Background
Conducting research, collecting data, and teaching students outside of a
laboratory or classroom setting is commonplace across disciplines. For
many scientists, being “in the field” is paramount to the work that
they do (Wilson 1982, Cutter 1993, Rudwick 1996). Therefore, in numerous
disciplines, engaging undergraduates in authentic field experiences or
experiences that take place in the field (undergraduate field
experiences, UFEs ) is not only expected and intuitive (Dressen 2002),
but considered central to training goals (Gold et al. 1994, Fleischner
et al. 2017, Giles et al. 2020). Some have argued that a student’s
undergraduate experience in disciplines such as biology, ecology, and
the geosciences is not complete without a UFE (Cutter 1993, Nairn 1999,
Petcovic et al. 2014, Klemow et al. 2019).
UFEs are well-researched in geology (e.g., Stokes and Boyle 2009,
Petcovic et al. 2014); and geography (e.g., Gold et al. 1994, Nairn
1999, Boyle et al. 2007), but until more recently, less research has
focused on the biology field learning experience (Fleischner et al.
2017). In a survey of participants at the Geological Society of America
meetings (2010 & 2011), the large majority (89%) of survey
participants felt that field experiences were vital to geoscience
education, and that the bulk of the value lies in cognitive gains, and
to a lesser degree, sustained interest in the field (Petcovic et al.
2014). The Governing Board of the Ecological Society of America showed
strong support of UFEs by including field work and the ability to apply
natural history approaches as two of the ecology practices in the
recently adopted Four-Dimensional Ecology Education Framework (Klemow et
al. 2019).
Participating in a UFE can spark students’ interest in the scientific
topic being explored in the field (Dayton and Sala 2001, LaDue and
Pacheco 2013, Petcovic et al. 2014), increase student cognitive gains in
disciplinary content (Easton and Gilburn 2012, Scott et al. 2012),
improve student understanding of the process of science (Patrick 2010),
foster development of discipline-specific technical skills (Peasland et
al. 2019) and increase persist in STEM fields (Jelks and Crain 2020).
UFEs can also have far-reaching impacts, even changing the trajectory of
students’ lives by influencing career choices, or solidifying long-term
commitments to the environment (Palmer and Suggate 1996, Barker et al.
2002). UFEs have been identified as critical contributors to students’
development of a sense of place (Semken 2005, Billick and Price 2010,
Van Der Hoeven Kraft et al. 2011, Semken et al. 2017, Jolley et al.
2018a) as well as fostering a resonance with Indigenous peoples and
Traditional Ecological Knowledge (Cajete 2000, Riggs 2005).
Despite these key outcomes, some have voiced fears about field
experiences going “extinct,” and have sounded alarm bells for
stakeholders to consider how to gain further support for such
experiences (Barker et al. 2002, Whitmeyer et al. 2009a, Swing et al.
2021). There is a widespread occurrence of, and in many cases, fervent
advocacy for undergraduates learning in the field, yet there is still a
lack of systematically collected data on specific outcomes resulting
from the diversity of possible field experiences (Mogk and Goodwin
2012). Practitioners (field instructors, directors, coordinators and
staff) want to understand the efficacy of their individual programs,
while universities and funding agencies require evidence of success for
continued support of undergraduate field programs. Stakeholders across
disciplines have made it clear that more empirical studies that test
claims of positive student outcomes are needed for continued support of
UFEs (Smith 2004, Clift and Brady 2005, NRC 2014, O’Connell et al.
2018). This is particularly true as it relates to improving equity,
access, and inclusion in the field (NRC 2003, Brewer and Smith 2011,
Wieman 2012, Morales et al. 2020). Collecting evidence of student
outcomes will help to identify opportunities and challenges for
supporting the inclusion of all students in UFEs, and aid in tackling
some of the challenges with inclusion that we already know exist in UFEs
(O’Connell et al. 2021).
As indicated above, there are numerous studies that have measured
outcomes from students learning in the field. Yet, most studies are
conducted by education researchers, trained in quantitative and/or
qualitative research methods. We know that more and more practitioners
want to collect evidence of outcomes from their UFEs, but simply do not
feel confident in their ability to measure student outcomes, given that
it is not their expertise (O’Connell et al. 2020). To meet practitioners
where they are, and support mindful, efficacious assessment of UFEs ,
we: 1) provide a resource for practitioners to use when they
want to assess UFE outcomes and improve their programs and courses,2) address how assessment and evaluation of UFE outcomes can
help practitioners better design inclusive and accessible field
experiences, and 3) identify an existing pool of instruments
that align with intended student outcomes of UFEs.