Why some field trips stay with students for life

Researchers at Virginia Tech and Clemson University have spent years trying to understand why some environmental education field trips stay with students while others feel forgettable even before the ride home.

For decades, studies have shown that environmental education programs can improve environmental literacy, curiosity, confidence, and engagement in science. But researchers have struggled to pinpoint what specifically makes some programs more effective than others.

“We’ve had this big question: What works in environmental education?” said Marc Stern, professor in the College of Natural Resources and Environment’s Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation and one of the study’s authors. “The evidence suggests, 'Yeah, it’s good. It can do all kinds of great things.' But when we get to, ‘Well, how does it do that?’ the research gets a lot murkier.”

To answer that question, Stern and his collaborators observed more than 400 environmental education field trips across 24 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., following middle school students through programs that included activities such as water-quality testing, forest hikes, and coastal exploration. Researchers surveyed students afterward and compared the highest-performing programs with the lowest-performing ones in terms of their learning outcomes.

The researchers identified six principles that consistently separated the strongest programs from the weakest: meeting students’ basic needs, providing emotional support, providing instructional clarity, maintaining attention, emphasizing novelty, and creating a cohesive experience with a clear purpose.

None of the principles are especially surprising on their own. Students learn better when they feel engaged, supported, and comfortable.

The research was recently published in Environmental Education Research.

What the study adds, Stern said, is empirical evidence showing how consistently those factors separated the programs with the most positive learning outcomes from those with the weakest and how often educators unintentionally overlook them.

One principle was especially powerful: communicating a clear, cohesive purpose to student participants.

Cohesive environmental education connects all of the pieces of the experience together with a single clear theme. Students should be able to go beyond answering the question, “What did you do on the field trip?” They should be able to answer, “What was the point?” Many programs include multiple disjointed activities – for example, sampling for insects in a stream, measuring soil quality, and a high ropes course.

“Connecting these experiences to communicate a single theme enhances students’ learning,” Stern said. “For example, whether human or otherwise, the strength of a community is defined by how well its parts work together.”

Novelty was another key principle.

“The kids are out of school,” Stern said. “Don’t make it feel like a school day. Make it feel novel.”

Researchers found that many of the most successful programs leaned into the uniqueness of their environments and used the setting itself as part of the lesson rather than treating it as a backdrop for another lecture.

Stern remembered one program where students rode a bus up a mountain with sweeping views of forests, clouds, and watersheds below them. Instead of using the landscape, students were immediately divided into groups to complete standard science activities that could have happened almost anywhere.

“It felt like a science class that just happened to take place somewhere else,” Stern said.

The contrast stood out because the students had already arrived primed for curiosity.

The researchers found that novelty did not necessarily require dramatic scenery, either. Effective educators could make even ordinary surroundings feel new by encouraging students to closely observe familiar things, such as a blade of grass, ants crossing a sidewalk, or patterns in the soil beneath their feet.

Another major finding centered on emotional support.

The study found that programs performed better when educators created environments where students felt welcomed, encouraged and comfortable taking risks. Programs led by instructors who acted more like mentors, coaches, or guides tended to outperform those led by what Stern described as “walking encyclopedias” or “authority figures.”

That support could take simple forms: checking in with nervous students, encouraging curiosity, reassuring students that mistakes are part of learning or helping students feel safe outdoors.

In one example described in the study, an educator helped students overcome fears about ticks during a hike by turning the moment into a playful learning experience. Students eventually began spotting and removing ticks from the trail themselves, cheering each other on as they did.

The research also highlighted the importance of preparation and logistics, factors that may seem mundane but strongly shape whether students are ready to learn.

Some organizations created “gear libraries,” where students could borrow warm clothing or boots after arriving on site. Others used pre-visit sessions to help students understand what to expect before stepping outdoors.

“If the kids are freezing and sitting still, you’ve lost them,” Stern said.

The study focused specifically on single-day environmental education field trips for students in grades five through eight, a developmental window researchers describe as especially important for building curiosity, confidence, and environmental literacy.

The researchers’ findings suggest memorable learning often works that way. The lessons that stay with students are not always the ones delivered most formally. Sometimes they are the moments that feel surprising, immersive, and just a little impossible.

Original study: DOI:10.1080/13504622.2025.2502575