Background: Outdoor environmental education (OEE) is an effective learning approach that helps prepare students to address the complex problems currently facing our world. Integral theory (IT) is a comprehensive framework that acknowledges the interconnectedness between self, society, and the environment. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the presence of four categories derived of IT – subjective, objective, intersubjective, interobjective – within OEE and to investigate the extent to which outdoor environmental educators consider learning experiences as a contribution to integral development. Methodology: Using discourse analysis, we analyzed 23 interviews from twelve outdoor environmental educators. We employed a deductive approach as we looked for evidence of IT categories and then adopted an inductive approach while analyzing participants’ discourse for general patterns related to IT and integral human development. Findings: The four categories of IT are illustrated within OEE experiences to varying degrees of representation. Outdoor environmental educators consider learning experiences as a contribution to integral development, regularly employing systems thinking, and mindfulness, among others. Implications: The findings from our study indicate a connection between OEE, teacher sensemaking, and integral education. Furthermore, OEE can be a way to facilitate integral human development, contributing to future understandings within education fields.
Association for Experiential Education. (n.d.). What is experiential education?Association for Experiential Education. https://www.aee.org/what-is-experiential-education
2.
BeamesS.HigginsP. J.NicolR. (2012). Learning outside the classroom: Theory and guidelines for practice. Routledge.
3.
BolickC. M.GlazierJ.StuttsC. (2020). Disruptive experiences as tools for teacher education: Unearthing the potential of experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education, 43(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825919877212
4.
DeanS. (2022). A phenomenological study of the lived experiences of teachers who implement outdoor/environmental education within a K-12 setting [Doctoral dissertation]. George Mason University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
5.
DeJaynesT.CortesT.HoqueI. (2020). Participatory action research in schools: Unpacking the lived inequities of high-stakes testing. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 19(3), 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-10-2019-0136
6.
DeringerS. A. (2017). Mindful place-based education: Mapping the literature. Journal of Experiential Education, 40(4), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825917716694
ElpelT. J. (2002). Participating in nature: Thomas J. Elpel's field guide to primitive living skills. Hops Press.
9.
Esbjörn-HargensS. (2005b). Integral ecology: The what, who, and how of environmental phenomena. World Futures, 61(1-2), 5–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604020590902344
10.
Esbjörn-HargensS. (2005). Integral education by design: How integral theory informs teaching, learning, and curriculum in a graduate program. ReVision, 28(3), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.3200/REVN.28.3.21-29
11.
FaircloughN. (2012). Critical discourse analysis. In GeeJ. P.HandfordM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 9–20). Routledge.
12.
FenstermacherG. D. (1986). Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 37–49). Macmillan.
GallifaJ. (2018c). Holonic theory and holistic education. Journal of International Education and Practice, 1(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.30564/jiep.v1i1.415
17.
GallifaJ. (2019a). Integral thinking and its application to integral education. Journal of International Education and Practice, 2(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.30564/jiep.v2i1.603
18.
GallifaJ. (2019b). Circular-axial representation of human evolution and development in the integral theory: Educational implications. Journal of Education and Development, 3(1), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.20849/jed.v3i1
GrimwoodB. S. R.GordonM.StevensZ. (2018). Cultivating nature connection: Instructor narratives of urban outdoor education. Journal of Experiential Education, 41(2), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825917738267
22.
HigginsP.NicolR. (2002). Outdoor education: Authentic learning in the context of landscapes (Volume 2). Kinda Education Centre.
23.
ItinC. M. (1999). Reasserting the philosophy of experiential education as a vehicle for change in the 21st century. Journal of Experiential Education, 22(2), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382599902200206
24.
JamesJ. K.WilliamsT. (2017). School-based experiential outdoor education: A neglected necessity. Journal of Experiential Education, 40(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825916676190
25.
JuckerR.von AuJ. (2022). Outdoor learning—why it should be high up on the agenda of every educator. In JuckerR.von AuJ. (Eds.), High-Quality outdoor learning (pp. 1–26). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04108-2_1
26.
KeganR. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Harvard University Press.
KolbA. Y.KolbD. A. (2009). Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach to management learning, education and development. In FukamiC.AmstrongS. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of management learning, education and development (pp. 42–68). Sage Publications.
29.
LeeE.-Y.LannoyL. d.LiL.BarrosM. I. A. d.BentsenP.BrussoniM.CromptonL.FiskumT. A.GuerreroM.HallåsB. O.HoS.JordanC.LeatherM.MannionG.MooreS. A.SandseterE. B. H.SpencerN. L. I.WaiteS.WangP.-Y.ZoricaM. (2022). Play, learn, and teach outdoors—network (PLaTO-net): Terminology, taxonomy, and ontology. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 19(66), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-022-01294-0
NicholsS. L. (2016). High-stakes testing and students’ developing motivation. In WentzelK. R.RamaniG. B. (Eds.), Handbook of social influences in school contexts: Social-emotional, motivation, and cognitive outcomes (pp. 312–328). Taylor and Francis Group.
OrdJ.LeatherM. (2011). The substance beneath the labels of experiential learning: The importance of John Dewey for outdoor educators. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 15(2), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03400924
38.
PradhanP.CostaL.RybskiD.LuchtW.KroppJ. P. (2017). A systematic study of sustainable development goal interactions. Earth's Future, 5(11), 1169–1179. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000632
39.
QuayJ. (2003). Experience and participation: Relating theories of learning. Journal of Experiential Education, 26(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590302600208
40.
RobertsB. (2015). Education for a different world: How international education responds to change. In HaydenM.LevyJ.ThompsonJ. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research in international education (pp. 88–107). Sage Publications.
41.
RogersR. (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. In An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 31–48). Routledge.
42.
SauvéL. (2005). Currents in environmental education: Mapping a complex and evolving pedagogical field. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 10(1), 11–37. https://cjee.lakeheadu.ca/article/view/175/9
43.
ScoginS. C.KrugerC. J.JekkalsR. E.SteinfeldtC. (2017). Learning by experience in a standardized testing culture: Investigation of a middle school experiential learning program. Journal of Experiential Education, 40(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825916685737
44.
SeamanJ. (2008). Experience, reflect, critique: The end of the ‘learning cycles’ era. Journal of Experiential Education, 31(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590803100103
45.
SharmaR.MonteiroS. (2016). Creating social change: The ultimate goal of education for sustainability. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 6(1), 72–76. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2016.V6.621
46.
ShellmanA. (2014). Empowerment and experiential education: A state of knowledge paper. Journal of Experiential Education, 37(1), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825913518896
47.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387
48.
StarksH.BrownT. S. (2007). Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1372–1380. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307307031
49.
StavrianosA. (2016). Green inclusion: Biophilia as a necessity. British Journal of Special Education, 43(4), 416–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12155
50.
SterlingS. (2004). Higher education, sustainability, and the role of systemic learning. In CorcoranP. B.WalsA. E. J. (Eds.), Higher education and the challenge of sustainability: Problematics, promise, and practice (pp. 49–70). Springer Dordrecht.
Van DijkT. A. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. In TannenD.HamiltonH. E.SchiffrinD. (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 466–485). Wiley.
53.
WalkerR.ClaryR. M.WissehrC. (2017). Embedding sustainability instruction across content areas: Best classroom practices from informal environmental education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 65(2), 185–193. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1143143
ZylstraM.EslerK.KnightA.Le GrangeL. (2019). Integrating multiple perspectives on the human-nature relationship: A reply to Fletcher 2017. The Journal of Environmental Education, 50(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2018.1497582
