Nature-based instruction supports science learning for all students regardless of socioeconomic statusSignificant gaps in science scores based on race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status (SES) have been well-documented. Nature-based instruction (NBI), which utilizes the natural environment to support the acquisition of academic knowledge and skills, may offer an approach to enable greater achievement in science for all children. To gain greater understanding of the role of NBI in promoting academic learning, this study compared the science learning outcomes of 4<sup>th</sup> graders after participating in NBI and traditional classroom-based instruction (CBI) with the goals of determining if one was superior to the other, why there might be a difference, and for whom NBI or CBI may be more effective.
The research was conducted at a suburban K-4th grade environmental education magnet school in the Midwestern U.S. The school was located next to a nature center which regularly provided nature-based science lessons. A total of 92 4th grade students (9 to 10 years old) across four classrooms participated in the study. Twenty-six percent of student participants were English learners and 60% were low SES. Six units of earth and natural science curriculum were instructed by the same teacher for each class. Each unit consisted of a CBI lesson taught in the classroom and a NBI lesson taught in an outdoor, natural environment within the same week, in random order. Over the course of the study each student experienced six lessons based in each instructional approach. After each lesson, students completed a series of assessments using their school iPads. Attention and impulsivity were measured with the Standardized Attention Test of the ACES cognitive battery. Two multiple-choice questions measured knowledge or understanding, and an audio recorded extended response of the child explaining one of their multiple choice answers measured science reasoning. Students completed self-reports regarding their feelings of engagement in the lesson and their stress level after each lesson. Student demographic information regarding eligibility for free- and reduced-price lunch, gender, and English language learner status was obtained from the school. At the conclusion of the study, students’ connection to nature was measured using the Connectedness to Nature Index (CNI).
NBI and CBI were equally effective in supporting science learning. Adjusting for demographics, non-significant differences favored NBI over CBI for science knowledge (multiple choice responses) and CBI over NBI for science reasoning (recorded explanation of their multiple choice response). As there was not a significant difference between NBI and CBI, the question of mechanisms explaining a difference could not be answered directly. With respect to the research question of for whom NBI or CBI might be more effective, students of low SES had equivalent science scores across the two settings. However, students of upper SES had significantly higher science knowledge scores after CBI than after NBI. Students’ science reasoning was not different between CBI than NBI and SES did not matter. Overall, with regard to SES, findings suggest that indoor learning favored students of upper SES<em>.</em> On the other hand, after NBI, science scores (both multiple choice and recorded responses) did not vary significantly according to SES, indicating equivalent learning outcomes across upper and lower SES groups. There was a complex set of relationships among student demographics, the NBI/CBI comparison, and possible explanatory mechanisms. In NBI, none of those variables mattered with the exception that upper SES girls were slightly (but significantly) more stressed after NBI. In CBI, it appears that many of those variables mattered with SES and gender interacting in complex ways with students’ science outcomes, engagement, stress, and impulse control. For example, with regard to engagement in learning, all students were engaged in NBI, regardless of demographics, while engagement in CBI lessons was related to SES and gender. In addition, lesson topic, attentional functioning, impulse control, and class assignment also mattered for science scores in the CBI setting.
The key finding of this study is that NBI (despite its conditions being less optimal in terms of weather, time to put on and take off outerwear, etc.) facilitated science learning as well as CBI, and for a greater diversity of students. Importantly, the research demonstrated that “student demographics influenced learning outcomes through CBI but not through NBI” suggesting that “NBI could be more supportive of science learning than CBI for a broader range of students.” The researchers conclude that “providing children with time in nature during the school day could be a systematic method for supporting children’s healthy functioning and science learning.”
The Bottom Line