Content Evaluation of an Environmental Science Field Trip
Author(s): Doug Knapp and Elizabeth Barrie
Source: Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Dec., 2001), pp. 351-357
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40186634
Accessed: 28-07-2015 07:33 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Science Education and Technology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 125.22.40.140 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 07:33:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 10, No. 4, December 2001 (© 2001)
Content Evaluationof an EnvironmentalScience Field Trip
Doug Knapp1'2and Elizabeth Barrie1
Two important content areas associated with informal environmental science programs are
ecology/natural science topics and awareness of environmental problems/issues. This study
attempted to evaluate which of these content areas may provide a more optimum learning experience. A quantitative analysis was conducted on two field trips to a science center
that represented an ecological oriented program and an environmental issue presentation.
Two variables that were chosen as indicators of program success- knowledge retention and
attitude change- are outcomes that have been found prevalent in informal, environmental
science education. These programs were administered and evaluated during the 1996/1997
school year at the Paul H. Douglas Environmental Science Center at Indiana Dunes National
Lakeshore. The results of this study showed significant gains in science related knowledge
following both the ecology and issue oriented treatments. The data indicate that the focus
of the program (ecology or issues) did not significantly alter the way students responded to
the knowledge section of the evaluation instrument. Results showed little impact on students'
affect toward park site or related subject matter following either presentation type. Authors
recommend multiple research methods to better evaluate affect changes following an informal
environmental science experience.
KEYWORDS:informalscienceeducation;contentevaluation;sciencefieldtrips.
led them in choosingscience as a career.One of the
top factorsleadingto thiscareerchoicewasa fieldtrip
experience.
There is considerableevidence that an informal
environmentalscience field trip can be used effectivelyto advancesciencelearning.Twoareasthathave
been found to improvefollowing these experiences
are knowledge and affect toward the field trip site
and associatedsubjectmatter(Lucas,2000). Thereis
extensivedatato supportthe positiveimpactan informalscienceeducationfieldtripcanhaveon cognition.
Forexample,FalkandBalling(1982)assessedthe impact of a biology field trip on thirdand fifthgraders.
The data showed strongsupportfor the notion that
single-visitfield tripscan promotecognitivelearning
and retention.Cognitivegains in science knowledge
were affirmedin Flexer and Borun'sinvestigationof
participationin science museumexperiences(Flexer
and Borun, 1984).In an overviewof school field trip
research,Bitgood (1989)foundseveralstudiesshowing an increasein cognitiveknowledge.For example,
INTRODUCTION
Millions of elementaryand middle school studentstake fieldtripsto informalscienceandenvironmental centers.Over 20 million studentsvisit these
facilitiesevery year (Ramey et al, 1994). Since 1978
the numberof informalscience centershas doubled
(Rameyet al, 1994).Muchof this growthcan be attributedto its successfulcontributionto formaleducation (Dori and Tal, 2000). As Rudmansuggested,
"Fieldtripscan createrelevancyto scienceclassroom
learningwhenconnectedto the outsideworldencouragingscienceinterestsandpossiblyincreasingstudent
aspirationsfor science-relatedcareers"(1994,p. 139).
In fact, Nazier (1993) interviewed300 full time science and engineeringprofessorsto findwhat factors
department of Recreation and Park Administration, Indiana
University, 133 HPER, Bloomington, Indiana 47405.
2To whom correspondence should be addressed; e-mail: dknapp®
indiana.edu
351
1059-0145/01/1200-0351J19.50/0 © 2001 Plenum Publishing Corporation
This content downloaded from 125.22.40.140 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 07:33:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Knappand Barrie
352
Sneideret al. (1979) found that students experiencing an interactiveastronomyprogramdemonstrated
more cognitivelearning.
A significantamountof literaturealso suggests
that informalscience field tripscreate a positive impact on affect. "Learningin informalscience education facilitiesmay potentiallyspan all three learning
domains.However,thereis bothprofessionalopinion
and empiricalresearchwhichsuggest that the major
advantagesof learningactivitiesin informaleducationalsettingsover those in formalsettingsmay lie in
affectivedomain"(Meredithet al, 1997,p. 806). For
example,studentswho participatedin a marineecology field tripshoweda more positiveattitudetoward
the subjectmatterfollowingthe experience(Bitgood,
1989).
Severalstudies have also indicatedthe positive
impacton bothstudentknowledgeand affectfollowing an experienceat an informalscience center visit.
Falk(1983)summarizedthese gains:
Our research also supports the notion that significant cognitive learning can, and frequently does occur on field trips. Our positive results on cognitive
learning can be coupled with years of anecdotal evidence asserting that field trips are thoroughly enjoyed by students and teachers and that these trips
produce long-lasting, positive memories of such informal learning institutions as museums, zoos, and
nature centers (p. 141).
The evidencethatan environmentalsciencefield
trip can be beneficialto participatingstudentsis impressive.An extensivelist of researchstudieshasprovidedevidenceof the importanceof a sciencefieldtrip
for cognitive and affective gains (Orion, 1993). Despite this support,there is very little evaluationpertaining to the impactof particularprogramcontent
associatedwith an informalexperience.Althoughwe
knowthatthe studentwill,for the mostpart,be better
off for participatingin an informalprogram,it is less
clear what type of content will providethe most optimumlearningexperience.As Rudmann(1994)suggested,"Toimprovefutureresearchin this fieldthere
is a need to identify and compare characteristicsof
field trips"(p. 140). Followinga review of 39 studies
on science field tripsMcClaffertyand Rennie (1992)
found only a few evaluationsthat investigatedfactors related to the field trip such as the content of
the experience.A thoroughreview and synthesisof
researchrelatedto field tripsto science centers,conductedby Rennie and McClafferty(1995),produced
five categories of studies associated with the field
tripexperience.Thesewere noted as visitorbehavior,
interacting with exhibits, visit structure (i.e. exploratoryvs. passiveapproaches),socialcontext,and
teachers'involvement.None of these categoriesevaluated the impactof educationalcontent on student's
knowledgeor affect.
The question of what type of content to disseminateto field trip participantsis an importantissue associatedwith informalenvironmentalscience
oriented programs.This area characteristicallyhas
not only offered science related topics (in particular, ecological information)but has also interpreted
issues concerninghumaninteractionson naturalsystems (Dori and Tal, 2000). Topics such as forest
ecology and energy flows are often combined with
associated human interactions(i.e. timber management). Both ecological informationand issues are
widely supportedand are prevalentin the informal
environmentalscience educationliterature(Knapp,
1994).
METHODOLOGY
Thisstudyevaluatedthe impactof two different
environmentalscience field tripson elementarystudents' knowledge and attitude toward the resource
site they were visiting. Subjects were taken from
fourth, fifth, and sixth grades in three urbanschool
districtsin northernIndiana.The participantsrepresented a diverseculturaland ethnicbackgroundwith
a predominatepercentagebeing African American
and Hispanic. Approximately500 students participated in both programs.These studentswere taken
to the IndianaDunes NationalLakeshorefor a halfday informalenvironmentalscienceprogramonce in
the fall of 1997 and once in the springof 1998.Both
field tripswere designedto be conductedin an outdoor setting and experientialin method. The difference between the two field trips was the content of
the educationalprogram.Treatmentone coveredbasic ecological concepts while treatmenttwo concentrated on environmentalissues relative to the park.
They both took place at the Paul H. Douglas EnvironmentalEducationCenterlocated on the western
boundaryof the NationalLakeshore.
The ecology program,designed and presented
by interpretiverangers at Indiana Dunes National
Lakeshore,includedstudentparticipationin investigating differencesamong habitatsencounteredon a
guidedwalk.The"HabitatsHike"enforcedthe theme
This content downloaded from 125.22.40.140 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 07:33:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EnvironmentalScienceField Trip
thatthe varietyof habitatsat IndianaDunes National
Lakeshoresupportan abundanceof animalandplant
life while each of these habitatscontainsa mixtureof
differentconditionsunder which certainplants and
animalscan survive.At the end of the programit was
expectedthatstudentswouldbe able to describehow
light,moisture,and temperaturedifferin four different habitats,and how this determineswhich animals
and plantslive in each of these habitats.In addition,
studentswouldbe ableto describethe commonplants
of each habitat,explainwhich signs of animalsthey
foundin each habitatand explainwhy species diversity is importantin nature.
Treatmenttwo was based on environmentalissuesassociatedwiththe NationalLakeshore.Theprogram"A Grainof Truth"was designedto introduce
the theme that the dunes at the National Lakeshore
are a dynamicplaceformedby the actionsof glaciers,
wind,andplants.At the end of the programstudents
should have been able to understandhow and why
humansimpact the dunes and realize the influence
humans have on the succession process of a dune
ecosystem.A variety of other environmentalissues
were conveyed to the students duringthe interpretive hike.
To evaluatethe impactthe programshad on students' knowledgeand attitudestowardthe environment,a quasiexperimental
design(IsaacandMichael,
1990) was implementedusing an evaluationinstrumentthatincluded15 multiplechoice questions.This
was a replicationof an evaluationtool developedby
Drake and Knapp (1994) and the National Science
ResourcesCenter (1993). The validityof this evaluation was establishedby a critiquejury made up of
IndianaDunes interpreterswho observed that the
instrumentdid reflect informationand attitudesdesired following an environmentalscience field trip.
Participatingteachers administeredthe evaluation
instrument1-2 days prior to each treatment (the
pretest),andimmediatelyafterthe classattendedthe
programs(the posttest). The evaluationinstrument
remained the same throughoutthe fall and spring
sessions.Of the 500 studentsthat participatedin the
study approximately36% (181 students)completed
all evaluations.All tests in the study were given in
the classroomandthen sent to IndianaUniversityfor
analysis.
The evaluation instrumentconsisted of three
sections: knowledge, attitude, and behavior intent.
Five multiplechoice questions evaluatedthe retention of key ecological concepts that were discussed
353
TableL Analysisof Variancefor ProgramImpacts
F
Source
Betweensubjects
Content(A)
S withinA
Withinsubjects
Test(B)
AxB
B x S withinA
df
Knowledge Attitudes
1
179
4.69*
(3.15)
3
3
537
41.65**
0.73
(0.88)
2.92
(34.65)
1.84
2.41
(7.83)
Note. Valuesenclosedwithinparenthesesrepresentmean
squareerrors.
*p < 0.05;**p < 0.01.
during both field trips. The second set of multiple
choice questionsmeasuredpotentialattitudechange
regardingthe resourcesite.The finalquestionsdetermined if positive environmentalbehaviorincreased
followingthe field trip.The lattersectionwas used to
investigateissuesof interestto the parksite andwere
not used for this study.
MANOVA was used to evaluatethe knowledge
and attitudesectionsof the instrument.The independent variable of the order in which the treatments
were received was treated as an independentmeasure. The independentvariableof the time the students took the test (before the programor after the
program)was a repeated measure.The study randomly assigned the order the classes received the
treatments.Duringthe fall, subjectswere either participatingin a field tripfocusedon the ecology of the
site or they were on a field trip emphasizingthe environmentalissues of the site. Table I contains the
overall ANOVA summariesfor the two dependent
variables(knowledge and affect). This 2x4 design
addressesthe questionsof whetheror not differences
occurdue to the contentof the program(the independent measure) as well as whetheror not differences
occur from the pretest to the posttest (the repeated
measure). Data was analyzedusing the MANOVA
commandin SPSS7.5.
ANALYSISOF DATA
TableI indicatesthat on the knowledgeportion
of the instrumentthere was a significantdifference
between pre- and posttest results for students who
attendedan ecologyprogramandthosewho attended
an issue-orientedprogram.For the attitude section
This content downloaded from 125.22.40.140 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 07:33:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Knapp and Barrie
354
of the instrumentthere was no significantdifference
between pre- and posttest results for students who
attendedan ecologyprogramandthosewho attended
an issue-orientedprogram.
In addition, this table indicates that there was
no interactionbetween the content of the field trip
(ecology or issues) and the time the test was taken
(previsitor postvisit).The absence of an interaction
suggeststhat the specificcontent of the programdid
not significantlyinfluencethe waystudentsresponded
to the field trips.
Furtheranalysisof the knowledgesection of the
instrument(Table II) indicates that there appears
to be an additive effect for the programs.Students'
knowledgeincreasedas a result of attendanceat the
firstprogram.This knowledgegain was apparenton
the pretest of the second program.There was not a
significantdifferencein students'knowledgefromthe
postvisittest of the firstprogramto the previsittest
of the second program,suggestingthat students'retainedthe informationthey learned(see Fig. 1). Furthermore,the posttest responsesfor the second visit
indicatethat students'knowledgefurtherincreased.
Tablen. Tukey'sPostHoc Analysisof Time
Effect(B) for Knowledge
Comparison
Testl-Test2
Testl-Test3
Testl-Test4
Test2-Test3
Test2-Test4
Test3-Test4
Absolutedifference
0.73*
0.55*
1.09**
0.18
0.36*
0.55*
Note. The significantdifferencelevel at the
.05 level = 0.231,andat the .01 level = 0.74.
*p < 0.05;**p < 0.01.
This illustratesthat the type of program(ecology or
issues)in this studydid not significantlyaffectthe impact of the programon students'knowledgeas measuredby the instrument.
The analysisof data also yielded a patternthat
showed a significantdifference in the knowledge
of the students who attended an ecology program
first and those who attended an issue-orientedprogram first (Table I). This difference existed on the
first pretest and was consistentlyrepeated on each
Fig.1. Meanknowledgescores.
This content downloaded from 125.22.40.140 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 07:33:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EnvironmentalScienceField Trip
subsequenttest (Fig.1). The differenceindicatesthat
the assignmentof the classes to treatmentsresulting
in groups were significantlydifferent from the beginningof the study.Althoughthe groupsremained
different throughoutthe study,they reacted to the
programssimilarly(Fig. 1). That is, the group that
attendedthe ecologyprogramfirstconsistentlyscored
higherthanthe groupwho attendedan issue-oriented
program.
DISCUSSION
There are many in informal environmental
science programswho supportthe notion of teaching science/ecologicalconceptsas well as those supportiveof educatingvisitorsaboutthe environmental
issues associatedwith their resource site. Still others promote the assertion that a school field trip
shouldembraceboth ecologicalinformationand related issue instruction.Thisstudy attemptedto evaluate which of these content areas may provide a
more optimum learning experience. Two variables
that were chosen as indicatorsof programsuccessknowledgeretention and attitudechange- are outcomes that have been found prevalent in informal
environmentalscienceeducation.
The resultsof this studyshowedsignificantgains
in sciencerelatedknowledgefollowingboth the ecology and issue-orientedtreatments.The data indicate
that the focus of the program(ecology or issues) did
not significantlyalter the way studentsrespondedto
the knowledgesection of the evaluationinstrument.
This suggeststhat both ecology centered and issueoriented programsare effective at influencingstudent knowledgegain. Teachersand informaleducators hopingto teachbasicsubjectcontent to students
on a fieldtriphavesomelatitudein choosingthe focus
of theirprograms.
These results are similarto researchconducted
in other informalsites by the author. Studies at a
communitynaturecenter (Drake and Knapp,1994),
a nationalforestwildernesssite (Marsanand Knapp,
1996),andpreviousstudiesat the NationalLakeshore
(Knappand Barrie,1998) found overwhelmingevidence of gains in informationpertainingto the site
and beyond. Other studies have found similar results(Koranetal, 1989;LisowskiandDisinger,1988;
Rameyetal, 1994).
A secondconclusionfromthisstudyis thatthere
did seem to be an additive effect with regards to
355
ecologicaland issue knowledge.Studentshad a high
rate of retention of program informationprior to
the second treatment which rose further following
this program.This is consistent with findingsfrom
LisowskiandDisinger(1992)thatecologicalconcepts
are retainedbeyond the initialtreatment.
The significantgains in knowledge by students
who participatedin the ecology and issue-oriented
programreinforcesthe basic tenet of "revealinginformation."In fact, this objective may truly be the
most importantoutcome of an informalscience field
trip. Today,there is a growing sentiment to return
to the basics by not only science educatorsbut also
from leaders in the related field of environmental
education. In April 1997, a report from an Independent Commissionon EnvironmentalEducation
concluded that professionals in this arena should,
"place its primary emphasis on the acquisitionof
knowledge. . . students should begin with a study of
the environmentbeforethey are askedto take actions
to save it" (p. 47).
The change in students' attitude toward the
Lakeshorefollowingthe field tripwas not significant
for either treatment.Although these findingsare incongruentwith literaturecited previously,they are
similarto other studiesthat foundlittle or no change
in participants'affect(Cableetal., 1986;Gramannand
VanderStoep,1987;Roggenbucketal., 1982).In some
casesresearchhas foundattitudesof a resourcesite to
actuallydecline followingan interpretiveexperience
(Marsanand Knapp,1996).
Along with mixed results of affect is the difficult nature of evaluating these variables following
such a short time period. Attitudes are conceptually
complex and difficultto measure (Ryan, 1991). Attitude evaluation such as the one implemented in
this study requires a great deal of skill, conceptualization, and analysis.In particular,the time variablebecomescrucialin determiningattitudechanges.
The complexity of evaluating attitudes in association withan informaleducationalexperiencesuggests
that qualitative and quantitativemeasures be pursued in futurestudies.Ham (1986) has suggestedthe
use of qualitativemethods such as open interviews
with "audience members about their expectations,
thoughts during the presentation,judgmentsabout
the content of or circumstancessurroundingthe prestudies
sentation,and so forth"(p. 22). Triangulating
with pre- or postquantitativedesigns along with interview/observational
strategiesmaybe able to better
depict attitudeshifts immediatelyand longitudinally.
This content downloaded from 125.22.40.140 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 07:33:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Knapp and Barrie
356
This new type of researchagenda may help answer
difficultattitudinalevaluations.
is more appropriatein a informalenvironmentalscience field trip- ecology or issues.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
The informalenvironmentalscience field trip is
a mainstayof today's educationalprocess.Research
hassuggestedthatthe millionsof studentswho participatein theseexperiencesarelikelyto comeawaywith
some improvementin knowledgeor attitudetoward
the site they visit. Despite the impressive support
for these positive outcomes,one importantvariable
has virtuallybeen ignored in the research- subject
content of the field trip. Can the actual message of
the experiencedictate the degree to whicha student
learnsinformation.Does the natureof the contenteffect how a studentregardsthe site followinghis/her
visit?Thisstudyattemptedto answerthese questions
by analyzingthe impact of two messages associated
with environmentalsciences:ecological information
and environmentalissue content.
Theresultsof thisstudysupportedthe notionthat
both an ecological and issue-orientedfield trip can
impactknowledge.Therewas,however,no significant
change in affect. These findingspromote the notion
that an environmentalscience field trip can clearly
influencebasic knowledgeof science related subject
matter.Whetherthe programinvolvesan exploration
of a park'snaturalhistoryor investigatingits related
environmentalissues,the participantwill come away
with more knowledge about ecology and associated
issues.
The results did not support the notion that either a science content program or an issue laden
messagecould improvethe attitudesof the students.
Neither the naturalhistoryhike nor the issue investigationprogramraised the students'interest to return to the site. These results deviate from the majority of research that has suggested that a science
field trip can improvethe attitudeof its participants.
However,it does supporta significantamountof literaturethat believes the evaluationof affect following a short term experienceis difficultto accurately
assess.
Although these findingssuggest that both types
of educationalcontent will only produceknowledge
gains,the authorsbelieve that othertypes of research
strategiesmust be implementedto confirmthis hyevalpothesis. Conductingqualitative/observational
uationsmay provide more insightinto this area and
maybe able to answerthe questionof whichmessage
Bitgood, S. (1989). School field trips:An overview. VisitorBehavior
4:3-6.
Cable, T. X, Knudson, D. M., and Theobald, W. F. (1986). The application of the theory of reasoned action to the evaluation of
interpretation. Journal of Interpretation11: 11-25.
Dori, Y. J., and Tal, R. T. (2000). Formal and informal collaborative
projects: Engaging in industry with environmental awareness.
Science Education 84: 95-113.
Drake, X, and Knapp, D. H. (1994). The hilltop interpretation
project. The InterpretiveSourcebook (The Proceedings of the
1994 National Interpreters' Workshop), Omnipress, Madison,
WI, pp. 282-292.
Falk, J. H. (1983). Field trips: A look at environmental effects on
learning. Journal of Biological Education 17: 137-142.
Falk, J. H., and Balling, J. D. (1982). The field trip milieu: Learning
and behavior as a function of contextual events. Journal of
Educational Research 76: 22-28.
Flexer, B. K., and Borun, M. (1984). The impact of a class visit
to a participatory science museum exhibit and a classroom
science lesson. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching21: 863873.
Gramann, J. H., and Vander Stoep, G. A. (1987). Prosocial behavior theory and natural resource protection: A conceptual synthesis. Journal of Environmental Management 24: 247257.
Ham, S. (1986). Social program evaluation and interpretation:
A literature review. In Machlis, G. (Ed.), Interpretive Views,
National Parks and Conservation Association, Washington,
DC, pp. 9-38.
Independent Commission on Environmental Education. (1997,
April). Are we Building Environmental Literacy? Author,
Washington, DC.
Isaac, S., and Michael, W. B. (1990). Handbook in Research and
Evaluation, Edits, San Diego, CA.
Knapp, D. H. (1994). Validating a framework of goals for program development in environmental interpretation, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale.
Knapp, D. H., and Barrie, E. (1998). Ecology vs. interpretation: The
analysis of two different messages. Journal of Interpretation
Research 3: 21-38.
Koran, J. J., Koran, M. L., and Ellis, J. (1989). Evaluating the effectiveness of field experiences: 1939-1989. Visitor Behavior
4: 7-10.
Lisowski, M., and Disinger, J. F. (1988). Environmental education
research news. The Environmentalist 8: 3-6.
Lisowski, M., and Disinger, J. F. (1992). The effect of field-based
instruction on student understandings of ecological concepts.
Journal of Environmental Education 23: 19-23.
Lucas, K. B. (2000). One teacher's agenda for a class visit to
an interactive science center. Science Education 84: 524544.
Marsan, S., and Knapp, D. H. (1996). The deam wilderness interpretive program. Interpedge 3: 20-25.
McClafferty, T, and Rennie, L. (1992, July). Learning and Rallying in Science Education Centersand Science Museums. Paper
presented at the Australian Science Education Research Association Conference, Canberra, Australia.
Meredith, J. E., Fortner, R. W, and Mullins, G. W. (1997). Model
of affective learning for informal science education facilities.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching34: 805-817.
This content downloaded from 125.22.40.140 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 07:33:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Environmental Science Field Trip
National Science Resources Center. (1993, Spring). Assessment
in STC units. National Science Resources Center Newsletter,
pp. 2-3.
Nazier, G. L. (1993). Science and engineering professors: Why did
they choose science as a career? School Science and Mathematics 93: 321-324.
Orion, N. (1993). A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part to the science curriculum.
School Science and Mathematics 93: 325-331.
Ramey, L. G., Walberg, H. J., and Walberg, H. J. (1994). Reexamining connections: Museums as science learning environments.
Science Education 78: 345-363.
Rennie, L. J., and McClafferty,T. (1995). Using visits to interactive
science and technology centers, museums, aquaria, and zoos
357
to promote learning in science. Journal of Science Teacher
Education 6: 175-185.
Roggenbuck, J. W., Hammitt, W. E., and Berrier, D. L. (1982). The
role of interpretation in managing for recreational carrying
capacity. Journal of Interpretation 7: 7-20.
Rudmann, C. L. (1994). A review of the use and implementation
of science field trips. School Science and Mathematics 94: 138141.
Ryan, C. (1991). The effects of a conservation program on school
children's attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Education 22: 30-35.
Sneider, C, Eason, L., and Friedman, A. (1979). Summative evaluation of a participatory science exhibit. Science Education 63:
25-36.
This content downloaded from 125.22.40.140 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 07:33:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions