Nika Golob

Slovenia

Learning Science
through Outdoor Learning

Abstract

Children from modern societies often enter the compulsory education system
with a lack of experience in the outdoors. On the other hand, they possess much
knowledge that they often cannot properly apply to the events in their environ-
ment and to their own everyday actions and activities. This study is based on
research into the outdoor learning experiences in elementary education. By posing
open-ended questions about previous outdoor school learning, we examined its
effects on pupils in Slovenian elementary school. In this way, we confirmed cor-
relations between the experience of observing life in water and around it and better
knowledge of small organisms in an aquatic environment among 10-year-olds. For
the water-pollution-related experience, a correlation with favourable attitudes and
more appropriate use of water was not statistically confirmed. Outdoor learning
provides pupils with the opportunity to combine and develop their knowledge of
actual environmental and everyday phenomena. To overcome the gap between
pupils’ knowledge and their actions in terms of environmental education we sug-
gest that teachers should integrate outdoor learning into their teaching practice.
Conclusions are drawn with reference to the implications for the development of
real and meaningful outdoor learning in order to develop in pupils the skills that
are required for appropriate sustainable development in the future.

Key words: environmental attitudes, environmental education, knowledge level,

outdoor learning, sustainable development, water.
222 Nika Golob

Introduction

The way of life in modern society often leads to the detachment of humans from
nature and the environment. Similarly, children can also become alienated from
the outdoors. Because they often spend their free time doing indoor activities,
the most prevalent among these in the last decade are activities connected with
the use of computers and television. Modern research results (Kernan & Devine,
2010) indicate that the outdoors is increasingly marginalised in young children’s
everyday experiences. Children often enter the compulsory education system
with less experience from the outdoors, on the one hand, but with considerable
knowledge, on the other, knowledge that they cannot properly apply to events
in their environment or to their everyday actions and activities. We assume that
at school this gap widens if teachers do not pay enough attention to integrating
experiential learning in environments that can provide elementary school pupils
with adequate activities for their stage of development, through which they are
capable of combining knowledge with experience gained from the environment
and to the world of science (Murphy, 2010). The paper focuses on the effect of
learning experience with an aquatic environment on pupils’ knowledge, opinions
and actions.

Theoretical Background

For a  number of years, those who perform research on science education,

especially science education at elementary school, have been pointing out that
pupils learn best through exploration and interaction with direct experience in
the source environment of learning content. Positive nature experiences in early
childhood have been seen to be important for the development of nature sensitivity
(Jeronen & Kaikkonen, 2002) and for the development of an empathic relation
towards nature (Palmberg & Kuru, 2000; Bogner, 1998). Such experience is not
always simple to provide, and it becomes alarming when teaching science at the
elementary level is overly focused on acquiring factual knowledge in a closed-off
classroom in the school building. Pupils’ experiences represent a premise of con-
structivism, which was presented in theories by Piaget (Piaget & Inhelder, 1982),
who emphasized the biological processes in cognitive development, and Vygotsky
(1996), who mostly based his theory on the primary role of the socio-historical
component of developing knowledge. Dewey (1995) attributed greater importance
to experience, saying that there were several dimensions of experience: intellectual,
Learning Science through Outdoor Learning 223

emotional, social and moral. When we talk about education at the elementary level,
as pupils learn about everyday phenomena in their environment, it is necessary for
a substantial part of this education to be implemented in an environment where it
is possible to acquire direct experience, connect it with what is already known, give
it meaning, reflect on it, combine it into knowledge and use it, all of which are the
fundamental steps of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), which can lead to more
solid knowledge and to concrete actions. The conduct of a responsible individual
is the global objective of modern education, which includes an enlightened indi-
vidual in a sustainability-oriented society. In the 1930s, John Dewey revealed his
ideas on pupil-centred education, including approaches such as learning by doing,
life-long learning, and integrated and interdisciplinary efforts, all of which later
became major dimensions of environmental education (McCrea, 2006).
The need for complex thinking, processing and understanding of environmental
phenomena is also dictated by the need to develop competences that should be
provided by modern schools according to internationally accepted strategies
(Eurydice, 2002). Connecting the elements that would link the fragmented dis-
courses of various disciplines is also recommended by the UNESCO Educating
for a Sustainable Future (UNESCO, 1997) document, which was amended by the
Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (UNESCO, 2004), because
only through an integrated and interdisciplinary approach can we understand the
complexity of modern-day problems.
Previous surveys confirmed the strong correlation between pupils’ knowledge,
skills and a more suitable attitude towards the environment (Kenney et al., 2003).
The results of the survey (Palmberg & Kuru, 2000) confirmed that personal out-
door experience helps develop self-respect, feelings of trust and self-confidence
in pupils, which in turn affect their future decisions. Margadant-van Arcken
(1990) found that the time after learning outdoors was the most suitable period
for implementing new concepts and for using the inductive approach based on
pupils’ experience. A method of teaching that integrates everyday experience from
the immediate environment also enables the potential for a constant, reciprocal
relation with the environment and the opportunity to assess the level of symbiosis
for pupils as well as teachers (Margadant-van Arcken, 1990). Reflective elements
should relate to the content (curriculum of the subject), to the methodological
process and the interactional aspect of teaching (Javornik Krečič, 2010).
As it is often difficult to provide an adequate learning situation that would fulfil
all organisational, content – and goal-related requirements, a welcome solution
would be to adapt the school’s immediate surroundings for experiential learning
(Kenney et al., 2003; Mansuroglu & Sabanci, 2010). An adequately organized school
224 Nika Golob

environment can be useful for teaching in a number of subjects at every stage of

elementary education. However, good knowledge of the local environment, as well
as an awareness of the complexity and the mutual co-dependence of environmental
systems is important. To this end, Assaraf and Orion (2010) stated that education
including outdoor, inquiry-based learning was also related to pupils’ capacity to
develop basic system thinking abilities at a young age. It is also important to place
more emphasis on pupils’ out-of-school nature experience and their engagement
with informal learning in contextual outdoor environments (Uitto et al., 2006;
Sandell & Ohman, 2010).
A German national survey (Boegeholz et al., 2000) carried out on a large number
of pupils aged 10 – 18 confirmed the correlation between an outdoor science experi-
ence and realizations that lead to more ecologically conscious actions. Similarly,
it was found that pupils who participated in an outdoor science experience pro-
gramme had clearer intentions to act in an environmentally conscious manner and
took greater pleasure in experiencing nature (Bogner, 1999), while at the same time
displaying a deeper understanding of the studied phenomena compared to pupils
who only discussed these phenomena in class (Parry, 2002).
According to different research findings, the didactic recommendations in the
syllabus for the subject of Environmental Education (Spoznavanje okolja), which
is taught at Slovenian elementary schools to pupils aged 6 – 8, specifically state that
if possible, pupils should learn about the environment directly (Krnel et al.,1998).
However, the question remains of how Slovenian elementary schools actually
implement these recommendations in practice and what the real benefits are to
pupils.

Research Design

Based on existing research, surveys and theoretical findings, we examined the

effect of the outdoor learning on 10-year-old pupils and, consequently, the effect
on their attitudes and/or actions towards environmental phenomena. We limited
our research to life in water, water pollution and attitudes towards drinking water.
Water is an everyday liquid, but still special because of its properties, which nurture
life and its development. However, owing to people’s reckless actions, sources of
drinking water are becoming increasingly endangered. We posed the following
research questions:
What are the pupils’ outdoor school experiences with the aquatic environment
in the first four school years?
Learning Science through Outdoor Learning 225

Do pupils’ knowledge and attitudes differ, taking into account different school
outdoor experiences with an aquatic environment?
We will therefore compare the knowledge and attitudes of pupils who partici-
pated in various outdoor learning experiences involving the aquatic environment
during their first four years of school.

Method
For our survey, we used a descriptive causal non-experimental method (Sagadin,
1993). We used quantitative as well as qualitative research procedures, resulting
in mixed method research. We chose this combination of interpretative and tra-
ditional empirical-analytical research in order to avoid the disadvantages of using
merely one type of pedagogical research methods (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

Instrument
The research instrument comprised a survey for pupils (10-year-olds) and
an interview for teachers. The survey for pupils included open questions for
the evaluation of specific knowledge about water, the life within it and water
pollution, questions about water treatment, attitudes towards drinking water and
school experiences with aquatic environments. The instrument used in the study
was developed for the purpose of this study and was based on similar surveys
and theoretical findings (Boegeholz et al., 2000; Parry, 2002; Uitto et al., 2006;
Sandell & Ohman, 2010). The survey was first used as a pilot study on a sample
of 56 pupils from the 4th grade of various primary schools in Maribor, Slovenia.
After the pilot study, a final check was conducted on pupils’ understanding of
the questions and statements. The final version was slightly revised and applied
to the whole sample.
Validity was based on a rational assessment of the test survey by experts for
content – and format-related properties and its pilot study. Reliability was ensured
through the use of detailed instructions, single meaning, specific questions and
a comparison of the answers to questions with similar content. Objectivity at the
data collection stage was based on recognition of the answers with no subjective
intervention, and at the validation phase through the input of experts.
A short interview for the teachers of the surveyed pupils consisted of an open
question about any previous experience those pupils had had with outdoor learn-
ing, and we were particularly interested in their school experience with an aquatic
environment in their first four school years. We wanted to use the interview to
obtain supplementary answers to the question about outdoor school experiences
with aquatic environments that was posed to pupils in the survey.
226 Nika Golob

Sample
We polled entire classes of pupils. The surveys were carried out in the presence
of their class teachers. We polled 26 classes of the 4th grade pupils at elementary
schools from the city of Maribor and its surroundings, for a total of 468 pupils. Of
those 468, 228 (48.7%) were girls and 240 (51.3%) were boys. Their average age
on the date of the survey was 10.66. The non – probability sample (convenience)
represented a simple sample of a hypothetical population.
We conducted interviews at the schools where we surveyed pupils. The answers
were recorded. In order to gain supplementary data on all the surveyed pupils, we
interviewed 62 teachers who were teaching or had taught the surveyed pupils in
the first four school years.
Maribor is the second largest city in the North-Eastern part of Slovenia, with
a population of 140,000 in the city and its vicinity. This part of Slovenia has an
abundance of water sources such as rivers, streams, ponds and pools that are situ-
ated at a maximum of walking distance of 30 minutes from each primary school
included in the study.

Procedure
To address the first research question, the teachers and pupils were asked about
the pupils’ school experiences with an aquatic environment in the first four years
of school. The teachers’ answers about a particular experience were weighted by
the frequency of their pupils’ answers about the same experience and ranked. These
ranked experiences were used to find differences between school–classes. To deal
with the second research question, data was obtained from the pupils’ survey. The
answers were classified; some were scored or weighted and ranked by their fre-
quency. For more detailed data analysis in SPSS the data was prepared by a software
application in the Microsoft Access tool. We used basic descriptive statistics and
the c² test to assess the differences among pupils with different outdoor school
experiences.

Results

We divided the selection of results for presentation into two sections: in the
first one we will present outdoor school experience of waterside environments
followed by a presentation of the difference in the pupils’ knowledge and opinions
of and attitudes towards aquatic environments according to various outdoor school
experiences.
Learning Science through Outdoor Learning 227

School Experience

The pupils’ answers to the open question about any school experience with an
aquatic environment, that they could recall from their education up to the time
of the survey (first to fourth grades), are combined with the teachers’ answers,
because as many as 139 pupils (29.7%) avoided answering that question. They
probably did not remember any activity, despite the fact that their classmates listed
the expected activities. Furthermore, the next two most frequent answers learned
about water (f = 53) and viewing (f = 52) were not described with sufficient preci-
sion for us to deduce the content of the experience and the method of work. We
could only assume that the pupils did not remember these experiences well enough
to be able to describe them in detail. That is why we had to complement the pupils’
answers with the teachers’ answers obtained during interviews. The combination
of the pupils’ and teachers’ answers gave us sufficient data on the experience and
the assessment of the experience, which represents the percentage of pupils from
the class who did remember the experience, as shown in the legend next to Table 1.
The descriptions of experiences in Table 1 were based on the pupils’ predomi-
nant activity. The experience of observing life in water and around it (cf. Table 1)
included planned observation of animals and plants living near water, indentify-
ing them with the help of identification keys, use of microscopes and/or stereo
microscopes, work with handouts in the field, or an interdisciplinary approach to
water during a nature science day in the vicinity of an aquatic environment. The
experience related to water pollution (cf. Table 1) included clean-up actions along
riverbanks, brooks or other water sources, an analysis of waste and pollutants in
water and near it, monitoring water pollution, field testing of water cloudiness and
water filtration, viewing of the spot where sewage or agricultural runoff drains into
running water and similar activities.
The results presented in Table 1 give some insight into the situation of the teach-
ing methods used for lessons in the vicinity of aquatic environments, and we found
that during elementary education the majority of the survey participants had had
experiences in observing life in water and around it (94.2%), as well as experi-
ences related to water pollution (87.8%). There were larger disparities regarding
the permanence of the experience for the pupils, since observing life in water and
around it is the most lasting experience (rank 3 in Table 1) for 42.9% of the pupils,
while in the case of experience related to water pollution, this was true for merely
13.9% of the pupils.
The most common answer among those that offered more information and bet-
ter described experiential activities was observing animals (f = 50), followed by the
228 Nika Golob

following answers: learned about pollution (f = 36), hunting and observation of small
animals, learned a lot (f = 28), observing plants (f = 25), viewing of a purification
plant (f = 19) and learning about animals and plants (f = 17). If the pupils merely
remembered the fact that they had had filled out handouts next to water, this did
point to an intended and probably adequately planned activity and individual
work, which, however, did not achieve the desired goals for the pupils. Instead of
remembering the content and the results, they merely remembered working with
handouts. Despite that, all the answers indicated that the pupils had had a learning
experience with an aquatic environment.
Table 1: Pupils’ school experience with an aquatic environment
EXPERIENCE EXPERIENCE RANK f % OF ALL PUPILS
0 27 5.8 5.8
observing life in 1 86 18.4 94.2
water and around it 2 154 32.9
3 201 42.9
0 57 12.2 12.2
experience related 1 153 32.7 87.8
to water pollution 2 193 41.2
3 65 13.9
Legend:
Experience rank:
3 – if more than 1/3 of pupils from the chosen group wrote about the same experience,
2 – if more than 1/10 of pupils from the chosen group wrote about the same experience,
1 – if less than 1/10 of pupils from the chosen group wrote about the same experience,
0 – if no pupils wrote about the experience (even if a teacher mentioned the experience).
When interpreting results, we referred to rank 3 experience as “the longest lasting
experience”, rank 2 experience as “the longer lasting experience” and rank 1 as “the
least lasting experience”.

Differences between pupils’ knowledge and attitudes

Statistical tests highlight the highest value of experience with observing life in
water and around it (rank 3 in Table 1), which represents the most lasting expe-
rience; others are neglected and allocated to the group without experience. We
also found merely an appearance of pupil answers in the categories “less common
organisms” and “small organisms” (cf. Table 2) and not a correlation based on the
number of those answers.
Learning Science through Outdoor Learning 229

The results of the χ2-test reveal that the experience of observing life in water
and around it is linked to specific knowledge, which is shown in the knowledge of
plants and animals living in water and around it. There is a tendency (χ2= 3.462,
g= 1, P = 0.063) towards the highest experience rank and repetition of answers
from the category “less common organisms” (most commonly listed as: dragonfly,
shell, carp, salamander, water lily, bulrush), and there is a statistically significant
difference (χ2 = 8.353, g = 1 P = 0.004) for the category “small organisms” (most
commonly listed as: water insects, algae, pond skater, tadpole).
In the case of the highest rank of the experience of observing life in water and
around it, answers from the category “small organisms” (43.3%) were more com-
mon than in experiences with lower ranks, where a smaller percentage of pupils
listed answers from this category (30.3 %) and where the difference is statistically
significant. We can confirm that a more lasting experience of observing life in water
and around it is related to better knowledge of smaller organisms in an aquatic
environment.
The results of the χ2-test for identifying the differences in understanding the need
for conserving drinking water pertaining to the water-pollution-related experience
rank (cf. Table 1) are not statistically significant (χ2 = 4.166, g = 6, P = 0.654). 26.5%
of the pupils either do not carry out any correctly oriented actions, or they carry
out incorrect ones in regard to conserving drinking water. Frequency-wise, the
following answers stand out: I do not pollute it (f = 33), which probably means that
the pupil thinks about the point of conserving drinking water, and I drink less (f =
16), I wash myself less or I drink juice, actions which only marginally contribute to
conserving drinking water; however, these reflect the incorrect way of thinking that
drinking water is only used for drinking and that it can only be conserved by using
less of it. The pupils do not understand that waterworks contain drinking water,
regardless of what it is used for. The following answers also describe incorrectly
understood actions: I conserve drinking water by pouring it into a pot or by saving
it in a bottle, I take baths (instead of showers) or I do not always wash my hands,
which came up rarely or only once. The majority of the pupils listed only a single
meaningful action or activity for conserving drinking water. Correctly oriented and
understood actions regarding water conservation are related to opinions on this
problem and lead to answers such as during washing I turn off the tap (f = 122), as
well as less common ones, such as I shower instead of bathe, and I use rainwater for
watering plants, I do not use it to wash cars, I do not use drinking water where I can
use non-drinkable water, or I water the garden with rainwater. Also, the percentages
of the pupils who had had the longest lasting experience related to water pollution
230 Nika Golob

(rank 3) did not achieve higher marks in evaluating reasons for the conservation
of drinking water.
Similarly, the results of the χ2-test for identifying differences in assessment of
one’s own behaviour for conserving drinking water in regard to the water-pollu-
tion-related experience rank (cf. Table 1) are not statistically significant (χ2 = 5.175,
g = 6, P = 0.522).
The variable “assessment of one’s own actions for reducing water pollution”,
which was designed based on the ranking of the pupils’ answers about their own,
meaningful, everyday practices for reducing water pollution, shows a statistically
significant difference in regard to the water-pollution-related experience rank,
which confirms the results of the χ2-test (χ2 = 44.211, g = 6, P = 0.000). However,
a large percentage of the participants (65.5 %) provided no answers and indicated
that they had either failed to carry out any actions or did not understand the
actions for reducing water pollution. The most common answer in regard to the
water-pollution-related experience ranking listed by the pupils and meaning-
fully related to comprehension was I do not drop more litter or waste, which on
account of its high degree of generalisation, we scored low. The pupils with a high
experience ranking did not attain high scores in questions regarding actions for
reducing water pollution. Therefore, for the water-pollution-related experience, any
correlation with favourable attitudes and a more appropriate treatment of water
was not statistically confirmed.

Discussion

Based on the results of statistical tests, we can claim that the experience of
observing life in water and around it relates to better knowledge of small organ-
isms in an aquatic environment, such as insects or insect larvae in water, algae,
pond skaters and tadpoles. Because the pupil surveys were not done immediately
after the experience, we assume that the experience was adequately planned and
implemented because the pupils showed knowledge of the experience a long time
after the experience had occurred. We can also claim in line with Uitto et al. (2006),
that pupils are interested in activities related to studying the living world and that
a direct experience in the natural environment results in solid knowledge.
The water-pollution-related experience of the surveyed pupils is not related
to knowing the reasons behind conservation of drinking water, nor to practical
measures for conserving drinking water, which we had expected based on the
description of the experience given by the teachers and pupils. We summarize that
Learning Science through Outdoor Learning 231

the implementation of such experience was not planned or carried out in connec-
tion with conserving drinking water. Sadly, it does happen that even the outdoor
experiences that have been implemented remain meaningless for pupils and that
teachers pay insufficient attention to establishing broader references and concepts,
which they could have done in the case of this experience. Thus, clean-up actions,
observation of waterways and performing experiments merely remain a pile-up of
activities for acquiring manual skills and contribute less to referencing knowledge
and awareness of outdoor phenomena. For pupils, such experiences contribute to
reduced littering, an issue which seems to fall outside school education, and to be
part of general culture, instead.
During our analysis of the surveys, we found a correlation between the pupils
who wrote that they often fished near an aquatic environment and their knowledge
of a larger number of fish, which they listed under the particular question. In this
case and in similar cases, it would be appropriate for the teacher to use the case of
the pupils with more experience and better knowledge as a source of information
for other pupils and to organize one of the forms of cooperative learning.
In order to deepen the understanding of these results for future research, we
suggest using experimental research methods in evaluation of specific well-planned
outdoor school lessons on the specific knowledge and attitude toward different
environmental phenomenon.

Implications for Teaching

The use of outdoor learning in learning content environments proved efficient

for achieving cognitive goals and slightly less efficient for developing more ben-
eficial opinions and actions in pupils. At the same time, teachers should pay more
attention to a comprehensive approach, integration of life cycles of materials (e.g.,
water) and living beings, and should consider various aspects of these phenomena.
It is also important to consistently combine planned observation, comparison, criti-
cal analysis and evaluation of one’s own way of life, even by pointing out examples
of good and bad practice pertaining to environmental attitudes. For elementary
level pupils, it is important to learn about the environment through experiential
learning, to value the environment and to be aware of human co-dependence on
the environment. It is also important to know and use simple measures for limiting
people’s negative influence on the environment. The results of this study suggest
that filling out handouts during outdoor learning may not be a necessary activity
during the first years of school. It is more valuable, according to the self-evaluation
232 Nika Golob

by some of the teachers interviewed, for pupils to understand simple activities, such
as observing small animals in water or around it for a certain amount of time: to
describe them, watch their movements, explain their colour, and count the number
of legs, etc.. Pupils like to observe the environment with their whole body – they
like to catch small animals in water with simple equipment (net or plastic cups),
compare the animals to pictures in books and name them. The knowledge goals
of such activities are important, but the generalisation process might be better
achieved after some activity and in the classroom with the support of the teacher.
Pupils are too busy with the activity, and filling out handouts could be seen as an
annoying interruption. By careful planning of outdoor learning and follow-up
activities, teachers could avoid a situation where the only thing pupils remember
is filling out forms.
Only such outdoor learning offers pupils in the first years of school opportuni-
ties to develop their knowledge in ways that integrate their school knowledge with
experience gathered from the environment which may result in more adequate
attitudes and behaviour towards the environment.

Bibliography

Aarts, M.J., Wendel-Vos W. van Oers, H., van de Goor, I. & Schuit, A.J. (2010).
Environmental Determinants of Outdoor Play in Children: A Large-Scale Cross-
Sectional Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 39(3), 212 – 219.
Boegeholz, S., Mayer, J. & Rost, J. (2000). Nature Experiences and Environmental
Behavior of Pupils: An Empirical Study. In H.Bayrhuber & J. Mayer (Eds.),
Empirical Research on Environmental Education in Europe (pp. 103 – 110).
Munster: Waxmann Publishing Co.
Bogner, F.X. (1998). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on
long-term variables of environmental perspective. Journal of Environmental
Education, 29(4), 17 – 29.
Bogner, F.X. (1999). Empirical evaluation of an educational conservation pro-
gramme introduced in Swiss secondary schools. International Journal of Science
Education, 21, 1169 – 1185.
Dewey, J. (1955). Experience and Education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Eurydice. (2002). Key competencies. A developing concept in general compulsory
education. European Unit and European Commission. Retrieved May 12, 2010,
from http://www.see-educoop.net/education_in/pdf/compulsary-edu-oth-enl-
t05.pdf.
Learning Science through Outdoor Learning 233

Javornik Krečič, M. (2010). The Teacher‘s Entering the Professional Career – What
Can Teachers‘ Autobiographies Reveal (to us). New Educational Review, 21(2),
42 – 56.
Jeronen, E., Jeronen, J. & Raustia, H. (2009). Environmental Education in Finland
– A Case Study of Environmental Education in Nature Schools. International
Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(1), 1 – 23.
Jeronen, E. & Kaikkonen, M. (2002). Thoughts of Children and Adults about the
Environment and Environmental Education. International Research in Geo-
graphical and Environmental Education, 11(4), 341 – 363.
Johnson, R.B. & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research
Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14 – 26.
Kernan M. & Devine D. (2010). Being Confined within? Constructions of the Good
Childhood and Outdoor Play in Early Childhood Education and Care Settings
in Ireland. Children & Society, 24(5), 371 – 385.
Kenney, J. L., Militana, H.P. & Donohue, M.H. (2003). Helping Teachers to Use
Their School‘s backyard as an Outdoor Classroom: A Report on the Watershed
Learning Center Program. Journal of Environmental Education, 35(1), 18 – 26.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning, Experience as The Source of Learning and
Development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs.
Krnel, D., Cunder, K., Antić, M. G., Janjac, M., Rakovič, D., Velkavrh, A. & Vrščaj,
D. (2005). Učni načrt. Osnovna šola. Spoznavanje okolja. [Environmental Educa-
tion Syllabus, Primary Education, Slovenia] Ljubljana: MŠŠ.
Mansuroglu, S. & Sabanci A. (2010). Evaluating primary schools‘ gardens in terms
of environmental contribution to pupil learning: A case study in Antalya, Turkey.
Journal of Food Agriculture & Environment, 8(2), 1097 – 1102.
Margadant-van Arcken, M. (1990). Nature Experiences of 8 to 12 Year Old Chil-
dren. Phenomenology and Pedagogy, 8, 86 – 94. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from
http://phenom.educ.ualberta.ca/ articles/margadant.html.
McCrea, E.J. (2006). The Roots of Environmental Education: How the Past Supports
the Future. Retrieved September 20, 2010, from http://www.naaee.org/about-
naaee/history-final-3 – 15 – 06.pdf.
Murphy, C., Murphy, C. & Kilfeather, P. (2010). “Children Making Sense of Science.
Research in Science Education” (In Press). SpringerLink database. DOI 10.1007/
s11165 – 010 – 9165 – 6.
Oliver, R. & Herrington, J. (2000). Using Situated Learning as a Design Strategy for
Web-based learning. Instructional and Cognitive Impacts of Web-based Education,
(pp.178 – 191) Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
234 Nika Golob

Orr, D.W. (1992). Ecological Literacy. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.
Palmberg, I.E. & Kuru, J. (2000). Outdoor activities as a basis for environmental
responsibility. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(4), 32 – 56.
Parry, J. (2002). The Mediating Role of Creating Storyboards for Multimedia Pres-
entations in Relation to Local Wildlife Sites. Environmental Education Research,
8(4), 355 – 372.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1986). Intelektualni razvoj deteta : izabrani radovi. [Intelec-
tual development in children : collected works]. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike
i nastavna sredstva.
Sagadin, J. (1993). Poglavja iz metodologije pedagoškega raziskovanja [Chapters from
the pedagogical research methodology]. Ljubljana: Zavod Republike Slovenije za
šolstvo in šport.
Sandell K. & Ohman J. (2010). Educational potentials of encounters with nature:
reflections from a  Swedish outdoor perspective. Environmental Education
Research, 16(1), 113 – 132.
UNESCO (1997). Educating for a Sustainable Future. UNESCO.
UNESCO (2004). United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development
2005 – 2014. (draft ed.).
Vygotsky, L.S.  (1996). Thought and language. Cambridge: The Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Copyright of New Educational Review is the property of Wydawnictwo Adam Marszalek and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.