (…) to provide every

person with opportunities to acquire the knowledge, values, attitudes,
commitment, and skills needed to protect and improve the
environment. (Tbilisi Declaration, 2005)

Traditionally, shaping environmental values has been considered an

essential goal of environmental education. When we engage in
environmental education, we believe that we will change students’
worldviews, moral perspectives, and values to make them more
motivated and willing to participate in environmentally responsible
actions (Scott & Oulton, 1998; Baker et al., 2019; Tbilisi Declaration,
2005). There is strong evidence that this is what environmental
education programs in many cases actually do (Bogner, 1998; Johnson
& Manoli, 2008; Manoli et al., 2014; Mullenbach, Andrejewski,
& Mowen, 2019; Johnson & Cincera, 2015). Environmental attitudes
and values are considered to be predictors of responsible environmental
behavior, which is the ultimate goal of environmental education
(Bamberg & Moser, 2007; Kollmus & Agyeman, 2002; Heimlich
& Ardoin, 2008).
However, the effort to change students’ values has been misused by
totalitarian regimes far too often for us to remain blind to its potential
risks. From a Central European perspective, such ambition sounds
suspicious.
In the United States, John Hug (1977) opened this question in his
famous essay “Two Hats”. According to Hug, the role of an educator
is different from the role of an environmentalist. While both roles
are important, a person cannot play both at the same time – being a
teacher means not advocating for a particular position toward an
environmental issue. However, what would this mean in practice?
5 VALUES IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS: BETWEEN EDUCATION AND ADVOCACY 75

As many scholars assert, education is never value-free and is always

rooted in some, implicit or explicit, values (Stevenson, 2007; Poole et
al., 2013; Veugelers, 2010; Cairns, 2002). Veugelers (2010) suggests
that teachers may declare their value neutrality, but it is never achieved,
as all teachers express particular values in their teaching. Moreover,
other values are communicated indirectly, through the hidden
curricula (for example, the level of students’ freedom to participate
in decision-making at school) or through the prescribed curricula
(for example, the values of democracy or economic growth that are
often incorporated in national curricula documents). From this
perspective, environmental education is rooted in values such as
“protection of nature”, “unity with nature”, “justice”, and other values
of universalism (Schwartz, 1994, 2014).
Moreover, promoting particular values seems to be crucial for
achieving the main mission of environmental education. As we could
see in the opening quote from the Tbilisi Declaration, environ-
mental education has behavioral intentions, whether its aims are
interpreted as direct behavioral modification or as development of
competences for sustainability. Decades of research have shown that
affective variables such as environmental sensitivity and eco-centric
values and attitudes play an important role in people’s willingness
to engage in pro-environmental behavior (Stern, 2000; Goldman et
al., 2020). In light of this, value-free environmental education would
be in contradiction with its own fundamental principles. However,
this is not without its consequences. To see what these consequences
are, we need to look at this issue from the perspective of the theory
of universal values.

5.2 THE THEORY OF UNIVERSAL VALUES AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

Schwartz (2012) identified ten basic groups of universal values, or
values accepted all over the world (see Table 2).
76 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Universalism Broadminded, Equality, Unity with the World, Protecting the Environment,
a World of Beauty, Inner Harmony, World Peace, Social Justice, Wisdom
Self-Direction Freedom, Independent, Curious, Creativity, Choosing Own Goals, Privacy,
Self-Respect
Benevolence Mature Love, Spiritual Life, Helpful, Forgiving, True Friendship, Meaning
of Life, Honest, Responsible, Loyal
Stimulation Daring, Variation in Life, Excitement in Life
Hedonism Enjoying Life, Self-Indulgent, Pleasure
Conformity Self-Discipline, Politeness, Honoring the Elders, Obedient
Tradition Humble, Detachment, Respect for Tradition, Devout, Moderate, Accepting
My Portion in Life
Achievement Intelligent, Capable, Successful, Influential, Ambitious
Power Social Recognition, Social Power, Wealth, Authority, Preserving My Public
Image
Security Healthy, Family Security, Social Order, Clean, Sense of Belonging,
Reciprocation of Favors, National Security

Table 2 The Groups of the Values in the Schwartz Model.

Some of the values are mutually supportive (conformity and

safety), while others contradict each other (benevolence and power).
The structure of these relationships is often presented in the form of
a map or a chart. In Figure 11, we can see how the groups of values
are organized.
According to Schwartz, while the neighboring values support each
other, the opposite values contradict each other. As a result, by
promoting the values of universalism, we also promote the nearby
values of benevolence and self-direction, and we compromise the
values of power.
5 VALUES IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS: BETWEEN EDUCATION AND ADVOCACY 77

Self-Direction Universalism

Stimulation Benevolence

Hedonism

Conformity
+ Tradition

Achievement
Security

Power

Figure 11 The Organization of the Values in the Schwartz Model.

As Schwartz (2012) saw it, people of all cultures emphasize the

values of universalism, benevolence, and self-direction over the values
of power. From the perspective of environmental education, this is very
important, since it could be interpreted as an argument for a widespread
tendency to protect the environment and find a balance between social
and environmental needs. Simultaneously, the Schwartz Model shows
that by promoting the values of protecting the environment, we
implicitly clash with the values of social power, authority, and wealth.
Similarly, by promoting students’ self-directed learning and autonomy,
we implicitly clash with values such as social order and security. By its
very nature, environmental education is value-laden and unavoidably
leads to confrontation with those whose values it compromises.
78 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Schwartz’s theory has been applied in the fields of environmental

communication as well as environmental education. The non-profit
organization Common Cause (Blackmore et al., 2013) analyzed the
underlying values and frames communicated by environmental
organizations in the United Kingdom. Based on their analyses, they
strongly recommended communicated frames supporting the values
of universalism and benevolence rather than the values of security,
achievement, and power. The same recommendation was formulated
for the field of outdoor environmental education programs in the Real
World Learning Model (2020c).
However, the effort to apply the Schwartz Model opens further
areas of questions. While Schwartz considers the values in the power
group to be the weakest, other authors have pointed out these values’
ability to camouf lage as other, socially more acceptable values
(Cincera, Binka, & Cerny, 2015). For example, in their analyses of
environmental education textbooks, Ideland and Malmberg (2014)
identified a resemblance between the mechanisms applied to promote
what is seen as the “right” values and mechanisms applied by the
Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. The ideal, “eco-certified” child
should be, according to their interpretation of the textbooks, formed
by the discourses of personal guilt and personal sacrifice for saving
the Earth. The striving to find appropriate ways to promote students’
environmental values may lead to entering into a precarious field
where only an honest self-reflection may prevent program leaders
from the risk of manipulation and, therefore, paradoxically, the risk
of promoting the values of power.

5.3 VALUES EDUCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

As we have argued, education is never value-free. Environmental

education is based on the values of universalism and, therefore,
promotes these values in its practice. However, this leads to inevitable
clashes with social groups or individuals preferring some of the other
groups of values.
5 VALUES IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS: BETWEEN EDUCATION AND ADVOCACY 79

These clashes have emerged repeatedly in different regions and

at different times. In the United States, this issue was described by
Michael Sanera (1998). According to Sanera, environmental education
tended to indoctrinate students by using environmental activists’
unbalanced opinions and attitudes. In contrast to such practice, Sanera
said, environmental education should focus on providing scientific
knowledge rather than on shaping students’ values and attitudes:
“facts, not fear”. In the Czech Republic, we have experienced similar
waves of criticism, especially from nationalist right-wing positions.
In particular, climate change has become a catalyst for heated
debates challenging the significance of environmental education in
a democratic society.
Nevertheless, such criticism has also encouraged fruitful discussion
among environmental educators and helped them to reflect on the
meaning of their field. The Guidelines for Excellence published by the
North American Association for Environmental Education stressed
the importance of “fairness” in presenting different perspectives on
environmental issues – which, implicitly, means dealing with different
values equally (NAAEE, 2000).
In light of this, the question of how best to approach values in
environmental education may be of higher importance than why. Two
streams of thought have emerged.
The first group of authors is more or less consistent with the
Guidelines for Excellence. According to them, the practice of environ-
mental education must seek a balance between indoctrination and
education (Jickling, 2003; Jickling & Wals, 2012; Jickling & Spork,
1998; Disinger, 2001; Holsman, 2001). As a result, teachers should
cover several different perspectives and refrain from enforcing any
particular value.
However, according to the other standpoint, such balance is
unachievable. As Helena Kopnina (2012) argues, despite trying to
promote a pluralistic perspective on ethical issues, education for
sustainable development is based on the concept of anthropocentrism.
According to this concept, it is human needs that are valued and
the value of nature becomes instrumental, measured by the degree of
nature’s usefulness for humankind. As a result, an effort to achieve
pluralism may have a limited benefit. Any education dealing with
80 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

nature is always rooted in a particular, either anthropocentric or bio-

centric, ethical perspective. The key is what people believe is worth
promoting.
In this context, the following questions need to be considered:
What values are promoted in outdoor environmental education
programs? And particularly, how do these programs communicate
the value of nature – as a living society that has its own, intrinsic value,
or as a resource valued based on how much it satisfies human needs?
Franz Bogner (2018) defined three main environmental values:
• preservation of nature, reflecting the bio-centric perspective of
nature conservation and preservation;
• utilization of nature, based on the anthropocentric perspective
of nature as a resource for satisfying human needs; and
• appreciation of nature, a mixed perspective expressing a
disposition toward people’s positive nature experience.

Even though they are ontologically different, the anthropocentric

and bio-centric perspectives are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
The set of our beliefs about the world is often contradictory. The same
person may accept the intrinsic value of nature and support nature
protection for nature’s intrinsic quality while at the same time agreeing
with the need to alter nature to satisfy human needs. Again, this makes
the question of dealing with values in environmental education
complex. What options do we have?

Caduto (1985) identified eight distinctive strategies that can be

applied in environmental education:
• laissez-faire (not dealing with values at all);
• moral development (focusing on gradual, age-appropriate
methods of dealing with issues through discussing ethical
dilemmas with students);
• inculcation (instilling particular values considered desirable
through moralizing, modeling, and reinforcement);
• values analyses (based on logical thinking and on analyzing
values);
• values clarification (highlighting students’ self-awareness and
the identification of their values);
5 VALUES IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS: BETWEEN EDUCATION AND ADVOCACY 81

• service learning (based on acquiring values through action);

• behavior modification (assuming value change after behavior
change); and
• confluent education (based on a holistic approach in schools).

As we can see, these strategies elaborate on the very general ideas

we have already discussed. When dealing with values, any outdoor
environmental education program is at a crossroad. One way leads to
the laissez-faire, i.e., value-free, approach. We may decide not to deal
with values at all, based on the assumption that education should be
value-free. Another way calls for ethical pluralism. We choose to
develop students’ competence to critically assess various values, and
we curb our effort to promote some values over others. And another
option is to deliberately support particular values (preservation of
nature) taught by inculcation. Let us look at these options from the
perspective of practice.

5.4 VALUES IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PRACTICE

5.4.1 Value-Free Outdoor Environmental Education

The belief that environmental education should be value-free and

outdoor program leaders should respect the laissez-faire strategy is
widely spread, but it probably does not dominate in the field. Let us
look at this from the perspective of Hugo, a young leader in the Blue
Program.
Hugo is in his twenties and has recently finished a Bachelor’s
program in leisure education. As the Blue Program’s center is small,
Hugo must manage much more than teaching students. He plans the
stays of the school groups that come to the center and fixes smaller
technical problems when necessary. According to Hugo, program
leaders should apply a laissez-faire strategy in their practice:

I do not think we should push any values into children’s heads. (…)
I like it when they, after what they have seen and done, make their
own values. (Hugo, leader, Blue Program)
82 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Hugo supports the need for the program’s ethical neutrality.

However, the Blue Program which Hugo leads is not value-free. Its
frame (the lost roots) evokes the concepts of a sense of place and
a sense of belonging. Hugo also uses value-laden language. For
instance, when he introduced the program, he stated that “people, like
trees, need their roots”. This is clearly associated with a sense of
belonging, one of the values of security.
When leading the students’ interaction with nature, Hugo and the
other leaders in the program provide a variety of perspectives on nature
values. For instance, when the students observed a peat bog, Hugo
told them about the grouse living in the area and stressed the need
for their protection.
In another part of the program, peat bogs were described as “useful
to us” (utilization of nature) because we can “enjoy a new experience
in a peat bog” (appreciation of nature), “peat-bogs are a home to many
unique species” (nature protection) and “the source of wonderful fairy-
tales and stories” (appreciation of nature). The program also presented
the way peat was used in the past for industry (utilization) and explained
the reasons why this practice is forbidden now (nature protection).
Altogether, many different types of values were communicated
in the Blue Program and, based on our experience, in all the programs
we observed. Education, as stated earlier, is not value-free. The laissez-
faire strategy tries to avoid this fact. However, laissez-faire does not
seem to be a realistic approach in outdoor environmental education.

5.4.2 Pluralistic Outdoor Environmental Education

Other program leaders believe in the importance of a balanced

pluralistic approach. For example, Václav, a middle-aged leader in the
Orange Program, believes that when teaching about a forest, leaders
should explain to students that it can be interpreted as a source of both
instrumental and intrinsic values:

To keep the balance between the two poles (…). If we present in the
program just the first pole, or just the other, then it may happen that
the children, when a little older, will bump into the wall of this
‘truth’ (…), and then they will say, ‘they were lying to us’. (Václav,
leader, Orange Program)
5 VALUES IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS: BETWEEN EDUCATION AND ADVOCACY 83

There are also other good reasons for such plurality. As we could
see, the Blue Program, and the other programs as well, communicate
a set of different, often seemingly contradictory, values. For example,
the Yellow Program communicated the values of universalism
(protection of nature, unity with nature, wisdom), stimulation (daring),
and achievement (success) (see Figure 12). Specifically, the program
leaders encouraged the students to act with care in nature (“Native
Americans had the wisdom to live in harmony with nature”) and to
cooperate (“this is not a competition”). However, they also encouraged
the values of achievement and success by counting the students’ scores
in selected activities and motivating them to earn more (“you have
got a high score … you can do this to get three times more”).
Moreover, various leaders of the same program may not share the
same understanding of the values they want to communicate. Let us
meet Irena.
Irena is an experienced leader in the Yellow Program. She has been
working for the center for more than ten years. She is a leader who
believes in the importance of a sensitive, bio-centric approach to
nature. She would be happy if the program she leads promoted the
values of universalism because she believes this is what the idea of
woodcraft is about. However, she realizes that not all the program
leaders are of the same opinion. Should her colleagues be forced to
communicate the same values as Irena? However tricky this question
may be, Irena believes that no, they should not, even if it means that
the program communicates a range of different value perspectives and
each run of the program is slightly different.
Nevertheless, a pluralistic approach assumes providing students
with the opportunity not only to be introduced to but also to analyze
different values embodied in a specific context. Such analyses call for
particular methods (discussion, reflection, essays), and we did not
notice any of these being used in the observed programs.
This leads us to the question of how widespread the pluralistic
approach is in the context of outdoor environmental education
programs. While we do not want to deny its application by some
centers, the prevailing practice is likely different.
84 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

5.4.3 Normative Outdoor Environmental Education and the Issue

of Inculcation

In the five programs under our investigation, we observed many

instances of promoting the values of universalism (nature protection,
unity with the world, inner harmony, wisdom), benevolence
(cooperation), self-direction (independence, curiosity), stimulation
(daring), or hedonism (pleasure). Marginally, we noticed also other
values, such as achievement (success), power (authority), and
conformity (self-discipline) (see Figure 12).

Self-Direction Universalism

Stimulation Benevolence

Hedonism

Conformity
+ Tradition

Achievement
Security

Power

Figure 12 The Most Frequently Communicated Values in the Observed Programs.

The Colors Indicate the Observed Programs.
5 VALUES IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS: BETWEEN EDUCATION AND ADVOCACY 85

As we can see, with the exception of the Green Program, in addition

to the values of universalism, the programs communicated also other,
in some cases mutually contradictory, values. At the same time, the
intersection of all the programs was in the values of universalism,
with the program leaders highlighting the importance of nature
protection and the beauty of nature.
These values were inculcated by modeling, moralizing, and the use
of value-laden language by the program leaders. Apart from moralizing
spontaneously in some immediate situations, the leaders moralized
deliberately, as part of planned activities. When Alena in the Orange
Program led an activity focused on the food chain, she intentionally
used value-laden language:

We have to protect nature, so be careful and do not harm animals.

(…) Think more about your decisions, it does not take much to disrupt
food chains. (Alena, leader, Orange Program)

Modeling was another frequent strategy used in the observed

programs. For example, the leaders in the White and Blue Programs
used the opportunity to pick up litter in the protected natural areas
and encouraged the students to help them. The leaders in the White
and Green Programs modeled their authentic interest in nature
observation, and were somewhat mimicked by the students. When
Jaroslava, a young leader in the Green Program, found a big bug, she
exclaimed:

Oh, you beauty! Oh, it is so magnificent! (Jaroslava, leader, Green

Program)

The values of protecting nature were also indirectly communicated

by the facilities of the centers in three of the observed programs.
These facilities are designed based on principles of energy and water
efficiency, and they provide local, healthy, and mostly organic food.
Last but not least, particular values were communicated by the
program frames. As we could see, the Orange Program was introduced
as a training center for students who want to become Earthkeepers.
As a result, protection of the environment was the underlying
86 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

communicated value through the whole program. Similarly, the Yellow

Program was framed by a story about Native American woodcraft,
and so the value of wisdom was repeatedly highlighted in the program
activities.
Most of the leaders we interviewed agreed that their programs are
not value-free, and that they promote particular values associated with
the mission of the center.
Jaroslava is well aware of the value-laden processes she helps to
facilitate in her program:

I do not see our program as value-free. It is about what it (the program)

is based on, respect toward life (…) and toward what we investigate.
(…) And I do not think that the values are connected with nature
only. It is also about how we speak about cooperation (…), that we do
not use competition in this program – this is also value-laden to me.
And how I speak about something, what I appreciate, forms how the
children perceive it. (Jaroslava, leader, Green Program)

Therefore, inculcation, either direct or indirect, seems to be a

reasonable strategy. However, this opens the question: at which point
does an appropriate strategy turn into inappropriate manipulation?

There is no clear answer to this question among the group of

program leaders in our study. For some of them, the boundary lies in
the authenticity of the learning context. Let us look at a short exchange
between Marek, a highly experienced leader, and a 10-year-old boy
participating in the White Program. This exchange took place during
a field trip when Marek shared with his group of students the story
about the environmental consequences of hunting deer in the area:

Male student: And why should the deer be here, then?

Marek: And why are you here? They simply live here on their own.
(Marek, leader, White Program)

As we can see, Marek used a relatively straightforward inculcation

strategy, addressing directly the boy’s values. At the same time, the
situation emerged spontaneously, without previous planning. By
answering the boy’s question, Marek expressed his value perspective
5 VALUES IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS: BETWEEN EDUCATION AND ADVOCACY 87

on the issue, but he did not directly force the boy to accept it. However,
given the role model Marek was playing, it is reasonable to say that
Marek deliberately challenged the student’s values with the intention
to change them according to the program’s mission.
Other leaders believe that some level of manipulation of students
is acceptable if it is well-intended. The key principle for them is respect
for the students’ freedom to not accept the values supported by the
leaders. Alena, an experienced leader in the Orange Program, expressed
this idea:

I do not think teachers should be value-free. On the contrary, teachers

must be clear and easy to understand in their values, but it is up to
the children whether they accept these values or just some of them.
(Alena, leader, Orange Program)

5.4.4 Does Normativity Matter?

The impact that promoting environmental values can have on students

is far from straightforward. Of the observed programs, we found
a possible effect on students’ values only in the Orange Program where
it has been repeatedly documented (Manoli et al., 2014; Johnson &
Cincera, 2015; Johnson & Manoli, 2008). However, most of the students
participating in the programs in our study reported they learned that
“nature is important and we should protect it”, “nature is precious”,
“we must unite with nature and protect it”, “we need nature and should
protect it”, “nature has its own rights”, and other value-laden comments.
While these comments do not necessarily indicate strengthening
students’ environmental values, they do show that these values were
supported by the programs.
In our statistical analyses we found that students’ environmental
values as measured after their participation in the program are
influenced by several factors. The first factor is the environmental
values the students had before the program. The more students
supported nature protection and the more they appreciated nature’s
beauty before the program, the more they tended to be positively
influenced by the program.
88 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Students with a high level of pro-environmental values also saw

the programs more positively than other students. The main factor
influencing students’ environmental values after the program was how
much they believed that the program encouraged them to do something
for the environment. Direct strategies, such as telling students
what they can do for the environment and program leaders’ modelling
of responsible behaviour, seem to be crucial for enhancing the
environmental values of those students who had already held a high
level of these values before the program.
In contrast, the minority of students with a high level of utilization
values tended to be critical of the program and reflected on their
activities as meaningless.
Comparing the programs, we can see that they did not significantly
differ in what values they communicated. However, we found that the
Orange Program, the only one with confirmed effect on students’
values, was also the program with the highest level of encouraging
students to do something for the environment.
The high level of this kind of encouragement in the Orange
Program was noted by our observers as well as reported by the students.
The leaders in this program reflected with the students on what they
can do to decrease their consumption of energy and materials so as
to do something for the environment, and the students made “pledges”
about what they will do as their follow-up task after they return home
(see Figure 13). In the other programs, the leaders’ encouragement
was rather implicit or limited, focusing mainly on caring behaviour
in nature or on respecting the rules of environmental management in
the center’s facility.
5 VALUES IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS: BETWEEN EDUCATION AND ADVOCACY 89

Figure 13 A Leader in the Orange Program Is Reflecting with Students on What They Can Do
to Help the Environment. Photo: Jan Činčera.
90 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

5.5 CONCLUSION
We started this chapter with Hug’s brilliant essay on the two-hats
issue. We could see that, regardless of its relevance, Hug’s argumentation
can hardly be the way to follow in outdoor environmental education
practice. No matter how hard we may try to remain neutral, this
practice seems to be inevitably rooted in promoting particular values
that are, by different means, inculcated into students.
This does not mean that anything is possible. Program leaders
seem to be aware of the ethical consequences of inculcation and try
to stay within socially acceptable boundaries. Students are not forced
to accept the presented values, and they have the right to stick to their
perspective. However, when we are speaking of young students who
admire their leaders, it is hard to ignore the reality of the normative
nature of most such outdoor environmental education programs.
Regardless of the above-mentioned controversies, we assume that,
because we are facing an environmental crisis, the values promoted
by these programs are of high importance in contemporary society.
Outdoor environmental education programs play their role in this
story. And whatever doubts we may have, inculcation of particular
values is part of it.
 91

6 EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING
IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS:
A SOURCE OF LEARNING AND CONFUSION

JAN ČINČERA1, ROMAN KROUFEK2,

BRUCE JOHNSON3
1
Masaryk University Brno, Faculty of Social Studies, Department of Environmental
Studies, Joštova 218/10, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic
2
University of J. E. Purkyně, Faculty of Education, Department of Preschool and
Primary Education, Pasteurova 1, 400 96 Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic
3
University of Arizona, College of Education, P.O. Box 210069, Tucson, Arizona,
USA

Chapter Abstract

This chapter focuses on program leaders’ personal theories of experiential

learning. While the program leaders in our study all agree that outdoor
environmental education programs should be experiential, the individual
leaders’ personal theories of what and how students should learn by
experience vary considerably. In this chapter, we identify three distinctive
types of leaders’ personal theories and show that each type provides
different answers for program design and implementation. We also
analyze these personal theories’ weak points, their deviations from
research-supported educational theories, and their other inconsistencies.
Finally, we discuss the potential relationships between program leaders’
personal theories and the other crucial decisions regarding program
design that were covered in the previous chapters.
92 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

6.1 INTRODUCTION
I have a good story from the last run of the program. We were
searching with the third eye (a magnifying glass), when a boy ran to
a birch with a hole in it, leaned down over the hole, and suddenly
heard, ‘SSSS!’ from the hole. He jumped away as if someone had
shot him, screaming: ‘There is a snake!’ Wow, a snake! Everyone
surrounded the hole, what shall we do? Shall we look at it? Fear.
So I switched on the lantern, shined the light inside, and we heard
a very strong, ‘KSSSCHSS’, a loud hissing. And I said, it is a weasel,
it has something hidden in there. And everyone was waiting to see
what would jump out of the hole, and so I shined the light in it again,
and it was a coal tit, sitting on its eggs, but so loud. I didn’t know
it could make such a loud noise, either – like a wild beast. And all the
children went crazy that a tit lives in a hole and, in defense, makes
such a noise. And this is the kind of knowledge not many children
have, like, wow, nature is interesting! (Václav, leader, Orange Program)

What we experience is what we remember. As mentioned earlier, young

Jan’s outdoor experiences in the mountains with his grandfather led
him to the moment when he started his research in environmental
education.
Unlike classroom learning, outdoor learning offers the opportunity
to learn from what students experience in real-world settings. This is
what makes outdoor learning so powerful, and this is also what makes
it so challenging.
The importance of encouraging students to learn through their
own experience in real-world settings has been a long-time principle
in the field of environmental education (Athman & Monroe, 2001;
Rickinson, 2001; Vos, n.; Real World Learning Model, 2020b; Lumber,
Richardson, & Sheffield, 2017; Monroe et al., 2017). However, this is
only where the journey begins.
Many authors have elaborated on what experiential learning means
(Morris, 2019). Most of these authors define experiential learning as
utilizing students’ own experience of learning through the process of
reflection and transformation (Kolb, 1984; Johnson & Johnson, 2006;
Moon, 2005; Prouty, Panicucci, & Collinson, 2006; Parry & Allison,
2020). All these authors stress the importance of cognitive elaboration
6 EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 93

on the experience in debriefing sessions consisting of reflection,

generalization, and application of the experience (Kolb, 1984;
Johnson & Johnson, 2006; Moon, 2005; Prouty, Panicucci, & Collinson,
2006). Further, these authors highlight the infinite (cyclical) aspect
of experiential learning, as the experience may be transformed into
a new “action theory”, be further tested, and become the source of
a new experience (Johnson & Johnson, 2006) (see Figure 14). We have
already discussed the influential role of framing experiences by
teachers, leaders, or significant adults.

Experience Reflection

Transfer Generalization

Figure 14 The Experiential Learning Cycle.

Additionally, Kolb (1984) and Kolb & Kolb (2017) outlined the
concept of student learning styles, that is, the relative preferences of
students to learn more easily in some parts of the learning process
than in others.
When we take all the above-mentioned points into consideration,
we can see that while the experience itself provides an opportunity
for learning, this opportunity needs to be further built upon. From
94 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

this perspective, we may interpret experiential education as a group

of theories analyzing the ways used for such building upon the learning
opportunity to direct the effect the experience will have on students.
We can also see that our effort to direct students’ experience opens
further questions of power and control: should it be the students or
the adults who decides what is going to be experienced and what
meaning the experience should have?
In this chapter, we will focus on the perspective of outdoor program
leaders. Specifically, we will try to answer these questions: How do
program leaders interpret what experiential learning is? What are
their personal theories of experiential learning? How do they implement
this interpretation and the related theories in their practice?
But first, we will consider more generally some aspects of the
relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their practice.

6.2 WHAT MATTERS IS WHAT THE TEACHERS BELIEVE

What teachers believe about teaching forms the basis of their practice.
Teachers’ beliefs about teaching practice have been studied and
analyzed repeatedly (Flogaitis, Daskolia, & Agelidou, 2006; Moseley
& Utley, 2008; Kyung-Ran Kim & Buchanan, 2009; OECD, 2009,
Fives & Gill, 2014).
As such studies have shown, the relationship between teachers’
beliefs and their practice is not always straightforward. Fang (1996)
identified two competing theses. Consistency, when the practice is
based on the teachers’ beliefs, and inconsistency, when the relationship
between the practice and the teachers’ beliefs is more complicated.
Surprisingly, inconsistency has been more commonly found in
research. Similarly, teachers’ beliefs may or may not be consistent with
existing educational theories.
In the context of environmental and sustainability education,
teachers’ beliefs regarding the content area, self-efficacy, and the
learning environment have received considerable attention from
researchers (Moseley & Utley, 2008; Haney et al., 2007; Yang, Lang,
& Wong, 2010; Forbes & Zint, 2011; Nikel, 2007). The interconnections
6 EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 95

between environmental educational theories on one side and teachers’

beliefs and practice on the other side tend to be dynamic, influenced
by the teachers’ current practice, previous teacher training, and their
established beliefs about teaching (Clayton, Smith, & Dyment, 2014;
Cincera, 2013b), which are often established long before teachers
become teachers, mostly due to their own formative school experiences
(Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998; Begum, 2012; Taylor &
Caldarelli, 2004). Moreover, teachers’ actual environmental education
practice may further deviate from their beliefs due to perceived
constraints and barriers (Grace & Sharp, 2000). Teachers’ beliefs
regarding outdoor environmental education and experiential learning
are particularly important for us in this chapter as we analyze the
various personal theories of the outdoor leaders in the programs under
our investigation.
Grimwood, Gordon, and Stevens (2018) found three narratives that
are applied by outdoor environmental education leaders in cultivating
students’ connectedness to nature. The narrative of “creating the space
for nature connection” expresses the program leaders’ belief in the
importance of creating an opportunity for students to learn and
explore on their own. The narrative of “engaging the space of nature
connection” expresses the program leaders’ belief in effective strategies
promoting the student-nature connection, such as providing enough
time for outdoor activities, motivating students toward independent
investigation, including art-based activities, and offering regular
opportunities for students to share their feelings in community circles
and to enjoy the feeling of solitude in nature. Finally, the narrative of
“broadening the space of nature connection” emphasizes the
importance of going beyond students’ comfort zones, that is, motivating
them to stretch their boundaries and get dirty from direct contact
with nature, or engaging them with uncertainty and the opportunity
to make mistakes. As a result, students perceive a transformative
impact effectively promoting their connection to nature (Grimwood,
Gordon, & Stevens, 2018).
In what follows, we will look at the personal theories of outdoor
experiential learning held by the leaders in the Orange, Blue, White,
Green, and Yellow Programs.
96 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

6.3 EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING AS REFLECTED IN OUTDOOR PROGRAM

LEADERS’ PERSONAL THEORIES AND IN THEIR PRACTICE
6.3.1 The Theory of Authentic Learning

In society, all things are somehow pre-prepared, and we only buy the
experience and we know how it will go (…), but if it is somehow
unpredictable, and we just experience it with the children, then I
would say, this authenticity is a value that moves the children (…)
much more than (…) a fictitious story. (Marek, leader, White Program)

In the previous chapters, we could see how important the authenticity

of the students’ experience was for Marek and Petra, two leaders in the
White Program. The belief that the students’ learning experience cannot
be pre-determined, that no educational theory can replace the power
of unplanned events and circumstances, is widely shared in the field
of outdoor environmental education (Činčera, 2013b).
When Boris, one of the programs’ observers, visited the Yellow
Program, he experienced first-hand the power of the unplanned,
authentic moment. While out on a field trip, the group was caught in
heavy rain. After that, the students struggled to make a fire to get warm
and make their meal. The moment when they succeeded was so full
of emotion that Boris had no doubt the students would remember it
for the rest of their lives.
According to the theory of authentic learning, learning emerges
in the process of students’ direct interaction with nature, preferably
as a result of the interplay among students, time, and space. Such
a learning experience may be partially prepared by the program
leaders, but mostly, it emerges from the specificity of the here and now.
The heavy rain was, naturally, unplanned, and still it became the
strongest experience for the participating students. Similarly, a cute
kitten accidentally found by the students may steal all their attention
and become more important to them than an elaborate game prepared
by a program leader.
The idea of learning from one’s direct contact with nature, with
limited guidance, and the benefits of providing opportunities for
students’ independent, nature-based investigation, can be associated
6 EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 97

with Sobel (1993, 2008) or Louv (2005). Such experience, together with
the students’ cultural background, is supposed to shape their intuitive
understanding of nature (Ross et al., 2003). In the Czech context, this
is further supported by the work of the Czech outdoor educator
Jaroslav Foglar (Jirásek & Turcova, 2017; 2020).
The program leaders in our study who believe in this theory assume
that experiential learning should be highly authentic. As Petra puts it,

It is strong in that it is real, authentic, in that in this part of the

program, it is no game, these are just real situations the children may
learn from. (Petra, leader, White Program)

Students learn in situations when they need to achieve certain goals,

like building a tent or preparing food. The learning experience should
not be artificially made strong or extraordinary but should be rather
common. As Marek sees it, the goal of experiential learning is not to
transform students but rather to expand the set of activities they are
comfortable with. And as Alena thinks, the learning experience should
also not be simulated, as any real experience is better than a game:

When we simulate reality, by this or that method, it is just a supplement.

But (it is in) real life – so that they find a nest, pet an animal – that
(they feel), I am in touch with real nature. (Alena, leader, Orange
Program)

While most scholars have emphasized the importance of elaborating

on the authentic experience (Kolb, 1984; Johnson & Johnson, 2006;
Moon, 2005; Prouty, Panicucci, & Collinson, 2006), the program leaders
in our study who employ the theory of authentic learning in practice
are somewhat reserved in this respect. They believe that while debriefing
sessions should be held when needed, they should not be organized
regularly, after every activity, or too often. According to them, the
process of elaborating on the experience is a potentially artificial
element disturbing the flow of the students’ authentic experience. When
these program leaders do decide to hold a debriefing session, they prefer
to use a facilitative style allowing the students to make their meaning
of the experience rather than providing a straightforward explanation
of what happened and what needs to be done.
98 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

The theory of authentic learning resonated within all the programs

in our study, but it was mainly used in the White Program. As we
could see, the leaders and designers of this program tried to allow
students to participate in decision-making (planning the route and
the food for the field trip), and they respected the students’ decision
not to participate in activities (“the challenge-by-choice principle”)
they were not comfortable with (caving, roping) (Priest & Gass, 2005).
However, the White Program leaders also applied a set of prepared
activities with a presumed emotional impact on the students (caving,
a diary presenting adventure stories of a fictitious youth club) (see
Figure 15).

Figure 15 Barefooting in Nature. However Spontaneous This Experience May Look, It Is a Regular
Part of the Program. Photo: David Kavan.
6 EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 99

Moreover, while the leaders in the White Program wanted to make

the students’ experience authentic, they also found it important to
provide them with a source of external motivation by using a fictitious
story as a surface frame of the whole program.
This leads us to the complex question of how much authenticity is
manageable in relatively short programs that last only a few days, are
held in a setting new for the students, and have educational aims
defined by the adults.

6.3.2 The Theory of Transformative Experiences

We say that the experience does not need to be positive, the main
thing is for it to be strong. (Veronika, leader, Yellow Program)
Only a strong experience moves us forward. (Irena, leader, Yellow
Program)

As we discussed above, for the leaders in the White Program, it was

not important how strong the students’ experience is as long as it is
authentic. However, many of the program leaders in our study would
disagree with this view. According to them, learning is the outcome
of exposing students to a strong, emotionally loaded, extraordinary
experience. This experience may emerge as the unexpected result
of being outdoors, but often it may also be prepared by the program
leaders. For example, in the Yellow Program, the students were
encouraged to participate in an adventure-based game in a night-time
forest; in the Orange Program, the students enjoyed a night-time
ceremony, experienced solitude in nature, etc. As we could see, such
a strategy was applied also in the White Program (see Figure 16).
Some authors have found that students often perceive a strong and
attractive experience as one containing the elements of adventure or
magic (Van Matre, 1990; Sobel, 2008; Jirásek & Turcova, 2017; 2020).
This experience allows students to interpret the outdoor program
as significant, and they remember it long after they have participated
in the program (Wohlers & Johnson, 2003; Cincera & Johnson, 2013;
Johnson & Cincera, 2015). As a result, this type of strong experience
may also increase students’ immediate satisfaction with the program.
100 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Figure 16 The Magic Spot. The Experience of Solitude Is Often Recalled as One of the Strongest
Memories from an Outdoor Program. Photo: Marta Veselá.

The formative effect of significant life experiences on shaping people’s

pro-environmental professional careers has been discussed by Chawla
(1999) and others.
The program leaders’ belief that strength is an important quality
of a learning experience is based on their interpretation of the theory
of comfort zones. According to this theory, only situations in which
students do something they are not used to and not quite comfortable
with bring the potential for learning (Priest & Gass, 2005; Prouty,
Panicucci & Collinson, 2006). Therefore, as seen through the lens of
the theory of comfort zones, another central quality of a learning
experience is unusualness.
Saša, an experiential program leader and the director of the Orange
Program center, supports this theory. According to her,
6 EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 101

(a learning) experience is something that does not happen every day,

it is something extraordinary, like a night-time trip in the forest,
making a fire somewhere, or simply something unusual. (Saša, leader
and director, Orange Program)

As this group of program leaders believes, a strong, unusual

experience has transformative potential. Such an experience has a
long-lasting impact, and it may deeply change the students’ competences
or attitudes.
Nevertheless, these program leaders have some doubts regarding
the need for regular elaboration on the students’ experience. As they
see it, the debriefing sessions are usually helpful only after emotionally
loaded activities. When they choose to hold a debriefing session, they
tend to explain the meaning of the experience to the students or lead
them to its particular interpretation. For example, after a night-time
activity in the Yellow Program, Marianna, a young leader, organized
a group of students and provided her explanation of what their
experience was about:

Raise your hands, who was worried when you entered the forest? Well,
I also do not particularly enjoy going to the forest at night, but we are
usually scared of things that are not there. The forest is the same at
night as in the daytime. So, perhaps next time you don’t need to be
afraid to go there. (Marianna, leader, Yellow Program)

Therefore, it appears that “the theory of transformative experiences”,

as it is employed in the programs in our study, is more aligned with
concentrating control over the program in the hands of its designers
who can include opportunities for such strong experiences directly in
the program design. From this perspective, we can better understand
the reason for some of the methods applied in the observed programs,
including the night-time rituals (Orange), rafting (Green), sleeping
outdoors (Yellow), or caving (White). At the same time, some of the
program leaders who hold a different personal experiential learning
theory did not feel comfortable with these methods and expressed
their reservations.
102 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

For example, Alena questioned the Orange Program’s designer’s

level of control over the implementation of the program. According
to her, when the program is too strictly prepared, it lacks flexibility:

Because the environment always offers something different, and the

environment changes. When you can immediately react so that you
can change the activity or use another one, you will have much more
freedom in how to communicate it to the children. (Alena, leader,
Orange Program)

In light of the discussion in the previous section, we can see that

what Alena was missing was an opportunity for the authentic
experience. From another perspective, Peter, a young leader in the
Green Program, expressed his doubts about the meaning of strong,
experiential activities in his program. According to him, while these
activities (like rafting) are attractive to students, they overshadow the
other, more learning-oriented activities (like watching invertebrate
organisms in a stream), and so compromise their potential.
Peter’s and Alena’s personal theories of experiential learning are
not completely consistent, and they also reflect some incongruity with
the ways their programs are implemented. This reality reflects the
tension between the program designers and program leaders. Moreover,
on a deeper level, it exposes the differences in the leaders’ beliefs about
what experiential learning means.

6.3.3 The Theory of Supportive Experiences

This block with rafting and barbecue is a strong experience that takes
up the whole afternoon, and sometimes I have a feeling it could
overshadow the previous days. (Peter, leader, Green Program)

Let us go back to Peter’s opinion. As we could see earlier, Peter

differentiates between two types of students’ experiences that emerge
in the Green Program. The first type is a strong one-time experience
corresponding with the Czech word “zážitek”. Interestingly, Peter
assumes that experiential learning is connected with this type of
experience, at the cost of the other, educational type of experience.
According to Peter, the Green Program as a whole is not experiential
6 EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 103

because it does not focus on providing strong, emotional experiences

(“zážitek”) but rather on learning-oriented experiences (“zkušenost”).1
Clearly, Peter is struggling with balancing two competing
experiential learning theories. He perceives the difference between
them and feels that different parts of his leading practice are based on
different theories.
Peter is not the only program leader who perceives such difference
in these two learning theories, even though other program leaders
may approach it more positively. We have already introduced Hugo,
a young leader in the Blue Program. Like Peter, Hugo believes in the
importance of transformative experiences, but unlike Peter, he also
believes that these experiences are supportive of students’ learning:

(I am for the) emotional (interpretation of experiential learning), that

it will impact them (the students) somehow. That they would learn
from it (…), but there is also some information (…) that you are
supposed to add, and you will learn it and link it with (the experience).
But the experience should simply evoke an emotion to help people
remember it for a long time. (Hugo, leader, Blue Program)

Therefore, while Peter assumes that the supportive experience

should not be too strong so as not to overshadow the learning, Hugo
believes the opposite, i.e., that the strong experience helps students to

1
In Czech, the English word “experience” can be translated in different ways, as
what is being experienced (“prožitek”), what has been experienced (“zážitek”),
and what has been experienced and used for learning (“zkušenost”). The word
“zážitek” is also used as an expression for an emotionally loaded experience,
while the word “prožitek” is rather neutral, and “zkušenost” implies a
cognitive benefit (Jirásek, 2016). The outdoor environmental educational
tradition in the Czech Republic highlights the role of an emotionally strong
experience (“zážitek”) in personal development and transformation, an
experience that is often facilitated by directive leaders (Martin, 2011; Jirásek,
2016; 2020; Jirásek & Turcova, 2017). However, other Czech authors have
questioned this view and emphasized the importance of cognitive elaboration
on the experience (“zkušenost”) rather than the moment of the experience
(“zážitek”) itself (Docekal, 2012; Kolář, 2013).
104 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

better remember what they have learned. Nevertheless, both Hugo

and Peter believe that experience is supportive of conceptual learning
and that learners may obtain new knowledge or understanding
through experience (see Figure 17).

Figure 17 An Inquiry-Based Activity. The Experience of Engaging with Nature Helps Students
Recall the Studied Concepts. Photo: David Kavan.

According to the theory of supportive experiences, experiential

learning mainly plays a supportive role in conceptual learning.
Experience supports learning by providing a comfortable, positive
learning environment and opportunities for multi-sensory learning,
and by helping to make the learned content long-lasting. In light of
this, such experience should be comfortable and moderate rather than
strong. The experientially based activities should be pre-determined
to maximize their benefit for students, and students should not have
many opportunities to shape the program. Reflection on the experience
6 EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 105

in debriefing sessions is perceived as an important part of the program,

and it is regularly conducted.
The theory of supportive experiences resonates with the approaches
that highlight the use of prepared activities to facilitate the learning
process (Kolb, 1984; Johnson & Johnson, 2006; Moon, 2005; Prouty,
Panicucci, & Collinson, 2006). However, the observed practice often
deviated from the leaders’ personal theory. For example, when the
leaders in the Green Program led the debriefing sessions, they mostly
focused on the emotional aspects of the students’ experience, or on
their own findings. The full process of debriefing, including reflection,
generalization, and transfer (Prouty, Panicucci, & Collinson, 2006),
emerged occasionally, mostly after skills-focused activities (making
a fire). When an activity focused on developing the students’
conceptual understanding, the leaders tended to use an experiential
activity as the basis for a follow-up, leader-led explanation of the
concept rather than as a way to facilitate the students’ elaboration on
the experience. As a result, while the “experience” played a supportive
role, the leaders’ presentation remained the main source of learning.

6.4 CONCLUSION
Experiential learning has been recommended for outdoor environ-
mental education programs by many authors. However, the meaning
of experiential learning for practice is partially obscured by various
personal interpretations and beliefs. Outdoor environmental education
practice seems to be rather eclectic instead of based on particular
approaches. Moreover, while the leaders’ personal theories may be
considered complementary in practice, they are also contradictory
in some of their elements.
The identified incongruities between the program leaders’ personal
theories and their leading practice highlight the need for further
discussion of how outdoor environmental education should be shaped
and what approaches to supporting experiential learning may work
best given the limitations imposed by the time constraints, perceived
expectations, and educational aims of the programs. It is likely that
106 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

several different educational theories may provide sound support

for program leaders’ practice. Program leaders may greatly benefit
if they can identify the theories and their possible contradictions,
incongruities, and implications for other elements of program
leadership and program design.
In light of the questions regarding the experiential learning
methods applied in outdoor environmental education programs,
we should ask what the students learn in these programs. This is what
we will focus on in the following chapters.
 107

7 CONCEPTUAL LEARNING IN OUTDOOR

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

JAN ČINČERA1, BRUCE JOHNSON2

1
Masaryk University Brno, Faculty of Social Studies, Department of Environmental
Studies, Joštova 218/10, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic
2
University of Arizona, College of Education, P.O. Box 210069, Tucson, Arizona,
USA

Chapter Abstract

In this chapter, we summarize the relevant literature on conceptual

development and link it with the practice of the programs we analyzed
in our study. While we found many examples of good practice, we also
identified certain limitations. Based on these findings, we discuss
potential opportunities for connecting outdoor environmental education
programs more closely with school curricula and for sharing some level
of control over the programs between program leaders and school
teachers.
108 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

7.1 INTRODUCTION
Jan: And how do you think the program changes children?
Eliška (leader, Green Program): Perhaps they start looking at common
things differently, as if it were something amazing. Or they can notice
that the common things are something that contains a story, that it
is part of a story, I mean, it may become an opening for them.

The teaching of ecological concepts has been a frequently cited reason

for organizing outdoor environmental education programs. The
development of ecological conceptual understanding is considered an
important goal in both environmental education (Hungerford, Peyton,
& Wilke, 1980; NAAEE, 1999; 2000) and science education (Next
Generation Science Standards for States, 2014; Quinn, 2012).
However widely accepted may the teaching of ecological concepts in
the outdoors be, there are many issues that such teaching needs
to address. The novelty effect, the lack of program leaders’ prior knowledge
of the participating students, and the limited length of outdoor programs,
for example, may all inhibit the complex process of conceptual learning.
In this chapter, we will examine in more detail these challenges
related to conceptual learning in outdoor environmental education
programs. Unlike in the previous chapters, we cannot draw here so
intensively from all the five programs observed in our study because
two of them (the White and Yellow Programs) did not focus on
developing students’ conceptual understanding and another one
(the Blue Program) especially emphasized local-specific knowledge.
To overcome this, we used data from several previous studies we
conducted that are relevant to our aims here. Specifically, we present
data collected in analyses of the process of students’ conceptual
development facilitated by participation in three interlinked outdoor
environmental education programs (including a version of the Orange
Program) in the United States.
In addition, we briefly describe two new programs, the Light Blue
Program, which is closely related to the Blue Program, and the Violet
Program, which is run by another outdoor environmental education
center. Based on our observations and interviews, we analyze how
conceptual learning is facilitated in these programs and what the
programs’ limitations and strengths are in this area.
7 CONCEPTUAL LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 109

7.2 THE ROLE OF CONCEPTUAL LEARNING

Students are not passive learners; they are active constructors of their
conceptual understanding of the world. In the process, they develop
their personal naïve theories which often contradict scientific
knowledge. From this constructivist perspective, learning may be
interpreted as a process of conceptual changes (Posner et al., 1982;
Duit & Treagust, 2003; Hallden, Scheja, & Haglund, 2013; Pine, Messer,
& John, 2016; Butler, Mooney Simmie, & O’Grady, 2015; Zhang, Chen,
& Ennis, 2017).
There are various theories about how these conceptual changes
take place (Vosniadou, 2013; Chi, 2013; diSessa, 2014; diSessa, 2017).
Earlier studies assumed that the initial understanding can be
radically replaced by new ideas. In contrast, more recent approaches
highlight that the process of conceptual change is gradual and not
always linear. When students are exposed to new experiences, they
do not completely abandon their alternative frameworks. Rather,
they modify their existing beliefs, often changing some parts while
retaining others (Duit & Treagust, 2003; Vosniadou, 2013; Abdullah,
2015; Saglam & Ozbeg, 2016).
Many open questions remain and need to be investigated further.
One such question is how coherent or fragmented students’ alternative
theories are. According to Vosniadou (2013), students tend to make
“synthetic models”, mixing the “old” with the “new” into one frame-
work theory. While synthetic models may be able to provide good
explanations of some phenomena, they fail for others, and as a result,
they create misconceptions (Vosniadou, 2013; Hallden, Scheja, &
Haglund, 2013). Actually, some of the program leaders’ concepts
of experiential learning we analyzed in the previous chapter could be
described as synthetic models.
According to diSessa (2013; 2014, 2017), students’ knowledge
consists of a set of very elemental beliefs based mainly on experience
and common sense. He calls them phenomenological primitives or
p-prims. P-prims are not necessarily wrong; they may provide a
plausible explanation in a particular context but are inadequate beyond
that context. In light of this, sound instructional strategies are not
those that force students to alter their mental models completely,
110 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

but those that start with identifying students’ current p-prims and
develop the ones relevant to a particular learning concept while
challenging the others.
The nature of students’ misconceptions presents another issue.
According to Chi (2008, 2013), there are several types of misconceptions.
Some inaccurate misconceptions can be easily refuted, but others
originate from students’ flawed mental models, incorrect categorizations
of the concept, or a missing mental category (schema). Consequently,
dealing with each type of misconception calls for a different educational
strategy.

7.3 CONCEPTUAL LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL

EDUCATION: WHAT DO STUDENTS LEARN?
Numerous studies show positive effects of outdoor environmental
education programs on students’ ecological knowledge (for example,
see Bogner, 1998; Bogner & Wiseman, 2004; Bogner & Wiseman, 2006;
Manoli et al., 2014; Cincera & Johnson, 2013; Stern, Powel, & Ardoin,
2008; Rickinson et al., 2004). There is a great deal of evidence that
these programs have the potential to teach students new knowledge
and develop their conceptual understanding. However, all the studies
cited above evaluated the effects of outdoor programs a relatively
short time (usually a few weeks) after the students participated in
them. In light of the gradual nature of conceptual change, caution
is reasonable here: were the reported effects evidence of a long-term
conceptual change or were they just short-term effects? Are students
able to change their ecological concepts as a result of their participation
in new experiences offered by these programs?
We researched these questions using a sample of students who
participated in three outdoor environmental education programs in
the United States over the course of four years (Johnson & Cincera,
2019). Let us consider how one of the students (we will call him John)
answered the following interview question:
7 CONCEPTUAL LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 111

Imagine a box with soil at the bottom and an apple resting upon the
soil. Nothing can get in or out of the box. I weigh the box with the
soil and the apple, leave it for two years, and then weigh it again.
What will have happened to the apple? After two years, will the box
weigh more, the same, or less than it did at the start?

John is a clever boy. He likes all kinds of games: board games,

soccer, video-games. He likes having fun, reading adventure books,
investigating new things. John’s mother is a scientist, and his parents
motivate and support him in positive environmental behaviors.
They often take outdoor trips, and sometimes they speak about
environmental problems. To sum up, John is a normal child with good
potential to learn about nature outdoors.
At nine years old, John’s understanding of the concept of matter
(related to the interview question) was a mixture of scientifically correct
and incorrect ideas. John believed that everything is made of recycled
material, made of atoms that may further split up. In his opinion, atoms
were a kind of living thing – they died when an animal died, then they
came back. He did not grasp the concept behind the interview question,
and he believed that the box could be heavier or lighter; he was not sure.
A year later, after John participated in an outdoor environmental
education program in which the concept of matter was taught, he
demonstrated a basic understanding of molecules and atoms, and
he knew they are small and that they make up all living things.
However, he was not sure if they were alive or not. He believed that
some molecules recycled, but thought that some others might not.
He correctly guessed that the box would be the same weight.
When interviewed another year later, after participating in a second
program, some changes in John’s conceptions were obvious. According
to him, everything was recycled and shared. He was even able to realize
the consequences (“we eat poop”). Still, he retained some uncertainty
about living things, and he thought that the apple box might be lighter
than before.
And another year later, John raised many questions. Is everything
recycled? Perhaps something may be created out of nothing? When
a body grows, may the atoms grow, too? Is it possible that the box
would be lighter than before? The old alternative concepts came back
into play as John reasoned through the possibilities.
112 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

The last interview occurred after John participated in a third outdoor

environmental education program. John was sure that all matter was
recycled and that everything was made of molecules and atoms. The
question of the apple in the box, however, remained a mystery, and
John concluded that it would likely be lighter than before.
We can see that while John learned about the concept of matter in
the three outdoor programs, his journey toward more sophisticated
understanding was not straightforward. John created synthetic models
containing elements of his previous concepts and of the new ones as
well. He rejected his initial ideas of atoms as living things and accepted
that everything was made of atoms and molecules. Still, he was unable
to apply his understanding of this concept to solve the question.
While it is clear that conceptual understanding can certainly be
developed in outdoor programs, this example points to the need to
recognize that growth in the understanding of complex abstract
concepts is non-linear. Students arrive in the program with ideas
which they are constantly applying to new experiences, and the old
and new ideas mix together in fairly messy ways.
There is one more aspect to consider in this context. While the
cognitive effects of outdoor environmental education programs have
been repeatedly demonstrated, we need to examine what types of
knowledge students acquired in these programs.
It is important to keep in mind that there are certain programs
that do aim to facilitate deep conceptual change, but many programs
focus on providing a potpourri of place- or nature-specific factual
knowledge that can be relatively easy to transmit. In some cases,
students learn general concepts but incorrect facts. Let us illustrate
this situation with two examples.
The Blue Program in our study consists of a set of thematic field
trips focused on different aspects of the local natural environment.
The Light Blue Program is a similar program organized by the same
outdoor center. Jan evaluated this program several years ago. The Light
Blue Program includes short field trips in two different natural settings.
On one of the trips, the program leader introduced the students to
the importance of the local peat-bogs. When asked about what they
learned, the group of 3rd graders (8-9 years old) presented a series of
insights. Most of them were surprised that peat-bogs grow over time,
7 CONCEPTUAL LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 113

the older they are, the deeper they grow. However, while the students
correctly learned the general concept (peat-bogs grow over time),
they linked this with many incorrect details, such as setting the width
of the newly grown peat-bog after one year at 1 cm, 1 mm, or 2 mm.
From the other trip to the pond, the students recalled mostly place-
specific facts about the place they visited (“beavers live there”, “the
pond is 2 m deep”) and rather obvious findings (“there are many
streams in a forest”, “forests are dry or wet”).
In another situation, Jan evaluated a residential five-day program,
here called the Violet Program, organized for a group of 7th graders
(12-13 years old). In this program, the students spent three hours
investigating water invertebrates. When interviewed the next day, they
interpreted the experience as a big, fun adventure. However, they were
mostly unable to describe what they learned or what it was all about.
They remembered that “this river was clean” or that “there were fish
in this river”. But they seemed unable to link this experience with any
broader concepts beyond these rather obvious facts.
This takes us back to the question of how facilitating conceptual
understanding in outdoor environmental programs should be done
to maximize the programs’ educational potential.

7.4 CONCEPTUAL LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL

EDUCATION: HOW DO PROGRAM LEADERS TEACH?
7.4.1 Learning Models for Conceptual Change

The Orange, Green, and also, partially, the Blue Programs in our study
aimed to provide students with new knowledge and, likely, to facilitate
a change in the students’ conceptual understanding. In the Orange
Program, students learned four ecological concepts, i.e., material cycles,
energy flow, relationships, and change (over time). The Green Program
focused on the concepts of succession and adaptation. The Blue Program
was centered primarily on the locality, but secondarily, it introduced
several somewhat general concepts, such as understanding the role of
peat-bogs in the landscape and the importance of natural forests.
114 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Based on what we know about the challenges regarding the process

of conceptual change, we assume that a variety of approaches may
work well. However, program leaders should pay attention to certain
important elements. Namely, the following ones seem to be crucial:
identifying the students’ alternative theories before introducing the
concepts, adjusting the instruction according to the students’ needs,
and testing the students’ conceptions after the lesson. Regular
debriefing, providing feedback, and discussing the learned topics
with the students are likely to play a key role as well.
Each of the programs under our investigation used a different
strategy to facilitate students’ conceptual learning. The Orange
Program applied the Inform-Assimilate-Apply (I-A-A) Learning
Model (Van Matre, 1990; Van Matre & Johnson, 1988). Before the
program, the students were asked by their school teachers to recall
what they knew about the selected ecological concepts. During the

Figure 18 A Program Leader Informs the Students about the Concept of Material Cycles.
Photo: Jan Činčera.
7 CONCEPTUAL LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 115

program, the activities began with reading a brief description of the

concepts in the student booklet (Inform) (see Figure 18). Next, the
students participated in activities that helped them experience the
main ideas associated with the concepts in concrete ways in the natural
environment (Assimilate). Finally, they found an example of each
concept in nature and drew/wrote it on the application page in the
student booklet, and then they explained their example to one of the
program leaders (Apply). Further application later in the program
involved seeing the concepts in action both on-site at the center and
later back at school and at home.
As we discussed in the previous chapter, the Green Program used
an approach based on experiential learning which was interpreted
differently by different program leaders. The concept of succession
was gradually introduced by the central surface frame of the program,
i.e., by reading a story about a volcanic island. Then the students were
invited to do activities corresponding with a certain part of the story.
For example, when the story described plants returning to the desolated
surface, the students learned about the plants growing around the
outdoor center. When the story came to invertebrates, the students
observed and learned about earthworms. The lessons were based on
the students’ direct experience with nature through observation
and identification. There were regular debriefings about what the
students learned the previous day and how they felt about it.
The instructional strategy used in the Blue Program was inspired
by the thematic interpretation approach (Ham, 1992; 2013). Each of
the trips was organized around a central theme (While we cannot live
in peat-bogs, they are still very important to us.). The trips consisted
of a set of activities communicating various aspects of the central
theme (While we cannot live in peat-bogs, they are a home to many
precious species.). In the beginning, the program leaders attracted the
students’ attention and offered the students an activity corresponding
with the particular subtheme (seeking protected plants in peat-bogs).
Then the program leaders repeated the subtheme and linked
it with the central theme of the trip.
We do not want to say that these approaches are not sound.
However, we can also see their limitations. Of all the programs,
only the Orange Program included some degree of identifying the
116 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

students’ theories before the program. Nevertheless, what the

accompanying teachers found during this phase had little influence
on the way the program leaders presented the concepts – the leaders
had to strictly follow the methodology as it was prepared by the
program designers. Similarly, because the program leaders had only
limited control over the program activities, they could not always
properly respond to students’ potential misconceptions, even though
they are generally encouraged to do so (by providing reinforcements,
examples, clarifications, etc.) (Duit & Treagust, 2003; Butler, Mooney
Simmie, & O’Grady, 2015; Kang et al., 2016). While the Orange
Program provided plenty of activities for reinforcing the learned
concepts, it did not include many opportunities for students to reflect
on what they had learned or how their understandings had changed.
Additional limitations were detected in the other programs.
The Green Program was framed around the concept of succession, but
this concept was never fully articulated and discussed with the
students. The students were not asked what they thought would
happen after the volcanic eruption or what surprised them about the
process of succession emerging on the island. They did not learn to
generalize the process and apply it in another context, which the
students in the Orange Program were asked to do.
The limitations of the Blue Program were a combination of the
limitations of the Orange and Green Programs. Even though the Blue
Program leaders were supposed to tell the students what the overall
theme of the trips was, they sometimes forgot to do so. Moreover, they
did not work with students’ misconceptions or alternative theories.
Due to time constraints and the insufficient number of program
leaders in the Blue Program, there were almost no opportunities for
debriefing with students.
In summary, while the approaches we observed in the Orange,
Blue, and Green Programs can be highly effective in some respects,
they all have their clear limitations. Namely, none of them provides
enough opportunities to respond effectively to students’ tendency
to keep their original preconceptions and make various synthetic
models. Furthermore, in the Green and Blue Programs, students might
have difficulty grasping the general concept behind the interesting
experiential activities.
7 CONCEPTUAL LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 117

7.4.2 Supporting Conceptual Learning in Outdoor Programs

When different areas of life are involved in the learning process, it

increases the possibility that learners will then act concerning them.
Positive emotions play a big part in learning. Transferring knowledge
into different areas of life can connect learners more emotionally
with a certain topic. If you feel that a principle is important in all
areas of life because you know how it affects nature, the community
in which you live, and yourself, it is more likely to be something you
won’t forget again and will try to keep in mind in your actions. (Real
World Learning Model, 2020b)

All the programs we observed used a variety of methods recommen-

ded by different authors for supporting students’ conceptual learning.
The Orange, Green, and Blue Programs used well-received educational
games (Al-Tarawneh, 2016). The Orange and Green Programs employed
clear visual representations of the ecological concepts (Rizaki &
Kokkotas, 2013). Both the Orange and Blue Programs included
elements of drama education (Abed, 2016).
In the Orange Program in particular, we observed repeated
instances of transferability, another recommendation described in the
Real World Learning Model (see the quotation above). For example,
the program leader linked what the students experienced in the
outdoor center with their previous experience at home:

Leader, Orange Program: Have you ever experienced that in a place

where there was nothing, suddenly new grass emerged?
Female student: We have a path at home and suddenly grass started
to grow there.
Male student: In our attic, grass grows there.

In the Green Program, the program leaders also used various

linguistic tools to attract students’ attention and make the studied
topic more personal, including metaphors (“the beaver’s scent is like
its home address”) or simulation (“Imagine we are a beaver family…”)
(Ham, 1992).
To a certain degree, the Green and Orange Programs tried to link
the concepts with the school curriculum (Rickinson et al., 2004).
The Orange Program asked the accompanying teachers to introduce
118 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

the concepts at school before the program and to assign tasks for
follow-up work after the program. As the program leaders told us,
the teachers often went back to how the program fit in with their
science lessons. For the Orange Program, the accompanying teachers
described how they referenced the program in their follow-up lessons,
even though the program offered no specific guidance for that.

7.5 CONCLUSION
Students’ conceptual learning is anything but straightforward. It is
often hampered by persisting misconceptions that the students do not
want to abandon.
At the same time, the short time span of these programs simply
may not provide enough time for facilitating the process of conceptual
change without continuing the learning back in the classroom.
We recognize the good work that has gone into this. The designers
of the Orange Program carefully defined the concepts and guided
the program leaders on how to introduce them through the information-
assimilation-application process. The leaders of the Green Program
applied linguistic tools to create powerful metaphors and extensively
linked the learned concepts with students’ lives. The learning process
in all three programs was based on students’ direct experience and
on active learning methods. Further, we could see evidence of students’
learning in the studies cited above.
However, we also found that, in many cases, students’ cognitive
gains were limited to episodic knowledge, obvious facts, or even
misconceptions. For deeper conceptual learning, the ability of program
leaders to respond flexibly to students’ learning, and close cooperation
between the program leaders and the accompanying teachers seem
to be necessary. Therefore, as we see it, among the most important
ways that would help outdoor environmental education programs
overcome the existing barriers and fulfill their true potential are:
building mutual trust among the program designers, the program
leaders, and the accompanying teachers, and improving everyone’s
conceptual learning expertise.
 119

8 OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

PROGRAMS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE
OF THE PARTICIPATING STUDENTS
AND THE ACCOMPANYING TEACHERS

JAN ČINČERA1, ROMAN KROUFEK2, BRUCE JOHNSON3

1
Masaryk University Brno, Faculty of Social Studies, Department of Environmental
Studies, Joštova 218/10, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic
2
University of J. E. Purkyně, Faculty of Education, Department of Preschool and
Primary Education, Pasteurova 1, 400 96 Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic
3
University of Arizona, College of Education, P.O. Box 210069, Tucson, Arizona,
USA

Chapter Abstract

This chapter returns to some of the issues mentioned in the previous

parts of the book, reflecting on them from the perspective of the partici-
pating students and accompanying teachers. We found that students’
and teachers’ perceptions of the programs sometimes differ from what
program leaders and designers might expect. Regardless of the high level
of students’ and teachers’ satisfaction with the programs, the chapter
opens a discussion of how their expectations need to be balanced with
the programs’ aims.
120 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

8.1 INTRODUCTION
It is so much needed, to do these weeks or programs. And it is a pity
that not all children can experience it because there are so few of these
centers. (…) A lot of teachers not focused on science will tell you,
so you take the children for a week away, they will not do the subject
they would have at school – but here it has a different benefit. (Klára,
teacher, 18 years of practice)

Outdoor programs are an important part of environmental education

centers’ mission to protect nature for future generations. Strictly put,
the effectiveness in achieving this mission is what matters. The impact
of a program on students’ environmental understanding, values, or
behavior is what makes the program good or bad.
Throughout this book, we have discussed various perspectives on
how to understand the quality of these programs. We have shown that
no single approach establishes the programs’ success. As we see it, the
field for program designers is defined by a network of possible paths
and crossroads.
By discussing these paths and crossroads, we have examined the
programs from the perspectives of educational experts, program
designers, and program leaders. While we did give a voice to the
accompanying teachers and participating students in most of the
preceding chapters, it often remained overshadowed.
However, these students and teachers see the programs through
their own eyes. They may like or dislike aspects of the programs that
program designers or academics may not be aware of. They have their
unique perspective, and, fundamentally, it is the students and teachers
who create the significance of the programs.
Therefore, the students’ and the teachers’ perspectives play a major
role. Regardless of the outdoor centers’ stated mission, the centers
operate within a kind of market in which outdoor programs are
services offered to customers – school teachers. The teachers select a
particular program. The teachers link (or do not link) the program
with their curricula. The teachers help to interpret the meaning of
the program for the participating students.
Moreover, the programs are for and about students. It is the
students who are supposed to be educated. The students are the target,
8 OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE PARTICIPATING STUDENTS ... 121

the core, the heart of a program. The way the students interpret the
program may be very important for how the program influences
them. No sound program can ignore how it is perceived by students
and whether students like it or not. No sound program can ignore the
accompanying teachers’ needs and expectations, either. It is centrally
important for program providers to understand these needs and
expectations.
Thus, this chapter belongs to students and teachers. Here we give
them a voice, and we also discuss what our findings mean for research
as well as practice in the field of outdoor environmental education.

8.2 WHY TEACHERS CHOOSE PARTICULAR OUTDOOR PROGRAMS

AND WHAT STUDENTS LIKE ABOUT THEM
The reasons teachers choose particular programs are likely influenced
by many factors. Some teachers have their own previous experience.
Others get word-of-mouth recommendations from their colleagues.
For most teachers, it is very important how much the program costs
and how far from their school the nature center is located (Smith-
Sebasto, 2006; Ballantyne & Packer, 2006; Cincera & Havlicek, 2016).
These factors may lead teachers to choose shorter, less ambitious
residential programs.
For students, different program qualities are important. In contrast
to teachers, they prefer longer residential programs to shorter ones
(Mullenbach, Andrejewski, & Mowen, 2019; Braun & Dierkes, 2017).
They appreciate when a program is located in a beautiful natural
setting, in a novel and attractive locality (James & Bixler, 2008;
Cheeseman & Wright, 2019; Dale et al., 2020). As we have already
discussed, severe weather conditions may strongly influence students’
experience and learning outcomes (West, 2015; Talebpour et al., 2020).
One reason teachers choose outdoor programs is because the
programs are outdoors. Most teachers see outdoor activities and field
trips as important for environmental education. While they do not
always employ such activities in their regular lessons, teachers are
interested in including them in their curricula, and outdoor programs
122 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

offer them a chance to do so (Ko & Lee, 2003; Mosothwane, 2002;

Smith-Sebasto, 2006).
Not only teachers but also students appreciate outdoor learning.
Students like it when they spend most of the time in the outdoor
program actually outdoors. They usually enjoy investigative methods,
particularly if they are focused on real issues and connected with the
locality. Most students also enjoy going on field trips during the
program, whether just for a day or several days (Stern, Powell, & Hill,
2014; Smith-Sebasto & Obenchain, 2009; Dale et al., 2020).
Additionally, students generally appreciate that the outdoor
program activities are “fun”, “cool”, and “exciting”, and that they
apply active methods of learning (Smith-Sebasto & Walker, 2005;
Cheesman & Wright, 2019; Larson, Castleberry, & Green, 2010).
Moreover, students like it when a program challenges them beyond
their comfort zones, provided they experience success in overcoming
the challenge (Roberts & Suren, 2010).
Among the most meaningful activities for students, several seem
to be central. Students appreciate having an opportunity to do various
social activities with their peers outdoors and so to shape their social
identity and their relationships with others (Smith-Sebasto & Walker,
2005; James & Bixler, 2008; Smith-Sebasto & Obenchain, 2009;
Cheesman & Wright, 2019; Sibthorp, Wilson, & Browne, 2020). As a
result, they appreciate activities allowing these types of interaction,
such as various cooperative or teambuilding games.
Finally, among the salient factors contributing to students’
satisfaction are the outdoor program leaders (Sibthorp, Wilson, &
Browne, 2020; Stern, Powell, & Hill, 2014; Mullenbach, Andrejewski,
& Mowen, 2019; James & Bixler, 2008; Sibthorp, Wilson, & Browne,
2020) and the active involvement of the accompanying teachers or
school counselors (Smith-Sebasto & Obenchain, 2009; Stern, Powell,
& Hill, 2014). For students, the program leaders become role models,
mentors, and supporters. Students appreciate the program leaders’
concern for the students, their passion for their work, their expert
knowledge, and their sincerity.
Besides the organized activities, students like it when they have an
opportunity to shape a part of the program themselves, either by being
provided with unstructured time for their own activities or by being
8 OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE PARTICIPATING STUDENTS ... 123

given some level of independence in decision-making in the organized

activities (James & Bixler, 2008; Mullenbach, Andrejewski, & Mowen,
2019; Stern, Powell, & Hill, 2014).
Based on this overview, let us now look at what we found in the
observed programs.

8.3 STUDENTS, TEACHERS, AND THE OUTDOOR PROGRAM

I had a spider in my mouth! (Blanka, student, recalling the adventure
night-time game, Yellow Program)

8.3.1 The Outdoor Program as Experiential Learning

All the teachers we interviewed in our study were highly satisfied with
the outdoor programs they had chosen. Most of them were unable to
identify any negative aspects, and, when asked, recommended only
minor, mostly technical improvements, such as shortening the time
allocated for reflections, lowering the intensity of the program, or
including more field trips.
Most of the students liked their outdoor program and wished to
spend more days in it. One of the aspects they enjoyed most was the
experiential learning process applied in the programs. While they
realized they were learning, they appreciated the distinctive features
of experiential learning, including learning outdoors, playing games
and having fun, and learning meaningful content. According to Sára,
a 10-year-old student participating in the Green Program:

At school, we would learn science, too, but here we learned and did
not realize it, we played games and in some of them, we practiced
math. However, we could not even realize it. (Sára, student, about
Green Program)

The students’ enthusiasm for experiential learning was shared by the

accompanying teachers. Specifically, the teachers appreciated that the
learning occurred in outdoor settings, was illustrative, was based on
doing things and playing games, and encouraged student cooperation.
124 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

It is interesting to see how the students’ and the teachers’ perceptions

were similar in this respect. Radka, an experienced teacher with
25 years of practice, expressed her opinion on the learning process
facilitated in the Green Program in almost the same words as Sára:

So, they learn, but they do not consider it learning. They get
information, sure, they do not remember everything, but they sort it
out in their little brains. And they are in the middle of nature activities,
they touch everything, try, practice (…) what they need – you have
no chance to do this at school. (Radka, teacher, 25 years of practice,
about Green Program)

However, not all experiential learning activities were evaluated in

the same way. Some of them, particularly inquiry-based learning
activities, were perceived with a mixture of feelings. Some of the
students did not like investigating earthworms (because of disgust),
others questioned why they should learn to make food from natural
sources or engage in some of the other activities. What the students
liked very much was when an activity contained an element of novelty
and adventure.
Let us look at an excerpt from an interview with a group of 10- to
11-year-old students after they participated in the Yellow Program
where they learned to make a fire with a fire striker. When Jan observed
this activity, he was surprised how immersed the students became in
it and how hard they tried to succeed. This is how they reflected on
their experience two weeks later:

Interviewer: Have you ever made a fire?

Female student: Yes…
Interviewer: But with a fire striker, it was new, right?
Male student: Yes, and it was good.
Interviewer: And what was better about making it with a fire striker?
That it was more difficult?
Female student: No, because it is more fun. And it is not as quick.
Male student: It is adrenaline. We must try to make lunch.
Interviewer: And is it good, when someone must try?
Female student: It is better, if you are out of matches, you have the
fire striker. (students, about Yellow Program)
8 OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE PARTICIPATING STUDENTS ... 125

It is obvious that the “rational” explanation is not flawless. What

chance is there that you will have a fire striker in your pocket when
you are outdoors? Most likely, what really mattered here were the
above-mentioned elements of the learning experience, the sense of
adventure and novelty.
Although the accompanying teachers appreciated the process of
learning in their outdoor program, they were less enthusiastic about
the program’s effect on environmental understanding, attitudes, or
behavior, and they assessed this kind of effect as low. Some of the
teachers questioned the impact of the program on learning science
and ecological concepts, and assumed that this could be better done
in the classroom.
Luděk is an experienced teacher with 21 years of practice. He is an
authoritative and direct man, and he is interested in environmental
education. The reason he regularly takes his classes to the Green
Program is that he believes in the importance of strong, long-lasting
experiences that students gain from spending time outdoors. These
experiences have, according to him, their definite merit. In contrast,
the effect of the program on students’ conceptual learning is, as he
sees it, relatively weak and short-term:

OK, so they do a certain kind of learning (…), it is different for them,

and enjoyable for some of them while others may struggle with it
because they like frontal teaching. However, I think that the effect
may be strong in terms of days, but not in the long term. (Luděk,
teacher, 21 years of practice, about Green Program)

Nevertheless, this skepticism was not shared by all the teachers we

interviewed in our study. Some of them believed that the program
helped develop students’ environmental attitudes, outdoor skills, and
scientific knowledge. For example, Pavel, a teacher with 11 years of
practice, saw great potential for the White Program to improve
students’ conceptual learning and develop their environmental beliefs
and values:

I find it quite useful (to show) the real impact of the individual
activities. Like when we were dealing with the impact on the landscape
and they saw the dry streams, they were quite scared. When one
126 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

discusses it in the classroom, even if I show them a movie, it is still

far away. But when they were walking through the landscape that
means something to them, I think it was quite important to them. So
that they can feel it themselves. (Pavel, teacher, 11 years of practice,
about White Program)

However, other teachers questioned this type of effect, claiming

that the students’ behavior is developed by family values and the
program could not change it.
Some of the teachers reported that to increase the effectiveness
of the program, they used follow-up or reflection-type activities back
at school. Nevertheless, the ref lections seemed to be somewhat
spontaneous, emerging from learning situations in the classroom
rather than being carefully planned.
From this perspective, the students’ and teachers’ perceptions of
their program are somewhat paradoxical. While both sides liked the
process of learning, the teachers were not sure about its educational
benefits. This leads us to the question of what students gain from the
program, according to the teachers. Based on our findings, there are
two main gains: group cohesion and strong long-term experiences.

8.3.2 The Outdoor Program as a Social Game

While all the programs in our study focused mainly on nature, for
most of the teachers we interviewed, they were mainly about students.
The strongest impact the teachers associated with the programs was
on forming the student group or developing the students’ confidence
and ability to cooperate. These effects were usually in line with the
teachers’ expectations. Most of them reported that they chose the
program for its expected benefit for the group atmosphere and because
they wanted to get to know their students better.
This is also how the teachers perceived the programs’ main benefits.
Almost all the teachers reported the programs’ positive effects on
group atmosphere and the relationships among the students. Moreover,
the programs helped develop students’ intrapersonal competences,
mainly by exposing them to unusual situations and challenges.
The novelty of the situations encouraged students to play new roles
8 OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE PARTICIPATING STUDENTS ... 127

and so to change their position in the group. Finally, the experience

helped the teachers learn more about their students and to feel more
in touch with them. According to Jana, a teacher with nine years of
practice, participation in the Green Program helped to improve the
atmosphere in her class. The reflections of the other teachers in our
study were more or less similar:

Well, they are quieter now, and somehow, I feel better in the class,
now that I have got to know them differently. And it made a very
positive impact on the school atmosphere, even if I cannot say why it
changed so immediately. That they left the school environment. (Jana,
teacher, 9 years of practice, about Green Program)

From the students’ perspective, it was somewhat different. As the

students saw it, their social interactions during the program were
often frustrating and sometimes negatively affected their experience
in the program. They complained about quarrels with other students
and about dysfunctional cooperation. The rivalry among the students
also led them to interpret some of the program activities as a
competition with the other groups even though the activities were
not designed in this way.
Let us examine how Gábina, an 11-year-old girl participating
in the Yellow Program, reflected on her experience. While Gábina
liked the field trip, when the small groups were supposed to cooperate
and find their way towards a given meeting point, her experience was
spoiled by the tensions in her group:

There was a boy and he was ugly to us, that we are not going the right
way, or that we must be first, that we must compete, and so on. And
this bothered us, we argued all the time with him, it was unbearable.
(Gábina, student, about the field trip, Yellow Program)

Nevertheless, students also liked that they could interact with their
peers, either in organized activities or in their free time. The
ambivalence of students’ feelings about the interactions was obvious.
For example, part of the Blue Program was a series of cooperative
activities, including a dramatic play meant to be about events from
the history of the locality. While the students negatively reflected on
128 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

the cooperative games as a source of quarrels, they liked the drama,

even though it called for a high level of cooperation (see Figure 19).
Similarly, the students negatively commented on the clashes they had
during their free-time activities, but for many of them, these activities
with their peers were the best part of the program.

Figure 19 Dramatic Play in the Blue Program. Photo: David Kavan.

However difficult it may have been to get to this point, some of the
students reported that their relationships slowly improved during the
program. According to Gábina, the students’ relationships started to
get better during the Yellow Program, so that the change between
before and after was visible:

The whole A class hated the B class because they believed that B was
always the best, but I think now it has, amazingly, changed, and they
are OK together. (Gábina, student, about Yellow Program)
8 OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE PARTICIPATING STUDENTS ... 129

As we could see, the effect of the programs on improving the social

atmosphere in student groups is complex. Likely, while the teachers
see the changes from a longer-term perspective, the students are more
immersed in the conflict-filled nature of the process. It is also clear
that this process interfered with some students’ experiences in the
program.

8.3.3 The Outdoor Program as a Nature Experience

For the teachers in our study, the outdoor programs were mainly
a source of strong, emotionally-loaded experiences for their students.
They linked these experiences with adventure, students’ excitement,
and long-lasting memories. From the teachers’ perspective, the
programs offered something unusual and attractive, something that,
for some of them, was the main reason they participate with their
students in such programs.
Štěpánka, who has been teaching more than 30 years, is one of the
most experienced teachers we interviewed. After participating in an
introductory workshop, she took her class of 4th graders (9-10 years
old) to the Orange Program and was excited about this opportunity.
For her, the program was mostly about the strong experiences her
students gained. Their novelty and emotional charge were the key
factors why they were so important:

When we worked in the night, when they walked with torches, and
when they went to search for the keys. This is what I got from the
feedback; this is what really captivated them.
Interviewer: OK and why do you think it was the strongest experience
for them?
Because they are not used to being in the evening in nature. Plus, the
living fire, it was a very strong emotional experience, I think. (Štěpánka,
teacher, more than 30 years of practice, about Orange Program)

Most of the students expressed similar feelings. They were excited

about the strong experiences they had in their programs, either in the
planned program activities (field trips, sensory nature experiences,
outdoor adventures) or during the spontaneous, unexpected events
emerging in the program (see Figure 20).
130 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Figure 20 Experiencing Nature in the Orange Program. Photo: SEV Český Ráj.

In all the programs we observed, the students told stories about

admiration of natural beauty, about adventure and enjoyment of being
in touch with nature:

My strongest experience was when we were walking through the

peat-bog. (Peter, student, about Blue Program)

I liked it most when we could make a scented cocktail from flowers.

Because it smelled so wonderful, and we could put in whatever we
wanted, so we made a new scent. (Lucie, student, about Green
Program)

Experiences connected with adventure activities had a special place

in the students’ memories. Regardless of what in particular the students
did in their program (whether it was climbing, rafting, caving, or
playing a night-time game), they reflected on these activities with
8 OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE PARTICIPATING STUDENTS ... 131

a mixture of excitement, pleasure, and pride. They were happy they

overcame their fear and “made it” – crawled through a narrow tunnel
in a cave, roped off a high cliff, or spent some time alone in the night.
Interestingly, while the students positively reflected on when they
had to overcome their fear in these adventure activities, they complained
about the discomfort when they had to endure less pleasant natural
conditions, such as cold temperatures or rain. Generally, “bad weather”
was one of the strongest “dislikes” we found. Similarly, while the
students liked the outdoor activities and appreciated being outdoors,
they tended to complain about the length of the field trips.
However, as we could see, the boundary between a negative and
positive interpretation of “bad weather” is sometimes porous and can
be influenced by unexpected changes in the natural conditions.
Furthermore, how the students reflected on the field trips was
also influenced by the way the program leaders helped them interpret
the meaning of these trips. The students sometimes evaluated a trip
as boring if there was no additional input, or only limited input,
from the program leaders. In contrast, they appreciated when the trips
were somewhat organized by the program leaders, i.e., the program
leaders offered them educational games and told them interesting
facts or stories about the place. Particularly in the Blue Program, the
stories about the localities visited on the field trip played an important
role:

M (female student): I liked about the trips when they told us the stories
from the past. I liked I learned something more, and it was interesting.
I liked to listen to it.
Interviewer: What did you like about it?
M (male student): They told us the beginning, and then later the end,
so we were breathless how it would end.
A (female student): And I liked the stories that happened in the
(locality). About people who used to live there.
N (female student): Or I liked how they started to tell a story, and then
if we wanted to know how it ended, we had to go somewhere. So we
went there, and then they told us the rest. (students, about Blue
Program)
132 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

As we could see, the teachers’ and students’ interpretations of their

program correspond with what we called “the theory of transformative
experiences” in one of the previous chapters. In light of our findings,
social interactions and strong experiences are what makes outdoor
environmental education programs significant for students and
teachers. Let us now discuss what implications this has for practice.

8.4 CONCLUSION
Students and teachers like the outdoor environmental education
programs analyzed in our study. The almost completely uncontested
positive evaluation of all the programs clearly showed that these
programs have their merit and their place in school curricula.
However, students’ and teachers’ interpretations of these programs
somewhat deviate from the programs’ main mission. Simply put,
while program designers want to shape students’ environmental values,
understanding, and behavior, teachers and students see the programs
as a source of strong nature-based experiences and opportunities
to improve group dynamics. While each view has its benefits, this
deviation opens the question of what should be changed in program
design and implementation, or in the communication between outdoor
centers and schools.
 133

9 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

WEAVING THE THREADS TOGETHER

JAN ČINČERA
Masaryk University Brno, Faculty of Social Studies, Department of Environmental
Studies, Joštova 218/10, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic

Chapter Abstract

This chapter weaves together all the threads defined in the Real World
Learning Model and discussed in this book. It goes back to some of the
questions tackled in the previous chapters, highlighting the main
crossroads. In particular, the chapter reviews how decisions made about
outdoor environmental education programs’ aims, distribution of
power, framing of the learning experience, communication of values,
and facilitation of experiential learning influence one another, and
what impact they have on the other aspects of designing these programs.
134 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

9.1 INTRODUCTION
In this book, we have discussed the dilemmas connected with designing
and implementing outdoor environmental education programs. We
saw that some of the emerging themes return again and again to our
attention. In this last chapter, we try to summarize them.
Throughout the book, we have used the metaphor of a crossroad.
All the themes we discussed are crossroads of a certain kind; they
present a choice but they assume following a specific direction when
the choice is made.
In this chapter, we would like to build on this metaphor and think
about the choices as threads in a large web. While each crossroad opens
specific ways for shaping the program, it is also a result of the previous
decisions made at the other crossroads. All decisions have their
consequences and influence the whole web of the program.

9.2 THE CROSSROADS AND THE THREADS

9.2.1 The Question of Aims, the Question of Perspective

Among the central crossroads in the web of designing an environ-

mental education program is clarification of the program’s aims, of
the change the program is expected to facilitate. However, an outdoor
program is a social reality shaped by the interactions between program
designers, program leaders, accompanying teachers, and participating
students. While the original intent of the designers is what gives the
program its face, the other stakeholders play their part in the power
game. As a result, the question of the program’s aims is interconnected
with the question of the perspective of those involved in setting these
aims, as each of the groups may have different expectations of what
the program should achieve.
The expectations of teachers and students often differ from what
the program designers and leaders regard as the program’s main
mission. Although the particular situation may be influenced by the
students’ age or the type of school they attend, it seems that while the
9 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: WEAVING THE THREADS TOGETHER 135

programs usually aspire to change students’ environmental values,

understanding, and behavior, the accompanying teachers expect the
program’s main benefits to be developing the relationships among the
students and improving the social cohesion of the student groups.
At the same time, the participating students expect to have fun,
experience adventure, and enjoy some free time for interacting with
their schoolmates. Therefore, the very first decision is whether or how
to take these expectations into consideration in designing the program.
Based on our findings, there are three main processes that shape
students’ and teachers’ perceptions of outdoor environmental education
programs: experiential learning, social interactions, and strong
experiences in the outdoors. Of them, the second and the third seem
to be crucial for students’ and teachers’ interpretation of the significance
of their program, while the first is rather something they appreciate
but sometimes also question.
It is obvious that the social processes emerging in the student group
are an unavoidable part of the students’ experience in the outdoor
program. Besides, what teachers likely expect is that the outdoor
program will help remedy existing issues in the student group’s
dynamics and also improve the teachers’ relationship with the students.
As we already mentioned, only two of the observed programs (Green
and Blue) applied a somewhat developed approach to this facilitation,
while in the other programs the group-dynamics processes were either
not reflected on at all (Orange), or were left up to a rather spontaneous
development (Yellow and White). If the main mission of outdoor
centers is protection of the environment, then the accompanying
teachers, the program designers, and the program leaders must find
a way to interweave both aspects, satisfy both of these expectations,
group dynamics as well as nature protection, and avoid their potential
negative interferences.
However, based on the students’ satisfaction with all the observed
programs, we do not want to say that the existing strategies for dealing
with group dynamics are wrong or right per se. With respect to the
frame of this book, we rather see a crossroad here. Each of the paths
selected has its particular consequences. By including activities that
focus mainly on group-dynamics issues, program designers reduce
the time for environmental education but may avoid some tensions
136 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

in the group. Allowing the group-dynamics processes to develop

spontaneously may make the program less cohesive, but it opens more
opportunities for nature-related experiences.
Strong experiences are one of the main factors that make outdoor
programs significant for both students and teachers. Our observations
showed that all the programs in our study, even though they used
different methods, were successful in providing such experiences.
In light of this, we believe that various strategies for including this
aspect of the programs are possible. Likely, intentionally pre-arranged
outdoor experiences (like caving or night-time games) are perceived
slightly differently than authentic, unplanned experiences (like
encountering an animal in the forest or getting caught in heavy rain
on a field trip). Based on this, it seems reasonable that programs should
provide opportunities for both planned and authentic experiences.
The ways in which students interpret these experiences seem to be
mediated by how the experiences are framed by program leaders
and by how they are enriched by other elements, such as storytelling
or games. Both of these strategies, framing and enriching, seem to
be important, especially for longer field trips when students have to
deal with discomfort caused by the need “to endure”. Interestingly,
overcoming discomfort based on fear is more easily interpreted
positively by students.
While both teachers and students liked the process of experiential
learning facilitated in the outdoor programs, for some of the teachers
this learning had a limited merit. There are various possible explana-
tions for this. It is possible that the centers do not properly communicate
to the schools what students may learn in the program. As we could
see, none of our programs involved the accompanying teachers in the
planning of the educational content, and the way the teachers linked
the program with their curricula seemed random rather than well-
planned. The teachers’ perception of the programs is likely based on
their personal views regarding what outdoor environmental education
programs are about, and these views may underestimate the programs’
real potential.
However, the leaders’ perspective on what their program should
achieve and what methods should be used is not always consistent
with their practice, either. Clearly, some of the discrepancies between
9 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: WEAVING THE THREADS TOGETHER 137

“what we should do” and “what we do” are not intentional, and the
leaders do not realize that sometimes their practice differs from what
they believe is good. Moreover, not all the leaders of the same program
share the same understanding of how their program should be
shaped. As a result, they may differ in how they implement the program
and what elements they highlight.
Finally, the leaders’ perception of the differences between what
they want to achieve through their program and what the teachers
and students expect may lead to a perceived clash between the centers’
mission (environmental education) and their need to establish and
maintain users of their services. This mission versus market dilemma
is another social process (and another crossroad) shaping the programs.
This dilemma is obvious in situations when a center has to choose
design strategies supporting the expectations of some stakeholders
but clashing with the expectations of others. A clear example is the
issue of the program’s length.
For practical reasons, the teachers prefer shorter programs to longer
ones. However, longer programs are likely to be more effective in
achieving their (environmental education-related) goals, and they are
more attractive for students (Rickinson et al., 2004). To keep their
position in the market, the centers may find it necessary to offer shorter
versions of their programs or to eliminate some of their parts, even if
the centers feel it compromises the programs’ potential to achieve their
goals.
However, the issue of different perspectives causing the mission
versus market dilemma opens the question of another, somehow
hidden assumption posing an even more fundamental crossroad:
What is the nature of the school-outdoor center cooperation? Is it
a striving for a partnership, as we identified in the White Program,
or an implicitly market-based relationship, as we observed in the other
programs? It is likely that the market-based philosophy that frames
the centers as providers of a (usually paid) service leads to a distinctive
constellation of beliefs with a significant effect on the programs.
Within this framing, the accompanying teachers are not supposed
to be engaged, but only to observe. Moreover, the program, when seen
as a product, tends to be offered in the most economical way possible
regardless of the impact on the program’s effectiveness.
138 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

This market-based framing sharply contrasts with the emphasis

the program leaders place on the ethos of their profession highlighting
the concepts of authenticity, their love for their work, and their
willingness to do it despite a low salary. This kind of framing also
establishes a particular dynamic in the distribution of power among
the program stakeholders, as we are going to discuss in more detail
in the following section.

9.2.2 The Distribution of Power in Outdoor Programs

From the perspective of power distribution, outdoor environmental

education programs can be interpreted as an interplay of several stake-
holders negotiating for control over the program. Let us summarize
the tensions we identified in the relationships among the stakeholders:
• The program leaders of an externally designed program regret
that the program does not allow them to be more flexible;
• The program designers question the ability of the leaders to
achieve the program goals without the externally provided
guidance;
• The accompanying teachers want more control over the students’
free time;
• The participating students would appreciate less control from
the accompanying teachers and more free time from the
program leaders;
• The program leaders and the accompanying teachers question
the competence of the students to meaningfully participate in
decision-making about the program activities; and
• The participating students’ families have substantial control
over the long-term effects of the program on the students.

Based on our research, we do not think there is only one way that
is the best way to deal with power distribution in outdoor environmental
education programs. However, this question is another important
crossroad; the direction chosen at this point has significant implications.
Choosing one way means not giving a chance to the others, and
preferring certain program qualities or intentional outcomes over the
others. Peter had a clear idea of where the Green Program should go
9 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: WEAVING THE THREADS TOGETHER 139

and what effect it should have. If the effectiveness of the program is

the value that matters most, it likely does make sense to have it expertly
prepared and distribute most of the power among the program
designers and leaders.
On the other hand, Marek believed in the importance of the
authenticity of the students’ experience and in developing their sense
of responsibility and competence. If these are the values that matter
most, then the power should be shared with the students.
Although some authors strongly recommend a participative
approach in environmental education (Daniel et al., 2014; Povilaitis
& Hodge, 2019; Sibthorp & Arthur-Banning, 2004; Kohn, 1991;
Sibthorp et al., 2008; Thomas, 2010), we do not think that any one way
is necessarily better than the others. Obviously, outdoor programs
which usually last only a few hours or a handful of days and which
are often situated in an unfamiliar environment do not provide the
same conditions for developing students’ capacity to exercise control
over their learning as their regular school work. However, this does
not mean that creating favorable conditions for student empowerment
is beyond reach if it is valued by all the stakeholders involved in the
outdoor program.
Both the Orange Program and the White Program were successful,
each in its own way, in applying different models of power distribution.
At the same time, we can imagine many programs attempting such
an approach and failing to fulfill this ambition. We suppose that the
crossroad itself does not imply the quality of the program. However,
the decision brings up specific challenges that need to be faced.
If power is concentrated among program designers, how sound is
the program theory that is applied in the program? What level of
flexibility does the program allow the program leaders to meet specific
conditions regarding the weather, the place, and the student group?
What methods are used to keep students motivated to participate in
a program they cannot influence?
If power is shared with students, what does such a program do to
develop students’ competence to provide meaningful decisions?
How is this program able to react to differences among various student
groups? If the accompanying teachers are to be empowered, how does
the program develop their capacity to link their curriculum with
140 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

outdoor settings and to teach outdoors? And if the program is shaped

mainly by the program leaders, how does it help them bridge their
daily experience and the theory behind the practice? These questions
seem to be essential.
Power in outdoor environmental education programs can be
distributed in various ways among the program designers, program
leaders, accompanying teachers, and participating students. However,
the specific constellation of power distribution can be regarded as
a result of other choices, and simultaneously, it will also affect the
other parts of the program’s web.
If outdoor centers want to fulfil the expectations of their partners,
they should share considerable amount of power within the programs
with teachers and students. Therefore, the accompanying teachers’
and participating students’ agendas become important, which means
the program would need to pay special attention to improving
student group dynamics and promoting the intra- and inter-personal

Figure 21 Trust-Building and Team-Building Activities Are Part of Some of the Outdoor
Environmental Education Programs in Our Study. Photo: Jakub Pejcal. Used with Permission
from SEV Kaprálův Mlýn.
9 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: WEAVING THE THREADS TOGETHER 141

competences of the students (see Figure 21). While these aims definitely
have their merit, the centers would have to find a way to integrate them
with the other aims that are more directly related to environmental
education. The question of the program’s length and the time available
seems to be crucial here, again.
On the other hand, keeping most of the power on the side of
program designers and leaders makes it possible to put the environ-
mental agenda first. However, this choice has its consequences.
To support students’ motivation to learn, the program should develop
certain motivational tools. For young students, this may mean an
attractive surface frame, well-prepared learning activities with an
element of fun, or opportunities for strong, memorable experiences.

9.2.3 The Significance of Strong Experiences in Outdoor

Programs

While all the program leaders in our study believe in the importance
of experiential learning in outdoor environmental programs, their
specific personal theories of “how it works” and “how it should be
done” differ. These differences are partially reflected by the different
approaches applied in each program. We could see how the attempt
to provide authentic experiences corresponded with the attempt not
to prepare all the program activities in advance but rather share some
level of control over the program with the students, as is done in the
White Program. We could also see how the belief in strong, memorable
experiences shaped the Orange Program and the Yellow Program.
At the same time, we found interesting inconsistencies between
some of the leaders’ personal theories and their leadership practice.
These theories became a source of doubts, for instance Peter’s
questioning of the role of emotionally strong activities in a learning-
focused program, or Alena’s dissatisfaction with the lack of opportunities
for learning from authentic experiences in a prepared program.
There are two perspectives we may use to evaluate these incon-
sistencies. The first is to see them as limitations. Alena and Peter are
gifted leaders. Could they be even better if they did not feel a tension
between their theoretical beliefs and their practice? Likely, yes,
they could. Their practice is a playground of different beliefs loosely
142 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

connected to research-supported educational theories. More

consistency could bring more confidence and, therefore, better results.
From the other perspective, none of the leaders’ personal theories
seemed to lack grounding in scholarly theoretical studies. As a result,
by keeping more than one theory at play at the same time, the leaders
maximize the potential for utilization of experiences for students’
learning.
However, the program leaders’ personal theories also deviated from
established educational theories in some of their elements. The leaders’
personal theory of transformative experiences could be associated
with both the concept of transformative learning (Mezirow, 1997;
Kitchenham, 2008) and with the principles of adventure education
(Priest & Gass, 2005; Prouty, Panicucci, & Collinson, 2006). In both
of these theories, we can find theoretical support for providing strong,
memorable experiences with a transformative potential. However,
both of these theories also highlight the significance of cognitive
elaboration on the experience that is perceived as an important part
of the transformation process or learning (Mezirow, 1997).
In light of the rather skeptical approach to debriefing sessions
expressed by some of the program leaders, the theory of transformative
experiences should be linked to the interpretation of experiential
learning as formulated by the Czech scholar Jirásek (2016). The theory
of transformative experiences held by some of the program leaders
in our study corresponds with Jirásek’s view in their shared belief
that the experience should be strong (and even unpleasant) and that
it has a transformative potential even without its further reflective
processing. However, while Jirásek has drawn his theory from the
practice of non-formal outdoor education programs focusing on
personal development and targeting mainly adolescents and adults,
outdoor environmental education program leaders must adjust their
practice to different aims, participants, and educational contexts. Thus,
even though some of the program leaders believe in the importance
of providing strong and potentially uncomfortable experiences, they
have to provide mostly pleasant and moderate experiences to avoid
frustrating their target students and the teachers accompanying them.
The program leaders’ personal theory of supportive experiences
likely reflects their rather narrow perspective on experiential learning.
9 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: WEAVING THE THREADS TOGETHER 143

It is interesting that while the approach observed in the Green Program

(investigation in nature with follow-up reflection) aligns with the
principles of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984; Johnson & Johnson,
2006; Moon, 2005; Prouty, Panicucci, & Collinson, 2006), the program
leaders do not associate the one with the other. The program leaders’
lack of understanding of the basis of their work may, in the long term,
undermine their practice.
We noticed this issue in most of the observed programs. Among
the most striking findings was the program leaders’ skeptical (or
hesitating) approach towards debriefing sessions, which, in most of
the observed programs, was accompanied by rather inadequate
debriefing methods based on simple “learning by doing” or “learning
by telling” approaches (Priest & Gass, 2005). A possible explanation
of why some of the leaders questioned the importance of regular
debriefing or why a directive mode of debriefing was applied in some
of the observed programs may be traced to the prevailing teacher-
directed tradition of the Czech educational practice. The program
leaders may have been influenced by the educational environment in
which they grew up (Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998), and
because of this, they unintentionally prefer strategies highlighting
teacher-directed experiential activities to student-directed processes
of elaborating on the experiences.
The significance of strong experiences in the learning process seems
to be connected with both program aims and power distribution in
the program. Based on our findings, strong, memorable outdoor
experiences may not be directly connected with outdoor programs’
environmental aims, but they correspond with the teachers’ and
students’ expectations. When they need some level of preparation,
these types of experiences may work better within carefully prepared
programs.
On the other hand, providing authentic experiences requires
a flexible program format that allows program leaders, students,
and teachers to shape the program activities according to their needs
and contextual factors.
Furthermore, the call for learning from authentic experiences faces
another kind of issue. As we could see, students tend to like strong
outdoor experiences consisting of a mixture of fear and safety ensured
144 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

by the program leaders, but they do not enjoy these experiences when
they are confronted with a rather “mundane” challenge, such as bad
weather or a long hike. From this perspective, too much authenticity
in being outdoors may spoil the program for inexperienced students
and compromise the program’s aims.
The last important aspect we identified was how the experiential
learning theory applied in the program corresponded with the other
crossroads discussed in this book. As we have said, we do not think
that some of these decisions regarding program design are correct and
others are wrong per se. Rather, some of them work as crossroads –
they open a path that presupposes the following steps that need to be
taken. While some of the steps may become other crossroads, others
can be expected as the outcome of previous decisions.

9.2.4 Framing the Learning Experience in Outdoor Programs

Applying framing theory in outdoor environmental education may

appear tricky. While it seemed obvious to the program leaders to
use elaborated frames to motivate students and to organize program
activities, using surface frames to grasp the deeper metaphorical
meaning of the program as a whole was rarely fully implemented
in practice.
Several questions have emerged. The first question refers to the
relationship between frames and values. As we could see in the Yellow
Program, different frames (Survival versus Woodcraft) are associated
with different values communicated to students. In light of this, it
may be hypothesized that the choice of a frame plays a role in the
effect that an outdoor environmental education program has on both
students’ values and behavior. However, our findings do not support
this hypothesis. It is possible that, regardless of some level of confusion
in the communicated frames, there are other factors that are
instrumental in helping students interpret their experience. Students
are aware that they are going to an outdoor environmental education
center. They can see that their program leaders are keen on nature
and that they provide a model of responsible and caring behavior.
Further, students can see that the center is concerned about its
ecological footprint. It is likely that all of this together communicates
9 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: WEAVING THE THREADS TOGETHER 145

a frame more powerful than what the program leaders say. If this
is true, then the frames applied in a program are just one of many
factors influencing the way students interpret their experience – not
an unimportant one, but one that can be overshadowed by the
authenticity of the program leaders and of the facility housing the
environmental education center.
The second question refers to how the frames that are used are
connected with the distribution of power in a particular program.
In the White Program, the program leaders tried to share their power
with the students to make the students’ experience more authentic.
At the same time, they felt it was important to create a surface
frame to motivate the students. As we could see, the leaders of the
White Program devoted considerable attention to making the program
participative. They asked themselves whether or why to use such
a motivational tool. Moreover, if the students are allowed to make
their own choices in the program, would it be reasonable to also
give them the chance to interpret the program on their own, without
any externally suggested frame? It is possible that here we can see
some of the aspects of the crossroad we discussed earlier: while
elaborated frames seem to be important for programs controlled
by adults, they may become disruptive in programs where the power
is shared with the students. While we could see the importance of
elaborated frames for programs like the Orange or Green Programs,
it is possible that other types of programs would work better without
such frames.
Based on the example of the Blue Program, we may ask whether
an outdoor environmental education program may exist without any
central surface or deep frame. However, using this strategy likely led
to disintegration in the Blue Program. Frames keep the elements of a
program together. From this perspective, frames seem to be an
important part of program design and should be, in some way, taken
into consideration.
Our research regarding the importance of careful framing of the
learning experience remained somewhat open-ended. We found that
students tended to frame the program on their own, based on what
they expected from an outdoor environmental education program.
146 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

At the same time, the surface frames turned out to be a useful tool
for organizing the program activities into a meaningful whole and
for motivating the young students to participate in activities directed
by someone else. In light of this, it seems that having an attractive
and integrating surface frame is a reasonable strategy, provided power
in the program is distributed among the adults, that is, the program
designers, program leaders, and accompanying teachers.
However, this brings up further issues. As we have discussed, it
seems that elaborated surface frames based on fictitious scenarios do
not work well for these programs, which highlights the importance
of authenticity and students’ role in decision-making. However, the
absence of any surface frame may compromise the integrity of the
program. To avoid this, the leaders should probably find an alternative
way of framing their program. It is possible that the solution calls
for consistency in the program’s approach to students. As Hovelynck
(1998) suggested, it is not the adult program leaders who should
apply the framing metaphors, it should be the student participants
themselves who develop their own metaphors for what they experience.
By inviting students into the process of designing the surface frame
of the program, the leaders would share even more power with the
participants. This approach could open new opportunities for outdoor
environmental education, opportunities accompanied with specific
new challenges that would need to be tackled.
Additionally, the relationship between the surface frames and
deep frames presents another issue. As it is the deep frame that is the
main message the program wants to communicate, program designers
should try to find an effective way of communicating the deep frame
through the surface frame, i.e., linking the two types of frames
together. Especially, the surface frame and deep frame of the same
program should express the same values to avoid a potential confusion
in what the program promotes. While all the programs in our study
used elaborated surface frames, the deep frames often remained rather
implicit, and various problems emerged because of that. Finding a
successful framing strategy is clearly one of the trickiest aspects of
designing outdoor environmental education programs.
9 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: WEAVING THE THREADS TOGETHER 147

9.2.5 Values Education in Outdoor Programs

The journey toward influencing students’ environmental behavior in

outdoor programs goes hand in hand with promoting students’
environmental values. If an outdoor center wants to influence behavior,
it should likely also find effective ways for its programs to promote
the values of nature protection and appreciation. Based on our
findings, this requires a strategy that combines encouraging students
toward pro-environmental behavior, developing a strong deep frame
communicating a message related to nature protection, and inculcating
and modelling pro-environmental values in the program.
It may be difficult to apply such a strategy when power in the
program is shared with students whose agenda is different from the
shaping of their environmental values. It seems that this learning
aim may be better associated with programs that are directed by
program designers and leaders, provided both are consistent in their
interpretation of the program’s goals and tools. As we have already
discussed, this decision calls for further steps to establish the program’s
effectiveness and students’ motivation.
At the same time, shaping environmental values and behavior
does not necessarily have to be the main aim of an outdoor environ-
mental education program. An outdoor program may focus on
developing students’ inquiry or investigation competences, conceptual
environmental understanding, connectedness to a specific nature
locality, etc. For those aims, power may be reasonably shared with
students and teachers.
Furthermore, as our study is limited to young students, we may
assume that for older students, a higher level of power sharing is needed
(see Figure 22). More likely than not, it is the age of the students that
is the main entry point into the network of decisions about program
design.
Regardless of what various program leaders may believe, their
outdoor programs follow a normative approach, i.e., they promote
particular values and, implicitly, suppress others. It seems that outdoor
programs are a form of education that is rooted in values fundamental
to environmental education (Jickling, 2003; Jickling & Wals, 2012;
Jickling & Spork, 1998; Disinger, 2001; Holsman, 2001; Kopnina, 2012).
148 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Therefore, any attempt to avoid communicating values such as

protection of nature, natural beauty, or unity with nature would
contradict the very reason why these programs are conducted.
However, applying a normative approach has its clear consequences.
Although this approach likely fits with the attitudes of most young
students, it may be in conflict with the attitudes of those who are
inclined toward the values of utilization of nature, achievement,
power, or other values. Given the young age of the students in the
programs we observed, it is likely that the programs may potentially
clash with the values promoted by the students’ parents and other
family members. As we could see, program participants with weaker
pro-environmental values tended to see their program less positively
and the program did not have a strong impact on them. Therefore,
the clash within the students’ families may further lower the long-
term effects of the program because the students may be confronted
with lack of interest or support when they return home (Johnson &
Cincera, 2015). In addition, the normative approach may be seen as
indoctrination by some of the teachers and parents and, as a result,
it may become a reason for not allowing the students to participate
in the program. This resistance to possible indoctrination may be
strengthened by the program leaders’ intentional encouragement of
the students to change something in their environmentally relevant
behavior.
In light of this, program designers need to choose one of the options
possible in this respect. The first option is to minimize the normative
aspects of their program. Such program would still promote nature
protection, but rather implicitly. The leaders would provide enough
time for the students to discuss their values and perspectives, and they
would curb directly encouraging students to change their behavior.
The program would likely give students some level of autonomy in
shaping the program. Thus, the program would avoid the above-
mentioned conflicts, but it would likely have no impact on the students’
values. Nevertheless, it could still positively affect the students in
other areas.
9 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: WEAVING THE THREADS TOGETHER 149

Another option is to intentionally focus on promoting students’

pro-environmental values. Such program would use a variety of tools,
including inculcation, modelling, framing the experience, and
encouragement toward responsible behavior. In this case, the program
would have a chance to affect the students’ values and behavior, but
it could be negatively perceived by some of the students, teachers,
and parents.
This choice should be reflected on by program leaders as well as
all the other parties involved in designing and conducting outdoor
environmental education programs. However, as we could see in our
research study, sharing the same concept by all the leaders in the
program is often not the case. This fact may cause that the program
does not follow any of the options outlined above and remains
somewhere in-between.

Figure 22 Older Students Can Shape Their Investigation on Their Own. Photo: Jakub Pejcal.
Used with Permission from SEV Kaprálův Mlýn.
150 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

9.2.6 Learning in Outdoor Environmental Education

While all the programs we observed in our study focused on developing

students’ environmental values, they differed in their other aims.
The Orange and Green Programs wanted to increase students’
conceptual environmental understanding; the Blue Program
emphasized place-specific knowledge; and the Yellow and White
Programs promoted competences and skills for spending time
outdoors. Different goals call for different means. We realized how
difficult it could be to challenge some of the students’ initial scientific
concepts and how persistent some of their misconceptions could be.
We are far from questioning the potential of outdoor environmental
education to develop students’ knowledge and understanding of
various ecological phenomena. The evidence is quite strong for this.
However, there are clear limitations in this area.
Whatever strategy is used, outdoor environmental education
programs are likely too short to alter students’ misconceptions, if these
are strong and persistent, without paying close attention to what we
know about conceptual development. Such an approach would call for:
a) strong cooperation between outdoor centers and the accom-
panying teachers to connect the program with school curricula,
introducing the concepts at school before the program and
following up on them at school after the program;
b) program leaders’ ability to respond to students’ alternative
theories by providing additional clarifications and examples,
and even additional new or modified experiences;
c) the program’s clear focus on a limited number of concepts;
d) the program’s central frame supporting the conceptual learning;
and
e) guidelines or lessons for the accompanying teachers to use in
the classroom for further elaborating on the concepts.

To achieve this, the program should provide opportunities for the

accompanying teachers and program leaders to work together, to have
joint ownership of the program. This approach also assumes a high
level of expertise and cooperation on both sides. While this corresponds
with the existing recommendations (Rickinson et al., 2004; Kendall
9 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: WEAVING THE THREADS TOGETHER 151

& Rodger, 2015; Menzies, Bowen-Viner, & Shaw, 2017), it also presents
considerable challenges in practice.
Finding the time for such collaboration is very difficult. Moreover,
as we saw, program leaders sometimes questioned the expertise of the
accompanying teachers or their motivation to be actively engaged in
the program. The level of cooperation required for the above-outlined
scenario assumes a high level of mutual trust, including program
designers’ trust in program leaders. Both of these prerequisites,
expertise and trust, would have to be fulfilled.
This opens up further areas for consideration. The instructional
strategies, like those applied in the Orange or Green Programs, are
very pragmatic. They are tailored for the context of relatively short
programs. They do not assume that all the accompanying teachers and
program leaders are experienced in facilitating conceptual development
in outdoor settings. They do not require a high level of cooperation
between the program leaders and the accompanying teachers. In light
of this, they are quite effective within the given constraints.
However, from a broader perspective, these constraints need to be
reduced. If an outdoor environmental education program aims to
facilitate conceptual change in students, it will be much more likely
to succeed if it includes the accompanying teachers’ active engagement.
It may be that many outdoor environmental education programs are
designed for students only, not for their teachers. In the White
Program, we saw a careful attempt to actively involve the accompanying
teachers in the program. Probably, more programs should pursue this
format. Of course, if deep conceptual learning is not the primary goal,
then programs could focus instead on other goals, such as values and
behavior.

9.3 CONCLUSION
Based on our analysis, the program on Harakka Island that Jan visited
years ago applied a mixture of some very effective and some not so
effective choices regarding program design and implementation.
The same can probably be said about most outdoor environmental
education practice.
152 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

However, as we have argued throughout this book, there are no

clear “dos” and “don’ts” in this practice. The web of a program is woven
from the interplay of decisions on the questions we have analyzed.
Therefore, our goal was not to define what good practice is, but rather
to show how we can think about it, what we should take into
consideration, and what are the likely results of the decisions we make.
The ambition of this book was to build a bridge between theory
and practice. Nevertheless, it is obvious that it has been written by
university teachers. We hope that this does not compromise the book’s
usefulness, not only for shaping environmental education debates
at universities but also for shaping the practice in this field.
In the difficult times of a pandemic and climate change, no field
can remain the same. We believe that openness and critical reflection
can help environmental education play a role in the social transition
towards sustainability. We believe that outdoor programs that offer
students direct experience with nature will continue to be an essential
part of this transition.
 153

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The book is one of the outputs of the project Promoting Behavioral

and Value Change through Outdoor Environmental Education which
is supported by grant no. GA18-15374S provided by the Czech Science
Foundation.
Some parts of the book elaborate on our findings originally
published in peer-reviewed journals. In all cases, the chapters were
substantially modified and mutually interlinked. As a result, the
book summarizes, develops, and brings together what was originally
published separately. However, it also adds new content and new
perspectives.

The following chapters are based on previously published articles:

• Chapter 3 is partly based on an article by Cincera, J.,

Simonova, P., Kroufek, R., & Johnson, B. (2020).
Empowerment in Outdoor Environmental Education:
Who Shapes the Programs? Environmental Education
Research, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2020.1814205.
• Chapter 4 elaborates on a paper by Činčera, J., Johnson, B.,
Kroufek, R., Kolenatý, M., & Šimonová, P. (2020). Frames
in Outdoor Environmental Education Programs: What We
Communicate and Why We Think It Matters. Sustainability,
12(11), 4451.
• Chapter 5 deals with a topic published in Činčera, J.,
Johnson, B., Kroufek, R., & Šimonová, P. (2020). Values
Education in Outdoor Environmental Education Programs
from the Perspective of Practitioners. Sustainability, 12(11),
4700, [Link]
154 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

• Chapter 6 is partly based on Cincera, J., Johnson, B., &

Kroufek, R. (2020). Outdoor Environmental Education
Programme Leaders’ Theories of Experiential Learning.
Cambridge Journal of Education,
DOI: 10.1080/0305764X.2020.1770693.
• Chapter 7 presents new data from research published
in Johnson, B., & Cincera, J. (2019). Development of the
Ecological Concepts of Energy Flow and Materials Cycling
in Middle School Students Participating in Earth Education
Programs. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 63(August),
94–101. [Link]

All the names, people, and organizations in this book (excluding

the authors) are anonymized. However, all the observations and
findings are real, based on the research and the professional experience
of the authors.
It is possible that readers familiar with the field of environmental
education in the Czech Republic will be able to identify the programs
and the people behind the made-up names. We do not think that such
identification is worth trying to achieve. Let us think about the
programs as about paintings, and the viewing experience as more
important than the painters’ personal details. Last but not least, our
program observations reflect the situation as it was at the time we
conducted them; as time has passed, the programs may have evolved
and the paintings described here may not represent how the programs
are being offered today.
While our team tried to be as fair as possible, we must admit some
of the authors’ connections to the observed programs. Bruce and Jan
have a strong relationship with the Orange Program, and Jan with the
Blue Program. In addition, as Jan observed all the programs, he started
to like all of them.
We appreciate the work of all the people associated with these
programs and we must say a big “Thank you” for their courage to
cooperate with us, researchers. We wish the Blue, Green, Orange,
Yellow, and White Programs all the best for their future journeys of
implementing, developing, and looking for the best ways of doing
sound outdoor environmental education.
 155

APPENDIX 1
THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY APPLIED IN THE PROJECT:
AN OVERVIEW OF THE INSTRUMENTS

RESEARCH QUESTION 1:
WHAT INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES DO DIFFERENT OEEP’S USE
TO ADDRESS EACH OF THE RWL-MODEL ELEMENTS?
Data Collection Method: Observation. Each program was observed
twice, each time by a different observer.

Guidelines for the Observers

Part A: Frames
Does the program have a connecting story that ties all of the elements
of the program together and that is related to sustainability?

Definitely No (0) Somewhat No (1) Somewhat Yes (2) Definitely Yes (3)
A connecting frame cannot Several different The program has There is a strong
be identified. The program and unconnected a central frame connecting frame
consists mainly of a set of frames can be iden- connecting most that communi-
disconnected activities, tified for various of the activities. cates the meaning
there is no overarching parts of the pro- However, the of all the program
story defining the mean- gram, no central frame is rather activities. The
ing of the whole program. frame for the whole implicit and it is story is explicitly
The meaning of the acti- program is identi- not clearly com- and repeatedly
vities is not clear, so the fied, or the central municated to the communicated
participants do something frame is very ge- participants. during the
but have no clue for neral and obvious, program.
getting the meaning i.e., “protect nature”,
of the activities. etc.
156 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

• What frame(s) did you identify in the program?

• How were they communicated in the program activities?
• Did the students pay attention when the frame was introduced
or recalled? What did you see/hear?
• Did the students discuss the frame spontaneously? Did they
ask questions about it? What did you see/hear?

Part B: Values
Does the program support altruistic (transcendent) values?

• Provide examples (what you read/heard) of how the program

promoted values of preservation of nature (e.g., that nature
should be protected because of its intrinsic qualities, because
life is precious and beautiful, because it is fair, etc.):
• Provide examples (what you read/heard) of how the program
promoted values of utilization of nature (e.g., nature should be
protected to satisfy people’s current and future needs):
• Provide examples (what you read/heard) of how the program
promoted values of appreciation of nature (e.g., it is good to
spend time in nature and enjoy it):

Definitely No (0) Somewhat No (1) Somewhat Yes (2) Definitely Yes (3)
Most often commu- Most often commu- Most often commu- Most often commu-
nicated were values nicated were values nicated were values nicated were values
from group 0. Values from group 1. A from group 2. A from group 3. Values
from group 3 were mixture of values mixture of values from group 0 were
practically not com- from the other from the other practically not com-
municated at all. groups were also groups were also municated at all.
communicated. communicated.
APPENDIX 1 THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY APPLIED IN THE PROJECT: AN OVERVIEW OF THE INSTRUMENTS 157

Group Core Values Specific Values How were the values

(Identify which of them you noticed.) communicated in the
program? Provide
examples.
3 Universalism Broadminded, Equality, Unity with the
World, Protecting the Environment, World
of Beauty, Inner Harmony, World Peace,
Social Justice, Wisdom
2 Self-Direction Freedom, Independent, Curious, Creativity,
Choosing Own Goals, Privacy, Self-Respect
2 Benevolence Mature Love, Spiritual Life, Helpful,
Forgiving, True Friendship, Meaning of
Life, Honest, Responsible, Loyal
1 Stimulation Daring, Variation in Life, Excitement in Life
1 Hedonism Enjoying Life, Self-Indulgent, Pleasure
1 Conformity Self-Discipline, Politeness, Honoring
the Elders, Obedient
1 Tradition Humble, Detachment, Respect for
Tradition, Devout, Moderate, Accepting
My Portion in Life
0 Achievement Intelligent, Capable, Successful, Influential,
Ambitious
0 Power Social Recognition, Social Power, Wealth,
Authority, Preserving My Public Image
0 Security Healthy, Family Security, Social Order,
Clean, Sense of Belonging, Reciprocation
of Favors, National Security

• Provide more comments or further examples:

158 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Part C: Transferability
Does the program promote transferability between local and immediate
events on one side and broader contexts and consequences on the other
side?

Definitely No (0) Somewhat No (1) Somewhat Yes (2) Definitely Yes (3)
0x yes 1x yes 2x yes 3–4x yes

• Does the program communicate the following types of

interconnections?

No Yes Provide examples

from the program.
Past Dimension (now—before). How the
present situation has been caused by events
and decisions in the past.
Future Dimension (now—later). How the
present situation and decisions may influence
the situation in the future.
Personal Dimension (here—at home). How
the local situation resembles or is connected
with the students’ personal lives and their
home region.
Global Dimension (here—the world). How the
local situation resembles or is connected with
the situation in the students’ country, in Europe
or the world.

Part D: Experience
Does the program apply experiential methods to help students connect
with outdoor settings?

Definitely No (0) Somewhat No (1) Somewhat Yes (2) Definitely Yes (3)
0x yes 1x yes 2x yes 3–4x yes
APPENDIX 1 THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY APPLIED IN THE PROJECT: AN OVERVIEW OF THE INSTRUMENTS 159

No Yes Provide examples

from the program.
Outdoor Settings. Is most of the program
conducted in outdoor settings?
Direct Interaction. Are the students motivated
to interact directly with nature (nature as a
partner vs. nature as a playground for social
interaction)
Reflection. Does the program provide an
opportunity to reflect on the students’
experience in nature?
Transfer. Does the program provide an
opportunity to transfer the students’ learning
into their future activities (application) or their
personal life?

• Did you see students’ lack of involvement during the program

activities? (Describe what activity/part of activities, how many
students did something else and what, what measures the
program leaders used to engage the students in the activity
again):
• Did you see students’ high level of involvement during the
program activities (what activity/part of activities, what did the
students do)?
• What feelings did the students express and share during the
debriefing sessions or during the activities? (Describe the
context, the activity, and what you saw/heard about the students’
feelings):
• What findings did the students report and share during the
debriefing sessions or during the activities? (Describe the
context, the activity, and what you saw/heard about the students’
findings; put special emphasis on cases of cognitive dissonance
– expression of surprise, change of opinion, etc.):
160 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Part E: Empowerment
Does the program help students become empowered to shape
a sustainable future?

E.1 The Emancipatory Approach

Definitely No (0) Somewhat No (1) Somewhat Yes (2) Definitely Yes (3)
Students have no Students have only a The program provides The program provides
opportunity to shape limited opportunity a mixture of pre-de- just a loose frame-
the program activ- to shape the program termined activities work for students’
ities through their activities through and activities shaped decisions about the
own decisions. their own decisions, through students’ activities, students
e.g., they have a lim- own decisions, the are supposed to
ited choice regarding independent activ- make their own
what to do in some of ities are complex, decisions, to choose
the activities, most of require cooperation from several options,
these chosen activ- among students, pro- and to reflect on the
ities require simple, vide an opportunity results of their work.
individual behavior for decision-making,
with a limited oppor- assessing various
tunity to strengthen options, predicting
students’ compe- potential results, etc.
tence.

E.2 Encouragement toward Responsible Behavior

• Provide examples (what you read/heard) of how the program
encouraged students to change something in their environ-
mentally relevant behavior (e.g., did it motivate them to start
and maintain new habits):
• Provide examples (what you read/heard) of how the program
instructed students about what they could do to help the
environment and how (e.g., was it clear, did it offer guidance
or just vague ideas about what they can do):
• Provide examples (what you read/heard) of how the program
persuaded students that they are able to help the environment
through their own effort (e.g., how did it develop students’
internal locus of control, their self-efficacy):
APPENDIX 1 THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY APPLIED IN THE PROJECT: AN OVERVIEW OF THE INSTRUMENTS 161

• Provide examples (what you read/heard) of how the program

leaders and the eco-center facility modelled responsible environ-
mental behavior (e.g., how did they save energy, materials,
model interest in nature, etc.):

Part F: Satisfaction
Informal interviews with the students during program observation.
Write down the name, gender, and age. Record the interview.
• How did you like it today? How was (a particular activity)?
Did anything surprise you today?
• Is there something you would like to change?

RESEARCH QUESTION 2:
HOW DO STUDENTS INTERPRET THEIR EXPERIENCE REGARDING
THE PROGRAM AND THE PROGRAM’S ACTIVITIES?
Part A: Qualitative Analyses
Data Collection Method: Focus groups with students approximately
two weeks after their participation in the program. Six to eight students
selected for each of the observed groups.

Guidelines for the Interviewers

Procedure:
1. Two weeks ago, you participated in the XY program. If you had to
select just one, the strongest, experience for you, what would it be?
a. What did you like about this experience? / What was unique
about your experience?
b. Is there anyone else with the same experience? What?
c. Would anyone choose something different? What?
2. Usually, some children like some activities but dislike others. What
activities in the program did you dislike?
a. What exactly did you dislike about this activity?
b. Is there anyone else with the same activity? What?
c. Would anyone choose something different? What?
162 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

3. Now think about the program as a whole.

a. In what ways was the program different from the way you
learn at school?
b. What did you like about the way the program was conducted
for you?
4. Imagine you could change anything in the program. What would
you change?
5. In the program, you were motivated to do something for nature in
your personal life. Usually, some students start doing something,
and others do not. Is there anyone who has already tried to do
something new after the program? What was it?
a. What helped you start doing this activity?
b. Did you run into any problems with it?
c. Anyone else?
6. Do you have any other comments or impressions from the program
that you would like to share with me?

Part B: Quantitative Analyses

Data Collection Method: A questionnaire collected approximately
two weeks after the students’ participation in the program.

List of Items

Frames
• If you were to describe the program to a younger schoolmate
in one sentence, what would you say?
• Complete the following sentence: In the program, we learned …
• I always knew why it was important to do the activities we were
doing.
• Some of the activities we were doing were pointless.
Transferability
• We learned in the program how everything around us is
interconnected.
• We learned in the program that when I do something at home
or at school, I can change things in other places or in other
countries.
APPENDIX 1 THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY APPLIED IN THE PROJECT: AN OVERVIEW OF THE INSTRUMENTS 163

• We learned in the program that what nature looks like today

has been influenced by the decisions people made in the past.
• We learned in the program that when people interfere with
something in nature, they can change nature for many, many
years.
• We learned in the program that the nature where the program
took place is in some way connected with the nature where I
live.
Experience
• Most of the activities we did in the program took place outdoors.
• We always had enough time in the program to explore the nature
around us.
• When I experienced something important in the course of the
program, I had time to think it over and share my feelings with
others.
• When we learned something in the program, we later had a
chance to apply it.
• During the program, we were motivated by the program leaders
to use what we had learned at home or at school.
Empowerment
• I always had an opportunity to suggest what we could learn
about nature during the program.
• When I wanted to explore something deeper in nature, I always
got the time to do it during the program.
• I had a lot of opportunities for cooperation with my classmates
during the program.
• In some activities in the program, we had an opportunity to
make decisions on our own and then experience the consequences
of our decisions.
Encouragement
• The program leaders clearly explained to us what we could do
to help nature.
• I felt motivated by the program leaders to start doing something
to help nature at home.
• It would be great if everyone treated nature the same way as the
program leaders.
164 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Satisfaction
• I would like to take part in a similar program again, if possible.
• I would recommend the program to all my friends.
• I really liked the program.

RESEARCH QUESTION 3:
HOW DO THE ACCOMPANYING TEACHERS PERCEIVE
AND INTERPRET THEIR EXPERIENCE IN THE OEEP’S THAT USE
THE RWL-MODEL ELEMENTS?
Data Collection Method: Interviews with the accompanying teachers
who have experience with one of the observed programs. At least two
teachers for each of the observed programs were interviewed.

Guidelines for the Interviewers

Procedure:
• Program. What did you expect from the program? What was
the story that led you to it?
– Do you have experience with other OEEPs?
• What do you particularly like about this program?
– If you compare it with the other programs you know, what
are the strengths of this program?
• What do you think are the weaknesses of this program? What
changes should be considered?
We want to investigate the meaning of specific instructional strategies
applied in OEEPs. Our work is based on the RWL Model designed
several years ago by a coalition of Czech and international EE centers
and universities.

• Frames. Some people believe that an OEEP should communicate

one central message or a story that connects all parts of the
program together. Other people believe that it is better to avoid
over-organizing the program and it is OK when the program
APPENDIX 1 THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY APPLIED IN THE PROJECT: AN OVERVIEW OF THE INSTRUMENTS 165

is composed of a set of activities that are not much interconnected.

– What do you think about this?
– How was it in this program?
– (If respondents agree there is a frame) Could you summarize
the message / story of this program, how do you perceive it?
– (Same condition) How do you think this story worked in
this program?
– (If there is no frame) How do you think this strategy worked
in this program?

• Values. According to some researchers, program leaders have

an impact on the way the program influences the students
through the values the leaders communicate. For example, if
we say that nature should be well managed, we highlight values
connected with power and achievement, which may decrease
the chance for promoting pro-environmental behavior. Other
people believe that this is unimportant or even reasonable –
nature should be managed by humankind.
– What do you think about this?
– How was it in this program?
– What do you think about the way the program leader worked
with this aspect?

• Transferability. Another aspect of OEEPs that we are interested

in is the way they connect local and immediate events on one
side with broader contexts and consequences on the other side.
Did you find this strategy in this program?
– Do you think this aspect of the program should be more
strongly promoted or is it OK as it is now? (Would you
express your opinion, please?)

• Experience. Most program leaders agree that EE should be based

on students’ experience. However, how do you understand what
experiential learning is?
– How was this strategy applied in this program?
– Is there anything you think should be corrected in this
program to make it even more experiential?
166 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

• Empowerment. There is a big debate going on in the field of EE.

According to one group, program leaders (or the eco-center)
are experts and so they are responsible for preparing a well-
designed set of learning activities aiming to achieve important
goals of EE. In this approach, the students simply but actively
participate in the prepared activities. According to the other
group, a good program should be open enough to allow the
students to make their own decisions about what to investigate,
what to do, and what to achieve in the program. In this approach,
the students are the decision-makers and the program leaders
more or less just facilitate the learning process. According to
you, which of these approaches in EE is better?
– How was it in this program?
– How would you say this approach worked in this program?

• Conclusion. Is there anything else you would like to share with

me about this program?

RESEARCH QUESTION 4:
HOW DO PROGRAM LEADERS INTERPRET THE INSTRUCTIONAL
STRATEGIES INTENTIONALLY APPLIED IN THEIR PROGRAM?
Data Collection Method: Interviews with the program leaders who
lead one of the observed programs or are responsible for the program’s
implementation. At least two leaders for each of the observed programs
were interviewed.

Guidelines for the Interviewers

Procedure:
• Program. How did it happen that you started to lead this
program? What was the story that led you to it?
– How long ago was it?
– Do you have experience with other programs?
APPENDIX 1 THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY APPLIED IN THE PROJECT: AN OVERVIEW OF THE INSTRUMENTS 167

• What do you particularly like about this program?

– If you compare this program with the other programs you
know, what are the strengths of this program?

• What do you think are the weaknesses of this program? What

changes should be considered?

• There are certain aspects of OEEPs that we want to analyze in

our research. They are based on the RWL Model designed
several years ago by a coalition of Czech and international EE
centers and universities. These aspects include frames, values,
transferability, experience, and empowerment. I am going to
ask you about them. Are you familiar with the RWL Model?

• Frames. Some people believe that an OEEP should communicate

one central message or story that connects all parts of the
program together. Other people believe that it is better to avoid
over-organizing the program and it is OK when the program
is composed of a set of activities that are not much interconnected.
What do you think about this?
– How is it in this program?
– (If respondents agree there is a frame) Could you summarize
the message / story of this program in one or more sentences?
– (Same condition) How do you think this story works in this
program?
– (If there is no frame) How do you think this strategy works
in this program?

• Values. According to some researchers, program leaders have an

impact on the way the program influences the students through
the values the leaders communicate. For example, if we say that
nature should be well managed, we highlight values connected
with power and achievement, which may decrease the chance for
promoting pro-environmental behavior. Other people believe
that this is unimportant or even reasonable – nature should be
managed by humankind. What do you think about this?
– How is it in this program?
168 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

• Transferability. Another aspect of OEEPs that we are interested

in is the way they connect local and immediate events on one
side with broader contexts and consequences on the other side.
Could you give me examples of how these connections are
communicated in this program?
– Do you think this aspect of the program should be more
strongly promoted or it is OK as it is now? (Would you
express your opinion, please?)

• Experience. Most program leaders agree that EE should be based

on students’ experience. However, how do you understand what
experiential learning is?
– How do you apply this approach in this program?
– How do you think it works? Is there anything you think
should be corrected in this program to make it even more
experiential?

• Empowerment. There is a big debate going on in the field of EE.

According to one group, program leaders (or the eco-center)
are experts and so they are responsible for preparing a well-
designed set of learning activities aiming to achieve important
goals of EE. In this approach, the students simply but actively
participate in the prepared activities. According to the other
group, a good program should be open enough to allow the
students to make their own decisions about what to investigate,
what to do, and what to achieve in the program. In this approach,
the students are the decision-makers and the program leaders
more or less just facilitate the learning process. According to
you, which of these approaches in EE is better?
– How is it in this program?
– How would you say this approach works in this program?

• Conclusion. Is there anything else you would like to share with

me about this program?
APPENDIX 1 THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY APPLIED IN THE PROJECT: AN OVERVIEW OF THE INSTRUMENTS 169

RESEARCH QUESTION 5:
HOW DO EDUCATIONAL EXPERTS REFLECT
ON THE MEANING AND THE KEY ELEMENTS OF HIGH-QUALITY OEEP’S?
Data Collection Method: Four focus groups with selected experts
from the fields of outdoor education, environmental education, eco-
psychology, and environmental ethics.

Discussion Topics

• The Role of Personal Experience with OEEPs

• The Opportunities, Meaning, and Limits of OEEPs
• The Preconditions of OEEPs’ Effectiveness and the Quality
Criteria for OEEPs
• The Issues and Controversies Related to OEEPs
• The Learning Process in OEEPs

RESEARCH QUESTION 6:
WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF OEEP’S ON STUDENTS’ ENVIRONMENTAL
VALUES AND BEHAVIOR?
Data Collection Method: A questionnaire collected before, two weeks
after, and then again four months after the students’ participation in
the program.

List of Items

Preservation of Nature
• Human interference in nature often leads to catastrophic or
harmful effects.
• People mistreat nature.
• If things do not change, we will soon be facing a major
environmental disaster.
170 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Intention to Act
• If I had extra money, I would donate it toward nature protection.
• I would help raise money to protect nature.
• I am making an effort to tell others that nature is important.
• If I have a choice, I prefer drinking tap water to bottled water.
• If I have the opportunity, I will take part in an event organized
by local environmentalists.
• I would be willing to buy environment-friendly food.

Utilization of Nature
• People have the right to change the environment for their benefit.
• Building new roads is so important that trees should be cut
down.
• Because mosquitoes live in swamps, we should drain the
swamps and use the land for farming.
• To feed people, the wilderness must be turned into farmland.
• People are supposed to rule over nature.
• Weeds should be killed because they take space from the plants
we need.

Appreciation of Nature
• I like a grassy lawn more than a meadow where flowers grow
on their own.
• I like to watch and listen to birds.
• Every now and then I take the time to watch clouds passing by.
• Sometimes I watch stars at night.
• Every now and then I take the time to smell flowers.
• Listening to the sounds of nature always makes me relax.

Behavior
• I recycle paper at home or at school.
• When I am the last to leave a room, I always switch off the lights.
• If I see people acting badly toward nature, I immediately tell them.
• In my free time, I watch nature shows on the Internet or on
television.
• I speak with my parents about how it may be possible to help
with solving environmental problems.
APPENDIX 1 THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY APPLIED IN THE PROJECT: AN OVERVIEW OF THE INSTRUMENTS 171

• I try to help the environment at our school.

• In my free time, I participate in events to help the environment.
• I often read about nature and the environment.
• When I am deciding what to take out of the refrigerator, I keep
the doors closed.
• I place birdhouses or feeders near my home.

Source:
Bogner, F. (2018). Environmental Values (2-MEV) and Appreciation
of Nature. Sustainability, 10(2), 350. [Link]
 173

REFERENCES

Abdullah, N. (2015). The Existence of Alternative Framework in Students’

Scientific Imagination on the Concept of Matter at Submicroscopic Level:
Macro Imagination. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(21), 55–65.
Abed, O. H. (2016). Drama-Based Science Teaching and Its Effect on Students’
Understanding of Scientific Concepts and Their Attitudes towards Science
Learning. International Education Studies, 9(10), 163.
[Link]
Adlong, W., & Dietsch E. (2015). Environmental Education and the Health
Professions: Framing Climate Change as a Health Issue. Environmental
Education Research, 21(5), 687–709. [Link]
14.930727
Allen, J. B., & Ferrand, J. L. (1999). Environmental Locus of Control,
Sympathy, and Proenvironmental Behavior. Environment and Behavior,
31(3), 338–353. [Link]
Al-Tarawneh, M. H. (2016). The Effectiveness of Educational Games on
Scientific Concepts Acquisition in First Grade Students in Science. Journal
of Education and Practice, 7(3), 31–37.
Ardoin, N. M. et al. (2015). Using Online Narratives to Explore Participant
Experiences in a Residential Environmental Education Program.
Children’s Geographies, 14(3), 263–281.
[Link]
Arowolo, O. (2017). Understanding Framing Theory. Lagos: Lagost State
University.
Athman, J. A., & Monroe, M. C. (2001). Elements of Effective Environmental
Education Programs. Defining Best Practices in Boating, Fishing, and
Stewardship Education. [Link]
Baker, M. M., Junmookda, K. D., Macer, D. R. J., Manzanero, L. I. O., Reyes,
D. P. T., Tuyen, N. T, & Waller, A. R. (2019). Environmental Ethics
Education. Christchurch, New Zealand: Eubios Ethics Institute.
174 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (2006). Promoting Learning for Sustainability:

Principals’ Perceptions of the Role of Outdoor and Environmental
Education Centres. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 22,
1–15. [Link]
Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty Years after Hines, Hungerford,
and Tomera: A New Meta-Analysis of Psycho-Social Determinants of
Pro-Environmental Behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
27(1), 14–25. [Link]
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Begum, S. (2012). A Secondary Science Teacher’s Beliefs about Environmental
Education and Its Relationship with the Classroom Practices. International
Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 2(1), 10–29.
Blackmore, E., Underhill, R., McQuilkin, J., Leach, R., & Holmes, T. (2013).
Common Cause for Nature. Machynlleth: Public Interest Research Centre.
Boeve-de Pauw, J., Donche, V., & Van Petegem, P. (2011). Adolescents’
Environmental Worldview and Personality: An Explorative Study. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 31(2), 109–117.
[Link]
Boeve-de Pauw, J., Van Hoof, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2018). Effective Field
Trips in Nature: The Interplay between Novelty and Learning. Journal
of Biological Education, 9266, 1–13.
[Link]
Bogner, F. X. (1998). The Influence of Short-Term Outdoor Ecology Education
on Long-Term Variables of Environmental Perspective. The Journal
of Environmental Education, 29(4), 17–29.
[Link]
Bogner, F. X. (2018). Environmental Values (2-MEV) and Appreciation
of Nature. Sustainability, 10(2), 350. [Link]
Bogner, F. X., & Wiseman, M. (2004). Outdoor Ecology Education and Pupils’
Environmental Perception in Preservation and Utilization. Science
Education Journal, 15(1), 27–48.
Bogner, F. X., & Wiseman, M. (2006). Adolescents’ Attitudes towards Nature
and Environment. The Environmentalist, 26(4), 231–237.
[Link]
Bowers, C. (2001). How Language Limits Our Understanding of Environmental
Education. Environmental Education Research, 7(2), 141–151.
[Link]
REFERENCES 175

Braun, T., & Dierkes, P. (2017). Connecting Students to Nature – How Intensity
of Nature Experience and Student Age Influence the Success of Outdoor
Education Programs. Environmental Education Research, 23(7), 937–949.
[Link]
Broom, C. (2015). Empowering Students: Pedagogy That Benefits Educators
and Learners. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 14(2), 79–86.
[Link]
Butler, J., Mooney Simmie, G., & O’Grady, A. (2015). An Investigation into
the Prevalence of Ecological Misconceptions in Upper Secondary Students
and Implications for Preservice Teacher Education. European Journal
of Teacher Education, 38(3), 300–319.
[Link]
Cachelin, A., Norvell, R., & Darling, A. (2010). Language Fouls in Teaching
Ecology: Why Traditional Metaphors Undermine Conservation Literacy.
Conservation Biology, 24(3), 669–674.
[Link]
Cachelin, A., Rose, J., Dustin, D., & Shooter, W. (2011). Sustainability
in Outdoor Education: Rethinking Root Metaphor. The Journal of
Sustainability Education, 2.
[Link] Published, 03/2011
Cachelin, A., Rose, J., & Paisley, K. (2015). Disrupting Neoliberal Discourse
in Critical Sustainability Education: A Qualitative Analysis of Intentional
Language Framing. Environmental Education Research, 21(8), 1127–1142.
[Link]
Cachelin, A., & Ruddell, E. (2013). Framing for Sustainability: The Impact
of Language Choice on Educational Outcomes. Journal of Environmental
Studies and Sciences. [Link]
Caduto, M. J. (1985). A Guide on Environmental Values Education. Paris:
UNESCO – Division of Science, Technical, and Environmental Education.
Environmental Education Series.
Cairns, K. (2002). The Legitimate Role of Advocacy in Environmental
Education: How Does It Differ from Coercion? Ethics in Science and
Environmental Politics, 82–87. [Link]
Carson, R. (1965). The Sense of Wonder. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Chawla, L. (1999). Life Paths into Effective Environmental Education.
The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 15–26.
[Link]
176 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Cheeseman, A., & Wright, T. (2019). Examining Environmental Learning

Experiences at an Earth Education Summer Camp. Environmental
Education Research, 25(3), 375–387.
[Link]
Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three Types of Conceptual Change: Belief Revision,
Mental Model Transformation, and Categorical Shift. In S. Vosniadou
(Ed.). Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change. (pp. 61–82). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Two Kinds and Four Subtypes of Misconceived
Knowledge, Ways to Change, and the Learning Outcomes. In S. Vosniadou
(Ed.). International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change.
(pp. 49–70). New York: Routledge.
Chiang, Y. T., Fang, Y. T., Kaplan, U., & Ng, E. (2019). Locus of Control:
The Mediation Effect between Emotional Stability and Pro-Environmental
Behavior. Sustainability, 11(3). [Link]
Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K.,
& Winter, P. L. (2006). Managing Social Norms for Persuasive Impact.
Social Influence, 1(1), 3–15. [Link]
Činčera, J. (2013a). Střediska Ekologické Výchovy Mezi Teorií a Praxí.
[Environmental Education Centers between Theory and Practice.] Praha:
BEZK, Agentura Koniklec and Masarykova univerzita.
Činčera, J. (2013b). Managing Cognitive Dissonance: Experience from an
Environmental Education Teachers’ Training Course in the Czech
Republic. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 15(2), 42–51.
[Link]
Činčera, J. (2015). Real World Learning: A Critical Analysis. Envigogika:
Charles University E-journal for Environmental Education, 10(3).
[Link]
Činčera, J., Binka, B., & Černý, M. (2015). Hodnoty v Opravdovém Světě.
[Values in the Real World.] Envigogika: Charles University E-journal for
Environmental Education, 10(3). [Link]
Cincera, J., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Goldman, D., & Simonova, P. (2019). Eman-
cipatory or Instrumental? Students’ and Teachers’ Perception of the Eco-
School Program. Environmental Education Research, 25(7), 1083–1104.
[Link]
Činčera, J., & Havlíček, F. (2016). Environmental Education Centers from
the Teachers’ Perspective. Envigogika: Charles University E-journal for
Environmental Education, 11(2). [Link]
REFERENCES 177

Cincera, J., & Johnson, B. (2013). Earthkeepers in the Czech Republic:

Experience from the Implementation Process of an Earth Education
Programme. Envigogika: Charles University E-journal for Environmental
Education, 8(4). [Link]
Cincera, J., Johnson, B., & Kovacikova, S. (2015). Evaluation of a Place-Based
Environmental Education Program: From There to Here. Applied Environ-
mental Education and Communication, 14(3), 178–186.
[Link]
Cincera, J., Johnson, B., & Kroufek, R. (2020). Outdoor Environmental
Education Programme Leaders’ Theories of Experiential Learning.
Cambridge Journal of Education.
[Link]
Činčera, J., Johnson, B., Kroufek, R., Kolenatý, M., & Šimonová, P. (2020).
Frames in Outdoor Environmental Education Programs: What We
Communicate and Why We Think It Matters. Sustainability, 12(11), 4451.
[Link]
Činčera, J., Johnson, B., Kroufek, R., & Šimonová, P. (2020). Values Education
in Outdoor Environmental Education Programs from the Perspective
of Practitioners. Sustainability, 12(11), 4700.
[Link]
Cincera, J., & Kovacikova, S. (2014). Being an EcoTeam Member: Movers and
Fighters. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 13(4).
[Link]
Cincera, J., & Krajhanzl, J. (2013). Eco-Schools: What Factors Influence Pupils’
Action Competence for Pro-Environmental Behaviour? Journal of Cleaner
Production, 61, 117–121. [Link]
Cincera, J., Kroufek, R., Simonova, P., Broukalova, L., Broukal, V., & Skalík,
J. (2017). Eco-School in Kindergartens: The Effects, Interpretation, and
Implementation of a Pilot Program. Environmental Education Research,
23(7). [Link]
Cincera, J., Simonova, P., Kroufek, R., & Johnson, B. (2020). Empowerment
in Outdoor Environmental Education: Who Shapes the Programs?
Environmental Education Research.
[Link]
Clayton, K., Smith, H., & Dyment, J. (2014). Pedagogical Approaches to
Exploring Theory – Practice Relationships in an Outdoor Education
Teacher Education Programme. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,
42(2), 167–185. [Link]
178 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Cornell, J. (2012). Objevujeme Přírodu: Učení Hrou a Prožitkem. [Sharing

Nature, first published in 1979.] Praha: Portál.
Cottrell, Stuart P., & Graefe, Alan R. (1997). Testing a Conceptual Framework
of Responsible Environmental Behavior. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 29(1), 17–28. [Link]
Cox, R. (2010). Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Crompton, T. (2010). Common Cause. The Case for Working with Our Cultural
Values. [Link]
Dale, R. G., Powell, R. B., Stern, M. J., & Garst, B. A. (2020). Influence of the
Natural Setting on Environmental Education Outcomes. Environmental
Education Research, 26(7), 989–1007.
[Link]
Daniel, B., Bobilya, A. J., Kalisch, K. R., & McAvoy, L. H. (2014). Autonomous
Student Experiences in Outdoor and Adventure Education. Journal of
Experiential Education, 37(1), 4–17.
[Link]
Dettmann-Easler, D., & Pease, J. L. (1999). Evaluating the Effectiveness of
Residential Environmental Education Programs in Fostering Positive
Attitudes toward Wildlife. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1),
33–39. [Link]
diSesa, A. A. (2013). A Bird’s Eye View on the “Pieces” vs. “Coherence”
Controversy (from the “Pieces” Side of the Fence). In S. Vosniadou (Ed.).
International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change. (pp. 31–48).
New York: Routledge.
diSessa, A. A. (2014). A History of Conceptual Change Research. Threads and
Fault Lines. Berkeley: University of California.
[Link]
diSessa, A. A. (2017). Conceptual Change in Microcosm. Comparative
Learning Analysis of a Learning Event. Human Development, 60(1), 1–37.
[Link]
Disinger, J. F. (2001). K-12 Education and the Environment: Perspectives,
Expectations, and Practice. The Journal of Environmental Education,
33(1), 4–11. [Link]
Docekal, V. (2012). Prozitkove, Zazitkove, nebo Zkusenostni Uceni? [Expe-
riential, Experiential, or Experiential Learning?]. e-Pedagogium, 1, 3–11.
REFERENCES 179

Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual Change: A Powerful Framework

for Improving Science Teaching and Learning. International Journal of
Science Education, 25(6), 671–688. [Link]
Eco, U. (1979). A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana Univer-
sity Press.
Emmons, K. M. (1997). Perceptions of the Environment While Exploring the
Outdoors: A Case Study in Belize. Environmental Education Research,
3(3), 327–344. [Link]
Fang, Z. (1996). A Review of Research on Teacher Beliefs and Practices.
Educational Research, 38(1). [Link]
Ferreira, S. (2012). Moulding Urban Children towards Environmental
Stewardship: The Table Mountain National Park Experience. Environ-
mental Education Research, 18, 251–270.
[Link]
Fives, H., & Gill, M. G. (2014). International Handbook of Research on
Teachers’ Beliefs. New York: Routledge.
[Link]
Flogaitis, E., Daskolia, M., & Agelidou, E. (2006). Kindergarten Teachers’
Conceptions of Environmental Education. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 33(3), 125–136. [Link]
Forbes, C. T., & Zint, M. (2011). Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs about, Perceived
Competencies for, and Reported Use of Scientific Inquiry to Promote
Student Learning about and for the Environment. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 42(1), 30–42.
Gass, M. A., & Priest, S. (1993). Using Metaphors and Isomorphs to Transfer
Learning in Adventure Education. The Journal of Adventure and Outdoor
Learning, 10(4), 18–23.
Gass, M. A., & Priest, S. (2006). Effectiveness of Metaphoric Facilitation Styles
in Corporate Adventure Training (CAT) Programs. Journal of Experiential
Education, 29(1), 78–94. [Link]
Goffmanm, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of
Experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Goldman, D., Hansmann, R., Činčera, J., Radovič, V., Telesiene, A., Balže-
kiene, A. et al. (2020). Education for Environmental Citizenship and
Responsible Environmental Behavior. In Hadjichambis, A. Ch., Reis, P.,
Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, D., Činčera, J., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Gericke, N.,
& Knippels, M. C. (Eds.). Conceptualizing Environmental Citizenship
for 21st Century Education, Environmental Discourses in Science
Education 4. (pp. 115–137). Cham: Springer.
180 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Grace, M., & Sharp, J. (2000). Exploring the Actual and Potential Rhetoric-
Reality Gaps in Environmental Education and Their Implications for
Pre-Service Teacher Training. Environmental Education Research, 6(4),
331–345. [Link]
Grimwood, B. S. R., Gordon, M., & Stevens, Z. (2018). Cultivating Nature
Connection: Instructor Narratives of Urban Outdoor Education. Journal
of Experiential Education, 41(2), 204–219.
[Link]
Hallden, O., Scheja, M., & Haglund, L. (2013). The Contextuality of Knowledge:
An Intentional Approach to Meaning Making and Conceptual Change.
In S. Vosniadou (Ed.). International Handbook of Research on Conceptual
Change. (pp. 71–95). New York: Routledge.
Ham, S. H. (1992). Environmental Interpretation: A Practical Guide for People
with Big Ideas and Small Budgets. Golden: Fulcrum Publishing.
Ham, S. H. (2013). Interpretation – Making a Difference on Purpose. Golden:
Fulcrum Publishing.
Haney, J. J., Wang, J., Keil, C., & Zoffel, J. (2007). Enhancing Teachers’ Beliefs
and Practices through Problem-Based Learning Focused on Pertinent
Issues of Environmental Health Science. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 38(4), 25–33.
Hart, P. S. (2010). One or Many? The Influence of Episodic and Thematic
Climate Change Frames on Policy Preferences and Individual Behavior
Change. Science Communication, 33(1), 28–51.
[Link]
Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, Language, Thought. New York: Harper and Row.
Heimlich, J., & Ardoin, N. (2008). Understanding Behavior to Understand
Behavior Change: A Literature Review. Environmental Education
Research, 14(3), 215–237. [Link]
Hill, H. C., & Chin, M. (2018). Connections between Teachers’ Knowledge
of Students, Instruction, and Achievement Outcomes. American
Educational Research Journal, 55(5), 1076–112.
Holsman, R. H. (2001). Viewpoint: The Politics of Environmental Education.
The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(2), 4–7.
Horavova, K., & Klapste, P. (2006). Symbolicky Ramec podle 3.B. [Symbolic
Framework According to the 3B Class.] Praha: Junak-Svaz Skautu a Skautek
CR.
Hovelynck, J. (1998). Facilitating Experiential Learning as a Process of
Metaphor Development. Journal of Experiential Education, 21(1), 6–13.
[Link]
REFERENCES 181

Hsu, S. J. (2004). The Effects of an Environmental Education Program on

Responsible Environmental Behavior and Associated Environmental
Literacy Variables in Taiwanese College Students. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 35(2), 37–49.
[Link]
Hug, J. (1977). Two Hats. In J. L. Aldrich & A. A. George (Eds.), The Report
of the North American Regional Seminar on Environmental Education
for the Real World. (p. 73). Columbus, OH: SMEAC Information Reference
Center. Reprinted in H. R. Hungerford et al. (Eds.), (2005). Essential
Readings in Environmental Education. (p. 47). Champaign, IL: Stipes.
Hungerford, H., Peyton, R., & Wilke, R. (1980). Goals for Curriculum
Development in Environmental Education. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 11(3), 42–47. [Link]
Ideland, M., & Malmberg, C. (2014). Governing “Eco-Certified Children”
through Pastoral Power: Critical Perspectives on Education for Sustainable
Development. Environmental Education Research, 21(2), 173–182.
[Link]
James, J. J., & Bixler, R. D. (2008). Children’s Role in Meaning Making through
Their Participation in an Environmental Education Program. The Journal
of Environmental Education, 39(4), 44–59.
Jickling, B. (2003). Environmental Education and Environmental Advocacy:
Revisited. The Journal of Environmental Education, 34(2), 20–27.
Jickling, B., & Spork, H. (1998). Education for the Environment: A Critique.
Environmental Education Research, 4(3), 309–327.
[Link]
Jickling, B., & Wals, A. (2012). Debating Education for Sustainable Develop-
ment 20 Years after Rio. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development,
6, 49–57. [Link]
Jirásek, I. (2016). Doxa a epistémé zážitkové pedagogiky. [Doxa and Episteme
of Experiential Education.] Pedagogika, 66(2), 154–178.
[Link]
Jirásek, I. (2020). Transformative Experience as a Change of Horizon. In
Parry, J., & Allison, P. (Eds.). Experiential Learning and Outdoor Education.
Traditions of Practice and Philosophical Perspectives. (pp. 112–129). New
York: Routledge. [Link]
Jirásek, I., & Turcova, I. (2017). The Czech Approach to Outdoor Adventure
and Experiential Education: The Influence of Jaroslav Foglar’s Work.
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 17(4), 321–337.
[Link]
182 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Jirásek, I., & Turcova, I. (2020). Experiential Pedagogy in the Czech Republic.
In Parry, J., & Allison, P. (Eds.). Experiential Learning and Outdoor
Education. Traditions of Practice and Philosophical Perspectives. (pp. 8–18).
New York: Routledge. [Link]
Johnson, B., & Cincera, J. (2015). Examining the Relationship between
Environmental Attitudes and Behaviour in Education Programmes.
Socialni Studia, 12(3), 97–111. [Link]
Johnson, B., & Činčera, J. (2019). Development of the Ecological Concepts
of Energy Flow and Materials Cycling in Middle School Students
Participating in Earth Education Programs. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 63, 94–101.
Johnson, B., & Manoli, C. C. (2008). Using Bogner and Wiseman’s Model
of Ecological Values to Measure the Impact of an Earth Education
Programme on Children’s Environmental Perceptions. Environmental
Education Research, 14(2), 115–127.
[Link]
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2006). Joining Together. Group Theory and
Group Skills. Boston: Pearson.
Jung, C. G. (1969). Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. (Collected Works
of C. G. Jung, Volume 9). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press.
Kang, H., Windschitl, M., Stroupe, D., & Thompson, J. (2016). Designing,
Launching, and Implementing High Quality Learning Opportunities for
Students That Advance Scientific Thinking. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 53(9), 1316–1340. [Link]
Kendall, S., & Rodger, J. (2015). Evaluation of Learning Away: Final Report.
Leeds: Paul Hamlyn Foundation.
Kitchenham, A. (2008). The Evolution of John Mezirow’s Transformative
Learning Theory. Journal of Transformative Education, 6(2), 104–123.
Ko, A. C., & Lee, J. C. (2003). Teachers’ Perceptions of Teaching Environmental
Issues within the Science Curriculum: A Hong Kong Perspective. Journal
of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 187–204.
Kohn, S. (1991). Specific Programmatic Strategies to Increase Empowerment.
The Journal of Experiential Education, 14(1), 6–12.
Kolář, J. (2013). Práce s Reflexí u Lektorů Osobnostně Sociálního Rozvoje. [The
Application of Reflection by the Leaders of Socio-Personal Development].
Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2017). The Experiential Educator. Principles and
Practices of Experiential Learning. Kaunakakai: Elbls.
REFERENCES 183

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning. Experience as the Source of Learning

and Development. Prentice Hall.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act
Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to Pro-Environmental
Behavior. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.
[Link]
Kopnina, H. (2012). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): The Turn
Away from “Environment” in Environmental Education? Environmental
Education Research, 18(5), 699–717.
[Link]
Kruse, C. K., & Card, J. A. (2004). Effects of a Conservation Education Camp
Program on Campers’ Self-Reported Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior.
The Journal of Environmental Education, 35(4), 33–45.
[Link]
Kyung‐Ran K., & Buchanan, T. K. (2009). Teacher Beliefs and Practices Survey:
Operationalising the 1997 NAEYC Guidelines. Early Child Development
and Care, 179(8), 1113–1124. [Link]
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Larson, L. R., Castleberry, S. B., & Green, G. T. (2010). Effects of an
Environmental Education Program on the Environmental Orientations
of Children from Different Gender, Age, and Ethnic Groups. Journal of
Park and Recreation Administration, 28(3).
Loewenberg Ball, D., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content Knowledge
for Teaching: What Makes It Special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5),
389–407. [Link]
Louv, R. (2005). Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-
Deficit Disorder. Chapell Hill: Algonquine Books.
Lumber, R., Richardson, M., & Sheffield, D. (2017). Beyond Knowing Nature:
Contact, Emotion, Compassion, Meaning, and Beauty Are Pathways to
Nature Connection. PLoS One, 12(5), 1–25.
[Link]
Manoli, C. C., Johnson, B., Hadjichambis, A. C., Hadjichambi, D., Georgiou,
Y., & Ioannou, H. (2014). Evaluating the Impact of the Earthkeepers Earth
Education Program on Children’s Ecological Understandings, Values
and Attitudes, and Behaviour in Cyprus. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 41, 29–37. [Link]
184 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Marcinkowski, T. J. (2009). Contemporary Challenges and Opportunities in

Environmental Education: Where Are We Headed and What Deserves
Our Attention? The Journal of Environmental Education, 41(1), 34–54.
[Link]
Martin, A. J. (2011). The Dramaturgy Approach to Education in Nature:
Reflections of a Decade of International Vacation School Lipnice Courses,
Czech Republic, 1997–2007. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor
Learning, 11(1), 67–82. [Link]
Martin, A., Leberman, S., & Neill, J. (2002). Dramaturgy as a Method for
Experiential Program Design. The Journal of Experiential Education,
25(1), 196–206. [Link]
Menzies, L., Bowen-Viner, K., & Shaw, B. (2017). Learning Away: The State
of School Residentials in England 2017. LKM. [Link]
[Link].
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice. New
Directions for Adults and Continuing Education, 74, 5–12.
Monroe, M. C., Plate, R. R., Oxarart, A., Bowers, A., & Chaves, W. A. (2017).
Identifying Effective Climate Change Education Strategies: A Systematic
Review of the Research. Environmental Education Research, 4622, 1–22.
Moon, J. A. (2005). A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning.
Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.
Morris, T. H. (2019). Experiential Learning – A Systematic Review and
Revision of Kolb’s Model. Interactive Learning Environments. online first.
[Link]
Moseley, C., & Utley, J. (2008). An Exploratory Study of Preservice Teachers’
Beliefs about the Environment. The Journal of Environmental Education,
39(4), 15–30.
Mosothwane, M. (2002). Pre-Service Teachers’ Conceptions of Environmental
Education. Research in Education, 68, 26–40.
Mullenbach, L. E., Andrejewski, R. G., & Mowen, A. J. (2019). Connecting
Children to Nature through Residential Outdoor Environmental
Education. Environmental Education Research, 25(3), 365–374.
NAAEE. (2000). Guidelines for Excellence. EE Materials. Washington: The
North American Association for Environmental Education. [Link]
[Link]/sites/default/files/gl_ee_materials_complete.pdf.
Next Generation Science Standards for States, B. S. (2014). Next Generation
Science Standards (“NGSS”). National Academies Press.
REFERENCES 185

Nikel, J. (2007). Making Sense of Education “Responsibly”: Findings from a

Study of Student Teachers’ Understanding(s) of Education, Sustainable
Development and Education for Sustainable Development. Environmental
Education Research, 13(5), 545–564.
[Link]
North American Association for Environmental Education (1999). Excellence
in Environmental Education: Guidelines for Learning (K-12). Rock Spring,
GA: North American Association for Environmental Education.
OECD. (2009). Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments. First
Results from TALIS. Paris: OECD Publications.
[Link]
Parry, J., & Allison, P. (Eds.). (2020). Experiential Learning and Outdoor
Education. Traditions of Practice and Philosophical Perspectives. New
York: Routledge. [Link]
Pecha, L. (1999). Woodcraft. Lesní Moudrost a Lesní Bratrstvo. [Woodcraft
and Wood Brotherhood]. Olomouc: Votobia.
Pine, K., Messer, D., & John, K. S. (2016). Research in Science & Technological
Education Children’ s Misconceptions in Primary Science: A Survey of
Teachers’ Views. Science, 5143, 37–41.
Poole, A. K., Hargrove, E. C., Day, P., Forbes, W., Berkowitz, A. R., Feinsinger,
P., & Rozzi, R. (2013). A Call for Ethics Literacy in Environmental
Education. In Rozzi, R., Pickett, S. T. A., Palmer, C., Armesto, J. J., &
Callicott, J. B. (Eds.) Linking Ecology and Ethics for a Changing World.
(pp. 349–371). Springer. [Link]
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. E., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982).
Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Toward a Theory of Conceptual
Change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
[Link]
Povilaitis, V., & Hodge, C. J. (2019). Instructor Impacts on Outdoor Education
Participant Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Kate Macklin, Journal of
Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 11(3), 222–238.
[Link]
Priest, S., & Gass, M. A. (2005). Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming.
Champaign: Human Kinetics.
Prouty, D., Panicucci, J., & Collinson, R. (2006). Adventure Education. Theory
and Applications. Project Adventure.
Quinn, H. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education. APS March
Meeting Abstracts. Vol. 1, National Academies Press.
186 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Real World Learning. (2020). [Link]

Real World Learning Model. (2020a). Is There a Frame Providing a Connecting
Story? [Link]
Real World Learning Model. (2020b).
[Link]
Real World Learning Model. (2020c). Are Self-Transcendence Values Promoted?
[Link]
Real World Learning Network. (2020).
[Link]
Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and Learning in Environmental Education:
A Critical Review of the Evidence. Environmental Education Research,
7(3), 207–320. [Link]
Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D.,
& Benefield, P. (2004). A Review of Research on Outdoor Learning. National
Foundation for Educational Research, King’s College London.
[Link]
of_research_on_outdoor_learning.pdf.
Rizaki, A., & Kokkotas, P. (2013). The Use of History and Philosophy of
Science as a Core for a Socioconstructivist Teaching Approach of the
Concept of Energy in Primary Education. Science Education, 22(5),
1141–1165. [Link]
Roberts, N. S., & Suren, A. T. (2010). Effects of an Environmental Education
Program on the Environmental Orientations of Children from Different
Gender, Age, and Ethnic Groups. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 28(4), 95–113.
Rohnke, K. (1989). Cowstails and Cobras II. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Ross, N., Medin, D., Coley, J. D., & Atran, S. (2003). Cultural and Experiential
Differences in the Development of Folkbiological Induction. Cognitive
Development, 18, 25–47. [Link]
Saglam, Y., & Ozbek, M. (2016). Children’s Conceptual Development: A
Long-Run Investigation. Journal of Education in Science, Environment
and Health, 2(2), 145–159. [Link]
Sanera, M. (1998). Environmental Education. Promise and Performance.
Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 3, 9–26.
Sangkil, M., Bergey, P. K., Bove, L. L., & Robinson, S. (2016). Message Framing
and Individual Traits in Adopting Innovative, Sustainable Products (ISPs):
Evidence from Biofuel Adoption. Journal of Business Research, 69,
3553–3560. [Link]
REFERENCES 187

Saussure, F. (1966). Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schoel, J., & Maizell, R. (2002). Exploring Islands of Healing. New Perspectives
on Adventure Based Counseling. Beverly: Project Adventure.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and
Content of Human Values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
[Link]
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values.
Online Reading in Psychology and Culture, 2, 1–20. [Link]
[Link]/cgi/[Link]?article=1116&context=orpc.
Schwartz, S. H. (2014). Functional Theories of Human Values: Comment on
Gouveia, Milfont, and Guerra (2014). Personality and Individual
Differences, 68, 247–249. [Link]
Scott, W., & Oulton, C. (1998). Environmental Values Education: An
Exploration of Its Role in the School Curriculum. Journal of Moral
Education, 27(2), 209–224. [Link]
Sellmann, D., & Bogner, F. X. (2013). Effects of a 1-Day Environmental
Education Intervention on Environmental Attitudes and Connectedness
with Nature. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 1077–1086.
[Link]
Shellman, A. (2014). Empowerment and Experiential Education: A State
of Knowledge Paper. Journal of Experiential Education, 37(1), 18–30.
[Link]
Sibthorp, J., & Arthur-Banning, S. (2004). Developing Life Effectiveness
through Adventure Education: The Roles of Participant Expectations,
Perceptions of Empowerment, and Learning Relevance. Journal of
Experiential Education, 27(1), 32–50.
[Link]
Sibthorp, J., Paisley, K., Gookin, J., & Furman, N. (2008). The Pedagogic Value
of Student Autonomy in Adventure Education. Journal of Experiential
Education, 31(2), 136–151. [Link]
Sibthorp, J., Wilson, C., & Browne, L. (2020). Active Ingredients of Learning
at Summer Camp. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 23,
21–37. [Link]
Slattery, D. A. (2002). If They Treated the Whole World Like a National Park:
Environmental Education by Teachers and Rangers. Australian Journal
of Environmental Education, 18, 47–55.
[Link]
188 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Smith-Sebasto, N. J. (2006). A Reinvestigation of Teachers’ Motivations

toward and Perceptions of Residential Environmental Education:
A Case Study of the New Jersey School of Conservation. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 38(4), 34–43.
[Link]
Smith-Sebasto, N., & Cavern, L. (2006). Effects of Pre- and Post-Trip Activities
Associated with a Residential Environmental Education Experience on
Students’ Attitudes toward the Environment. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 37(4), 3–17. [Link]
Smith-Sebasto, N., & Obenchain, V. L. (2009). Students’ Perceptions of the
Residential Environmental Education Program at the New Jersey School
of Conservation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(2), 50–62.
[Link]
Smith-Sebasto, N., & Walker, L. M. (2005). Toward a Grounded Theory for
Residential Environmental Education: A Case Study of the New Jersey
School of Conservation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 37(1),
27–42. [Link]
Sobel, D. (1993). Children’s Special Places. Exploring the Role of Forts, Dens,
and Bush Houses in Middle Childhood. Wayne State University Press.
Sobel, D. (2008). Childhood and Nature: Design Principles for Educators.
Portsmouth: Stenhouse Publishers.
Stern, M. J., Powell, R. B., & Ardoin, N. M. (2008). What Difference Does It
Make? Assessing Outcomes from Participation in a Residential Environ-
mental Education Program. The Journal of Environmental Education,
39(4), 31–43. [Link]
Stern, M. J., Powell, R. B., & Hill, D. (2014). Environmental Education
Program Evaluation in the New Millennium: What Do We Measure and
What Have We Learned? Environmental Education Research, 20(5),
581–611. [Link]
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant
Behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
[Link]
Stevenson, R. B. (2007). Schooling and Environmental Education: Contra-
dictions in Purpose and Practice. Environmental Education Research,
13(2), 139–153. [Link]
Talebpour, L. M., Busk, P. J., Heimlich, J. E., & Ardoin, N. M. (2020). Children’s
Connection to Nature as Fostered through Residential Environmental
Education Programs: Key Variables Explored through Surveys and Field
Journals. Environmental Education Research, 26(1), 95–114.
[Link]
REFERENCES 189

Tarlton, J. L., & Ward, C. J. (2006). The Effect of Thematic Interpretation on

a Child’s Knowledge of an Interpretive Program. Journal of Interpretation
Research, 11(1), 7–33. [Link]
Taylor, E. W., & Caldarelli, M. (2004). Teaching Beliefs of Non-Formal
Environmental Educators: A Perspective from State and Local Parks in
the United States. Environmental Education Research, 10(4), 451–469.
[Link]
Tbilisi Declaration. (2005). Intergovernmental Conference on Environ-
mental Education. In Hungerford, H. R., Bluhm, W., Volk, T. L., & Ramsey,
J. M. Essential Readings in Environmental Education. (pp. 13–16).
Champaign, IL: Stipes.
Thomas, G. (2010). Facilitator, Teacher, or Leader? Managing Conflicting
Roles in Outdoor Education. Journal of Experiential Education, 32(3),
239–254. [Link]
Van Matre, S. (1990). Earth Education: A New Beginning. Greenville, WV:
The Institute for Earth Education.
Van Matre, S., & Johnson, B. (1988). Earthkeepers: Four Keys for Helping
Young People Live in Harmony with the Earth. Greenville, WV: The
Institute for Earth Education.
Veugelers, W. (2010). Different Ways of Teaching Values. Educational Review,
52(1), 37–46. [Link]
Yocco, V. S., Bruskotter, J., Wilson, R., & Heimlich, J. E. (2015). Why Should
I Care? Exploring the Use of Environmental Concern as a Frame of
Communication in Zoos. The Journal of Environmental Education, 46(1),
56–71. [Link]
Vos, K. E. (n.d.). Recommended Educational Practices for Youth Environmental
Education From a 4-H Youth Development Perspective, ERIC, ED463941,
157–172.
Vosniadou, S. (2013). Conceptual Change in Learning and Instruction. The
Framework Theory Approach. In Vosniadou, S. (Ed.). International
Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change. (pp. 11–30). New York:
Routledge.
West, S. E. (2015). Understanding Participant and Practitioner Outcomes of
Environmental Education. Environmental Education Research, 21(1),
45–60. [Link]
Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A Critical Analysis of the
Research on Learning to Teach: Making the Case for an Ecological
Perspective on Inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 130–178.
[Link]
190 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Winks, L. (2015). Real World Learning: Toward a Differentiated Framework

for Outdoor Learning for Sustainability. Envigogika: Charles University
E-journal for Environmental Education, 10(3).
[Link]
Winks, L. (2018). Discomfort in the Field – The Performance of Nonhuman
Nature in Fieldwork in South Devon. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 49(5), 390–399. [Link]
Winter, P. L. (2006). The Impact of Normative Message Types on Off-Trail
Hiking. Journal of Interpretation Research, 11(1), 34–52.
[Link]
Winter, P. L., Cialdini, R. B., Bator, R. J., Rhoads K., & Sagarin, B. J. (1998).
An Analysis of Normative Messages in Signs at Recreation Settings.
Journal of Interpretation Research, 3(1), 39–47.
Wohlers, L., & Johnson, B. (2003). A Programmatic Approach: Purposeful
Experiences. Zeitschrift Für Erlebnispädagogik, 23(5/6), 14–22.
World Scout Committee. (2011). The Scout Method Review. https://
[Link]/sites/default/files/media-files/ConfDoc8_Baku2017_
ScoutMethodReview_en_20170627.pdf.
Yang, G., Lam, C. C., & Wong, N. Y. (2010). Developing an Instrument for
Identifying Secondary Teachers’ Beliefs about Education for Sustainable
Development in China. The Journal of Environmental Education, 41(4),
195–207. [Link]
Zelezny, L. C. (1999). Educational Interventions That Improve Environmental
Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education,
31(1), 5–14. [Link]
Zhang, T., Chen, A., & Ennis, C. (2017). Elementary School Students’ Naïve
Conceptions and Misconceptions about Energy in Physical Education
Context. Sport, Education and Society, 3322, 1–13.
[Link]
 191

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES
Figure 1 The Outdoor Environmental Education Program on Harakka
Island. Photo: Jan Činčera.
Figure 2 The Interplay of the Perspectives Employed.
Figure 3 The Romantic Setting of the Blue Program. Photo: Jan Činčera.
Figure 4 Natural Conditions in the Area of the Blue Program in May.
Photo: Jan Činčera.
Figure 5 The Dune Is Behind the Students. Photo: Jan Činčera.
Figure 6 A High School Student Is Independently Collecting Data in an
Inquiry-Based Outdoor Program. Photo: Jan Činčera.
Figure 7 A Program with Elaborated Props Makes the Accompanying
Teachers’ Involvement Difficult. Photo: SEV Český Ráj.
Figure 8 Symbolic Surface Frames May Be Expressed by Various Tools,
Including Drama and Fun. Photo: SEV Jizerka.
Figure 9 The Mysterious Atmosphere of E.M.’s Lab. Photo: Jan Činčera.
Figure 10 The Master-Apprentice Relationship between the Surface and
Deep Frames in the Orange Program.
Figure 11 The Organization of the Values in the Schwartz Model.
Figure 12 The Most Frequently Communicated Values in the Observed
Programs. The Colors Indicate the Observed Programs.
192 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Figure 13 A Leader in the Orange Program Is Reflecting with Students

on What They Can Do to Help the Environment. Photo: Jan Činčera.
Figure 14 The Experiential Learning Cycle.
Figure 15 Barefooting in Nature. However Spontaneous This Experience
May Look, It Is a Regular Part of the Program. Photo: David Kavan.
Figure 16 The Magic Spot. The Experience of Solitude Is Often Recalled
as One of the Strongest Memories from an Outdoor Program. Photo:
Marta Veselá.
Figure 17 An Inquiry-Based Activity. The Experience of Engaging with
Nature Helps Students Recall the Studied Concepts. Photo: David
Kavan.
Figure 18 A Program Leader Informs the Students about the Concept
of Material Cycles. Photo: Jan Činčera.
Figure 19 Dramatic Play in the Blue Program. Photo: David Kavan.
Figure 20 Experiencing Nature in the Orange Program. Photo: SEV Český
Ráj.
Figure 21 Trust-Building and Team-Building Activities Are Part of Some
of the Outdoor Environmental Education Programs in Our Study.
Photo: Jakub Pejcal. Used with Permission from SEV Kaprálův Mlýn.
Figure 22 Older Students Can Shape Their Investigation on Their Own.
Photo: Jakub Pejcal. Used with Permission from SEV Kaprálův Mlýn.

TABLES
Table 1 An Overview of the Analyzed Programs.
Table 2 The Groups of the Values in the Schwartz Model.
PUBLISHING BOARD (CONVOCATION) OF MASARYK UNIVERSITY

prof. PhDr. Jiří Hanuš, Ph.D. (chairman)

doc. RNDr. Petra Bořilová Linhartová, Ph.D., MBA
doc. JUDr. Marek Fryšták, Ph.D.
Mgr. Michaela Hanousková
doc. RNDr. Petr Holub, Ph.D.
doc. Mgr. Jana Horáková, Ph.D.
prof. MUDr. Lydie Izakovičová Hollá, Ph.D.
prof. PhDr. Mgr. Tomáš Janík, Ph.D.
prof. PhDr. Tomáš Kubíček, Ph.D.
prof. RNDr. Jaromír Leichmann, Dr. rer. nat.
PhDr. Alena Mizerová
doc. RNDr. Lubomír Popelínský, Ph.D.
Ing. Zuzana Sajdlová, Ph.D.
Mgr. Kateřina Sedláčková, Ph.D.
prof. RNDr. Ondřej Slabý, Ph.D.
doc. Ing. Rostislav Staněk, Ph.D.
prof. PhDr. Jiří Trávníček, M.A.
doc. PhDr. Martin Vaculík, Ph.D.
Mgr. Pavel Žára, M.A.
Real World Learning in Outdoor Environmental Education Programs
The Practice from the Perspective of Educational Research

Jan Činčera (Ed.)

Authors: Jan Činčera (Masaryk University), Bruce Johnson

(University of Arizona), Roman Kroufek (University of J. E. Purkyně),
Miloslav Kolenatý (University of J. E. Purkyně), Petra Šimonová
(Masaryk University), Jan Zálešák (Masaryk University)

Layout and typography: Reprocentrum, a. s., Blansko

Published by Masaryk University, Žerotínovo nám. 617/9, 601 77 Brno,
Czech Republic
1st, electronic edition, Brno 2021

ISBN 978-80-210-9758-2
ISBN 978-80-210-9757-5 (paperback)
[Link]

[Link]
 REAL WORLD LEARNING IN OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS
This book analyzes the theoretical frameworks shaping
the practice of outdoor environmental education programs.
For the analyses, the authors applied the Real World
Learning Model that defines the quality criteria for this
kind of practice. They also further examined the Model
from the perspectives of relevant theory and research,
as well as from the perspectives of program leaders,
accompanying teachers, and participating students.
Specifically, the authors selected five programs, all three
to five days long, offered by Czech outdoor environmental
education centers for students in the 3rd to 7th grades REAL WORLD
and focused on shaping students’ environmental LEARNING IN OUTDOOR
values and behavior. ENVIRONMENTAL
EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Jan Činčera (Ed.)

92/19/81/2

Masaryk
Muni
Press
Muni
FSS M university
Press

View publication stats