Which approaches are associated with better outcomes? Evidence from a national study of environmental education field trip programs for adolescent youth in the United States

Most environmental education evaluations look at one program at a time. They can show that a program worked, but not which parts made the difference. To learn that, you need to compare many programs, measuring both what happened and what students gained.

A research team observed 299 single-day field trips for students in grades 5 to 8, run by 90 nature centers, parks, gardens and museums in 24 states and Washington, DC. They scored each program on 66 features and surveyed more than 4,000 students straight afterwards.

What they found:

1. A shared, broad outcome survey made comparison possible. The team built it with program providers, tested it in different settings, and used it everywhere. It covered ten outcomes, including learning, interest, skills, confidence, connection to place, attitudes, stewardship, collaboration and motivation for school. It took students about eight minutes. For attitudes and confidence, students rated themselves "before" and "after" at the same sitting.
2. Structured observation showed what really happened. Observers scored each feature from "not present" to "a dominant part of the program". Pairs of observers scored the same programs separately and talked through differences until their scoring matched. They swapped partners periodically so scoring stayed consistent across the team.
3. Careful data checks mattered. The team removed surveys that were largely blank or showed obvious patterns, such as the same answer to every question. They dropped programs where fewer than half the students responded.
4. Comparing programs revealed what mattered. Smaller groups, more natural and unfamiliar settings, content tied to the place, back-and-forth talk, good open questions, smooth transitions, groups arriving organized, and clear, responsive, supportive educators all went with better results. Together these explained close to a fifth of the differences between programs.
5. Goals and practice didn't match the field's ambitions. About two-thirds of educators named knowledge as a goal, while only a quarter named behavior. Most programs were fact-heavy, and reflection and discussion were rare.

What this means for your practice:

• Measure more than knowledge. Use a short survey covering several outcomes, such as attitudes, confidence, connection to place and stewardship.
• Use the same tool every time. One consistent survey lets you compare sessions, educators and sites.
• Keep it quick and immediate. Survey straight after the program. Asking students to rate "before" and "after" in one sitting saves a second survey.
• Watch what happens, not just what was planned. Build a simple checklist of features, such as group size, question quality, transitions and conclusion. Score each from absent to dominant.
• Calibrate your observers. Have two staff score the same session separately, then compare notes until they agree.
• Compare your best and weakest sessions. See which features differ between them.
• Clean your data first. Set aside largely blank or patterned surveys and groups with low response.
• Add depth and time. The authors suggest pairing surveys with qualitative observation, and following up later to see whether effects last.