Nature-based instruction for science learning: insights and interpretive considerations for research and practice

Abstract

In school-based research, isolating the potential effects of a single variable while attempting to maintain typical classroom routines is always a challenge. Unfortunately, the challenges and methodological approaches to overcoming them are often only shallowly reported, perhaps due to word limits or assumptions that those details are irrelevant to the findings. Thus, future research is unnecessarily impeded, destined to repeat the same mistakes. In this article, we reflect on the design and methodological strengths of our study of nature-based instruction (NBI) and how some strengths also created challenges with implications for interpreting the findings of our study (published in a companion paper, Faber Taylor, Butts-Wilmsmeyer, and Jordan 2022). In that study, we attempted to isolate the potential effects of NBI compared to classroom-based instruction on science learning and to test for potential mechanisms and moderating variables. We share insights in hopes of supporting others’ research design and nature-based educational practice.

Keywords:

• Nature-based instruction
• science learning
• green schoolyards
• nature
• school research

Acknowledgements

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We thank the following organizations and individuals for their invaluable contributions: the staff and administration of the partner school and nature center; Advisory Group members Doug Huffman, Stephen Hughes, Ming Kuo, Frances Lawrenz, Gillian Roehrig, and Keisha Varma; and research assistants Danika Buss, Alex Goodhouse, Cyrus Hair, Ola Hajeissa, Kaia Knutsen, Matthew Martinez, and Mollika Sajady. Also, special thanks to Alex Goodhouse for his work to develop the Science Reasoning scoring approach.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 For example, for Topic 1, Rocks & Minerals, Class A was the first class to be taught this topic by the educator. For Topic 2, Class A became the second class to be taught this topic, and the rotation through the positions (first, second, third, or last to be taught a topic) continued through the six topics. An additional counterbalance was the order of experiencing the settings. For Topic 1, Class A first received the NBI lesson followed by the CBI lesson the next day. For Topic 2, Class A then received the CBI lesson first, followed by the NBI lesson. This alternation continued through all topics.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF 1540919.

Notes on contributors

Catherine Jordan

Cathy Jordan, PhD is Director of Sustainability Education and Leadership Development for the Institute on the Environment, and Professor of Pediatrics, at the University of Minnesota. She also serves as the Consulting Director of Research for the Children & Nature Network, a national nonprofit. Her interest is the mutual thriving of children and the natural world, and particularly the role of nature-based learning in that relationship.

Mollika Sajady

Mollika Sajady, DO is currently a physician in the Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics department at Children’s Minnesota in Minneapolis, MN. She was a Fellow in Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics at the University of Minnesota at the time of this study. Her research interests are focused on promoting health outcomes through nature and mindfulness experiences.

Andrea Faber Taylor

Andrea Faber Taylor, PhD is Teaching Assistant Professor in the Department of Crop Sciences in the College of Agricultural, Consumer, & Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. For more than 25 years, she has been researching the relationship between children’s experiences of nature and healthy development.