Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance
ISSN: 0730-3084 (Print) 2168-3816 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrd20
Promoting Physical Activity and Science Learning
in an Outdoor Education Program
Kevin E. Finn, Zi Yan & Kyle J. McInnis
To cite this article: Kevin E. Finn, Zi Yan & Kyle J. McInnis (2018) Promoting Physical Activity and
Science Learning in an Outdoor Education Program, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation &
Dance, 89:1, 35-39, DOI: 10.1080/07303084.2017.1390506
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2017.1390506
Published online: 05 Jan 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2240
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujrd20
Promoting Physical Activity
and Science Learning in an
Outdoor Education Program
Kevin E. Finn
Zi Yan
Kyle J. McInnis
P
hysical inactivity increases the risk of stroke The outdoor environment provides a great opportunity for
and other major cardiovascular risk factors such school-age children to participate in physical activity. Evidence
as high blood pressure, diabetes and obesity. It is suggests that children who are physically active outdoors have a
recommended that children and adolescents par- lower risk of developing a chronic illness (Strong et al., 2005).
ticipate in physical activity for at least 60 minutes Moreover, it has been shown that participation in activities in na-
daily. However, the physical activity levels of children have been ture during childhood, such as hiking, camping and gardening, is
on a steady decline nationwide. Only 28.7% of children actually associated with more positive attitudes toward outdoor activities
reported meeting the recommended amount of physical activity in later in life (Wells & Lekies, 2006). Unfortunately, children have
the previous week (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention been provided with fewer opportunities for outdoor play in their
[CDC], 2012). In schools physical education is one method to pro- home environments, schools and local communities (Hofferth,
mote physical activity, but it often falls short in meeting the daily 2008; Little & Wyver, 2008). The evidence shows that children
physical activity recommendations. are spending more time participating in indoor activities such as
Kevin E. Finn (finnk@merrimack.edu) is an associate professor and chair, Zi Yan is an assistant professor, and Kyle J. McInnis
is associate dean in the Department of Health Sciences at Merrimack College in North Andover, MA.
JOPERD 35
watching television and less time in the outdoors exploring and The outdoor education program utilized the camp’s program ar-
engaging in the natural environment (Frost, Brown, Sutterby, & eas and natural ecosystems to provide the children with unique ex-
Thornton, 2004; Ginsberg, 2007). As Kellert (2005) suggested, periential learning activities in four main curricular areas: science
modern society has become so detached from the natural world and mathematics, healthy living, environmental education, and
that we do not recognize our basic dependence on nature as a con- team building. Through these engaging activities and the use of
dition for growth and development. the natural surroundings, the students were encouraged to explore
In addition to providing physical activity opportunities, out- their interests and abilities in a safe and nurturing environment.
door learning activities can also serve as a means for expanding Environmental Education. The students were provided the op-
academic subject matter knowledge. Educational initiatives that portunity to learn about different ecosystems at the camp (e.g., the
are characterized by environment-based education have shown wetlands, freshwater lake, forest and open field) through a combi-
promise for improving student academic achievement (Office for nation of hands-on experiments. Students also took nature hikes
Standards in Education [OFSTED], 2003). The outdoor environ- and performed on-site field tests, including taking water samples,
ment can afford children the opportunities to reinforce, apply and soil samples and pH testing.
enrich skills learned in the traditional classroom (Stone, 2009). Science and Mathematics. This component of the program in-
Specifically, the outdoors can be an optimal context for learning cluded several physical activities that provided the opportunity for
that provides opportunities for children to develop science knowl- students to learn math and science skills. Some of these activities
edge and skills. For example, the outdoor classroom lends itself included:
to inquiry about nature, which provides children with unique op- • Maps — The goal of this module was to teach students how
portunities to gather, interpret, analyze and predict information in to develop and make maps using scale, topography, measurements
meaningful contexts (Burriss & Foulks, 2005). It has been shown and other skills.
that children show more interest in science learning when they col- • Archery — While participating in archery, students learned
lect and analyze their own data (Weiss, Banilower, McMahon, & about velocity, rate of speed, distance, inertia and gravity.
Smith, 2001). • Canoeing — While participating in this activity, the goal was
Given the positive effects that the natural environment can for students to learn about propulsion, angles, planes, kinesiology
have on children’s development and well-being (Taylor & Kuo, and biomechanics, resistance and friction, wind and currents.
2009; Wells & Evans, 2003), schools and local communities • Ga-ga — While playing the popular camp game, students
should strongly consider incorporating the outdoors for learning, wore devices, such as a pedometer, to measure heart rate, steps and
while at the same time promoting physical activity. There is lim- activity. Students took the data from these devices and then, using
ited research that has explored the effectiveness of outdoor edu- the Active Science curriculum, analyzed the data, answered ques-
cation in promoting both physical activity and science learning. tions, and drew conclusions about the data. Editor’s note: SHAPE
Therefore, the purpose of this article is to present the findings of a America does not support ga-ga ball in a physical education set-
research study that was conducted in an outdoor education pro- ting, because similar to dodgeball, it does not support a positive
gram aimed at increasing physical activity and improving science school climate, the application of appropriate social behaviors, or
knowledge among elementary school children in an economically the goal of physical education. (See SHAPE America, 2017, for
disadvantaged urban community. The authors hypothesized that SHAPE America’s full position statement: “Dodgeball Is Not an
(1) participants would be significantly more physically active in Appropriate Physical Education Activity.”)
the outdoor program compared to the traditional school environ- Team Building. The goal of the team-building component was
ment; and (2) an outdoor education program that integrates a to provide a progressive learning experience in which students
science learning component would increase performance on sci- were encouraged to challenge themselves in a variety of ways. This
ence tests. provided emotional and physical growth and gave each student a
feeling of self-worth and self-accomplishment.
Healthy Living. During this component of the program stu-
Program Description dents were exposed to information about living a healthy lifestyle.
Forty-four children (19 boys, 25 girls, age 9–10 years old) were This included safety concepts, healthy eating and nutrition, and
enrolled in two fourth-grade classes at an elementary school in an physical activity. Activities included water and boating safety, gar-
economically disadvantaged urban community in Massachusetts. den projects, fitness challenges, an Otterthon Relay Race, and field
The participants were 92% Hispanic, 5% African American, and and court games.
3% Caucasian. The participants were selected based on their age In addition to learning the specific goals of the curriculum,
to match the level of the academic content in the outdoor educa- the outdoor education program had two overall themes — physi-
tion curriculum. Written parental/guardian consent and child as- cal activity promotion and science inquiry learning — that were
sent forms were completed prior to students’ participation. Ap- consistent throughout the four content areas. The goal of the
proval for the study was obtained from the college’s Institutional physical activity portion of the curriculum was to engage par-
Review Board. ticipants with different levels of fitness and skills to participate
During the intervention, children participated in a five-day, in fun, moderately intense activities during the outdoor educa-
five-hour per day outdoor education program that took place at tion experience. For example, the participants played a variety
a local day camp owned by the YMCA. This program was a joint of large-group games (e.g., ga-ga ball, sharks and minnows) and
venture between the city’s school district and the local YMCA to sport-oriented games (e.g., basketball, volleyball) to promote
provide students with an exciting opportunity to participate in ac- physical activity. The purpose of the science inquiry lessons was
tive learning in a camp setting. This was the first outdoor experi- to increase the participants’ science knowledge by having them
ence in a camp environment for many students who participated purposefully participate in the scientific process using their own
in this program. physical activity data.
36 Volume 89 Number 1 January 2018
For the science focus, participants
wore a Digiwalker SW-701 (Yamax
Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) pedom-
eter to track their physical activity
data during each day at camp. At the
end of the day the children retrieved
the data from the pedometer and re-
corded their steps, distance and calo-
ries in a personal data journal with
help from the staff. Once the data
were recorded, the participants drew
figures and tables that represented
their physical activity information.
This was completed each day dur-
ing the outdoor program to show the
physical activity data of the students
over the course of a week. The par-
ticipants then completed an analysis
of the data by answering a variety
of questions that focused on gen-
eral scientific-inquiry skills, such as
graphical interpretation and the abil-
ity to draw conclusions from data.
In a sample lesson participants were
asked to make a hypothesis about
how many steps they would take dur-
ing that day’s physical activity. At
the end of the lesson the participants
compared what they hypothesized
to what they actually did. They then
analyzed these data, which were rep-
resented in a graphical display using
bar graphs. The follow-up questions
asked the students to come up with
a conclusion based on the data. They
completed these lessons at the end of
each day at the camp.
Pre- and Post-tests
Physical Activity Assessment. Prior
to the implementation of the inter-
vention, the participants wore a pe-
dometer for six hours (8 a.m.–2 p.m.)
during a typical school day to gather
baseline physical activity informa-
tion. At this particular elementary
school the children participated in
class meetings (math, language arts,
etc.), one recess session that included
outdoor free play, and a lunch period.
The research assistants placed the pe-
dometers and accelerometers on the
participants before each day to ensure
that the devices were worn in the ap-
propriate position. At the end of the
day the staff removed and recorded
the data from the activity monitors.
During the baseline and outdoor A student engaging in the ropes course that was part of the team-building
education days, each participant component of the curriculum, where students were encouraged
wore a pedometer to measure their to challenge themselves in a variety of ways
JOPERD 37
Table 1.
Descriptive Results for Physical Activity and Science Achievement
In-school Outdoor Education
(Baseline) (Intervention) Cohen’s d a
Steps/Hour (n = 44) 391.1 (±220) 1237.3 (±716.1)*** 1.6
MVPA/Hour (n = 14) 3.31 (±0.6) 9.5 (±1.4)*** 5.6
Sedentary Min/Hour (n = 14) 41.2 (±2.1) 28.4 (±2.3) 1.3
Science Score (n = 44) 40.5% (±12.5) 47% (±10.0) 0.6
a
Cohen’s d is an effect size used to indicate the standardized difference between two means. The larger number
indicates a bigger group difference.
***Indicates p < .001.
step count. To measure exercise intensity (i.e., minutes of seden- Steps per hour and minutes of MVPA per hour increased ap-
tary and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity), a subset of 14 proximately threefold from the baseline to the posttest. The aver-
children also wore an accelerometer (ActiGraph, Pensacola, FL). age sedentary minutes per hour also decreased. t tests showed that
Seven children from each fourth-grade class were selected in order steps/hour and MVPA/hour were significantly higher during the
to equally distribute the number of participants who wore the ac- outdoor education program compared to in-school, t(43) = –28.02,
celerometers during the study. From there, the participants were t(12) = –29.34, respectively (p < .001). In addition, the sedentary
stratified by sex, and then the researchers randomly selected six time significantly decreased, t(12) = 9.80, p < .001. The science test
boys and eight girls to be included in the subset. The reason six score based on 20 items increased approximately 6.5%, t(43) =
boys and eight girls were chosen was to ensure that the sample was –4.18, p < .01 (see Table 1).
representative of the population in the study. The same 14 children This project demonstrated an innovative approach to integrate
who wore the accelerometer at school wore it at camp as well. physical activity and science learning in an outdoor environment.
Science Assessment. To assess science-inquiry learning out- The results showed that children were significantly more physically
comes, a 20-item science test was developed and administered active in the outdoor environment compared to the traditional
at the beginning and end of the program. The content of the test school environment, which was consistent with previous studies
assessed the skills that were taught throughout the outdoor edu- (Cleland et al., 2008). In addition, as the children in the study
cation program with a focus on the ability to read and interpret tracked and used their own physical activity data to learn scientific
data from figures and tables and to understand and implement concepts, they were motivated to increase their steps taken and
the scientific method (e.g., make a hypothesis, record and collect distances traveled. The science-learning component of the program
data, draw conclusions). These inquiry skills were focused on be- reinforced physical activity participation.
cause students need to be able to apply science skills that let them The evidence from the current study also supports the effective-
analyze a natural phenomenon and determine underlying mecha- ness of science learning through physical activity in the outdoor
nisms and causes. According to the National Research Council environment. Previous studies have shown that physical activity
(2012), quality science education must address these skills for and science learning can be integrated in the after-school environ-
students to successfully apply their learning to understand and ment. For example, Finn, Yan and McInnis (2015) followed a simi-
analyze their world. lar integration approach at a local YMCA where children com-
The test demonstrated good reliability with an internal consis- pleted physical activity in a gymnasium for 30 minutes, then used
tency between 0.70 and 0.81. The content of the pre- and post- the data from their pedometer (e.g., steps, calories, and distances)
tests was similar but not identical. Two elementary school teachers twice a week as a basis for science inquiry lessons. Results showed
assisted in the creation of the science test in order to ensure that the that children significantly increased their physical activity partici-
content was age- and grade-appropriate. They were able to align pation compared to their regular after-school program, and they
the assessment with national science standards and verified that it also learned science by collecting and analyzing their own data.
represented the content for the appropriate grade level. Although there is limited empirical evidence for this application
in an outdoor environment, the results of the study described here
support the concept that similar approaches can be applied to the
Results and Benefits of Outdoor Education outdoor environment to enhance physical activity participation, as
t tests were used to compare the differences in physical activ- well as improve science learning.
ity and science measures between the outdoor education program With the rapid development of digital technology, children
and the traditional school day. Since the participants wore the spend more screen time on their gadgets and have become de-
accelerometers for different amounts of time at school (6 hours) tached from the natural world (Ginsberg, 2007). Recognizing the
compared to the outdoor experience (25 hours), the steps per hour importance of nature to children’s growth and development, teach-
and minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per ers and parents are challenged to create innovative ways to encour-
hour were recorded and analyzed. This was done to ensure that age children to get back into the natural environment. Previous
accurate comparisons could be made. research has shown that well-designed outdoor programs increase
38 Volume 89 Number 1 January 2018
children’s positive attitudes toward nature, interest in environmen- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012, June 8). National
tal learning, and knowledge (Garner, Taft, & Stevens, 2015). By Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance — United States, 2011. Morbidity and
integrating outdoor physical activity with science learning, the Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries, 61(4), 1–168.
program described here created a unique outdoor experience for Cleland, V., Crawford, D., Baur, L. A., Hume, C., Timperio, A., & Salmon,
J. (2008). A prospective examination of children’s time spent outdoors,
children, which may further stimulate their positive attitudes and
objectively measured physical activity and overweight. International
interests in the environment. Journal of Obesity, 32, 1685–1693. doi:10.1038/ijo.2008.171
Finally, science education in an outdoor setting is important Finn, K., Yan, Z., & McInnis, K. (2015) Active Science®: Integrating physi-
to support an informal learning environment for children (Soh & cal activity 280 and science learning into the afterschool environment.
Meerah, 2013). According to Hofstein and Rosenfeld (1996), “fu- American Journal of Health Education, 46, 323–328.
ture research in science education should focus on how to effec- Frost, J., Brown, P., Sutterby, J., & Thornton, C. (2004). The develop-
tively blend learning experiences in formal and informal learning mental benefits of playgrounds. Olney, MD: Association for Childhood
in order to significantly enhance the learning of science” (p. 107). Education International.
Based on the results of the current study, the outdoor environment Garner, M. A., Taft, E. D., & Stevens, C. L. (2015). Do children increase
shows promise to promote science learning among school-age chil- their environmental consciousness during summer camp?: A comparison
of two programs. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Lead-
dren. Future studies should explore how to further incorporate out-
ership, 7, 20–34. doi:10.7768/1948-5123.1238
door science education into the standard science curricula taught in Ginsberg, D. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child
school, as well as to integrate physical activity and science learning development and maintaining strong parent–child bonds: Clinical re-
in an enjoyable and innovative way. Additionally, qualitative data port. Retrieved from http://www.aap.org/pressroom/playFINAL.pdf
should be collected to evaluate gains in areas other than physical Hofferth, S. L. (2008). American children’s outdoor and indoor leisure
activity and science outcomes (e.g., well-being and attitude toward time. In E. Goodenough (Ed.), A place for play. A companion volume to
physical activity, science learning, and outdoor activities). the Michigan television film “Where do the children play?” (pp. 41–44).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Hofstein, A., & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the gap between formal
Limitations and informal science learning. Studies in Science Education, 28, 87–112.
doi:10.1080/03057269608560085
One of the major limitations of this study is the lack of a control Kellert, S. R. (2005). Building for life: Designing and understanding the
group for the science assessment. It is unclear whether the partici- human nature connection. Washington, DC: Island Press.
pants’ science scores increased due to the intervention or to a gen- Little, H., & Wyver, S. (2008). Outdoor play: Does avoiding the risks re-
eral learning effect from classroom activities. In addition, the sci- duce the benefits? Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(2), 33–40.
ence test used was self-developed. Since it was not a standardized National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science educa-
assessment tool, its reliability and validity were unclear. Finally, tion: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC:
the current study lacked qualitative feedback from the participants National Academies Press.
to evaluate their experiences in the program. Office for Standards in Education. (2003). Taking the first step forward
... towards an education for sustainable development: Good prac-
tice in primary and secondary schools. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.
ac.uk/4778/1/Taking_the_first_step_forward_towards_an_education_
Conclusion for_sustainable_development.pdf
Integrating physical activity and science learning in an outdoor SHAPE America – Society of Health and Physical Educators. (2017). Dodge-
education program addresses the two challenges that our chil- ball is not an appropriate physical education activity (Position State-
dren face today: physical inactivity and poor science performance. ment). Retrieved from http://www.shapeamerica.org/standards/guide
These two challenges hinder the physical and mental development lines/upload/Dodgeball-Is-Not-an-Appropriate-Physical-Education-
of our next generation. As we try to increase the effectiveness of the Activity.pdf
Soh, T., & Meerah, T. (2013) Outdoor education: An alternative approach
physical education and science classes in our schools, other extra-
in teaching and learning science. Asian Social Science, 9(17), 1–8.
curricular approaches are needed to support these efforts. The pro- Stone, M. K. (2009). Smart by nature. Berkeley, CA: Center for Ecoliteracy.
gram described in this article provides an example of an innovative Strong, W., Malina, R., Blimkie, C., Daniels, S., Dishman, R., Gutin, R.
approach to address these initiatives in the outdoor environment, ... Trudeau, F. (2005). 336 based physical activity for school-age youth.
which also helps children interact with nature. Although further Journal of Pediatrics, 146, 732–737.
evidence is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach Taylor, A., & Kuo, F. (2009). Children with attention deficits concentrate
in and outside of school, it is hoped that this program will entice better after walk in the park. Journal of Attention Disorders, 12, 402–
others to integrate physical activity and science learning in an out- 409.
door setting. Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., & Smith, P. S. (2001). Re-
port of the 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education.
Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
Wells, N. M., & Evans, G. W. (2003). Nearby nature: a buffer of life stress
Acknowledgment among rural children. Environment and Behaviour, 35, 311–330.
The authors would like to thank the children, staff and teachers Wells, N., & Lekies, K. (2006). Nature and the life course: Pathways from
at the Merrimack Valley YMCA and Leahy for their willingness to childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism. Children, Youth
participate in this study. and Environments, 16, 1–24. doi:10.1177/0013916503035003001 J
References
Burriss, K. G., & Foulks, B. (Eds.). (2005). Outdoor learning and play:
Ages 8–12. Olney, MD: Association for Childhood Education Interna-
tional.
JOPERD 39
