Teaching and Learning Science Outdoors in Schools’ Immediate Surroundings at K-12 Levels: A Meta-Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This literature review synthesizes empirical data of 18 articles published between 2000 and 2015 about teaching and learning science outdoors from kindergarten to secondary levels (K–12). We asked four questions: (1) What are the general characteristics of the corpus of studies on teaching and learning science outdoors in schools’ immediate surroundings at K–12 levels? (2) What are the authors’ aims for conducting studies about teaching and learning science outdoors? (3) What are the main outcomes related to teaching and learning science outdoors in schools’ immediate surroundings? (4) What further studies should, according to the selected articles, be conducted in the future? We identified three categories of authors’ aims: environmental education, science education, and outdoor education. The main outcomes are classified into four categories: 1) learning, 2) student attitude or interest, 3) other students’ perceptions, and 4) challenges to outdoor science teaching. Finally, in light of the review, we discuss how further studies should consider learning outcomes, students’ attitudes, challenges, and methodological guidelines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".