1. Mt. Jefferson State Natural Area Fieldtrip Activity Guide Final Project Submitted by Thomas D. Randolph in Partial Completion of a Master of Science in Environmental Education Montreat College, Montreat, NC 2013

2. Location of Mt. Jefferson SNA Ashe County, NC

3.  Mount Jefferson State Natural Area 4,683-feet above sea level, 1000 acres of public land.  Recognized as a National Natural Landmark.  Ancient Mountain over 300,000,000 years old.  Inselberg made of metamorphic rock that forms rich productive soils. promotes highly diverse plant communities (Poindexter & Zack, 2008). Description of State Natural Area (SNA)

4. The SNA has developed a strong environmental education rapport with each of Ashe County’s public schools (Interpretive and Education Plan, 2010). Existing Environmental Education at Mt. Jefferson SNA

5. Four Identified Reasons Why Develop a New Fieldtrip Activity Guide?

6. Broaden environmental educational programing that encourages responsible stewardship while developing new resource education fieldtrip opportunities for local schools (Interpretive and Education Plan, 2010). 1. Expansion of Environmental Education Programming

7. The SNA has received numerous inquiries and evaluations from local teachers requesting new environmental education activities that address curriculum topics such as landforms, earth materials, plants, and soil. Teacher Evaluations (2004-2012). 2. Teacher Request for New Program Topics and Activities

8. Hey Tom! I wanted to see about the possibility of you doing a lesson on soil for the third graders at Mountain View. Our curriculum states that "Students know that different soils possess different textures and capacities for the retention of water and nutrients. Students know that soil consists of different components. Students know that these characteristics of soil influence the growth and survival of plants." Do you have any lessons on soil that would teach these goals? From: #####@ashe.k12.nc.us] Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 7:49 PM To: Randolph, Tom Subject: Class Lesson Example of a Request for A New Program Topic

9. Substantial changes in the North Carolina State Curriculum Standards in 2012 have created discontinuities between the SNA’s existing fieldtrip curriculum and the curriculum objectives that are currently taught in Ashe County schools. North Carolina State Board of Education, (2012) 3. North Carolina Curriculum Standards 2012

10. In 2012, Mt. Jefferson SNA’s formal environmental education program is based on the SNA’s environmental education curriculum known as the Environmental Education Learning Experience, or EELE. Written in 1999, the EELE’s activities focus exclusively on geology. (Metamorphic Mountain, 1999). The EELE was not correlated to the 2012 NC Essential Standards 4. SNA Existing Curriculum Guide

11. Curriculum-Based Education Standards These standards require teachers within a jurisdiction to teach the state’s required content, objectives, or educational expectations. State-mandated curricula are updated or revised by each state’s department of education (McKeown, 2003). Operational Definitions

12. David Kolb’s Experiential Education Learning Theory- a sequential learning cycle that begins at any one of the following four stages. (1) Concrete experience (2) reflection (3) abstract conceptualization – Looking at it in a new way (4) hypothesis testing by active experimentation (Kolb, 1984). In David Kolb’s words (1984) “learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (p.38). Operational Definitions

13. Pre-site and Post-site activities are: planned and presented prior to and/or after a field trip. These offer students an opportunity to become familiar with new vocabulary or concepts that will be presented during or after the fieldtrip (Klemm & Tuthill, 2003). Operational Definitions

14. Criteria Used for Activity Guide Development Literature Review Best Practices SNA Environmental Education Goals NC 2012 Curriculum Standards

15. This literature review included a survey of quantitative and qualitative case studies that identified various fieldtrip best practices. Literature Review

16. These following best practices were found repeatedly in the literature. (1)Student participation and hands-on activities (2)Learning at outdoor settings improves student test scores as well as content comprehension (3)Need for fieldtrip and state curriculum correlation (4)The use of pre-site, post-site fieldtrip activities to introduce or reinforce new and unique concepts. Literature Review

17. Fieldtrip Best Practices Overlap in Case Studies Found in the Literature Hands-on Curriculum Topic Correlation Outdoors Pre-Site Post-site

18. 3 rd Grade Earth Systems Landforms North Carolina Essential Standards and Clarifying Objectives Science 3.E.2 Compare the structures of the Earth’s surface using models or three-dimensional diagrams. 3.E.2.1 Compare Earth’s saltwater and freshwater features (including oceans, seas, rivers, lakes, ponds, streams, and glaciers). 3.E.2.2 Compare Earth’s land features (including volcanoes, mountains, valleys, canyons, caverns, and islands) by using models, pictures, diagrams, and maps Let’s do a Landform Activity

19. Case Study 1 In this study, researchers showcased a successful hands- on activity model, developed in two rural parks located in central Brazil and Malaysia (Jacobson & Padua, 1992). Jacobson and Padua, 1992

20. Through the implementation of hands-on activities such as leaf bark rubbing & games that involved all five senses, soil, and rotting log investigations, students began to become aware of the park and its natural resources, (Jacobson & Padua, 1992). The students who participated in these hands-on activities were pre-and post-tested. The results indicated significant increases in student knowledge after fieldtrips (Jacobson & Padua, 1992). Jacobson and Padua, 1992 Conclusion

21. Case Study. 2 Knapp (2000) conducted a fieldtrip pilot study for 18-months they offered hands-on activities on fieldtrips for 71 third and fourth graders in a rural location in the United States. This study investigated student knowledge gained after a three- hour fieldtrip by using pre & post testing. Knapp, 2000

22. Eighteen months later.. a sample of students were tested. Results demonstrated that the students still remembered the general types of hands-on activities that they did on the fieldtrip, but only a few students could recall the demonstrations that were performed by the teachers (Knapp, 2000). Knapp, 2000 Conclusion

23. Case Study 3. A similar study conducted at Great Smoky Mountains National Park examined long-term environmental knowledge gained after a fieldtrip. This study identified what students had retained during a park field trip, a year later... (Farmer et al., 2007).  Long–term concepts and knowledge was assessed  Findings indicated that students retained field trip related earth science knowledge after one year Farmer et al., 2007

24. The students remembered concepts presented using kinesthetic or hands-on activities (Farmer et al., 2007). This study suggests that there are measurable benefits associated with hands-on activities and fieldtrips. This one year qualitative park field trip research demonstrated that students remember hands-on elements and outdoor educational experiences even after a year has elapsed (Farmer et al., 2007). Farmer et al., 2007 Conclusions

25. Case Study 4. This Quantitative methods approach compared outcome assessments from ten outdoor ecology lessons that used outdoor hands-on activities vs. indoor ecology lessons that did not use hands-on activities and were conducted using traditional classroom methods (Cronin-Jones, 2000).  Methods included pre- and post-lesson testing of student knowledge from 285 randomly selected students  Indoor lecture vs. outdoor hands-on experiential learning Cronin-Jones, 2000

26. Based on testing from 285 randomly selected students with a possible high score of 25 Control group had a mean test score of 10.07 Traditional indoor classroom’s mean score was 12.26. Outdoor hands-on had a mean score of 15.73. These results are consistent with the best practice of developing experiential lesson plans that include hands-on activities and conducting outdoor lessons (Cronin-Jones, 2000). Cronin-Jones, 2000 Conclusions

27. Case Study 5. Mixed Methods student assessment study from 36 geology students over two school semesters.  Researchers compared the level of geologic understanding and earth science knowledge gained from Virtual VS. Outdoor learning environments.  Virtual in class vs. outdoor hands-on field lessons (Tretinjak & Riggs, 2008). Tretinjak & Riggs, 2008

28. Interviews and qualitative analysis revealed that students who participated in the outdoor field trips that included hands-on activities emerged with a deeper understanding of the conceptual ideas compared with other virtual field trips. Outdoor field trips allowed students to develop a more scientifically accurate understanding of depositional environments (Tretinjak & Riggs, 2008). Tretinjak & Riggs, 2008 Conclusion

29. Case Study 6. Foran (2005) interviewed teachers in Nova Scotia after they had each conducted various an outdoor fieldtrips. Each teacher interviewed, expresses a consistent observation, “intensity of student interest” This resulted while students were actively learning and engaging in outdoor activities. Foran, 2005

30. Each of the Foran interviews provided an overwhelming endorsement of outdoor fieldtrip activities. For example in one of the teacher interviews an educator explained that “this intensity in the outdoors is possible because the four walls, and the staleness and the classroom structure is removed” (Foran, 2005, p.153). Foran, 2005 Interviews

31. Interview statement “the outdoors has a wonderful way of offering a multitude of possible moments” (Foran, 2005, p.157). These phenomenological interviews examined several teachers’ perspectives of outdoor fieldtrips and their statements support the positive effects of outdoor fieldtrips on student learning. Foran, 2005 Conclusion

32. Case Study 7. This Phenomenological study described how one teacher assigned her students the task of making journals as she led outdoor fieldtrips to experience the park seasons throughout the year (Walley, 1992). Walley, 1992

33. Poetry, scientific observations, ecological predictions, and stories filled the blank pages of the students’ logs as the one- year project continued (Walley, 1992). This study vividly describes the use of stories and hands-on activities that the children experienced on their fieldtrips to a local park. These fieldtrips were all planned by the teacher and park staff (Walley, 1992). This program became a family experience Walley, 1992

34. McKeown, who served as Secretariat for the UNESCO chair on teacher education to address sustainability states: “Curriculum standards are mandated topics and that require teachers to teach specific subjects and to meet specific objectives” (McKeown, 2003). Correlation of Activities to State Curriculum Standards Why???

35. McKeown (2003) suggests that if a program activity guide is developed by government agencies or non-governmental organizations that are - not aware of curriculum standards, then those activity guides will not even be considered to be used by teachers. McKeown (2003)

36. Because of time limitations and requirements, many teachers are often reluctant to use or even inquire about outside curricula or field trip programs that are not required by the state standards (McKeown, 2003). McKeown, 2003

37. Teachers do not have time for “extra topics” that are not in the prescribed curriculum. Cassell and Nelson (2010). Cassell and Nelson, 2010

38. Jacobson and Padua (1992) clarify the importance of using a park’s outdoor setting in conjunction with a school curriculum for teaching natural resource education. The park’s resources, becomes an additional resource for public education through academic correlation, (Jacobson & Padua, 1992). Combine Outdoor Settings with the Curriculum?

39. Jacobson and Padua (1992) explain how two parks in developing countries began to create a new environmental education programs using "curriculum and teacher input” (p.291). As part of the development process, local teachers were invited to the park so, they could explain the academic needs and curriculum objectives that the new park program might address. Outdoor Setting with Curriculum

40. Jacobson and Padua (1992) explain that a part of their park fieldtrip program in Malaysia, assigned students to complete various pre-site activities at home or at school prior to the fieldtrip. These pre-site lessons prepared both the students and teachers for their on-site park fieldtrip. Pre-site and Post-site Activities

41. Post-program activities “In Malaysia we implemented post-program activities for students at their schools thereby increasing their exposure to the concepts introduced during their visit to Kinabulu Park” (Jacobson & Padua, 1992 p.292).

42. The use of pre-site and post-site field trip materials offer students and teachers an opportunity experience the park virtually prior to their experience visit. These materials may also include relevant cultural history information as well as maps or other background data (Jacobson & Padua 1992). Pre and Post-site

43. Classroom activities presented before and after the fieldtrip address topics or skills that students will be learning about on the field trip (Klemm & Tuthill, 2003). Pre-site and post-site field trip activities offer students an orientation to the park prior to and after their fieldtrip experience. Klemm and Tuthill, 2003

44. The literature suggests that pre-site programs should introduce student to unfamiliar technical terms or concepts that will be reintroduced on the fieldtrip. The post-site activities are also an opportunity to reinforce the fieldtrip concepts and vocabulary (Klemm & Tuthill, 2003). Pre and Post-site

45. Let’s try Weathering Physical Vs. Chemical 4 th grade  4.E.2.3 Give examples of how the surface of the earth changes due to slow processes such as erosion and weathering.... Pre-site activity

46. (1) Conduct programs using hands-on activities (2) Present the programs at outdoor locations (trails, overlooks, forest, mountain, park) (3) Correlate each activity to state curriculum standards (4) Present pre-and post-site activities before and after the fieldtrip These four best practice provided the overall principles for the development of the deliverable. Literature has Provided Four Best Practices

47. Two government documents i.e. NC State Curriculum Education Standards and the SNA General Management Plan established the criteria for specific fieldtrip topics. These topics were then synthesized with the best practices to complete the deliverable. Methods Section

48. The Mt. Jefferson SNA General Management Plan comprehensively describes the park’s resources and analyze the park’s demands and trends within the park’s service area as well as the future plans for the park (Mt. Jefferson General Management Plan, 1993). Mt. Jefferson SNA General Management Plan

49. Within the environmental education sub-section is a list of needed environmental education topics that had not been formally developed into the SNA’s correlated environmental education programs, and are not included in the SNA’s older 1999 curriculum EELE guide. GMP Articulates Topics Choices

50. Topics most requested by local teachers (2005-2012) TopicYears 20052006200720082009201020112012 Landforms3595511810 Soils Science41510873 36 Plants4810788 16 Earth Materials57543459

51. Landforms Soil science Plants Earth materials Topics That Address SNA Goals

52. Teachers and environmental educators must be able to justify the value of their programs and fieldtrips to school administrators (McKeown, 2003). Correlation to Current Standards Justifies Fieldtrips and Activities

53. What are the new State Standards? North Carolina public schools have been in the process of curriculum reform. The changes have transformed several course content Clarifying Objectives for a variety of grade levels (North Carolina State Board of Education, 2012). North Carolina 2012 Essential Standards

54. Each of these four topics: (1) Landforms (2) Soil (3) Plants (4) Earth Materials are addressed within the 2012 North Carolina Essential Standards for various grade levels (North Carolina State Board of Education, 2012). Topic Identified in State Standards

55. Each Topic Must be Appropriate for Hands-on Fieldtrip Activities Soil Earth Materials Plants Landforms

56. Activity Guide Topic Selection Criteria Lesson Plan Topic Addresses NC Education Standards Addresses SNA Education Goal Appropriate for Outdoor Hands- on Activities NC Grades Levels Addressing Topic Landforms XXX3 rd, 4 th Soils XXX3 rd, 1 st Plants XXX1 st,3 rd Earth Materials XXX1 st

57. Synthesis and Creative Application Best Practices Education Standards Park Mission Education Theory

58. The education theory that was used to inspire and direct the development of the SNA Fieldtrip Activity Guide David Kolb’s Experiential Education Learning Theory Influenced by John Dewey’s principles of education and Piaget’s model of learning and cognitive development (Kolb 1984). Educational Theory

59. “Education, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living.” John Dewey “ Is there another way to educate that bridges the communication gap ?” David Kolb Experiential teaching includes trying to create common experience through games, exercises, simulations, or case studies. Retrieved from learningfromexperience.com Experiential Theory

60. David Kolb’s Learning Cycle Concrete Experience Reflective Observation Abstract Conceptualization Active Experimentation Retrieved from Healey & Jenkins 2000

61. Concrete Experience Doing, exploring, measuring, having a meaningful experience.

62. Reflective Observation Reviewing the experience keeping a log or journal. This may include student feedback & discussion. Retrieved from learningfromexperience.com

63. Abstract Conceptualization Learning from the experience Realization, Deep conclusions, Insights or hypothesis How can this be applied ? Retrieved from: learningfromexperience.com

64. Active Experimentation  Active Experimentation (planning / trying out what you have learned)  How can I use this ?  What would I do ?  Can I test this ?  Based on this experience I changed… Retrieved from learningfromexperience.com

65. So, what do I do with this Information?

66. Seek out & Explore the Standards

67. New Materials for the New Programs

68. Hands-on

69. Curriculum Based

70. Making Mountains, Meanders, Glaciers & Caves

71. Questions