Authors’ affiliations:
1 School of Education, Civic Leadership, and Social
Change, Hiram College
2 School of Science and Technology, Hiram College
Contact information for corresponding author:
Sarah E. Mabey
Email: mabeyse@hiram.edu
Phone: 330-569-5847
Mailing address: P.O. Box 422, Hiram, OH 44234
ABSTRACT
We argue the advantages of field-based learning experiences for
undergraduates, the societal imperative for training the next generation
of field biologists, and the opportunity to increase the reach of field
education dictate that we must meet the challenges of delivering field
experiences in the context of a distanced educational environment. We
report on our experiences as faculty and students in a spring 2020 Field
Ornithology course adapted for remote delivery with an example of a
student-centered framework for supporting independent field study.
Feedback from students and instructors in this course indicate that
remote field instruction is both possible and desirable. We suggest that
an instruction model involving guided, independent field study can yield
strong learning outcomes and promote self-directed inquiry. Based on
reflections of the challenges and successes of our experiences, we
provide an prompts for a for assessing the feasibility and desirability
of proceeding with field-based education in a distanced environment with
an emphasis on supporting student success.
KEYWORDS – field-based learning, remote teaching, COVID-19, higher
education, natural history, ornithology, ecology, pandemic,
self-directed inquiry
1 | INTRODUCTION
Direct, unmediated study of nature – “the more-than-human-world”
(Fleischner, 2002) – has value to science, society, and individuals.
The study of life in context is at the heart of ecology and evolution
and forms the foundation for medicine, natural resource management,
conservation and many other critical fields of science (Barrows et al.,
2016). In addition to their role in preparing scientists and citizens to
contribute to society, field courses are unique examples of experiential
learning and offer important benefits to students and their development
as deep learners. Field courses, like lab-based courses, provide
students with opportunities for autonomous and collaborative
problem-solving, key skills for professional success. This focus on
problem-solving raises many STEM courses to the level of ‘deep learning’
where students are applying and testing knowledge, taking risks, and
practicing skills, leading to long-term retention and promoting
self-directed inquiry (Almeida-Gomes et al., 2016; Burrow, 2018). Field
courses are further marked by variable and unpredictable conditions that
magnify the demands for problem-solving in pursuit of knowledge.
Through field experiences, students learn to prepare for the unexpected,
navigate unfamiliar environments, and cultivate tolerance for often
uncomfortable field conditions. Dynamic field conditions lead to
spontaneous instruction and discovery that directs student attention to
important species, behavior, or phenomena. The resulting unplanned
observations and discussions within a learning community enrich student
learning and develop the habit of linking first-hand observation with
specific areas of scientific inquiry (Durant and Hartmen, 2015;
Lewinsohn et al., 2015). Field study can be a source of exploratory,
active learning where, by necessity, students test knowledge under novel
and changeable conditions, the basis for developing ‘adaptive expertise’
and creativity (Gube and LaJoie, 2020). Beltran and colleagues (2019)
provide empirical support for the role of field courses in promoting
self-efficacy among STEM students. Their data further demonstrate that
participation in field courses has measurable impact on the academic
success of under-represented students in STEM and their persistence in
ecology and evolutionary biology (EEB) majors.
Even as contemporary societies dissociate from nature, individuals and
communities continue to derive extensive extrinsic and intrinsic
benefits from our growing knowledge of the natural world. In the face of
climate change, rapid urbanization, increasing demands for natural
resources, and other anthropogenic threats to the biophysical systems
that support all life, it is essential to train new generations of
natural historians and field biologists Yet, geographical constraints,
limited resources, lack of organic familiarity with natural systems
among many urbanized and suburbanized youth, and increasing demands on
student time and attention are wide-spread challenges to including
field-based education in the American undergraduate curriculum.
The recent disruption of in-person education threatens to further
diminish our ability to provide field-based training and the positive
student outcomes associated with field courses. Our experience
transitioning our four credit Field Ornithology course in spring 2020
from an intensive study away model to a mixture of guided
independent-study, self-paced learning, and synchronous online meetings
suggest that this need not be the case. We present a case study of our
adaptations and integrate instructor and student perspectives to
identify a set of student-centered considerations and opportunities for
others faced with the challenge of teaching field skills in an online
environment.
2 | CASE STUDY: ADAPTING UNDERGRADUATE FIELD ORNITHOLOGY FOR
REMOTE LEARNING AND INDEPENDENT FIELD STUDY
2.1 | Institutional Profile and Assets
Hiram College is a small, liberal arts college located in Northeast Ohio
with under 1,000 residential students and a student-faculty ratio of
13:1. Hiram has a long tradition of curricular innovation and
experiential learning across disciplines. Our semesters are arranged on
the “Hiram Plan” that has roots in early curricular reform (Whitcomb,
1938). Semesters combine a twelve-week term (12WK) during which students
typically take 3 full-credit courses followed by an intensive three-week
term (3WK) when students take one full-credit course. Hiram’s unique
natural assets include over 100 acres of forested land adjacent to
campus and two field stations, the 500-acre J.H. Barrow Biological Field
Station located 3 miles from campus and the 6-acre Northwoods Field
Station located within the Hiawatha National Forest on the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan. Hiram has majors and minors in Biology and
Environmental Studies, including tracts in Organismal Biology and EEB,
and a minor in Natural History that promotes field-based skills and
knowledge. Hiram’s Tech and Trek program, initiated in 2017, triggered
sustained faculty-wide discussions and professional development around
effective teaching practices and student-centered learning. The program
also provides all Hiram students with an iPad Pro®.
2.2 | Course Background and Description
Field Ornithology (BIOL/EVST 30600) was designed as a study away course
to be offered during the spring 3WK every 3 years. The class carries a
prerequisite of Avian Biology (BIOL/EVST 30500) taught as an intensive,
single-credit seminar during the preceding 12WK, a common model for our
study away courses. The course is an upper-level elective within the
Biology, Environmental Studies, and Natural History curricula, but is
open to all students with approval and fulfills the Scientific Methods
general education core requirement. Normally, the course involves a
4,000-mile road trip, starting in the third week of April, following a
route from Ohio along the Gulf Coast from Mississippi to Texas, north
through the Cumberland Plateau and Appalachian Mountains, returning to
Hiram around the second week of May (Figure 1). (See Appendix A for full
course syllabus.) This course carries a field trip fee of $1,200 to
cover the cost of all travel, lodging, meals, and all
2.2 | Learning Community Profile
The spring 2020 Field Ornithology class originally included 11 students,
but two withdrew after the trip was cancelled. The remaining nine
students included seven rising seniors and two rising juniors. Eight
students are declared Biology or Environmental Studies majors with
declared or intended Natural History minors and had taken at least one
prior field-based course; seven had previously participated in summer
field-based internships. The remaining student is a double major in
Theatre Arts and Business Management with no prior field experience. The
cohort’s bird identification skills ranged from novice to advanced
(three novice, five developing, one advanced). The course instructor is
an associate professor in Environmental Studies and coordinator of
Hiram’s Natural History minor with interdisciplinary training and
expertise in avian migration. A Hiram College alumnus with five decades
of avocational natural history and birding experience served as a
volunteer Teaching Assistant (TA). With few exceptions, all members of
our class knew each other well.
2.3 | Spring 2020 Disruption
Hiram College announced the move to remote teaching on March 12, 2020,
with four weeks left of our 12WK term. By March 16, the college
cancelled all spring academic travel and faculty teaching study away
courses were given the option of cancelling courses outright. We had
four weeks to modify our 3WK plans (Figure 2). The course instructor
(SM) solicited input from students, using a formal survey to reset
student expectations and gauge willingness to continue or withdraw. With
strong student and TA interest in continuing with Field Ornithology and
support from our academic dean and school director, SM moved forward
with adaptation. This initial decision was a leap of faith based largely
on confidence in students’ ability to productively engage in independent
field studies. Institutional processes and circumstances imposed two
primary constraints on course adaptation: (1) the modified course must
align with the learning outcomes previously approved by a faculty
curriculum committee; and (2) it would be possible to reallocate a small
budget but no additional funds would be available. Supportive
circumstances included (1) the unique composition of our learning
community and members’ positive attitude to adaptation; (2)
institutional resources for distributing equipment and supplies (e.g.,
loaner binoculars, field guides); (3) instructional and technical
support for online teaching; and (4) the instructor’s advanced
familiarity with our online course management system.
2.4 | Adaptation: Vision and Planning
The vision for our adapted Field Ornithology course emphasized four
pathways for learning: guided, independent field study; self-paced
learning with online materials and scientific literature; synchronous
discussions of observations and challenges; and virtual visits with
professional field ornithologists. This model took advantage of the fact
that birds are everywhere and can be meaningfully studied almost
anywhere, key learning assessments (I.e., field notebook and journal,
final essay) were transferrable, and technology could bring research
professionals and students together.
Course transformation involved four overlapping phases: (1) exploring
and selecting tools and resources; (2) conceptualizing and articulating
course philosophy and student learning flow; (3) arranging logistics;
and (4) structuring the online course site and revising course
materials. Under the circumstances, student learning and communication
would rely heavily on digital tools and resources. Without the real-time
coaching from an instructor, virtual tools would be needed to help
students quickly and efficiently progress through initial skill
development and overcome the frustrations of not being able to identify
and follow birds in the field. Existing courses offered through The
Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s Bird Academy were available free of charge
to post-secondary ornithology courses this spring and served to fill
this critical training gap. Identification quizzes offered through eBird
were another valuable self-paced learning tool. Finding the right
communication platform proved more elusive. Building a sense of
community and excitement around field experiences is easy during an
extended field trip but challenging in a remote learning environment. SM
adopted Flipgrid, an educational Office 365® app designed for teachers
to deliver prompts and receive video responses that appeared promising
but failed; students in our course expressed preference for
communication tools that were more familiar (e.g., Slack, Discord).
The challenge of building a strong course structure was linked to a
guiding philosophy that recognized that student learning in the field
was rarely linear or uniform. (See Appendix A for Course Philosophy
shared with students.) In the context of independent field study,
students were even more likely to take their own routes to knowledge and
mastery than they do during curated field excursions. The class
structure was designed to support this individualized learning process
and self-directed field exploration while providing clear expectations
and milestones for achievement (Table 1). Course materials and
assignments were revised to emphasize the value of field time, provide
prompts and goals for field study, and to facilitate efficient and
meaningful self-paced learning. Our online course site was opened a week
prior to class start date to provide students time to obtain digital
resources, begin planning for independent study, and initiate self-paced
study. Key logistical steps included establishing an efficient and
secure means of distributing essential field supplies, reviewing CLO
Bird Academy courses and arranging student access, and inviting and
scheduling guests among other details. Our adapted Field Ornithology
course carried no field trip fees.
2.5 | Adaptation: Implementation
Our class met over 22 days with 10 synchronous Zoom sessions scheduled
for 90 minutes each on Monday/Wednesday/Friday. Students were asked to
review the online course site and set-up all digital resources prior to
our first class meeting. The first three synchronous meetings focused on
orienting students to course structure and resources, helping students
identify safe and accessible locations for field studies, setting
initial goals, addressing questions and concerns, trouble-shooting
logistical problems, and building enthusiasm for being in the field.
Subsequent class sessions began with students reporting on their field
experiences (highs, lows, frustrations, and questions), sometimes with
the full group, sometimes in smaller breakout groups. Questions in this
context refer largely to scientific questions and hypotheses that
related new observations to students’ existing knowledge and material
previously covered in the prerequisite Avian Biology course but were
sometimes focused on field practices and identification challenges.
Six class meetings were focused on specific aspects of avian biology and
conservation and engagement with research professionals (five guests and
course instructor). For these classes, guests were asked to provide an
informal overview of their own research, emphasizing the broad relevance
of their questions along with field and analytic techniques. Guests
selected 1-2 papers for students to read in preparation for their visit.
The flexibility of video conferencing allowed students to engage with
experts across the country.
The course target for independent field study was at least 20 hrs/week
without any specific constraints on when field study occurred. This
target was established based on instructor experience and a pre-course
student self-assessment of commitment, conflicting time demands, and
stamina. At the half-way point, students were surveyed to assess
progress and challenges. Students were asked how much time they
originally expected to spend in the field and how much time they
actually spent in the field. Results indicated that students were
spending less time in the field than anticipated. By the end of the
course, students reported increased stamina for remaining in the field,
increased focus, and greater ease in meeting their field time goals. The
course instructor and TA maintained an active schedule of field study as
well in order to keep abreast of phenological changes, provide
suggestions for what to look for and places to visit, and contribute to
the learning community. Field time for the TA averaged 25 hrs/wk and for
the course instructor, 18 hrs/wk.
Students recorded real-time field experiences in a field notebook and
were required to synthesize and reflect on their experiences with daily
entries in a field journal with specific instruction to connect their
observations to broader theories, hypotheses and evidence and develop
their own questions and hypotheses. Students submitted digital copies of
pages from their field notebooks and journals at three progress points
during the term and full copies of these documents at the end of term.
Progress submissions allowed for assessment of student development and
feedback. Feedback focused on providing suggestions for improvement and
prompting specific types of field activities and observations to support
individual student growth and goals as well as encouraging effort. Early
notebook and journal entries emphasized bird identification,
particularly difficulties in following and identifying birds. Later
entries were more sophisticated and included detailed behavioral
observations, information on plants and habitat, and questions tying
observations to ideas discussed in class sessions. Self-paced learning
activities (e.g., completion of CLO Bird Academy modules; readings;
field tests of standard protocols) were assessed through student
responses to short, specific prompts. The quality of voluntary and
elicited participation during guest visits and discussions allowed for
assessment of knowledge integration. Even with a small class, it was
difficult to keep up with timely feedback on individual learning
trajectories during the intensive 3WK term. Planning and better
real-time communication could address this problem.
In response growing student confidence and enthusiasm for field study,
we made one additional change to our learning activities during the
course. We modified the final assessment from a research-focused essay
to a combine a ‘Big Day’ of birding, broadly interpreted to include
maximizing observations of species and habitat diversity, bird behavior,
and exploring new locations with a reflective essay focused on the
experience of learning about birds through independent field study.
2.6| Lessons Learned
2.6.1 | Student Experience
Students in our Field Ornithology class found remote field instruction
not only possible but a learning experience with its own set of
distinctive benefits that are often lacking in traditional field, lab,
and lecture courses. In part, these benefits are related to overcoming
the significant difficulties in taking a field course remotely,
accompanied by the stresses of living in a pandemic. At the beginning of
the course, it was difficult to set goals and recognizing how much we
had to learn was overwhelming. A lack of motivation to spend an allotted
amount of time in the field was common, especially when weather was
unfavorable. While students benefited from teaching themselves, many
felt that they missed some learning opportunities because they were not
with an instructor in the field. Occasionally, assignments or learning
technologies felt like a burden that prevented more meaningful time in
the field and efficient communication was not always possible.
Nonetheless, students think the frustrations and course management
obstacles related to remote field instruction can be addressed, further
improving the benefits of this style of learning.
Despite the challenges of shifting from traditional to remote education,
post-course surveys and discussions indicated that students felt that
they had significantly increased their knowledge of bird diversity,
behavior, and field skills. They reported greater confidence in their
identification and field research skills and a deeper connection with
birds and the natural world in general. Many have been inspired to
pursue their own research questions this summer. As one student said,
“The semester is over but the learning continues.”
The primary reason for the course’s success was its self-guided
structure. Because students could follow assignments at their own pace,
they were able to conduct their work in the most efficient way possible.
The open structure allowed students to spend more time on the topics
that most interested them, so motivation was derived from curiosity
rather than course grades and the students therefore worked harder,
thought more deeply, and had a positive learning experience. While the
course’s structure was flexible, expectations were straightforward and
clearly described. Instructors could not be with students, so the class
shifted in focus from learning information (“what to learn”) to
learning processes (“how to learn”). This shift resulted in a
perceived increase in retention of information and a prolongation of
learning after the end of the course. Remote field work was also
beneficial because it was local, typically taking place in areas
familiar to individual students. This familiarity allowed the
observation of birds to be organized in the context of previously
observed and familiar natural history. A few students also shared that
being in the field during the pandemic disruption helped them de-stress
and was an energizing alternative to Zoom classes. The tangible benefits
derived from taking Field Ornithology has left the students of this
course feeling confident that other remote field courses can meet with
similar success.
2.6.2 | Faculty Experience
From the instructor’s perspective the mental and, to some extent,
emotional challenges posed by the rapidly evolving early days of the
pandemic closures created the greatest challenges to adapting Field
Ornithology for remote instruction. The demands of moving on-going
classes to a remote teaching environment monopolized most hours of the
day, leaving little time or energy to consider what shape an adaption of
Field Ornithology might take. Students were disappointed by the trip
cancellation and that feeling was compounded for the instructor who felt
responsible to students and knew what they were missing. However, it was
these same thoughts and feelings that motivated the instructor to find a
creative solution that would allow students to move forward in their
ornithological training and spend the spring observing birds in the
field.
Two important personal experiences gave the instructor confidence that
students would be able to productively engage in independent field
study. First, the instructor knew the students well and was familiar
with their interests, motivations, and abilities. Second, the instructor
herself had experience with both the frustrations and triumphs of
independent learning in the field and knew it could be a transformative
experience. These factors, in combination with the instructor’s comfort
with taking pedagogical risks, gave her confidence to adapt this course
around a model of supported, independent field study.
Making the decision to adapt the course in the face of uncertainty was
difficult, the subsequent planning and revising was time-consuming, but
the actual class was almost pure joy. Students began the semester with
timidity and significant frustration over their field skills. Each
student had a different foundation for learning in this class, but after
only three weeks all students demonstrated significant growth in their
field abilities, knowledge of avian ecology and behavior, and
confidence. Watching this rapid growth while having the rare opportunity
to explore local natural areas and observe migration unfolding near home
was a source of significant professional and personal satisfaction.
Post-semester discussions with students and results of an anonymous
survey of students’ remote-learning experiences revealed that the
pandemic disruption and remote classes caused greater levels of
distraction and lowered motivation than the instructor had realized,
making student growth and learning attainments that much more
impressive. This insight into students’ perspectives also underscores
the need to have clear expectations and to establish channels for
easier, real-time communication. Both actions can address student
anxiety, support peer-peer learning, and improve two-way feedback.
3| Reflections on Preparing for Remote Field Courses
There is no one-size fits all solution to adapting field courses to fit
within a remote learning modality. However, a model of guided,
independent field study has broad applicability shows promise within the
context of a remote learning environment. As we rush to prepare for the
possibility of remote learning in the fall and expanding the reach of
field courses in the future, we do not advocate immediate adoption of
this approach. Rather, we recommend a student-centered assessment of the
role and values of field-based learning as a key step in the process of
adapting field courses for remote delivery. Our experience suggests
there are two major decisions to consider during this process: (1)
should a field course be adapted for remote delivery and (2) can the
course be adapted in a student-centered way. We have identified several
key considerations for evaluating these two decision realms and
launching efforts to adapt traditional approaches to field study to the
new constraints and opportunities afforded by the current disruption in
higher education.
3.1| Should a Course be Adapted?
Typically, learning goals drive decisions about appropriate course
structures, delivery models, and pedagogies. When online delivery models
and remote learning are imposed on courses, they may be starkly
dissonant with course objectives and expected student learning outcomes
as appears to be the case with field courses. The primary consideration
should refocus on learning goals and their alignment with field-based
experiences. For example, courses that serve to prepare students for
field-based professions and provide practical experience and mastery of
professional field skills would fail to meet student learning objectives
without field activities. Alternatively, a course that serves to provide
students practice in research design and analysis may not require field
study even though field research might be a satisfying way to achieve
this goal. Close assessment of student learning goals will resolve the
first crucial decision: are field experiences integral to student
learning and should the possibility of adaptation be pursued further.
3.2| Can a Course be Adapted?
If the learning outcomes for a given course are dependent on field
experience, next considerations link back to specific learning goals,
examining the extent of modification required and evaluating continued
ability to support learning. The focus is on the feasibility of
supporting student success and encouraging students to self-guided
discovery in the field. A detailed assessment in this phase will help
instructors identify the specific expectations for students and the
barriers they may face in meeting those expectations. Examples of
questions that can help shape decisions about whether a course can be
adapted to support students’ independent engagement with field-based
learning include:
- Will students be tasked with developing hypotheses and running
experiments or will they be tasked with improving their observational
skills, or both? What specifically will that look like from their
vantage point?
- Will students need access to specialized equipment, and how will
they get it?
- Do students have access to appropriate field locations? Will
they need to find field locations on their own or will the instructor
prescribe specific sites?
- Will students be permitted or required to manipulate or alter
sites or repeatedly visit specific sites?
- Can students effectively carry-out field protocols alone or will
they need collaborators? How will collaborations be arranged and
managed for safety and efficiency?
- What are the characteristics of the student population? What
level of relevant experience will they have? What are their
motivations for taking this course?
- What kinds of training will students need to successfully
conduct field work? Is there room for trial and error in skill
development?
- How much time will students need to dedicate to developing
skills and completing tasks?
- What measures are in place to ensure field safety? Will special
safety training be necessary?
- How will members of the learning community communicate in
real-time?
Careful review of student learning goals and assessment of the needs and
possible barriers to independent field-study will guide instructors in
creation of clear expectations and development of resources and
structural supports for successful student engagement in the field
regardless of delivery modality.
4| Conclusion
The abrupt disruption of the higher education system across the United
States in spring 2020 created pedagogical challenges for faculty and
significant technical, academic, and personal challenges for students.
From the student perspective, the transition from in-person to online
learning coincided with change in key aspects of life including living
conditions, social support, access to academic and technical resources,
and employment. The impact of this shift on mental health and learning
is only now emerging in the literature (e.g., Zhai and Du, 2020). The
diverse experiences of teachers and students this spring are changing
the way we think about education as this special issue of Ecology
and Evolution demonstrates.
While developing new models of field-based teaching and learning poses
significant challenges, it affords us new opportunities as well. We
believe this moment of change underscores the need to redouble our
commitment to field-based learning and build on four specific areas of
opportunity. First, the model of guided, independent field study
encourages students to bring their field studies ‘home’ and investigate
natural phenomena that frame and inform their everyday lives (Thomashow,
2001). This can breakdown the misconception that ecology and evolution
only happen in exotic places and promote connection with natural systems
more heavily influenced by human activity (Tewksbury et al., 2014,
Callaghan et al., 2018). Second, this local focus and flexibility
reduces key barriers to participating in field courses (e.g., field trip
fees) and expand field opportunities to a broader population including
non-traditional students and the increasing number of all post-secondary
students who are constrained by the need to work. Third, faculty have an
opportunity to experiment with new tools and course structures that will
enhance student learning regardless of delivery context (e.g., Lee et
al., 2014; Soluk and Buddle, 2015; Camfield and Land, 2017; Burrow,
2018; Kenyon et al., 2019). Finally, providing students continued
connection with the natural world can help them maintain well-being in
times of stress (Capaldi et al., 2015; Martin et al., 2020). Members of
our Field Ornithology learning community experienced first-hand each of
these benefits of independent field study.
Reimagining how we structure and support field-based learning is
daunting but imperative. The 2020 global pandemic has exposed numerous
vulnerabilities in human society and represents but one of many possible
stresses and disruptions that can occur at the nexus of natural and
human systems. It reminds us of the value of biological knowledge. It
spurs us to better prepare to train the next generation of field
biologists, natural historians, and informed citizens amidst uncertainty
and change.
LITERATURE CITED
Almeida-Gomes, M., Prevedello, J. A., Scarpa, D. L., & Metzger, J. P.
(2016). Teaching landscape ecology: the importance of field-oriented,
inquiry-based approaches. Landscape Ecology, 31(5), 929-937.
Barrows, C. W., Murphy-Mariscal, M. L., & Hernandez, R. R. (2016). At a
crossroads: the nature of natural history in the twenty-first
century. BioScience, 66(7), 592-599.
Beltran, R. S., Marnocha, E., Race, A., Croll, D. A., Dayton, G. H., &
Zavaleta, E. S. (2020). Field courses narrow demographic achievement
gaps in ecology and evolutionary biology. Ecology and Evolution.
Burrow, A. K. (2018). Teaching Introductory Ecology with Problem‐Based
Learning. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 99(1),
137-150.
Callaghan, C. T., Martin, J. M., Kingsford, R. T., & Brooks, D. M.
(2018). Unnatural history: is a paradigm shift of natural history in
21st century ornithology needed?. Ibis, 160(2), 475-480.
Camfield, E. K., & Land, K. M. (2017). The Evolution of Student
Engagement: Writing Improves Teaching in Introductory Biology
Courses. Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching, 43(1), 20-26.
Capaldi, C. A., Passmore, H. A., Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., &
Dopko, R. L. (2015). Flourishing in nature: A review of the benefits of
connecting with nature and its application as a wellbeing
intervention. International Journal of Wellbeing, 5(4).
Dayton, P. K. (2003). The Importance of the Natural Sciences to
Conservation: (An American Society of Naturalists Symposium Paper). The
American Naturalist, 162(1), 1-13.
Durrant, K. L., & Hartman, T. P. (2015). The integrative learning value
of field courses. Journal of Biological Education, 49(4), 385-400.
Fleischner, T. L. (2002). Natural history and the spiral of
offering. Wild Earth, 11(3/4), 10-13.
Gube, M., & Lajoie, S. (2020). Adaptive expertise and creative
thinking: A synthetic review and implications for practice. Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 35.
Kenyon, L. O., Walter, E. M., & Romine, W. L. (2019). Transforming a
College Biology Course to Engage Students: Exploring Shifts in Evolution
Knowledge and Mechanistic Reasoning. In Evolution Education
Re-considered (pp. 249-269). Springer, Cham
Lee, J. S., Blackwell, S., Drake, J., & Moran, K. A. (2014). Taking a
leap of faith: Redefining teaching and learning in higher education
through project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Problem-Based Learning, 8(2), 2.
Lewinsohn, T. M., Attayde, J. L., Fonseca, C. R., Ganade, G., Jorge, L.
R., Kollmann, J., Overbeck, G. E., Prado, P. I., Pillar, V. D., Popp,
D., da Rocha, P. L., Silva, W. R., Spiekermann, A., & Weisser, W. W.
(2015). Ecological literacy and beyond: Problem-based learning for
future professionals. Ambio, 44(2), 154–162.
Martin, L., White, M. P., Hunt, A., Richardson, M., Pahl, S., & Burt,
J. (2020). Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with
health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 68, 101389.
Soluk, L., & Buddle, C. M. (2015). Tweets from the forest: using
Twitter to increase student engagement in an undergraduate field biology
course. F1000Research, 4.
Tewksbury, J. J., Anderson, J. G., Bakker, J. D., Billo, T. J.,
Dunwiddie, P. W., Groom, M. J., … & Del Rio, C. M. (2014). Natural
history’s place in science and society. BioScience, 64(4), 300-310.
Thomashow, M. (2001). Bringing the biosphere home: Learning to perceive
global environmental change. MIT Press.
Whitcomb, W. A. (1938). A College Breaks With Tradition. The Journal of
Education, 121(3), 90-92.
Zhai, Y., & Du, X. (2020). Addressing collegiate mental health amid
COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatry Research,
113003.
TABLES AND TABLE LEGENDS
Table 1. Alignment of student learning outcomes with course structure,
key resources, and learning activities for Field Ornithology, spring
2020.