Advertisement

Immersive field experiences lead to higher-level learning and translational impacts on students

  • Christopher FelegeEmail author
  • Rebecca Romsdahl
  • Joshua Hunter
  • Cheryl Hunter
  • Susan Ellis-Felege
Research Article

Abstract

Internships in STEM disciplines, especially in fields related to conservation and sustainability, have become more widespread in recent years. Such experiences are thought to go beyond traditional classroom learning and are now required as part of the curriculum in many programs. However, benefits of such internships have largely been presumed up to this point. In this work, we developed and tested a research question asking if there is a gradient of learning that occurs across immersive educational experiences. These range from low-level immersion classroom learning to highly immersive field internships. We found that student learning increases as the level of immersion increases. Furthermore, our findings suggest that highly immersive internships lead to more translational outcomes. This is based on values and dispositional changes relevant to research that are absent in lower-level immersive experiences. These findings suggest that highly immersive internships are likely to be key foundational experiences that help undergraduate student stakeholders develop a set of knowledge, skills, and abilities that are critical to a translational workforce in conservation and sustainability.

Keywords

Field experience Immersion Internship Translational ecology 

Notes

Supplementary material

13412_2019_555_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. Brunson MW, Baker MA (2016) Translational training for tomorrow’s environmental scientists. J Environ Stud Sci 6(2):295–299.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0333-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Sage publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  3. Crotty M (1998) The foundations of social research : meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  4. Crowe A, Dirks C, Wenderoth MP, Sundberg M (2008) Biology in Bloom: implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 7(4):368–381.  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (2011) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  6. Enquist CA, Jackson ST, Garfin GM, Davis FW, Gerber LR, Littell JA, … Halpern B (2017) Foundations of translational ecology. Front Ecol Environ 15(10):541–550Google Scholar
  7. Felege C, Hahn EC, Hunter C, Gleditsch R (2016) Bench, bedside, curbside, and home: translational research to include transformative change using educational research. J Res Pract 12(2):1Google Scholar
  8. Hallett LM, Morelli TL, Gerber LR, Moritz MA, Schwartz MW, Stephenson NL, … Woodhouse CA (2017) Navigating translational ecology: creating opportunities for scientist participation. Front Ecol Environ 15(10):578–586Google Scholar
  9. Hofstein A, Lunetta VN (2004) The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Sci Educ 88(1):28–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klein M, Weiss F (2011) Is forcing them worth the effort? Benefits of mandatory internships for graduates from diverse family backgrounds at labour market entry. Stud High Educ 36(8):969–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kolb AY, Kolb DA (2012) Experiential learning theory. In: Seel NM (ed) Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. Springer US, Boston, pp 1215–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krathwohl DR (2002) A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Pract 41(4):212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maxwell JA (2012) Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  14. Moustakas C (1994) Phenomenological research methods. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  15. Nakhleh MB, Polles J, Malina E (2002). Learning chemistry in a laboratory environment. Chemical education: towards research-based practice (pp. 69–94). SpringerGoogle Scholar
  16. Patton MQ (2015) Qualitative research & evaluation methods. fourth. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  17. Powell LA (2009) Using reflection documents to assess student learning. J Nat Res Life Sci Educ 38(1):33–39.  https://doi.org/10.2134/jnrlse2009.38133x Google Scholar
  18. Robson C, McCartan K (2016) Real world research. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  19. Saldaña J (2015) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  20. Schlesinger WH (2010) Editorial: translational ecology. Science 329(5992):609–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schwartz MW, Hiers JK, Davis FW, Garfin GM, Jackson ST, Terando AJ, … Brunson MW (2017) Developing a translational ecology workforce. Front Ecol Environ 15(10):587–596Google Scholar
  22. Thiry H, Laursen SL, Hunter A-B (2011) What experiences help students become scientists? A comparative study of research and other sources of personal and professional gains for STEM undergraduates. J High Educ 82(4):357–388Google Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology Stop 9019University of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA
  2. 2.Department of Earth System Science and Policy Stop 9011University of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA
  3. 3.College of Education and Human Development Stop 7189University of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA

Personalised recommendations