Education Teaching Biology in the Field: Importance, Challenges, and Solutions THOMAS L. FLEISCHNER, ROBERT E. ESPINOZA, GRETCHEN A. GERRISH, HARRY W. GREENE, ROBIN WALL KIMMERER, EILEEN A. LACEY, STEVEN PACE, JULIA K. PARRISH, HILARY M. SWAIN, STEPHEN C. TROMBULAK, SAUL WEISBERG, DAVID W. WINKLER, AND LISA ZANDER Learning that occurs in a field setting is a powerful experience that promotes the development of new generations of creative scientists, enhances environmental literacy, and instills social responsibility in our citizens. Institutional challenges to field studies include decreasing financial resources and increasing regulatory concerns. These are coupled with changing student interests, in particular the growing misconception that field study is not relevant to many biological careers. Collectively, these factors contribute to a significant decline in field-study opportunities for students and lack of pedagogical guidance for instructors interested in conducting field courses. Nature and culture are inextricably linked, and we all benefit from including diverse backgrounds and perspectives in field experiences. We suggest expanding the definition of “the field” to include human-influenced ecosystems, as well as more conventional natural habitats. More than ever, the world needs the passion, insight, and wisdom that come from field studies. Keywords: field biology, field studies, education, environmental science, natural history, experiential education ore than 70 years ago, Aldo Leopold (2013 environment, in which the phenomena that they study occur. M [1938]) decried the loss of field studies in biology As the capacity to modify biological systems expands from education. The subsequent decades have only amplified genomes to ecosystems to global cycles, it is imperative that this decline. For example, within the past 20 years, both scientists and the broader public are able to critically evalu- Schmidly (2005) and Hafner (2007) described the signifi- ate the outcomes of these changes in the context of complex cant loss of field-based opportunities in mammalogy, and natural settings. Within academia, this need also applies to Wilcove and Eisner (2000) described the “impending extinc- the educators charged with training future generations of tion of natural history.” More recently, a group of prominent problem-solvers (Pauly 1995). In summary, field studies are British biologists published a call to arms warning that an essential component of every scientist’s training. “the decline in field biology skills in the UK has reached There is already a growing disconnect between the recog- crisis point” (Warren 2015). Clearly, the concerns voiced by nized importance of field experiences and the increasingly Leopold are more relevant than ever. limited opportunities for gaining relevant field-based train- Field-based education is particularly critical to the biolog- ing (Barrows et al. 2016). As Mogk and Goodwin (2012) ical sciences, providing fundamental training for key disci- noted, “the field setting is one of the important crucibles plines such as behavior, ecology, evolution, systematics, and where science and scientists codevelop.” Geoscientists in the conservation science (Eisner 1982, Wilson 1982, Fleischner United States (Mogk and Goodwin 2012) and bioscientists 2005, Baggott and Rayne 2007). Field studies underlie the in the United Kingdom (Smith 2004, Boyle et al. 2007, Scott conceptual and technical bases for these disciplines and are et al. 2012, 2013, Lambert and Reiss 2014) have already required to ensure their healthy growth. Now, as society taken steps to address this problem. By comparison, biolo- struggles to respond appropriately to losses of biodiversity, gists in the United States have made little effort to counter range shifts due to climate change, and the emergence of the decline in field experiences in science education. new human pathogens, the decline in opportunities for field With these concerns in mind and with support from the study means that subsequent generations of biologists will be National Science Foundation, in March 2016, we convened increasingly divorced from the primary setting, the natural a working group of researchers and educators with the BioScience 67: 558–567. © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix036 Advance Access publication 5 May 2017 558 BioScience • June 2017 / Vol. 67 No. 6 http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org Education purpose of addressing three questions concerning the future information collected by observational approaches in the of field-based education in biology: (1) Why are field-based field (Sagarin and Pauchard 2010). In short, field observa- educational experiences important to advancing biological tions reveal patterns that inspire explanation and that in knowledge? (2) What challenges threaten opportunities for many cases lead to the construction of formal hypotheses to students to engage in field-based educational experiences? explain natural phenomena. And (3) how can we enhance field-based pedagogies in biol- Field study also promotes the development of place- ogy? Here, we explore each of these questions and offer sug- based understanding (Billick and Price 2011). In part, this gestions about how best to ensure that future generations of is because students who engage in field experiences have biologists will be able to engage in the seminal experiences greater opportunity to cultivate the critical connections to that occur in field settings. real places that transform abstract concepts into tangible realities (figure 1). This outcome is not limited to biologi- Definitions cally defined locations but extends to the cultural, social, We distinguish between three overlapping terms that, col- and political settings in which field studies occur (van lectively, represent the intersection between nature and Eijck 2010). Sense of place (Stegner 1992) can be a pow- the in situ learner. Natural history encompasses a broad erful motivator for learning and stewardship (Robertson range of definitions (summarized in Fleischner 2005), all of et al. 2015, Haywood et al. 2016); therefore, individuals which share the central theme of the direct observation and who become strongly connected to a specific setting tend description of organisms, communities, and habitats, includ- to become more effective advocates for all elements of that ing attentiveness to associated geology, hydrology, and other environment. physical factors. Field biology is rooted in natural history On an individual level, field studies often spark a “sense but typically places greater emphasis on using observational of wonder” (Carson 1965, Dayton and Sala 2001) that and experimental data to advance conceptual models and can launch students on a path of discovery-based science, theory. Biologists should be cautious about dichotomizing resulting in lifelong commitment to careers in natural, natural history and field biology (Greene 2005), however, environmental, and medical science. Field experiences, in because the two are closely intertwined and observations particular residential and other immersive experiences, also of natural systems provide a foundation for more concept- provide unparalleled opportunities for the development of driven studies of biology. Finally, field studies encompass a intra- and interpersonal skills that are crucial to effective wider range of disciplines—biology, geology, anthropology, leadership. Such experiences can lead to greater interaction and humanities—each of which may require developing between the affective and the cognitive, thereby providing essential competencies needed to live and work in outdoor a bridge to higher-order learning (Rickinson et al. 2004). settings, as well as more specialized skills relevant to the spe- The unpredictability and unfamiliarity of field conditions cific discipline and line of inquiry. Although our expertise challenge students to become more independent, resource- is in biology, as science educators interested in maximizing ful, self-confident, and self-aware (Boyle et al. 2007, Lu benefits for all students, we emphasize the importance of 2015). Because students often interact with individuals field studies, because this term includes natural history and from diverse backgrounds while in the field, they encounter more hypothesis-driven exploration of multiple scientific values and worldviews that they might not otherwise expe- disciplines. rience. In short, field settings provide crucial opportunities for students to learn from one another. Away from their The importance of field education accustomed environments, students are often more receptive The value of field study is vast: Field experiences create not to novel experiences, and sharing time in the field cements only better science but also better scientists, citizens, and collaborations and strengthens professional and personal people, thereby substantially affecting the human–nature communities. Moreover, there is clear evidence that field relationships that form the basis for sustainability (Fleischner courses contribute to improved academic performance 2011, Mogk and Goodwin 2012, Tewksbury et al. 2014, and cognitive learning in undergraduate biology students Barrows et al. 2016). Ecologist Paul Dayton (2011) has noted (Easton and Gilburn 2012). that “there is simply no substitute