Shelburne Farms
Middle School Geology
Program Evaluation
Final Report
January 2002
Peter Bullock
Amy Powers
Shelburne Farms
Report of results and recommendations for a program evaluation conducted in Fall 2000.
1
Shelburne Farms
Middle School Geology Program Evaluation
January 2002
Introduction
Shelburne Farms’ is dedicated to cultivating a conservation ethic by teaching and demonstrating
the stewardship of natural and agricultural resources. In fulfilling this mission the School
Programs are designed to increase students’ and teachers’ awareness and appreciation of
Vermont’s environment. They are also designed to address Vermont’s Framework of Standards
and Learning Opportunities and to provide a connection to classroom work. Programs are
conducted for pre-school through middle school students as well as for pre-service and
experienced educators.
Since 1978 the field trip program has offered teachers the opportunity to extend their students’
classroom studies with hands-on day visits to the farm. The programs include age appropriate
activities that are designed to develop skills and knowledge necessary for an individual to make
informed decisions; to develop effective communication skills; and to provide experiences that
lead an individual to develop a sense of one's place and comfort with multi-disciplinary, realworld experiences. The structure of this program has varied throughout the years. Currently,
most teachers bring their class to Shelburne Farms for a one-day, onsite field trip experience.
The main purposes of this study are three-fold: 1.) to determine if the Middle School Geology
field trip effectively meets the learning objectives (see below); 2.) to evaluate the benefits of
conducting professional development for teachers linked to the geology field trip theme; and 3)
to evaluate the benefit of a school visit (known as a pre-visit) prior to the field trip. (See
appendix A for pre-visit outline.)
The results of this study are intended to help the education staff design future programs based on
a solid understanding of what educational content, methodologies and practices best accomplish
Shelburne Farms’ mission.
Objectives for the Geology Field Trip:
 Students will name and identify the three types of rocks: igneous, sedimentary, and
metamorphic.
 Students will demonstrate the rock cycle.
 Students will discover, identify, and classify rocks found on our beaches.
 Students will explore the geologic history of our region.
 Students will be introduced to the basic geologic processes that formed our region.
 Students will simulate some of the weathering effects on rocks.
 Students will search for and investigate fossils as evidence to historic geologic
events.
(See Appendix B for field trip outline, including Vermont’s Framework of Standards
addressed.)
2
Evaluation Questions
Several instruments were designed to assist us answer the following questions:
1. Does implementation of a one-day middle school geology field trip meet the established
learning objectives?
2. Are learning objectives better met when the classroom teacher has participated in a prior
professional development experience pertaining to the field trip subject?
3. Are learning objectives better met when a pre-visit to their classroom is provided before the
field trip?
4. Are learning objectives best met (significant gains) when all three educational methods
(professional development, pre-visit and field trip) are utilized?
Methods
Participants:
 Seven schools (Representing 11 classrooms, 222 students, grades 3-6)
 Shelburne Community School (3rd-4th grade, 44 students)
 Chamberlin Middle School (5th grade, 48 students)
 St. Joseph’s School (5th grade, 22 students)
 Swanton Middle School (5th – 6th grade, 46 students)
 South Burlington Central School (4th grade, 38 students)
 Hinesburg Middle School (4th grade, 15 students)
 Bellwether Middle School (4th – 5th grade, 8 students)
 Shelburne Farms


staff and volunteers
Seven full time year round staff
Five full time education apprentices
Program Evaluation Sequence:
 Professional Development: Staff from Shelburne Farms conducted one-day teacher workshop
specific to geology 3-5 months prior to the field trip.
 Pre-Test: Staff from Shelburne Farms visited each class approximately one-week prior to
field trip and administered a two-page test, surveying their knowledge of geology.
 Pre-Visit: Staff from Shelburne Farms led hands on activities suitable for classroom on rock
types after pre-test. (See Appendix A)
 Field Trip Interviews: Students were orally surveyed in groups of 8-12 immediately before
and after field trip.
 Daily Comment Sheet: Written survey for staff to report conditions and experiences after
teaching each field trip.
 Post Test: One month after the field trip, staff from Shelburne Farms visited each class
again, administering an identical two-page survey as in the pre-test.
 Post Post Trip Interview: Five students per class were interviewed one month after the field
trip.
 Teacher Interview: Teacher was interviewed individually one month after the field trip.
 Final Survey for Shelburne Farms Leaders: Written survey for staff leaders to share their
reflections, experiences, and recommendations after teaching geology field trip.
3

Survey for Shelburne Farms Staff: Written survey for staff to add their insights, thoughts,
observations, and recommendations after reviewing the data.
(See Appendix C for a more detailed evaluation sequence and copies of the instruments
used.)
Results
Attached are seven summary tables. See Appendix D.
They include:







Program Evaluation Planning Form
Pre and Post Test Comparisons by Class
Pre and Post Test Comparisons by Grade
Pre and Post Test Comparisons for All Classes, All Grades
Pre and Post Test Comparisons for Field Trips, Pre-Visits, and Professional
Development
Data Sheet for Staff Daily Comments
Pre and Post Test Comparisons for Implicit Objectives
Data Sheet for Pre and Post Student Interviews
Data Sheet for Post Post Student Interviews
Data Sheet for Teacher Interviews
Limitations of the Study
Several limitations in methodology and in the study sample make it difficult to answer the
evaluation questions. The test survey, for one, is not worded consistently in the manner the previsit and the field trip were presented to students. This inconsistency may have provided for
student responses out of context with what was discussed on the field trip, though the survey was
expected to reflect that discussion. It is also apparent that most of the objectives of the field trip
are not clear learning expectations. In regard to objective six, one staff member noted, “from
observing during field trip probably 95% of kids did simulate weathering,” and another added,
“kids are doing it, experiencing it.” Since the objectives cannot be formally assessed, this
evaluation has focused on the implicit learning students are expected to gain by participating in
activities on the field trip. It is highly recommended that in the future objectives be stated in
terms of those implicit learning expectations, whereas the activities of the field trip outline are
designed in meeting them.
This study also lacks a varied group of participants, i.e. classes of the same grade level that
experienced all three educational methods, the field trip, the pre-visit, or professional
development. On the other hand, such diverse experiences within the same grade level are not
representative of classes that attend Shelburne Farms, nor possible with the small study sample.
This does not allow for clear trends between the three educational methods under study and
grade level to emerge. However, not surprisingly, there is a correlation between class
performance and grade level (See pre and post test comparisons in Appendix D.) This has
clouded the success of classes that fall into the significant gains category since they are
comprised of significantly older students and do not have a younger counterpart to compare their
achievements.
4
Fifth grade, though, is a blatant exception to the rule. Most fifth grade classes, though on average
the highest achievers for pre test scores, and not indicative of trends in grade, displayed below
average knowledge gains on every single question. In this case, class performance is a major
issue. As has been suggested above, a trend is extant by grade level, and for fifth grade to be the
exception to that trend cannot be explained by characteristics of fifth graders, but of the classes
that represented them. Indeed, it was not one fifth grade class that brought down pre-visit or
professional development group performance, but three of the five fifth grade classes performed
well below average, below all third and fourth grade classes. Their low performance seriously
taints the data generated on the influence of pre-visit and professional development experiences.
Similarly, the study group is also limited since no teacher participated in the professional
development whose class did not benefit from a pre-visit as well. This has made
recommendations to continue one contingent upon the other.
Other limitations are due to the nature of qualitative data, which describes rather than measures
understanding or knowledge gathered by certain experiences. However, it best captures the
varying quality of field trip conditions such as weather, timing, group size, and behavioral
distractions, all which contribute to different experiences and learning. Of final note, this study is
uniquely limited in having been planned and implemented by one group of people, yet analyzed
by another.
Discussion
Meeting the Expectations of the Field Trip
Seven schools representing a total of eleven classes took part in the Middle School Geology field
trip program. Teacher interviews all portray satisfaction with the content of the field trip and in
meeting their expectations. One teacher suggested a more in-depth focus on the history of
geologic processes in Vermont, but otherwise disappointment was focused on weather conditions
at the waterfront. Though one school’s visit was brought indoors due to rain, it should be noted
that staff and teachers at times identified different factors to blame on the days when the wind or
the temperature presented a challenge. One teacher attributed morning inattentiveness with “too
much sitting for too long” at a cold temperature as a flaw in program structure. Yet writing
independently about the same group and weather conditions, one staff leader noted: “windy and
cold, kids not dressed appropriately,” and another, “it was a beautiful day, environmentally the
conditions were ideal.” This should highlight the importance of communicating to teachers the
necessity of bringing children prepared for all types of weather, and also the usefulness of
alternative, sheltered areas in which to learn. Some groups that had to miss out on outdoor
activities suffered in ways that may have affected their learning. Staff lamented, “we were inside
which I feel definitely affects the quality of the day,” and “…There were more distractions.”
Staff should be prepared to teach effectively in an alternative indoors setting, even if it is less
ideal.
Overall the field trip was labeled a success; “I didn’t need to teach how rocks are formed because
they got it on the Field Trip,” a fourth grade teacher observed. Another shared that “after the
field trip, the students began to bring in rocks and ask what kind they are. I’ve seen some
classification and sorting, especially in the few days right after the field trip.” Another gave
5
notice “when writing legends back in class [students] used vocabulary from the field trip such as
metamorphic, pressure, shale, and limestone.”
Conclusions from staff were also positive. All viewed that the implicit learning expectations
specified in objective one were met. Yet staff felt that the other objectives were met through
participating in the field trip. This input from the staff would suggest that learning expectations
and objectives be synonymous and clearly stated, and that staff might benefit from a discussion
about the relationship of the objectives and activities before teaching the program.
Pre interviews were sprinkled with lots of comments on rocks, such as granite (one classroom
visited a quarry before the field trip: “they cut granite with a diamond saw”) and minerals,
precious stones (“people like diamonds for jewelry”), or incomplete knowledge of geologic
processes (“rocks dissolve into water”). After the field trip, children report knowing “it takes one
million years for granite to get hot enough; one million years to cool down.” They also report
“how rocks are changed by weather…” that “fast moving water makes rocks smaller,” and recall
learning “how Pangea broke up” and “how Adirondacks were formed by plates pushed together.”
Clearly, their understanding of geology have moved beyond a familiarity of geologic terms to a
functional understanding of geologic processes.
Meeting Specific Field Trip Objectives
Objective 1) Students will name and identify the three types of rocks: igneous, sedimentary, and
metamorphic
Classes that had not benefited from a pre-visit nor had a teacher who had participated in a
professional development workshop, displayed the least amount of knowledge concerning rock
types, their names, or how to identify them. When asked to name one new thing they had learned
on the field trip, most students shared that they had gained an understanding of rock types. One
explained how “[it] takes heat and pressure to turn into metamorphic rock,” and another added
“marble is a metamorphic rock.” Regarding sedimentary rocks, a lot had learned that pressure
can combine small particles together. Though their comments about the new things they had
learned and their answers on the post test surveys did not delve deeper into how small particles
may be piled on top of each other (such as sediment loads in rivers and their settling in ponds,
lakes, and oceans), classes that only benefited from the field trip made significant leaps in their
understanding in this area. For instance they new nothing at all (0%) about sedimentary rocks
before the field trip, and next to nothing about metamorphic rocks, and in these subjects
displayed their greatest increases in comprehension. More knew about igneous rock before the
field trip, yet made strides in this area as well.
One fourth grade student reported in the Post Post Student Interviews: “I used to just like rocks
because they were interesting and now I look at them and ask if they are igneous, metamorphic
or sedimentary and I have all these questions about them…” Data for all classes indicates that
objective one regarding the three rock types was the most successful objective met, regardless of
pre-visit or professional development impact. During the teacher interviews one teacher shared
that her classroom was “writing Porqua stories, and when I mentioned a rock type off hand, a
student corrected me on my rock terminology. I had said the wrong type and he was thinking
back to the field trip.”
6
Objective 2) Students will demonstrate the rock cycle
Objective two is similar to objective one, and correlates to an activity on the field trip called
Rock Cycle Roll, where students roll a die that is labeled with three different rock formation
conditions and others that describe inactivity (much like geologic time). Their job is to travel
from one classification of rock to another according to the changes that take place to them
described by the die. On the data sheet for Pre and Post Interviews this activity is a favorite to
students, second only to weathering experiments. One teacher reports: “I could tell they grasped
the rock cycle through playing the dice game because when we reviewed for our test they
referred to the rock cycle changes.” Another teacher adds, “the Rock Cycle Roll game got them
to catch on to the idea that rocks change form.” One student explained how “metamorphic can
turn into igneous and igneous to metamorphic.”
Objective 3) Students will discover, identify, and classify rocks found on our beaches
Evidence of student’s ability to identify and classify rocks, and their enthusiasm for discovering
them abound in the interviews with both students and teachers. One teacher commented that “we
had collected rocks before the field trip, and they expressed interest in going back to the
collections to identify the rock types. After the field trip they looked more closely at their
collections.” In the Post Post Student Interview, one child confesses that “I hadn’t noticed rocks
before… and after the field trip rocks really stood out when we went hiking. I found five kinds:
limestone, coal, shale with calcite, quartz and two I didn’t know.” Another recalls “At Lessor’s
Quarry, before they told us the rock types I tried in my mind to identify them. Sometimes you
can see layers and know its sedimentary.” Two students also made poignant attempts to share
what they had learned with their family. One “told [my parents] about each of the rock types and
it was new to them.” Another “brought home five different kinds of rocks and set them all over
the supper table…” It was also clear in post interviews right after the field trip that many
children were beginning to think of rocks by the three major types, and even to begin to classify
them by age. In one group that had spent time discussing the lake and the slate and calcite rocks
along the beach, one student recalled, “some of these rocks are 450 million years old,” while
another student remarked that others were formed 100 million years ago.
Objective 4) Students will explore the geologic history of our region; AND
Objective 5) Students will be introduced to the basic geologic processes that formed our region
Objectives four and five refer to activities that were designed to impart knowledge about the
geologic history and processes that formed our region. Third and fourth students who
participated only in the field trip made a huge leap in their awareness of such events, providing a
30% increase in their average score. Increased knowledge of natural events was also the second
highest category of gain in consideration of all class and student responses. One student shared
that they “look at mountains not just as mountains but how big they might have been before the
glacier went over Vermont, and gullies aren’t just holes but where glaciers carried big rocks and
pressed down on the land.” Another “[camped in the Adirondacks and] told my family how the
mountains were formed and about the rock types.”
Objective 6) Students will simulate some of the weathering effects on rocks
It was clear that many students did not differentiate between the simulation involved in the
weathering experiments and how weathering is a natural process. Student responses bring more
7
to light. Some displayed a clear understanding of the relationship between the simulations and
real conditions as they recounted what they had shared with family, and “told about our
experiment where we put pebbles and big rocks in a water bottle. If we had waited a million
years it might have broken down all the way like real waves in water hitting rocks.” Some told
their family “how little rocks were formed by wind and erosion and my mom and dad didn’t
know about that.” Teachers also noticed while “experimenting with erosion [on the field trip] I
saw them learning.” Children realized that “rocks rub against each other and they get smooth.”
Others did not make this clear distinction. One student “learned it’s easy to crush rocks,” and
many others on the test surveys checked “cows” as a force that weathered rocks.
Encouragingly, one of the classes that experienced a tremendous gain in their understanding of
weathering was a fourth and fifth grade class whose teacher included a unit on weather, and the
power of weather’s effects over time. During the year 2001 Middle School Geology program,
this correlation was discussed by staff and a possible solution was implemented by teaching
weathering using the term weather, not nature per se, and to ask students to describe how rocks
are changed by weather. The relevant implication is that students may have learned about how
weather affects rocks, but may have been confused about the difference between natural
weathering and other forces, such as hammers being pounded on rocks, or cows crushing slate
and shale under hoof.
Objective 7) Students will search for and investigate fossils as evidence to historic geologic
events
Objective seven was the least successful objective met. It does rank high on both pre and post
test scores, but increases on the post test survey suggest that the field trip did not contribute a
significant amount of knowledge. This may be indicative of the wording of the test survey.
Nevertheless, searching for and investigating fossils ranked next to last when children were
asked what activity they enjoyed most on the field trip. Clearly this objective should be rethought. Eliminating it would provide more time to spend on meeting other objectives, especially
geologic processes and history, which are objectives that staff commented were most important
to address. Otherwise, substantial learning occurred for only two classes. To include this
objective would require more stress on the study of fossils as records of the past, and could be
tied in with the history of Vermont, especially the Champlain Sea and Iapetus Ocean periods.
Effects of the Pre-Visits and Professional Development
A puzzling disparity in class performances, as noted above under “Limitations,” leads us to
believe that we are unable to fully answer evaluation questions regarding the benefit of pre-visits
and professional development accurately.
Out of eleven classes, four participated in the field trip without having a pre-visit or their teacher
participate in a professional development workshop. Seven participated in pre-visit classes and
three of these also participated in professional development with Shelburne Farms. These three
comprise the professional development group, and the remaining four the pre-visit group.
For classes that participated solely in the field trip their increase in knowledge was slightly above
average. In fact, a fourth grade class that had neither a pre-visit nor professional development
experience had the second to highest increase in knowledge on the test surveys. This
performance can be compared to fifth grade pre-visit classes who performed below average
8
overall. The remaining professional development classes (two fifth and one sixth grade class)
also performed below average, though two of the classes showed the highest gains.
In staff observations of the daily conditions for each class, three fifth grade classes all
experienced setbacks on their field trip. Two of the classes were moved indoors because of rain,
there were “big behavioral issues,” and large group sizes of fourteen were also cited as
disruptions to learning. Two staff also felt the history activity was compromised because they
themselves were unprepared. In another fifth grade class the field trip was categorized as
“rushed,” wherein many groups within the class did not participate in certain activities, namely
Rock Cycle Roll.
However, meaningful comparisons do exist. For instance, one staff member commented on one
of the above fifth grade classes, “I felt like the fact that I had met the students before hand [on
the pre-visit] and could refer to things I did in the classroom was helpful.” Pre and post
interviews all indicate that such reference did exist. Below more comparisons are examined to
gauge the benefit of the pre-visit experience and professional development workshop,
respectively.
Pre-Visits
Pre-visits were designed to address objective one: Students will name and identify the three
types of rocks: igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic. It was supposed that providing this
information on the pre-visit would address objective one, and also act as a foundation for
increased learning in other objectives that the field trip experience would expand upon.
This first supposition has proven true. In their responses during the pre interviews, administered
minutes before the field trip began, students that had received the pre-visit made four times as
many accurate statements regarding naming and identifying the three types of rocks than
students that came to the field trip without one. Responses were also more advanced in the previsit group. Classes that benefited solely from the field trip made comments such as:
“Sedimentary [rocks are] made of water, metamorphic [rocks are made of] old rocks, and
igneous [rocks are] from volcanoes,” or:
“Rocks can form from lava;”
“Igneous rocks are turned into one big rock;”
“Some rocks are made of sand smashed together;”
and: “igneous rocks are formed by rocks that are melted under the earth’s crust”
Alternatively, pre-visit classes informed their interviewers:
“Igneous is formed from cooling magma.”
“Sedimentary rock forms from bits of rock and dead plants.”
And: “metamorphic rock is formed by sedimentary rock under heat and pressure.”
On the other hand, there is no evidence that a pre-visit acted as a foundation for increased
learning in other objectives, though it is clear the pre-visit has bolstered objective one. One staff
member collaborates this, commenting in their final survey, “most students knew the three rock
types from [the] pre-visit.” With this in mind, pre-visit groups might benefit from an altered field
9
trip, one that recapitulates, rather than teaches, naming and identifying the three rock types. In
this way, the focus can shift to meeting the other objectives. At the same time, although objective
one was the strongest met, some children do not understand the three rock types. These
knowledge gaps might be recognized and filled were staff to quiz students during the field trip
and focus on questions or children that need more attention than others.
Professional Development
For a meaningful comparison between classes whose teacher participated in professional
development and those who benefited from the pre-visit and/or field trip only, it seems fair to
drop the drastically low performance of the worst class from the three that had benefited from
professional development and look closely at those two.
In that case, classrooms that participated in professional development and a pre-visit nearly outperformed the classes that came solely for a field trip and those that had a pre-visit in every
category. They did not do as well responding to question three on the test surveys, “how are
rocks naturally weathered?” which may be illuminated by the discussion above regarding
possible misinterpretation of the meaning of the word naturally. With this exception, the classes
that benefited from a professional development workshop were well rounded in their
performance, though classes that came solely for a field trip were equally well rounded, if not
achieving as high on the post test.
However, since grade does seem to play a role in performances, fifth grade withstanding, it is not
possible to accurately assess the higher achievement of the professional development classes as a
function of their exposure to a teacher who had participated in professional development, or from
their experience in a pre-visit. This group, comprised of fifth and sixth grade classes, was
expected to perform at a higher level.
The professional development workshop was expected to impact student learning through
curriculum enrichment, but it is not evident that such enrichment took place. Instead, teacher
interviews indicate that classrooms that participated solely in the field trip were those most
involved in curriculum that supported the themes on the field trip. They participated in a visit to
a quarry in Proctor, studied rock types in class, kept journals, studied minerals, followed along
with Miss Frizzle’s geology, and completed rock tests. This was all done in the month after the
field trip and before the post test survey. Alternatively, some pre-visit groups went to Lessor’s
Quarry, talked about fossils (not known in what context) and spent time on weather, weathering
and erosion. The only professional development class that reported curriculum related to the field
trip was the class that performed the poorest on the test surveys.
Ironically, field trip classes support the concept that curriculum enrichment relevant to the field
trip will bolster student learning in regard to all of the objectives, with the exception of learning
about fossils as records of the past. Yet, regardless of their expectation to do well, the superior
performance of the professional development classes suggest that professional development
continue.
On a similar note, there is evidence that pre-visits have lowered learning barriers in regard to
naming and identifying rock types, regardless of the bad experiences on the field trip and
10
subsequent performances on the test surveys. As suggested above, an altered field trip experience
for these classes that would focus more in depth on meeting other objectives may be produce
greater results. Also of note, though third and fourth graders made great leaps in this area of
knowledge, they particularly have much more room for learning. They are perfect candidates for
a pre-visit prior to the field trip.
Implicit Objectives Accomplished
“During the geologic time skit student faces were lighting up when they looked across and saw
the Adirondack mountains right there and saw that the mountains exist and the depression of
the lake was clear” - Karen Jette, teacher, St. Joseph’s
The heart of environmental education programs at Shelburne Farms is exposure to the natural
and agricultural resources that characterize its integrated forested and pastoral landscape.
Underlying all field trip expectations is that students will experience those resources first-hand
and become aware of their inter-relation to each other. Several of the field trip objectives address
this priority to engage with the natural and agricultural landscape.
Though some classes found themselves running late or deterred by cold and incessant rain,
feelings about learning geology outside along the lake increased by 11% and doing hands-on
experiments by 10%. It is a great indicator for Shelburne Farms that nearly nine in ten children
prefer to learn outdoors, and almost eight in ten prefer hands-on learning. In fact, our data
revealed that classrooms that least preferred learning about geology outdoors or learning through
hands-on experiments made the greatest reversals in their preferences after coming to Shelburne
Farms (See Appendix D: Pre and Post Test Comparisons for Implicit Objectives.)
Most students understood what geology was before the field trip, but by the end, for those who
did not, they had caught on. Similarly, classes that had not thought about the importance of rocks
before the field trip had a change of mind, and also established that the field trip does
communicate the value of rocks to people’s lives. In fact, this area of learning is beyond that
shown in knowledge gains regarding the importance of fossils. Since an activity that corresponds
to the importance of rocks (Rocks to Cheese) on the field trip is already practiced, it could be
added as an objective, or switched with that regarding fossils.
More poignantly, as the evaluation process continues, the central question that should be posed
of the educational programs is beyond meeting the outlined objectives. The question, before or
after the objectives are assessed, is: are the objectives of a one day field trip to Shelburne Farms
contributing to the mission of the farm: “to cultivate a conservation ethic.” The importance of
rocks to people’s lives, with the connections to sediments, weathering, erosion, glacial
topography, terrain, etc. could be very closely linked with stewardship values regarding soil
resources, protection and renewal.
Conclusion
11
It is apparent from the test surveys that students are aware that geology is the study of rocks and
landforms. However, there are varying levels of ability to identify rock types, explain geologic
processes, comprehend the subtle effects of weathering, or to realize that fossils are important
indicators of geologic events. On one hand teachers and staff agree that the objectives of the field
trip were successfully met. On the other hand, regardless of participating in a pre-visit or having
been influenced by a teacher that took part of a Shelburne Farms professional development
workshop, student performance varied.
Perhaps the field trip does not offer enough emphasis on the other objectives, rock types being at
the forefront of the field trip, the pre-visit, and the subject of curriculum enrichment. A
brainstorm about how to give the program more “flow,” or continuity, as might a story of
Vermont’s rocks provide an interest and overarching concept palpable to children. Rock types
are the basis of an understanding of the rock cycle, a major component of which is weathering,
but obviously geologic processes such as mountain building and volcanoes factor in as well. For
instance, plate tectonics are the flesh and blood of geologic processes and account for the major
natural events that have shaped Vermont except glaciation. The concept of cooler, solid rocks
moving over the molten core of the Earth could be simple to illustrate and form the basis for
discussing how the history of their movement has shaped Vermont’s geologic heritage.
One solution that has been discussed above is to work harder at providing the same learning,
regardless of weather conditions. Some students, however, though hosted in ideal conditions, did
not make significant gains. One correlation that can be made between increased learning and pretest scores suggest that some classes of generally higher knowledge levels were not challenged
by new information. Perhaps more staff training in geology could better prepare Shelburne
Farms leaders for these more advanced students. The recommendation to regularly quiz children
on the field trip is also pertinent here, and with more flexibility in regard to the kind and depth of
activities offered on the field trip, more student needs could be met.
Nevertheless, while this data cannot guide us to a full understanding of the benefits of
professional development and/or pre-visits, there does exist evidence that these two approaches
are successful. As data on some classes has illustrated, school activities and/or lessons that are
oriented to the field trip can have a tremendous impact on cultivating an understanding of the
topics outlined by the field trip objectives. The pre-visit also has proven to be an effective
method for teaching the three rock types and how to identify them. With restructuring to
acknowledge this effectiveness of the pre-visit, the field trip may also become more effective in
meeting other objectives by giving them more attention. In any case, the absence of either previsits or professional development (in any form conducive to curriculum enrichment) should be
expected to decrease, rather than increase, the effectiveness of the middle school geology field
trip program at Shelburne Farms.
Recommendations

Learning expectations and objectives should be synonymous and clearly stated.
Objectives should reflect learning expectations and not activities. Staff should also
discuss the relevance, interpretation, and guidelines of objectives before teaching
the program.
12

Eliminate objective seven, “Students will search for and investigate fossils as
evidence to historic geologic events” and provide more time to spend on meeting other
objectives, especially geologic processes and history, which are objectives that staff
commented were most important to address. Otherwise require more stress on the
study of fossils as records of the past and as evidence to historic geologic events.
This subject could be tied in with the history of Vermont, especially the Champlain Sea
and Iapetus Ocean periods.

The importance of rocks (Rocks to Cheese) could be added as an objective, or
switched with the objective regarding fossils. The importance of rocks to people’s
lives, with the connections to sediments, weathering, erosion, glacial topography, terrain,
etc. could also be closely linked with stewardship values regarding soil resources,
protection and renewal.

Staff should teach the weathering effects on rocks using the term weather and not
nature. Since weathering is an integral part of the rock cycle, and a concept in climatic
change, glaciation, and surficial geology, the subject of weathering is a worthy objective
that may avoid confusion with forces used in weathering experiments by presenting the
activity in terms of simulating weather.

As the evaluation process continues, the question that should be posed of the educational
programs is beyond meeting the outlined objectives. The question, before or after the
objectives are assessed, is: are the objectives of a one day field trip to Shelburne
Farms contributing to the mission of the farm: “to cultivate a conservation ethic?”

Teachers should be made aware of the necessity of bringing children prepared for
all types of weather. Just as importantly, staff should be prepared to teach effectively in
an alternative indoors setting, even if it is less ideal. A brainstorm should occur to
think of ways to effectively teach indoors and to prepare resources for such an
event.

After assessment tools and methodology have been chosen, staff should evaluate
hypothetical results to create a clearer interpretation of possible findings.

When visiting Shelburne Farms, classes who had a pre-visit should recapitulate, rather
than be taught, naming and identifying of the three rock types. Evidence exists that
students are learning about rock types during the pre-visit but the current field trip
experience does not teach them as much about other objectives. This would suggest that
the focus of a field trip for classes that have participated in a pre-visit should shift
to meeting the other objectives. Since much is learned on the pre-visit about the three
rock types, and third and fourth graders have the most to learn about them, they are the
most suitable candidates for a pre-visit experience.

Though the field trip program is increasing knowledge in all areas, it may be very
effective to recognize and fill knowledge gaps were staff to assess students during
the field trip and focus on questions or children that need more attention than others.
13

Curriculum ideas relevant to the objectives of the field trip should be provided to
all those teachers whose classes participate. There is evidence that classes that did not
receive a pre-visit and whose teachers did not experience a professional development
workshop, benefited from classroom work relevant to the field trip. Other classes may
benefit as well, and perhaps some extra tips and ideas in the pre-packet could extend the
effectiveness of the pre and post activities already provided. Topics such as weather,
fossils, plate tectonics and the rock cycle would be appropriate counterparts to the field
trip activities.

There is not enough emphasis on the other objectives, with rock types being at the
forefront of the field trip, the pre-visit, and the subject of curriculum enrichment. A
potential solution may be to tie in rock types and the rock cycle with the other
objectives by focusing on a geologic process(es) that encompass all of them. Rock
types are the basis of an understanding of the rock cycle, a major component to which is
weathering, but obviously mountain building and volcanoes factor in to the rock cycle
and the geologic heritage of Vermont. Since plate tectonics are the flesh and blood of
geologic processes and account for the major natural events that have shaped Vermont
except glaciation, studying plate tectonics may be a good solution. Consider subjects
like plate tectonics that could provide a story of rocks in Vermont for students to
follow, on the field trip and in school.
14
APPENDIX E:
References and Resources
Environmental Education:
Bennett, Dean B. (1988) Four Steps to Evaluating Environmental Education Learning
Experiences. Journal of Environmental Education, 20, 14-21.
Eagles, Paul F.J. and Robert Demare (1999) Factors Influencing Children’s Environmental
Attitudes. Journal of Environmental Education, 30, 33-37.
Falk, J.H. and Dierking, L.D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences
and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Farmer, Augustus J. and John A. Wott (1995) Field Trips and Follow-up Activities: Fourth
Graders in a Public Garden. Journal of Environmental Education, 27, 33-35.
Hines, Jody M. et. al. (1986-87) Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible
Environmental Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 18.
Hungerford, H.R., & Volk, T.L. (1990) Changing learner behavior thorough environmental
education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21, 8-21.
Keen, Meg (1991) The Effect of the Sunship Earth Program on Knowledge and Attitude
Development. Journal of Environmental Education, 22, 28-32.
Kiefer, Joseph and Martin Kemple. 1998. Digging Deeper: Integrating Youth Gardens Into
Schools and Communities. Vermont: Foodworks, chapter 8.
Leeming, Frank C. et. al. (1995) Children’s Environmental Attitude and Knowledge Scale:
Construction and Validation. Journal of Environmental Education, 26, 22-31.
Leeming, Frank C. et. al. (1993) Outcome Research in Environmental Education: A Critical
Review. Journal of Environmental Education, 24, 8-21.
Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Humberman. 1994. An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative
Data Analysis. California: Sage Publications.
Musser, Lynn M. and Amy J. Malkus. (1994) The Children’s Attitudes Toward the Environment
Scale. Journal of Environmental Education, 25, 22-26.
Evaluation:
Ward, Ted W. and Herzog, William A., Jr. (1974) Study Team Reports: Effective Learning In
15
Non-Formal Education. Program Of Studies in Non-Formal Education, Michigan State
University.
Websites:
The Evaluation Center:
http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/index.html
The Institute for Learning Innovation (ILI)
http://www.ilinet.org/
Michigan State University, Department of Agriculture and Extension Education website.
http://www2.ag.ohio-state.edu/~brick/
Basic Guide to Program Evaluation by Carter McNamara, PhD
http;//www.mapnp.org/library/evaluatn/fnl_eval.htm
Special thanks to Bo Hoppin of Antioch New England Graduate School, Eve Prannis of the
National Gardening Association, Ken Fishell of the University of Vermont, Ruth Copeman of the
Desert Botanical Garden and Megan Camp and Linda Wellings for their personnel
communication and guidance in the development of this project.
16