This paper discusses the teaching approaches used in the field of education in an outdoor experiential learning environment combined with digital technology. The history to this paper's thesis indicates that experiential outdoor learning is one of the teaching methods popularized since the 19th century. With technological advancement, the outdoor experiential learning, has drawn the attention of educators towards computerized technology. However, the experience of learning outdoors may either be a challenge or an advantage when computerized technology is applied to outdoor learning. This paper aims to develop a conceptual framework which can help educators to consider computerized technology embedded in an outdoor experiential learning. The methodologies for this paper include fifty peer-reviewed papers, fourteen book chapters, five conference papers, four conference proceedings, and five magazine articles. This study’s main findings suggest the discussion of three primary words in the conceptual context of DTOEL that are pedagogical factors, affordances and implications of the decision. This paper reaches the conclusion that computerized technology can lessen the experience of learning outdoor, but on the hindsight, this method of learning in the outdoors provides opportunities for learning development. With regards to the contribution to the research field, the DTOEL system serves to guide facilitators to make educated choice to utilize digital technology for outdoor experiential learning.
One of the most popularized training techniques from the 19th century onwards is the outdoor experiential learning. With the advancement in technology, the outdoor experiential learning combined with computerized technology has drawn the interest of educators in the field of education. Educators utilizing outdoor experiential learning as a method of teaching uses technological tools such as tracking cameras, drones, tablets and virtual reality and this range of digital interface devices is also expected to expand in the future. The use of technological tool can either be an annoyance or it may be able to improve the experience of learning through computerized outdoor learning experience. However, this depends on the way the computerized system is used. Nevertheless, a saturation point has been reached when it comes to using smart devices in the outdoor learning cycle as computerized technology assimilates the outdoor experiential learning experience. An example of such computerized devices are smartphones or wearables in which facilitators would have the option of eliminating it from the experience of outdoor experiential learning because it could either be a distraction or an improvement towards students' ability to learn in the outdoors 11, 34, 35, 38. Although computerized technology can pave the way for experiential outdoor learning, but facilitators face a dilemma on the use of intelligent technology. There have been a concern on how to use and when to avoid the use of intelligent technology due to several additional experiences that could hinder from the experience of experiential learning outdoors. For some educators, smart devices are only one of the refuges from experiential learning outdoors while new educators consider this approach of combining both computerized and outdoor technologies as daunting because it makes it much more complicated as inconsistent advice is provided on the literature of experiential outdoor learning based on the literature reviewed 5, 34, 36
This paper primary concern is to develop a conceptual framework that can help educators to consider embedding computerized technology in experiential learning outdoors. In particular, through this paper, educators can gain insight on the effects of emerging technology in experiential outdoor learning through the assimilation of various ideas and models into one conceptual framework.
The discussion of this paper is structured to illustrate the conceptual framework by outlining the three elements which are the implications of decisions, digital technology affordances and pedagogical considerations. The framework will address the method of implementation in the education sector by embedding computerized technology in an outdoor experiential learning environment. The drawbacks of the system and its consequences and future studies will also be addressed in this paper.
Moreover, the all-around key words for the word experiential outdoor learning will be used to attain predetermined goals of this paper. Among the key words used to screen the term experiential outdoor learning that can be connected are outdoor education. Outdoor education refers to structured outdoor learning involving travel-wilderness-based experiences where students take part in various adventurous activities such as biking, climbing, canoeing, ropes and group games 25. Another key screen jargon used is environmental education that refers to discussion on problems solving and actions taken pertinent to the environmental issues 40. Another terminology used in relation to outdoor experiential learning is adventure therapy. Adventure therapy focuses on a distinct and different type of psychotherapy on experiential education and psychological theories. It also highlights the consequences which includes enhanced student self-esteem, pro-social conduct and increased mutual assistance 3, 20, 31. The final terminology used to screen the term experiential outdoor learning is adventure education that refers to activities based on adventure. Adventure education includes events such as meets, indoor and outdoor sports. Adventure education is also related to curriculum in outdoor and adventure therapy. This paper will also include the main term DTOEL which refers to Digital Technology in Outdoor Experiential Learning to describe the conceptual framework stated in this paper. This study will use the term educators refer to teachers and instructors, while the term learners refers to students or participants. To add on to this, the term computerized technology is used to describe any electronic devices that are capable of storing, saving or presenting information 33 such as cameras, drones, and smartphones.
The paper will generally focus on the history of computerized technology in education specifically in the section of methodology, before taking a detailed look at outdoor experiential learning. This paper will review the key argument pertaining to computerized technology embedded in outdoor experiential learning and smart technology in outdoor experiential learning.
The key journals used in this study are from the Journal of Outdoor Environmental Education and the Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education and Outdoor Leadership which covers fifty peer-reviewed papers, fourteen book chapters, five lecture papers, four conference proceedings and five magazine articles. In accordance to 10 the following key terms listed above were used to search for sources where the word computerized technology or technology is used with one of the following key terms such as outdoor experiential learning, place-based adventure learning, adventure sports, adventure education, adventure therapy, adventure sports, coaching or fieldwork. The key terms mentioned above are derived from computerized technology and outdoor experiential learning. These key terms have been included in the introduction and context of this paper's report, but have not been included and checked specifically within this research.
In the age of digital natives, there is no denying that technology is highly relevant and has been long used in outdoor learning 45. Generally, the focus of this research has been on the subject on technology without the exclusive focus on computerized technology. The combination of words between technology and outdoor include items such as walking boots, outdoor equipment styles and compasses. 8 explains that these item have achieved a "transparency level of understanding" resulting to these items to no longer being viewed as technology. Similarly, outdoor experiential learning faces the similar predicament because such technical things that are no longer seen as innovations although they are incorporated into the everyday lives of the learners. 45 contends that the human body is an inhabiting 'a robotic lifeworld,' which explains that without any technology, there is no universe.
Therefore, this call for the inclusion of a certain technical aspects in outdoor learning to ensure a balanced environment exists between outdoor experiential learning and technology 45. In contrast, 37 argues that technology is useful for experiential outdoor learning because, it serves as an outdoor diversion.
The differing point of view on the use of technology weighs on the facilitator to make a reasonable choice as to when, what and how to use the experiential outdoor learning for the 21st century learners.
Nevertheless, with the passage of time, there has been a strong rise in the usage of digital technology among facilitators in this millennium 7. The 'new standard' in the education industry is the usage of mobile computerized devices, which has become the common use among facilitators and learners, and this is similar to the walking boots and compasses that were once non-existent.
5.2. Computerized Technology in EducationComputerized technology is wearable and customized in accordance with the needs of the learners in the classroo0m, and thus the authorities have paid a great deal of attention to integrating them into the classrooms as they enhance their learning method. There are six directions for learners to improve their learning and suggested computing outlined by 18. The outline help raise learners' aspirations. Consequently, this can help improve, grow facilitators teaching skills and deepens their understanding on the values and concepts thus helps to minimize teacher dependence on learners. Moreover, it also helps to extend the available pedagogical resources for facilitators to become an expert in the quest for expertise. Nevertheless, the impact of using digital technology in education remains unclear and is debated in literature, although the pedagogy given is significantly enhanced for the facilitator to improve their teaching skills 11, 18. In addition, there is still a lot of controversy regarding the efficacy of using computerized technology in classroom compared to using them outdoors when it comes to analyzing literature plays.
5.3. Computerized Technology and Outdoor Experiential LearningThe proposed solution that computerized technology combines experiential learning outdoors has generated interest from educators as well as researchers alike. It is because computerized technology can be used virtually anywhere, at any time, and even remotely, because it is lightweight and versatile and simple to use 5. There have been several ways that facilitators can use emerging technology to communicate such as using cameras, GPS or even smartphones 18. Even so, as described above, the usage of these computerized tools is still quite vague and numerous authors have expressed their concern about this situation. Among the problems and issues that 11 highlighted, underpins that digital technology is still adopted and welcomed with little consideration by facilitators. That argument is backed by writers such as 37, who expressed the same concern regarding the use of computerized outdoor technology, agreeing that there should be a systematic approach to the use of digital outdoor technology.
Moreover, 39 is concerned about the adverse effects that will affect children's face to face communication skills with the increased use of computerized technology due to minimal or non-real-life contact between the learner and the facilitator. However, 34 concluded that there is increasing agreement that computerized technology creates opportunities and challenges to outdoor experiential learning. Thus, the following section will be reviewing the key reasons against and for the use of digital technology in outdoor experiential learning as follows.
5.4. Key Arguments against the Use of Computerized Technology in Outdoor Experiential LearningOne of the primary reasons against the use of computerized technology in outdoor experiential learning is that computerized technology does not directly contribute to outdoor learning instead it distracts and diminishes learners' ability to learn lessons in the outdoors 35, 45. Consequently, several scholars have cited and reached to an agreement that the integration of computerized technology in outdoors learning is more of a disruption than an attraction to the students ' personal learning experience due to its negative implications 34.
The second main point or concern is that digital technology puts a barrier between the learners and the outdoor environment 11 because removing the learners from the outdoors indirectly poses a danger to the natural environment 45. Furthermore, while there are scholars who are opposed to the integration of computerized technology in experiential outdoor learning, there are also scholars who supports the use of computerized technology in experiential outdoor learning environments because it has improved learning which will be discussed in the following section.
5.5. Key Arguments on the Use of Computerized Technology in Outdoor Experiential LearningBased on the reviewed literature, there are two main arguments that uphold the use of computerized technology in experiential learning outdoors. The first primary statement is that computerized technology will improve and generate additional opportunities for experiential outdoor learning 38, 45 while the second point is that digital technology includes learners and links learners with each other and with the outside world. For example, the experience of learning to use the outdoor experiential learning method allow learners take pictures of specific plants, reflect and share with their peers of the photograph.
Thus, based on the reasons provided for and against the use of computerized technology in experiential outdoor learning, a conceptual framework is required that can serve as a guide for educators on how to conduct their classes in an outdoor learning environment when computerized technology is involved.
A. Conceptual Framework of Digital Technology in Outdoor Experiential Learning by Hills And Thomas (2019)
After an exhaustive analysis of key literature works by multiple writers from different journals, the conceptual structure shown above in Figure 1 by Hills and Thomas (2019) is developed. The system is structured by defining the value of digital technology the reviewed papers. The analysis order is achieved by showcasing the time and decision-making process pursued by an experiential learning facilitator 27. It requires a strategy such as principles of pedagogy, affordances and the implications of the decisions.
The first primary framework area is (A)-pedagogic consideration which is the section of the Hills and Thomas (2019) Digital Technology and Outdoor Experiential Learning Framework. The decision to either use digital technology in the teaching and learning process by the facilitator is determined using the six factors outlined in the first main area of the framework.
A1. Overall Context
Based on the overall sense of this paradigm, 18 explains that in contrast with other forms of learning methods, certain emerging technologies may be better adapted for use in outdoor experience learning. However, 9, 15 claims a different argument, that the use and skill of emerging technologies depends on whether or not the outdoor experiential learning is used as a subject matter. If the outdoor learning is used to develop skills and information, the use of digital technologies will be more applicable to learning and evaluating in a more formalized environment. However, the importance of digital technology depends on the stages of the outdoor experiential learning environment 11. There are some studies that support the use of digital technology, citing that post-experience on the use of digital technology is the most effective way of enhancing learning in the experiential learning environment outdoor environment 16.
A2. Aims of the session
The aim of the session is to look at specific learning outcomes through the use of outdoor experiential learning opportunities to improve a technology-based ability. For example, the usage of a satellite navigation system in a digital technology-free program such as the experiential learning environment in the outdoors may enhance the learning outcome.
A3. The user of the digital technology
This pedagogical approach requires a look at the technology consumer, suggesting the actual user of digital technology and if the facilitator uses digital technology then there is a better likelihood of a positive outcome because they can employ a greater degree of control over the situation and minimize any adverse effect on the interaction 26. In other words, the bias mechanism has a greater probability of support if the consumer were to be the facilitator itself.
A4. Facilitator Attributes
The facilitators’ faith in digital technology sets as an indicator of success in the ever-evolving technology environment. This is essential since facilitators have an up-to-date expertise. However, the works of literature suggest that facilitators inexperienced in digital technology will induce negative effect such as, it may pose danger to learners and facilitator if the facilitators fail to understand the learning outcomes or compromised personal learning protection in the outdoors.
A5. Learners Attributes
Learners’ attribute is influenced by their level of competency and programming expertise in digital technology. However, barriers to teaching and learning will be created if the learner are unable to complete a digital technology task 28. The ability of learners to effectively grasp the knowledge of using digital technology when it is integrated with the outdoor experiential learning depends on how quickly or rapidly learners are taught the knowledge to grasp the skills of digital technology 5
A6. Available Resources
The final factors as outlined on pedagogical considerations by Hills and Thomas 2019, is the availability of digital technology tools that will discard the reliance on burdensome tools such as textbooks. For example, the institutional use of smartphones amongst learners helps to eliminate the need to bring numerous guidebooks and textbooks 5. As all other teaching aids, however, the number of tools available for student facilitators to use is crucial for assessing the quality of the teaching and learning process 38. Consequently, the number and range of available digital technology resources has burgeoned over the last decade, but their accessibility may depend on funding and support.
B. The affordance of digital technology
The idea of affordance as proposed by 22 is to picture a balance between technological determinism and social constructivism that recognizes the use or non-use of digital technology, both positive and negative. The five affordances as shown in Figure 1 of the DTOEL structure have been primarily synthesized from 17, 30 and 21. There are four challenges and opportunities that are danger vs. protection between outdoor and digital technologies, communication vs. direct experience, and information vs. unknown. It is depicted that the place, contact, attention, and knowledge affordances is within the system. 17 explored the issues of security, communication and information. 21 and 30 discussed the existence of a fifth aspect in this affordance of a presence of feeling vs. advocacy and reflection. The fifth dimension inclusion had been circulated to complete part of the framework. Ultimately, each of the affordances explores the tension between outdoor experiential learning climate and digital technology opportunities and challenges and all of the five affordances will be further clarified in this document.
B1. Location: risk and adventure vs security and safety
The first affordance in the works of literature reviews are risk and adventure which is found to reflect the opportunities that digital technology creates for immediate knowledge about their position through GPS, because GPS data have been shown to improve the learning cycle of mapping read and input on bearing accuracy. The literature also indicates that GPS data increases participants' protection and security by giving them an exact location while they are outdoors. However, the left side of the affordances, is danger and adventure, which poses a possible challenge to the feeling of outdoor adventure. The evidence indicates that reliance on location apps tends to increase the risk of experiential outdoor learning experience 17 such as participant struggle to map location devices 17 and some examples of these positioning systems are known as GPS devices that are more widely referred to as information technology applications in the experiential outdoor learning environment 2, 5, 14, 35, 45.
B2 Attention: Direct experience vs mediation
The right side of affordance that is mediation reflects incentives provided by digital technologies to promote environmental understanding 45, offering input on results, addressing environmental aspects and the commitment 1, 2, 19. As for the left side of affordances that is direct experience, it observes the landscape through a digital overlay lens that creates a veil or barrier to a direct outdoor experience 44. However, many see this as incompatible with the outdoor experiential learning environment and suggest that the outdoors should be experienced directly without filters 13.
B3. Communication: Solitude vs connectivity for learning
In the right end of the affordability that is connectivity, it represents the opportunities that digital technology offers for transmitting data and analyzing results for interpretation by others 29, achieved via GPS trackers to help facilitators track learners from a distance. Undeniably this creates new opportunities for remote supervision without the need for physical presence of the facilitator. The left side of the isolation affordance highlights cell phones, the most criticized interactive technology of outdoor experiential learning, which can help disengaged nature learners and challenge nature's isolation 5, 34, 35, 39.
B4. Information: unknown and discovery vs accessing knowledge
The right side of the affordance that is accessing information in these affordances reflects complete access to limitless digital data through a digital computer. The availability of limitless digital data result to less dependence on the facilitator and has improved student-centered learning 21. Moreover, it has also shown to increase the transportation of knowledge outdoors without the need to bring a lot of map guidebooks and textbooks 38. The left side of the unknown affordance and exploration explains digital technology can provide learners with too much knowledge, challenge the feelings of the unfamiliar and discover the unique parts of the natural world.
B5. Dissemination: The feeling of presence vs reflections and advocacy
The last affordances discuss the ways facilitators and learners can use digital media to develop information through experiential learning outdoors. The right side of the affordance that is reflection and advocacy reflect incentives that emerging technology that can be used to improve engagement and highlight the value of outdoor experiential learning for key stakeholders 2. Reflections and analysis are recognized as core components of the outdoor learning experience and, in order to improve learning, digital technology plays a crucial role in it 15, 23, 27. The left side of the affordance, is the sensation of presence, reflecting the expense of capturing media in the field of time 19. Media acquisition will come at the cost of the experience 's feeling of presence or flow 6, 11.
In conclusion, the above-mentioned affordance shows both sides of the relationship between outdoor experiential learning and digital technology, highlighting the positive and negative consequences, and shows the balance between digital technology and outdoor experiential learning to both learners and facilitators. The mixture of choices taken on pedagogical criteria and the affordances inevitably has implications for the learners and facilitators. The implications of that will be explored further in this article.
C. Consequences of Decisions
This section of the DTOEL framework deals with the results based on a model developed to categorize educational goals in the field of technology education, where technology educators are encouraged on the effects of using digital technologies on the learner's practice where four levels are used to describe potential effects as either substitution, modification, augmentation or redefinition 32
The lower two levels of the model is replacement or adjustment observed as an improvement of the original model that is Figure 2, and the use of new technology at this point has less effect on the learning opportunities that are offered 32. For instance, the GPS or better known as global positioning system that is used as compasses would be an example of substitution with little added benefit to the learning process.
Additionally, when GPS is used to find waypoints and track progress, an example of modification will be the upper two stages of the model as transformation (augmentation and redefinition) 32. The publication of new research findings that previously would have been incomprehensible to outdoor experiential learning facilitators is the highest form of redefinition through the use of digital technology. The SMAR ladder is one of the way for facilitators to recognize the impacts on the use of emerging technologies. The order of the steps was changed without altering the sequence displayed in the DTOEL method, because in that configuration it appears to be more user friendly.
The SMAR model has its own limitations because it assumes any digital technology as neutral or positive and fails to consider the negative impacts that it elicits towards digital technology. However, based on the literature examined, an additional step has been introduced in the DTOEL process known as distraction. It applies to circumstances where digital technology affects the learning outcomes or overall experiences.
In addition, 38 urged outdoor learning facilitators to raise questions about the unintended effects of either using or not utilizing emerging technology, leading to this phase to be introduced. For example, even though digital technology is used for learning oriented purposes, the software will distract learners from the original tasks 35. However, there could be reasons for a decision not to use technology to have any unforeseen effects that are not beneficial either for the learners or facilitators. An example of this would be when a decision to follow a low or no technology emphasis could restrict or cancel learners' opportunities to document, reflect on or even benefit from their experiences. In view of protection, the decision to disregard the positive affordances provided by new technologies such as satellite phones may have negative unintended implications for emergency response capabilities.
C6. Feedback
The final component of the DTOEL framework in the impact of digital sections is the need to plan or draw on feedback on the success of the decision, whether or not to use digital technology in outdoor experiential learning 12. Furthermore, Greenaway 23 stresses the importance of receiving responses from students to enable facilitator to observe and benefit from the outdoor experiential learning sessions. It is important to remember that in this present context, the implications of the decisions, technology affordance decisions based on the experiences of the facilitators with the learners in the outdoor experiential learning setting and the outcomes will be incorporated into future pedagogical considerations. Hence, having outlined the DTOEL framework, this paper will now look at the limitations of the framework.
There are several drawbacks of the DTOEL system that need to be addressed, even though it leads to a deep insight to interactive outdoor experiential learning. The first limiting factor that can be highlighted is that many of the papers reviewed did not identify the technology differences between digital technology. Most of the papers that were reviewed talk about technology in general, as opposed to digital technology in general.
When analyzed in terms of the framework, it is actually a synthesis of relevant research. The framework concepts have not been empirically tested in any formal setting. In addition, the SMAR ladder proposed by 32 has been the subject of some praise although others have been strongly opposed to the legitimacy of the method 24. 24 also argued that the SMAR ladder concentrated heavily on the mission without looking at the directions behind it. In particular 24 argues that the system is an obsolete paradigm that fits into an old teaching and learning style. Therefore, it is unable to reflect more recent pedagogies based on learners. In addition, another flaw in the system is that the system could be a subject to bias or prejudice identified through the analysis of data and decision making on the usefulness of using emerging technology in outdoor experiential learning. For example, a facilitator may believe that their use of digital technology is at the level of redefinition of the SMAR ladder when in reality evidence indicates that they operate at the best possible level. This applies equally to the pedagogical level of considerations and affordances components of the framework. Although ambiguities or uncertainties may arise in making judgments about the process of teaching and learning, it is necessary to remember that, all judgements must be taken on the basis of proof. Furthermore, facilitators are also encouraged to consult with colleagues while using the system to increase the validity of their assessments and decisions, as well as to reduce possible prejudices and maximize the consistency of the framework decision. Therefore, the shortcomings of the aims, the structure and the terminologies are outlined in this section of this paper via the conceptual framework of DTOEL that uses the SMAR model as part of the conceptual framework of DTOEL.
Digital technology or computerized technology can be both disruption to the experiential learning experience in the outdoors and opportunities for improved learning, observed though the limitations of this report. The explanation of the four limitations of this study consisting of the comprehensive views between digital technology and science, the criticisms of the validity of the SMAR ladder relevant to the conceptual structure of DTOEL. The criticism of the SMAR model is an obsolete concept that does not concentrate on learner-focused pedagogy and the ignorance or bias in the classroom application of the SMAR system. Moreover, there will always be a flood of technological innovations in terms of improving learning and people trying to sell them. The DTOEL concept as presented in this document, serves as a guide for outdoor experiential learning facilitators to make educated decrement embedding digital technology in their programs. The structure can also assist facilitators to make a choice on the integration of digital technology in outdoor experiential learning based on the crucial and fulsome evaluation of digital technology's strength and weakness before practice. Likewise, the method can also be used retrospectively to help facilitators focus upon the value of the usage of or non-use of digital technology after an encounter. The directions for future research will focus on the processes used by outdoor experiential learning facilitators to make decisions regarding their use of digital technologies. The aim of the data collection and review is to determine how the DTOEL system reflects the factors that facilitators account for. However, there is nothing in the literature regarding the unintended emanation of purposely eliminating digital technology in experiential learning outdoors. It is equally ambivalent if the avoidance of digital technology always leads to the positive results intended. Finally, modern innovative innovations (such as augmented and virtual reality) may be used in the future in educational settings that cancel out the need for learners to be brought outdoors into the field at all. The use of technology is beyond the limits of the found affordances in the current system and therefore a direct challenge to experiential learning outdoors. In conclusion, this paper sought to present a balanced consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of integrating digital technologies in outdoor experiential learning. The paper aims are achieved by introducing the conceptual framework for DTOEL as part of this systematic review of literature. In addition, the structure of this paper is also achieved through the explanation of the DTOEL conceptual framework which comprises of the consequences of decisions, affordances of computerized technology and pedagogical considerations and finally the key terminologies used to screen the key term outdoor experiential learning is utilized during the process of screening of this systematic literature review study. The DTOEL system, which was synthesized from the available literature, allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of the pedagogical criteria, affordances and implications of decisions for any particular experience or programme. The framework can also be a beneficial tool to allow facilitators of outdoor experiential learning to make abreast and thoughtful choices regarding their facilitation in a modernized digital environment.
| [1] | Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [2] | Beames, S. (2017). Innovation and outdoor education. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 20(1), 2-6. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [3] | Berman, D. S. & Davis-Berman, J. (1995). Outdoor education and troubled youth. | ||
| In article | |||
| [4] | Bodsworth, H., & Goodyear, V. A. (2017). Barriers and facilitators to using digital technologies in the cooperative learning model in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22(6), 563-579. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [5] | Bolliger, D. U., & Shepherd, C. E. (2017). An investigation of mobile technologies and web 2.0 tools use in outdoor education programs. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 9(2), 181-196. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [6] | Boniface, M. R. (2000). Towards an understanding of flow and other positive experience phenomena within outdoor and adventurous activities. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 1(1), 55-68. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [7] | Bonk, C. J. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley &Sons. | ||
| In article | |||
| [8] | Bruce, B. C., & Hogan, M. P. (1998). The disappearance of technology: Toward an ecological model of literacy. Florence, KY: Routledge. | ||
| In article | |||
| [9] | Challis, D., Holt, D., & Rice, M. (2005). Staff perceptions of the role of technology in experiential learning: A case study from an Australian university. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 19-39. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [10] | Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. | ||
| In article | |||
| [11] | Cuthbertson, B., Socha, T. L., & Potter, T. G. (2004). The double-edged sword: Critical reflections on traditional and modern technology in outdoor education. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 4(2), 133-14. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [12] | Da Silva, K. B. (2014). Biological fieldwork in Australian higher education: Is the cost worth the effort? International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 22(2), 64-74. | ||
| In article | |||
| [13] | Dewey, J. (2007). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. | ||
| In article | |||
| [14] | Drader, R. (2014). Using technology to engage students in outdoor education: Does it inhibit or benefit the students’ experience? Mount Royal Undergraduate Education Review, 1(1), 1-14. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [15] | Dyment, J. E., O’Connell, T. S., & Boyle, I. (2011). The intersection of web 2.0 technologies and reflective journals: An investigation of possibilities, potential and pitfalls. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 3(3), 137-150. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [16] | Dyment, J. E., & Potter, T. G. (2015). Is outdoor education a discipline? Provocations and possibilities. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 15(3), 193-208. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [17] | Ewert, A., & Shultis, J. (1999). Technology and backcountry recreation: Boon to recreation or bust for management? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 70(8), 23-28. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [18] | Fauville, G., Lantz-Andersson, A., & Säljö, R. (2014). ICT tools in environmental education: Reviewing two newcomers to schools. Environmental Education Research, 20(2), 248-283. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [19] | French, G. (2016). Going pro: Point of view cameras in adventure sports research. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 19(1), 2-24. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [20] | Gass, M. A. (1993). Adventure in therapy: Therapeutic applications of adventure programming in 3mental health settings. Boulder, CO: Association for Experiential Education | ||
| In article | |||
| [21] | Gerstein, J. (2013). Taking the learners and technology outdoors. Retrieved from https://usergeneratededucation. wordpress.com/2013/04/18/taking-the-learners-and-technology-outdoors/. | ||
| In article | |||
| [22] | Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. | ||
| In article | |||
| [23] | Greenaway, R. (1998). High tech, low tech reviews in outdoor education. Retrieved from http://reviewing.co.uk/ archives/art/1_4.htm#1. | ||
| In article | |||
| [24] | Guhlin, M. (2015). Tearing down false gods: SAMR pushback begins. Retrieved from http://www.mguhlin.org/2015/05/tearing- down-false-gods-samr-pushback.html. | ||
| In article | |||
| [25] | House of Commons, 2005. Education Outside the Classroom (PDF). https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmedusk i/120/120.pdf .Retrieved:8 August 2020. | ||
| In article | |||
| [26] | Houge Mackenzie, Susan; Schwab, Keri; Higgins, Lindsey; Greenwood, P. Brian; Goldenberg, Marni; Greenwood, Jerusha; Hendricks, Wiiliam W. 2017. From social media to the outdoors: exploring messages that connect with underserved urban youth. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership. 9(2): 137-151. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [27] | Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2017). The experiential educator: Principles and practices of experiential learning. Kaunakakai, HI: EBLS Press. | ||
| In article | |||
| [28] | Medzini, A, Meishar-Tal, H, & Sneh, Y. (2015). Use of mobile technologies as support tools for geography field trips. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 24(1), 13-23. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [29] | Palaigeorgiou, G., Malandrakis, G., & Tsolopani, C. (2017, July). Learning with Drones: Flying windows for classroom virtual field trips. In Proceedings of the 17th international IEEE confrence on advanced learning technologies, Mumbai, India: IEEE. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [30] | Papp, P. S., Vella, C., Edwards, M., & Rasborsek, J., (2012). Technology & outdoor learning. Paper presented at the nature education symposium, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= EwFZeZqsfdE. | ||
| In article | |||
| [31] | Parker, M. W. (1992). Impact of adventure interventions of traditional counseling interventions (ropes course). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma. | ||
| In article | |||
| [32] | Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education. Retrieved from http://hipposus.com/resources/tte/. | ||
| In article | |||
| [33] | Rouse. M (2005). ICT (Information and Communications Technology). http://searchcio.techtarget.com/definition/ICT- information-and-communications-technology-or-technologies | ||
| In article | |||
| [34] | Shultis, J. (2012). The impact of technology on the wilderness experience: A review of common themes and approaches in three bodies of literature. In: Cole, David N., comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 April 4-7; | ||
| In article | |||
| [35] | Smith, C. A., Parks, R., Parrish, J., & Swirski, R. (2016). Disruptive silence: Deepening experiential learning in the absence of technology. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 18(1), 1-14. 14 D. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [36] | Stokes, A., Collins, T., Maskall, J., Lea, J., Lunt, P., & Davies, S. (2012). Enabling remote access to fieldwork: Gaining insight into the pedagogic effectiveness of ‘direct’ and ‘remote’ field activities. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 36(2), 197-222. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [37] | Strong, D. (1995). Crazy mountains: Learning from wilderness to weigh technology. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. | ||
| In article | |||
| [38] | Thomas, G. J., & Munge, B. (2017). Innovative outdoor fieldwork pedagogies in the higher education sector: Optimising the use of technology. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [39] | Uhls, Y. T., Michikyan, M., Morris, J., Garcia, D., Small, G. W., Zgourou, E., & Greenfield, P. M. (2014). Five days at outdoor education camp without screens improves preteen skills with nonverbal emotion cues. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 387-392. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [40] | United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2018). What is environmental education. https://www.epa.gov/education/what- environmental-education.Retrieved:8 August 2020. | ||
| In article | |||
| [41] | E., & Greenfield, P. M. (2014). Five days at outdoor education camp without screens improves preteen skills with nonverbal emotion cues. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 387-392. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [42] | Veletsianos, G., & Doering, A. (2010). Long-term student experiences in a hybrid, open-ended and problem based adventure learning program. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 280-296. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [43] | Wattchow, B. (2001). A pedagogy of production: Craft, technology, and outdoor education. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 5(2), 19-27. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [44] | Wattchow, B., & Brown, M. (2015). Programming for place-responsiveness: Enhancing adventure learning and outdoor travel. In R. Black & K. S. Bricker (Eds.), Adventure programming and travel for the 21st century (pp. 35-48). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. | ||
| In article | |||
| [45] | Wattchow, B., & Brown, M. (2011). A pedagogy of place: Outdoor education for a changing world. Clayton, Victoria: Monash University Publishing. | ||
| In article | |||
Published with license by Science and Education Publishing, Copyright © 2020 Evelyn Philip and Fazilah Razali
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
| [1] | Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [2] | Beames, S. (2017). Innovation and outdoor education. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 20(1), 2-6. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [3] | Berman, D. S. & Davis-Berman, J. (1995). Outdoor education and troubled youth. | ||
| In article | |||
| [4] | Bodsworth, H., & Goodyear, V. A. (2017). Barriers and facilitators to using digital technologies in the cooperative learning model in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22(6), 563-579. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [5] | Bolliger, D. U., & Shepherd, C. E. (2017). An investigation of mobile technologies and web 2.0 tools use in outdoor education programs. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 9(2), 181-196. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [6] | Boniface, M. R. (2000). Towards an understanding of flow and other positive experience phenomena within outdoor and adventurous activities. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 1(1), 55-68. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [7] | Bonk, C. J. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley &Sons. | ||
| In article | |||
| [8] | Bruce, B. C., & Hogan, M. P. (1998). The disappearance of technology: Toward an ecological model of literacy. Florence, KY: Routledge. | ||
| In article | |||
| [9] | Challis, D., Holt, D., & Rice, M. (2005). Staff perceptions of the role of technology in experiential learning: A case study from an Australian university. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 19-39. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [10] | Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. | ||
| In article | |||
| [11] | Cuthbertson, B., Socha, T. L., & Potter, T. G. (2004). The double-edged sword: Critical reflections on traditional and modern technology in outdoor education. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 4(2), 133-14. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [12] | Da Silva, K. B. (2014). Biological fieldwork in Australian higher education: Is the cost worth the effort? International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 22(2), 64-74. | ||
| In article | |||
| [13] | Dewey, J. (2007). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. | ||
| In article | |||
| [14] | Drader, R. (2014). Using technology to engage students in outdoor education: Does it inhibit or benefit the students’ experience? Mount Royal Undergraduate Education Review, 1(1), 1-14. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [15] | Dyment, J. E., O’Connell, T. S., & Boyle, I. (2011). The intersection of web 2.0 technologies and reflective journals: An investigation of possibilities, potential and pitfalls. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 3(3), 137-150. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [16] | Dyment, J. E., & Potter, T. G. (2015). Is outdoor education a discipline? Provocations and possibilities. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 15(3), 193-208. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [17] | Ewert, A., & Shultis, J. (1999). Technology and backcountry recreation: Boon to recreation or bust for management? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 70(8), 23-28. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [18] | Fauville, G., Lantz-Andersson, A., & Säljö, R. (2014). ICT tools in environmental education: Reviewing two newcomers to schools. Environmental Education Research, 20(2), 248-283. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [19] | French, G. (2016). Going pro: Point of view cameras in adventure sports research. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 19(1), 2-24. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [20] | Gass, M. A. (1993). Adventure in therapy: Therapeutic applications of adventure programming in 3mental health settings. Boulder, CO: Association for Experiential Education | ||
| In article | |||
| [21] | Gerstein, J. (2013). Taking the learners and technology outdoors. Retrieved from https://usergeneratededucation. wordpress.com/2013/04/18/taking-the-learners-and-technology-outdoors/. | ||
| In article | |||
| [22] | Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. | ||
| In article | |||
| [23] | Greenaway, R. (1998). High tech, low tech reviews in outdoor education. Retrieved from http://reviewing.co.uk/ archives/art/1_4.htm#1. | ||
| In article | |||
| [24] | Guhlin, M. (2015). Tearing down false gods: SAMR pushback begins. Retrieved from http://www.mguhlin.org/2015/05/tearing- down-false-gods-samr-pushback.html. | ||
| In article | |||
| [25] | House of Commons, 2005. Education Outside the Classroom (PDF). https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmedusk i/120/120.pdf .Retrieved:8 August 2020. | ||
| In article | |||
| [26] | Houge Mackenzie, Susan; Schwab, Keri; Higgins, Lindsey; Greenwood, P. Brian; Goldenberg, Marni; Greenwood, Jerusha; Hendricks, Wiiliam W. 2017. From social media to the outdoors: exploring messages that connect with underserved urban youth. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership. 9(2): 137-151. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [27] | Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2017). The experiential educator: Principles and practices of experiential learning. Kaunakakai, HI: EBLS Press. | ||
| In article | |||
| [28] | Medzini, A, Meishar-Tal, H, & Sneh, Y. (2015). Use of mobile technologies as support tools for geography field trips. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 24(1), 13-23. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [29] | Palaigeorgiou, G., Malandrakis, G., & Tsolopani, C. (2017, July). Learning with Drones: Flying windows for classroom virtual field trips. In Proceedings of the 17th international IEEE confrence on advanced learning technologies, Mumbai, India: IEEE. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [30] | Papp, P. S., Vella, C., Edwards, M., & Rasborsek, J., (2012). Technology & outdoor learning. Paper presented at the nature education symposium, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= EwFZeZqsfdE. | ||
| In article | |||
| [31] | Parker, M. W. (1992). Impact of adventure interventions of traditional counseling interventions (ropes course). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma. | ||
| In article | |||
| [32] | Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education. Retrieved from http://hipposus.com/resources/tte/. | ||
| In article | |||
| [33] | Rouse. M (2005). ICT (Information and Communications Technology). http://searchcio.techtarget.com/definition/ICT- information-and-communications-technology-or-technologies | ||
| In article | |||
| [34] | Shultis, J. (2012). The impact of technology on the wilderness experience: A review of common themes and approaches in three bodies of literature. In: Cole, David N., comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 April 4-7; | ||
| In article | |||
| [35] | Smith, C. A., Parks, R., Parrish, J., & Swirski, R. (2016). Disruptive silence: Deepening experiential learning in the absence of technology. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 18(1), 1-14. 14 D. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [36] | Stokes, A., Collins, T., Maskall, J., Lea, J., Lunt, P., & Davies, S. (2012). Enabling remote access to fieldwork: Gaining insight into the pedagogic effectiveness of ‘direct’ and ‘remote’ field activities. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 36(2), 197-222. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [37] | Strong, D. (1995). Crazy mountains: Learning from wilderness to weigh technology. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. | ||
| In article | |||
| [38] | Thomas, G. J., & Munge, B. (2017). Innovative outdoor fieldwork pedagogies in the higher education sector: Optimising the use of technology. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [39] | Uhls, Y. T., Michikyan, M., Morris, J., Garcia, D., Small, G. W., Zgourou, E., & Greenfield, P. M. (2014). Five days at outdoor education camp without screens improves preteen skills with nonverbal emotion cues. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 387-392. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [40] | United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2018). What is environmental education. https://www.epa.gov/education/what- environmental-education.Retrieved:8 August 2020. | ||
| In article | |||
| [41] | E., & Greenfield, P. M. (2014). Five days at outdoor education camp without screens improves preteen skills with nonverbal emotion cues. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 387-392. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [42] | Veletsianos, G., & Doering, A. (2010). Long-term student experiences in a hybrid, open-ended and problem based adventure learning program. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 280-296. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [43] | Wattchow, B. (2001). A pedagogy of production: Craft, technology, and outdoor education. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 5(2), 19-27. | ||
| In article | View Article | ||
| [44] | Wattchow, B., & Brown, M. (2015). Programming for place-responsiveness: Enhancing adventure learning and outdoor travel. In R. Black & K. S. Bricker (Eds.), Adventure programming and travel for the 21st century (pp. 35-48). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. | ||
| In article | |||
| [45] | Wattchow, B., & Brown, M. (2011). A pedagogy of place: Outdoor education for a changing world. Clayton, Victoria: Monash University Publishing. | ||
| In article | |||
