Student autonomy in outdoor environmental education programs should be determined by the purpose and goals of the program

Outdoor environmental education programs (OEEPs) can help students connect with nature and learn pro-environmental behaviors as well as develop a sense of autonomy through empowerment in place-based experiences. Empowerment could mean that the students have more control in prescribed activities, or that they are included in the planning process of the OEEP. This concept is often referred to as an emancipatory approach. Some argue that empowerment should be a foundational goal for OEEP programs to transition students from awareness to action, and that student empowerment leads to more effective and satisfactory environmental education programs. However, some environmental educators and academics argue against the emancipatory approach as inappropriate to include students in the goal-setting process, and the majority of OEEPs do not include students during decision-making for designing curriculum. OEEPs are typically designed by adult staff in the host facility or organization, which is considered an instrumental approach. Through a review of five OEEPs in the Czech Republic, the researchers sought to understand how OEEP stakeholders viewed student autonomy and whether an emancipatory or instrumental approach was more appropriate for OEEPs.

This study was based on five OEEPs in the Czech Republic that catered to third to seventh graders, and each of these programs were sponsored by different education centers. The researchers assigned color codenames to each program to protect participant anonymity. Yellow was a five-day residential program in a rural setting, similar to a camping experience. Green was a five-day residential program in a wetland area and focused on ecosystems. Orange was a three-day program in a sandstone rock setting with activities focused on ecosystems and pro-environmental behaviors. Blue was a three-day program in a mountain range that looked at the intersection of local heritage and environment. White was a five-day program that was set in a cavernous area that focused on spending time in nature.

Researchers conducted the study through field observations, focus groups, and interviews. Each program was observed by two people who looked at how decisions were made during the planning and execution of the curriculum. Focus groups took place about two weeks after each program ended and were composed of 19 students total selected by the teachers for each program. The researchers asked focus group participants how they felt about their program and what they would change. Ten, 20-minute interviews were held with the teachers who accompanied the students on the program. There were 15 program leaders and 2 education center directors interviewed. In these interviews, the researchers asked the educators and leaders how they perceived including students in the planning process of OEEPs. These data were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed for underlying themes.

Generally, the data showed that most of the decision-making power was with the adults (program leaders, curriculum designers, teachers) rather than the students, following an instrumental approach. However, adult decision-makers had varying opinions on student autonomy – some supported the emancipatory approach, while others supported the instrumental approach. In addition, the level of student autonomy sometimes fluctuated within programs, depending on the activity. The researchers also found that the OEEPs were influenced by the relationships among the program leaders, curriculum designers, teachers, and students, and their respective perceptions of the appropriateness of student autonomy in the program. For example, most adults felt that students were not prepared or mature enough to choose activities for an OEEP and thus followed an instrumental approach in which the activities were chosen without input from the students. Students, on the other hand, shared they wanted more control over their free time and appreciated it when given the opportunity to make their own decisions during activities. Despite this feedback, most students were satisfied with their program regardless of whether the program utilized an emancipatory approach or an instrumental approach. Ultimately, the researchers found that there are pros and cons for both emancipatory and instrumental approaches in OEEPs, and one approach is not universally better than the other.

The researchers acknowledged this study had its limitations and was not generalizable. First, the student focus groups were problematic because of their small sample size and because the students were hand-selected by their teachers, which may have skewed the data. Second, the teachers already had an affinity for taking students outdoors and thus cannot represent all classroom teachers. Finally, the socio-economic and cultural contexts of the Czech Republic may have influenced the data.

Every OEEP has a slightly different set of goals. Although student autonomy and empowerment can be beneficial to learning, the researchers recommend that an emancipatory or instrumental approach, or a combination thereof, should be used to match the purpose of that program. Empowerment can and likely should be a part of OEEP, but the researchers recognize it is not always feasible nor appropriate. The study also revealed that the relationships involved in creating OEEPs are not between the educator and learner; rather, it is a larger network of decision-makers. The researchers encourage more involvement directly from educators during the planning process of OEEPs to provide a stronger connection between the curriculum and students, helping students become proactive environmental citizens.