Arts, Faculty of
Geography, Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Jerowsky, Micheal
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
There is a long history of using outdoor field trips in the environmental education of children to facilitate the place-based, experiential approaches that are commonly applied in this field. However, the use of virtual and augmented reality has been steadily increasing as these technologies become more available. In this dissertation I conduct a mixed methods case study of classrooms in the Vancouver School District that differ in their walking access to areas of quality green space. I examine the comparative efficacy of these different types of field trips when promoting gains to environmental literacy, environmental attitudes, and connection to nature. Additionally, I explore how these interventions may help overcome barriers to teaching and learning when engaging with critical approaches to environmental education. I provide evidence that access to green space can influence the comparative efficacy of these interventions. However, these findings primarily relate to environmental literacy, as gains to environmental attitudes and connection to nature are minimal in this study. My interviews with students and teachers also found that the use of immersive media can help to overcome barriers related to a lack of access to quality green space. Further, virtual and augmented reality can promote engagement with environmental processes, plants, and animals that may be inaccessible when in the field. Relatedly, they may help to address a lack of environmental expertise among teachers who can use phone applications or embedded videos to support their teaching when providing interpretive nature walks. Finally, virtual and augmented field trips provide an opportunity to foreground the experiences of Indigenous community members or those of volunteers seeking to restore and protect natural areas. I suggest that teachers should integrate virtual, augmented, and outdoor field trips into their environmental education programs by carefully blending these tools based on their efficacy when promoting specific learning objectives or overcoming barriers to teaching and learning about the environment. I also provide a list of recommendations to support the use of these interventions across the Vancouver School District and focus on themes related to increasing access to quality green space, immersive technologies, and new learning materials.
COMPARING THE USE OF VIRTUAL, AUGMENTED, AND OUTDOOR FIELD TRIPS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION OF CHILDREN by Micheal Jerowsky B.A., The University of British Columbia, 2016 M.A., The University of British Columbia, 2019 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Geography) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) April 2024 © Micheal Jerowsky, 2024 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: Comparing the Use of Virtual, Augmented, and Outdoor Field Trips in the Environmental Education of Children submitted by Micheal Jerowsky in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography Examining Committee: Dr. Brian Klinkenberg, Professor Emeritus, Geography, UBC Supervisor Dr. Loch T. Brown, Associate Professor of Teaching, Geography, UBC Co-supervisor Dr. Nina Hewitt, Associate Professor of Teaching, Geography, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Dr. David Gaertner, Assistant Professor, Institute for Critical Indigenous Studies, UBC University Examiner Dr. Avi Lewis, Associate Professor, Geography, UBC University Examiner Additional Supervisory Committee Members: Dr. Mark Turin, Associate Professor, Anthropology, UBC Supervisory Committee Member iii Abstract There is a long history of using outdoor field trips in the environmental education of children to facilitate the place-based, experiential approaches that are commonly applied in this field. However, the use of virtual and augmented reality has been steadily increasing as these technologies become more available. In this dissertation I conduct a mixed methods case study of classrooms in the Vancouver School District that differ in their walking access to areas of quality green space. I examine the comparative efficacy of these different types of field trips when promoting gains to environmental literacy, environmental attitudes, and connection to nature. Additionally, I explore how these interventions may help overcome barriers to teaching and learning when engaging with critical approaches to environmental education. I provide evidence that access to green space can influence the comparative efficacy of these interventions. However, these findings primarily relate to environmental literacy, as gains to environmental attitudes and connection to nature are minimal in this study. My interviews with students and teachers also found that the use of immersive media can help to overcome barriers related to a lack of access to quality green space. Further, virtual and augmented reality can promote engagement with environmental processes, plants, and animals that may be inaccessible when in the field. Relatedly, they may help to address a lack of environmental expertise among teachers who can use phone applications or embedded videos to support their teaching when providing interpretive nature walks. Finally, virtual and augmented field trips provide an opportunity to foreground the experiences of Indigenous community members or those of volunteers seeking to restore and protect natural areas. I suggest that teachers should integrate virtual, augmented, and outdoor field trips into their environmental education programs by carefully blending these tools based on their efficacy when promoting specific learning objectives or overcoming barriers to teaching and learning about the environment. I also provide a list of recommendations to support the use of these interventions across the Vancouver School District and focus on themes related to increasing access to quality green space, immersive technologies, and new learning materials. iv Lay Summary I conduct a case study in the Vancouver School District, and compare how effective virtual, augmented, and outdoor field trips are when promoting the environmental education of children with different levels of walking access to quality green space. Importantly, I find that access to quality green space influences the comparative efficacy of these interventions. Additionally, immersive media can help overcome barriers related to a lack of access, subject matter expertise among teachers, and engagement with diverse perspectives when learning about the environment. They may also promote learning about plants, animals, or processes that are not typically available in the field. My findings support the blending of immersive media with outdoor learning in environmental education programs. This should be guided by their comparative efficacy when promoting specific learning objectives and their ability to address barriers related to teaching and learning about the environment. v Preface The following dissertation was completed under the supervision of Dr. Brian Klinkenberg and Dr. Loch T. Brown. Support and guidance were also provided by Dr. Nina Hewitt and Dr. Mark Turin. Micheal Jerowsky was the author of this dissertation and led its conceptualization, design, data collection, data analysis, and writing. The Vancouver School Board Research Committee issued their approval to commence this research on April 29th, 2022. The UBC Behavioral Research Ethics Board issued certificate H21-01182 on May 2nd, 2022 under the title “Comparing the Use of Virtual, Augmented, and Nature Walk-Based Field Trips in the Environmental Education of Children.” The research conducted for this dissertation has also influenced two publications: Jerowsky, M., Borda, A. (2022). Virtual reality can support and enhance outdoor environmental education. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/virtual-reality-can-support-and-enhance-outdoor-environmental-education-183579 Kalla, M., Jerowsky, M., Howes, B., Borda, A. (2022). Expanding Formal School Curricula to Foster Action Competence in Sustainable Development: A Proposed Free-Choice Project-Based Learning Curriculum. Sustainability, 14(23), 16315; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316315 vi Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iv Preface .............................................................................................................................................v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xi List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xii List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. xiii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xiv Dedication .....................................................................................................................................xv Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................1 1.1 Research Objectives and Overview ................................................................................ 2 1.2 Motivation for Research ................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Organization of Dissertation ........................................................................................... 5 1.4 Literature Review............................................................................................................ 7 1.4.1 Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality .................................................................. 7 1.4.1.1 Classifying VR and AR ...................................................................................... 9 1.4.1.2 Barriers to Using VR and AR in Environmental Education ............................. 14 1.4.2 Environmental Education and Associated Learning Objectives ........................... 15 1.4.2.1 Environmental Literacy .................................................................................... 17 1.4.2.2 Pro-Environmental Values, Attitudes and Connection to Nature ..................... 19 1.4.2.3 The Awareness to Action Continuum ............................................................... 22 1.4.3 Pedagogical Framework: Environmental Education and VR/AR ........................ 24 1.4.3.1 Experiential Learning ........................................................................................ 24 1.4.3.2 Critical Environmental Education ..................................................................... 27 1.4.3.3 Connectivist-Based Theories of Learning and Knowledge Integration ............ 30 1.4.4 Green Space and Environmental Education ......................................................... 32 1.4.4.1 Green Space ...................................................................................................... 33 1.4.4.2 Access to Green Space ...................................................................................... 35 vii 1.5 Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................... 37 Chapter 2: Methodology..............................................................................................................39 2.1 Study Area: The Vancouver School District ................................................................ 41 2.2 Field Trip Development and Deployment .................................................................... 42 2.2.1 Community-Based Development of Learning Materials ...................................... 42 2.2.2 Sourcing and Integration of Indigenous Learning Materials ................................ 43 2.2.3 Virtual Reality: Camosun Bog 360 ....................................................................... 46 2.2.4 Augmented Reality: Camosun Bog AR ................................................................ 47 2.2.5 Outdoor Education: Camson Bog Nature Walk .................................................... 48 2.3 Accessibility Analysis ................................................................................................... 48 2.3.1 Quality Analysis.................................................................................................... 49 2.3.2 Network Analysis.................................................................................................. 50 2.4 Participant Recruitment and Consent............................................................................ 51 2.5 Experimental Design ..................................................................................................... 52 2.6 Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 53 2.6.1 Field Trip Survey .................................................................................................. 54 2.6.2 Semi-Structured Field Interviews ......................................................................... 55 2.6.3 Field Notes ............................................................................................................ 56 2.7 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 57 2.7.1 Data Preparation, Factorial ANOVA, and Post-hoc Tests .................................... 57 2.7.2 Thematic Analysis and Grounded Theory ............................................................ 58 2.8 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 59 Chapter 3: Access to Quality Green Space for Environmental Education ............................62 3.1 Measuring Access to Quality Green Space in the Vancouver School District ............. 62 3.1.1 Land Cover Analysis: The Distribution of Quality Green Space ......................... 63 3.1.2 Network Analysis: Walking Access to Quality Green Space ............................... 67 3.2 Barriers to Accessing Quality Green Space in the Vancouver School District ............ 70 3.2.1 Transportation: Parent Drivers, Bus Charters, and Public Transit ........................ 70 3.2.2 Field Trip Administration: Permission, Safety, and A Lack of Teaching Support73 3.2.3 Disability: Physical Access and Teaching Support .............................................. 77 viii 3.3 “Making Do” with Low-Quality Green Space .............................................................. 78 3.4 Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................... 82 Chapter 4: Environmental Literacy and the Comparative Efficacy of VR, AR, and Outdoor Field Trips.....................................................................................................................................84 4.1 Survey Results and Statistical Analysis ........................................................................ 85 4.2 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 93 4.2.1 Access, Novelty Effects and Gains to Environmental Literacy ............................ 94 4.2.2 Promoting Functional Environmental Literacy in Students .................................. 97 4.2.3 Addressing Teaching Barriers Related to Functional Environmental Literacy .. 100 4.2.4 Promoting Cultural Environmental Literacy in Students .................................... 103 4.2.5 Addressing Teaching Barriers Related to Cultural Environmental Literacy ...... 106 4.3 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 112 Chapter 5: Environmental Attitudes, Connection to Nature and the Comparative Efficacy of VR, AR, and Outdoor Field Trips........................................................................................114 5.1 Environmental Attitudes: Preservation and Utilization of Nature .............................. 114 5.1.1 Survey Results and Statistical Analysis .............................................................. 115 5.1.2 Discussion ........................................................................................................... 119 5.1.2.1 Willingness to Volunteer ................................................................................ 120 5.1.2.2 Preservation and the Appreciative Utilization of Nature ................................ 124 5.2 Connection to Nature .................................................................................................. 125 5.2.1 Survey Results and Statistical Analysis .............................................................. 125 5.2.2 Discussion ........................................................................................................... 128 5.2.2.1 Designing for Presence and Mediating Experience ........................................ 128 5.2.2.2 Human-Bog Relations and Empathy .............................................................. 130 5.3 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 133 Chapter 6: Supporting the Integration of VR, AR, and Outdoor Field Trips .....................134 6.1 Blending VR, AR, and Outdoor Field Trips ............................................................... 134 6.1.1 Example 1: Kelly’s Classroom - High Access to Quality Green Space ............. 139 6.1.2 Example 2: Susan’s Classroom - Low Access to Quality Green Space ............. 141 6.2 Recommendations: Supporting the Use of VR, AR, and Outdoor Field Trips ........... 143 ix 6.2.1 Improving Access to Quality Green Space ......................................................... 144 6.2.2 Improving Access to Immersive Technologies ................................................... 148 6.2.3 Improving Access to Teaching Resources .......................................................... 151 6.3 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 154 Chapter 7: Concluding Remarks ..............................................................................................155 7.1 Summary of Contributions and Findings .................................................................... 155 7.2 Limitations and Opportunities for Future Research .................................................... 160 7.3 A Final Word .............................................................................................................. 162 Bibliography ...............................................................................................................................163 Appendices ..................................................................................................................................193 Appendix A Field Trip Survey ............................................................................................... 193 Appendix B List of Interview Participants ............................................................................. 196 Appendix C Semi-Structured Interview Guide ....................................................................... 197 Appendix D Environmental Literacy Grading Guide ............................................................. 200 Appendix E Thematic Coding ................................................................................................ 204 E.1 Student Interviews .................................................................................................. 204 E.2 Teacher Interviews .................................................................................................. 208 Appendix F : Quality Green Space in the VSD ...................................................................... 212 Appendix G : VSD Elementary Schools Ranked by Access to Quality Green Space ............ 213 Appendix H Pre-Test and Post-Test Scores – Bar Charts ....................................................... 216 H.1 Environmental Literacy .......................................................................................... 216 H.2 Functional Environmental Literacy ........................................................................ 217 H.3 Cultural Environmental Literacy ............................................................................ 218 H.4 Preservation of Nature ............................................................................................ 219 H.5 Utilization of Nature ............................................................................................... 220 H.6 Connection to Nature .............................................................................................. 221 Appendix I Pairwise Comparisons of Estimated Marginal Means: Difference Scores .......... 222 I.1 Environmental Literacy .......................................................................................... 222 I.2 Functional Environmental Literacy ........................................................................ 222 I.3 Cultural Environmental Literacy ............................................................................ 223 x I.4 Utilization of Nature ............................................................................................... 223 I.5 Connection to Nature .............................................................................................. 224 xi List of Tables Table 2.1: Percentage of Natural Land Cover in Parks Suggested by Reichstein (2018) ............ 50 Table 4.1: Summary Statistics – Environmental Literacy ............................................................ 85 Table 4.2: Factorial ANOVA (Type III): Environmental Literacy ............................................... 87 Table 4.3: Summary Statistics – Functional Environmental Literacy .......................................... 88 Table 4.4: Summary Statistics – Cultural Environmental Literacy .............................................. 88 Table 4.5: Factorial ANOVA (Type III): Functional Environmental Literacy ............................ 92 Table 4.6: Factorial ANOVA (Type III): Cultural Environmental Literacy ................................ 92 Table 5.1: Summary Statistics – Preservation of the Nature ...................................................... 115 Table 5.2: Factorial ANOVA (Type III): Preservation of Nature .............................................. 116 Table 5.3: Summary Statistics – Utilization of Nature ............................................................... 117 Table 5.4: Factorial ANOVA (Type III): Utilization of the Environment ................................. 118 Table 5.5: Summary Statistics – Connection to Nature .............................................................. 126 Table 5.6: Factorial ANOVA (Type III): Connection to Nature ................................................ 127 xii List of Figures Figure 1.1: The Virtuality Continuum, adapted from Milgram and Kishino (1994) .................... 10 Figure 1.2: Reality-Virtuality Continuum, adapted from Skarbez et al. (2021) ........................... 12 Figure 1.3: The Awareness to Action Continuum, adapted from Barnes and College (2013) ..... 22 Figure 1.4: Experiential Learning Cycle, adapted from Kolb (1984) ........................................... 25 Figure 2.1: Research Process ........................................................................................................ 39 Figure 2.2: Vancouver School District ......................................................................................... 41 Figure 2.3: Quasi-Experimental Non-Equivalent Groups Design (n=236; k=11) ........................ 52 Figure 3.1: Map of Quality Green Space Across the Vancouver School District ........................ 64 Figure 3.2: Percentage of Natural Land Cover – Representative Parks ....................................... 66 Figure 3.3: Frequency Distribution - Percent of Natural Land Cover in VSD Parks ................... 67 Figure 3.4: Frequency Distribution – Walking Time to Quality Green Space ............................. 68 Figure 3.5: Service Area Analysis: Walking Access to Quality Green Space ............................ 69 Figure 4.1: Boxplot – Environmental Literacy ............................................................................. 86 Figure 4.2: Environmental Literacy – Pairwise Comparison of Study Conditions ...................... 87 Figure 4.3: Boxplot – Functional Environmental Literacy ........................................................... 91 Figure 4.4: Boxplot – Cultural Environmental Literacy ............................................................... 91 Figure 5.1: Boxplot – Preservation of Nature ............................................................................. 116 Figure 5.2: Boxplot – Utilization of Nature ................................................................................ 118 Figure 5.3: Hungry, Wet, Cold and Tired (Madison, Grade 4) .................................................. 123 Figure 5.4: Boxplot – Connection to Nature (Transformed Difference Scores) ......................... 126 Figure 5.5: Connection to Nature – Pairwise Comparison of Study Conditions ........................ 128 Figure 6.1: Comparative Efficacy of Field Trips and Access to Quality Green Space .............. 136 Figure 6.2: Blending VR, AR, and Outdoor Field Trips ............................................................ 138 xiii List of Abbreviations 2-MEV Two Major Environmental Values Scale ANCOVA Analysis of Covariance ANOVA Analysis of Variance AR Augmented Reality BC British Columbia BCTF British Columbia Teacher’s Federation CNS Connectedness to Nature Scale FNESC First Nations Education Steering Committee GIS Geographic Information Systems GPS Global Positioning System HMD Head Mounted Display LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index NIR Near Infrared OD Outdoor QR Quick Response Code STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics UBC University of British Columbia (Vancouver Campus) UNEP United Nations Environment Program UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization VR Virtual Reality VSB Vancouver School Board VSD Vancouver School District xiv Acknowledgements First, I would like to acknowledge that the land this research took place on is the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the Musqueam People. I would also like to thank them for creating the Musqueam Teaching Kit that has been integral to the education of students across the Vancouver School District. Additionally, I would like to thank volunteers with the Pacific Spirit Park Society, Camosun Bog Restoration Group, and Metro Vancouver Regional Parks for your collaboration when developing the field trips used in this study. You are my friends and a continual source of inspiration to me. Further, I would like to thank my co-supervisors, Dr. Brian Klinkenberg and Dr. Loch T. Brown, as well as my committee members, Dr. Nina Hewitt and Dr. Mark Turin. The mentorship, guidance, and support you provided during this research has helped me to become a better academic and educator. You pushed me to think critically, write carefully, and to always consider the impacts of my research on the communities I work with. Dr. Siobhán Wittig McPhee and Dr. Ann Borda have also been incredibly important mentors to me throughout my program. Additionally, I would like to thank my lab mates, Emily Acheson, Mielle Michaux, Kevin Hu, and Peter Whitman for their friendship and support. Last but not least, the digital media specialist for the Geography Department, Aaron Woods, helped to record all of the 360º videos that were used in the virtual reality field trip created for this study. Thank you. I would also like to thank my friends and family. My husband, Gary Andraza, was also my IT support during this study and put out more than one fire during that time. My friends and parents have also been continual sources of support and helped me to take a moment to breathe whenever things felt most dire. This includes my online friends: our collaboration when creating a rich and welcoming environment for people from all walks of life was an inspiration to me when first exploring the use of virtual reality as a medium for education. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the generous funding I have received for this study through the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and the University of British Columbia. xv Dedication To my husband, Gary Andraza1 Chapter 1: Introduction In this dissertation, I compare the efficacy of virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and outdoor field trips when promoting the environmental education of children whose schools differ by their level of walking access to quality green space. Do these interventions differ in their ability to promote gains to environmental literacy, environmental attitudes, and connection to nature? Further, how might they help overcome barriers to teaching and learning while promoting a critical approach to environmental education? VR and AR have become much more common in the environmental education of children. Indeed, economic forecasts indicate that these technologies will see considerable investment from the education sector moving forward. However, their proliferation will primarily be seen in the Global North (IDC, 2022). The increased affordability of consumer-grade hardware and access to tools like smartphones, personal computers, and the internet have been important drivers of this trend as these are becoming ubiquitous in K-12 classrooms (Aguayo & Eames, 2023; Dolan, 2016). Further, research into the educational benefits associated with the use of VR and AR has shown increased learning achievement (Barbalios et al., 2013; Chiang et al., 2014), problem solving (Chang, 2020; Liu et al., 2009), communication (Land & Zimmerman, 2015; H. T. Zimmerman et al., 2019), motivation to learn (Alakärppä et al., 2017; Ritter et al., 2019), and pro-environmental behavior (Hsu et al., 2018; Tudor et al., 2018) in students. More recently, the shift to emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic also resulted in many environmental educators turning to virtual tours and other digital media as a substitute for outdoor education when field trips and in-person activities were paused (Corres Gallardo & Ruiz-Mallén, 2023; Scully et al., 2021). Several educators have responded to an increased adoption of VR and AR with skepticism, particularly those who worry that these technologies will replace outdoor education. (Bergen, 2017; McCauley, 2017; Quay et al., 2020). Their concerns merit careful attention due to the many benefits attributed to learning outdoors. For example, outdoor education can have positive effects on children’s physical and mental health (Chawla, 2015), and connection to nature is an important precursor to pro-environmental beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors (Chawla, 2007; Frantz & Mayer, 2014). Additionally, students participating in outdoor education tend to 2 show high levels of critical thinking, greater engagement in the learning process, and can practice social skills like cooperation and communication while in the field (James & Williams, 2017). These experiences can also be particularly valuable for students who tend not to excel in traditional classroom environments (Barlow, 2015; Breunig et al., 2015). However, some have commented on how the rate of field trips has been declining for some time, even before the pandemic or the rise of immersive media. This has been due to variety of issues, such as classroom management, safety, funding shortages, logistics, and access to green space (Behrendt & Franklin, 2014; Garcia et al., 2023; Wolsink, 2016). However, VR and AR need not replace or disrupt outdoor education; in fact, some authors suggest there is an opportunity to support and enhance these experiences (Bergen, 2017; Jerowsky & Borda, 2022; Kalla et al., 2022). VR can provide an opportunity for children to virtually explore locations that they otherwise could not due to barriers like safety or distance (Ritter et al., 2019; Tudor et al., 2018). Racial and socioeconomic disparities in access to green space have also been reported (Dai, 2011; Vaughan et al., 2013) and this can lead to educational deficits for those with less access (Sprague et al., 2020). VR may be one tool that educators can use to support such students. Both VR and AR can further enhance outdoor experiences by engaging students with environmental mechanisms and processes that would not be available on traditional field trips due to scale or the timeframe over which they occur (Fan et al., 2010; Lilligreen & Wiebel, 2023). These technologies can also provide an opportunity for critical approaches to environmental education by engaging students with other ways of knowing through media that foregrounds communities and people who have been backgrounded in this field (Marques et al., 2019; Mcmahon et al., 2019; Wallis & Ross, 2021). What is missing from such discussions is a direct engagement with how access to green space may influence the comparative efficacy of immersive media and outdoor field trips. Grounded accounts of how these interventions should be used in classrooms with different levels of access are also needed. 1.1 Research Objectives and Overview I conduct a case study of the Vancouver School District (VSD) when comparing the efficacy of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips in this dissertation. Specifically, I examine the 3 comparative efficacy of these interventions when promoting environmental literacy, environmental attitudes, and connection to nature in elementary school students who differ in their walking access to quality green space. I also explore how these interventions may help overcome barriers to teaching and learning while promoting a critical approach to environmental education. Four objectives guide my research: 1. Examine walking access to quality green space for elementary school students across the Vancouver School District. 2. Compare the efficacy of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips when promoting environmental literacy, environmental attitudes, and connection to nature in elementary school students who differ in their walking access to quality green space. 3. Compare how interventions support the above learning objectives and what barriers they help to address. 4. Provide recommendations surrounding the use and support of these interventions. To achieve these objectives, I co-created VR, AR, and outdoor field trips of Camosun Bog alongside the Camosun Bog Restoration Group and Pacific Spirit Park Society in Vancouver, Canada. I then conducted an accessibility analysis of the VSD to determine which elementary schools were within 10 minutes walking distance of quality green space, building on a recent study conducted by the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation (2018a). Next, I ran each type of field trip with students from grades 3-7 who attended schools that differed by their level of access to quality green space. Using a pre-test-post-test methodology, I compared changes to environmental literacy, environmental attitudes, and connection to nature in students across these different study conditions. Finally, I thematically analyzed field interviews with students and teachers to provide context and explanation for the changes I observed. 1.2 Motivation for Research I am motivated to explore this topic for several reasons. First, literature surrounding the comparative efficacy of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips has failed to engage with access to green space. Grounded accounts of how these interventions can help to address barriers related to environmental education in classrooms with different levels of access to green space should 4 accompany such investigations. This information is vital for teachers to make informed decisions about which tools and approaches are most appropriate for their classrooms and learning objectives. Further, administrators, officials, and policymakers also require answers to these questions so that they can equitably allocate resources and support across classrooms, schools, and districts. Secondly, I am a community-based researchers who is a director with the Metro Vancouver Regional Parks Foundation and the Pacific Spirit Park Society, with whom I have worked on environmental restoration, monitoring, and education initiatives for almost a decade. I have witnessed first-hand the lack of resources and learning materials that are available to teachers in the VSD as they seek to engage their students with environmental issues while incorporating elements of social and environmental justice. I am interested in how different learning technologies can help to support this mission and their students. Lastly, I am motivated by the interdisciplinary nature of geography and its methods, which are well-suited to this investigation. Geographic information systems (GIS) has consistently been used in the accessibility analysis of green space (Almohamad et al., 2018; Cetin, 2015; Ertugay & Duzgun, 2018; Oh & Jeong, 2007) and offers a unique opportunity to integrate multiple types of spatial data, including road and transportation networks, land cover, and sociodemographic data. GIS provides a wide array of spatial analysis tools to aid in such investigations, such as network analysis, while allowing for the creation of clear and informative maps to aid in the visualization of accessibility patterns (Ertugay & Duzgun, 2018). While geographers have not directly engaged with the interplay between immersive media, outdoor education, and access in the environmental education of children, the sub-fields of digital geography, children’s geographies, and the geography of education have much to offer such conversations. Digital geography has emerged as an expansive sub-field devoted to exploring ways in which “space and place mediate and are mediated by digital technologies” (Thatcher et al., 2020, p. 337). Related research has primarily focused on the use of VR and AR as pedagogical tools for the dissemination of geographical knowledge (Al Shuaili et al., 2020; Detyna & Kadiri, 2020; Hagge, 2021). However, critical perspectives on the sociotechnical relations surrounding these new media are emerging, as well as discussions about how VR and AR represent, reproduce, and transform space and power (Ash et al., 2018; Bos, 2021; Graham et 5 al., 2013; Kinsley, 2014; Osborne & Jones, 2022; Saker & Frith, 2020). Meanwhile, children’s geographers have provided valuable insights into how children interact with and relate to nature, outdoor spaces, and environmental problems (Bates, 2020; Finnegan, 2022; Spiteri, 2023; van Heel et al., 2022). More recently, researchers have also explored how VR and AR are being integrated into learning environments, outdoor play, and environmental education (Bergen, 2017; George et al., 2020; T. A. Smith & Dunkley, 2018; Yamada-Rice, 2018). Finally, the geography of education has long focused on how learning opportunities, processes, and outcomes vary spatially, and how they are embedded within broader social, political, and economic systems (Holloway & Jöns, 2012; Kučerová et al., 2020). Recommendations and best practices for the allocation of resources would be a welcome addition within this sub-field. 1.3 Organization of Dissertation This dissertation is divided into seven chapters, followed by appendices. For the remainder of Chapter 1, I conduct a literature review to bridge the three primary components of this study: VR and AR, environmental education, and access to green space. In doing so, I also review the pedagogical frameworks and theories of learning that have influenced my approach to environmental education. In Chapter 2, I discuss my research methods. First, I provide a general overview of the sequential, mixed methods approach I have taken while conducting this case study. Then, I provide an overview of my study area, community-based development of field trips, and accessibility analysis that informed participant recruitment. Following this, I describe the quasi-experimental 2x3 non-equivalent group design I paired with a pre-test-post-test methodology to explore the effects of access to quality green space and field trip type on three learning objectives: environmental literacy, environmental values, and connection to nature. As this chapter draws to a close, I describe my approach to data collection that included a survey and knowledge test, semi-structured interviews, and field notes. I also describe my approach to data analysis that combined factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA), post-hoc tests, and the thematic coding of interview data. Finally, I close with a discussion of this study’s limitations. In Chapters 3, I report on the accessibility of quality green space to elementary schools in the VSD and discuss the barriers that teachers reported when seeking to provide outdoor 6 education for their students. Importantly, my land cover and network analysis show that walking access to green space for use in environmental education is low across the VSD and that this is due to the location and limited availability of quality parkland. Additionally, my interviews with teachers indicate that these access issues are compounded by other barriers related to transportation, field trip administration, teaching support, and disability. In Chapter 4, I compare the efficacy of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips when promoting environmental literacy in children who differ by their walking access to quality green space. To achieve this, I summarize the results of my survey data, before analyzing the effects of field trip type and level of access using factorial ANOVA and post-hoc tests. Then, I contextualize these results using student interviews and field notes to compare the efficacy of my different learning interventions. Importantly, I show that the efficacy of field trips when promoting environmental literacy was dependent on the level of access students had to quality green space. Throughout this chapter, I also provide a rich description of the ways these different types of field trips promoted gains to functional and cultural environmental literacy, while discussing how different learning interventions helped to overcome barriers that teachers were facing. In Chapter 5, I expand my examination of the comparative efficacy of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips to include pro-environmental attitudes and connection to nature. As in the previous chapter, I first provide the results of my statistical analysis for each learning objective before contextualizing my findings using student and teacher interviews. Gains to pro-environmental attitudes were minimal across all study conditions; however, an interaction between field trip type and level of access to quality green space did affect students’ attitudes related to the utilization of nature. Interviews also revealed that more specific attitudinal shifts related to volunteerism and an appreciative use of nature may have occurred. Regarding connection to nature, gains were also minimal. While VR supported a sense of presence within a simulated environment, AR mediated and sometimes disrupted students’ connection to nature. Additionally, an improved understanding of human-nature relations and empathy for living creatures translated into feelings of connection for the field trip site. In Chapter 6, I close my analysis by discussing recommendations for the effective use of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips, based on my findings in Chapters 3-5. Specifically, I recommend a blended approach to the integration of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips into 7 environmental education programs. Further, I provide a list of recommendations to support the use of these interventions across the VSD based on three themes related to accessing green space, immersive technologies, and learning materials. Finally, I conclude my discussion on the comparative efficacy of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips for children in Chapter 7. Following a summary of contributions resulting from this work, I examine strengths and limitations before discussing avenues for future research. 1.4 Literature Review The use of VR and AR in the environmental education of children is still relatively new and these technologies are rapidly evolving. In this section, I review the literature on immersive media, environmental education, and access to green space while discussing the theoretical and pedagogical frameworks that underpin this study. I begin by explaining how VR and AR are classified, as well as common barriers to their use in this field. Next, I review the overarching goals of environmental education, paying special attention to environmental literacy, environmental attitudes, and connection to nature while discussing how VR and AR may facilitate these learning objectives. I conclude this portion of the literature review with a discussion of the Awareness to Action Continuum, which provides a theoretical understanding of how these learning objectives may lead to pro-environmental behavior in students. Following this, I discuss the theories of learning and pedagogical approaches that have informed this study. Specifically, I examine experiential learning, critical environmental education, and connectivist-based approaches while reflecting on the process of knowledge integration in the context of VR and AR. Finally, I discuss how green space and access to green space are defined and measured in the literature while reviewing the importance of this resource for environmental education. 1.4.1 Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality The ultimate display would, of course, be a room within which the computer can control the existence of matter. A chair displayed in such a room would be good enough to sit in. Handcuffs displayed in such a room would be confining, and a bullet displayed in such a room would be fatal. With appropriate programming such a display could literally be the Wonderland into which Alice walked. (Sutherland, 1965, p. 507) 8 VR and AR have not yet reached the summit of their potential as described in “The Ultimate Display,” by Donald Sutherland (1965). However, researchers from a broad array of sectors, including medicine (Bruno et al., 2022), tourism (Beck et al., 2019), industry (Berg & Vance, 2017), gaming (Rauschnabel et al., 2017), and education (Bacca et al., 2019; Sala, 2016), are finding ways to integrate these technologies into their fields. There are several recent examples of how VR and AR are being used to support the environmental education of children. Some researchers have investigated the use of 360º VR field trips using head-mounted displays (HMDs) or less expensive viewers like Google Cardboard (Garcia et al., 2023; Tudor et al., 2018; Wallis & Ross, 2021). Garcia et al. (2023) used 360º videos and photos to develop virtual field trips of farms, factories, museums, wildlife parks, and historical sites for third grade students in a major metropolitan area in the Philippines. Meanwhile, Tudor et al. (2018) took students on a 360º virtual tour of the Borneo rainforest and used this experience to promote their participation in local activism to stop a development project that threatened a nearby nature reserve. Finally, Wallis and Ross (2021) explored how Indigenous creators are using 360º storytelling to resist dominant, colonial narratives. Other researchers have opted for fully immersive learning environments where children have more control over their own movement and can interact with objects virtually (Hsu et al., 2018; Markowitz et al., 2018; Ritter et al., 2019). Ritter et al. (2019) designed a VR environment to facilitate the experiential learning of middle-school students who were interested in erosion and renewable resources. Similarly, Hsu et al. (2018) studied the use of a VR simulation to promote knowledge of water conservation and to help students develop environmentally sustainable habits. Additionally, Markowitz et al. (2018) used immersive VR to improve students’ knowledge about the consequences of global climate change and ocean acidification. Finally, some VR developers have chosen less immersive approaches and have had students use desktop computers, tablets, or phones to explore virtual environments (Araujo-Junior & Bodzin, 2022; Chang et al., 2020). Such options are usually much more affordable as they do not require specialized hardware. For example, Araujo-Junior and Bodzin (2022) created a virtual desktop game called “Watershed Explorers” to motivate middle-school students to learn about their local watersheds. Meanwhile, Chang et al. (2020) used a non-immersive VR 9 experience to improve the motivation and learning achievement of students participating in a geology lesson. Unlike VR, AR is often used in the field to help students to visualize environmental processes or to provide them with additional information to enhance their learning (Chien et al., 2019; Hewitt et al., 2023; Kumpulainen et al., 2023; Lilligreen & Wiebel, 2023). Lilligreen and Wiebel (2023) used an interactive AR application to help students understand trees while engaging in outdoor learning by allowing them to sort leaves and better visualize root systems. Alternatively, Kumpulainen et al. (2023) explored the act of augmented storytelling by providing Finnish students with an opportunity to engage with culturally-based nature stories during outdoor learning. Further, Hewitt et al. (2023) found that AR provided a flexible way for students to overcome a wide variety of barriers related to outdoor field trips in a geography course. Finally, Chien et al. (2019) enhanced students’ botanical learning by using image-based AR to help them to identify plants while on an outdoor field trip. What should be apparent from this non-exhaustive review of examples is that VR and AR are being integrated into the environmental education of children in many different ways, and researchers are using a wide range of hardware to help facilitate this. A clear understanding of how these technologies are classified in the literature is necessary. 1.4.1.1 Classifying VR and AR The virtuality continuum (Figure 1.1, p. 10) proposed by Milgram and Kishino (1994), has provided a foundation for the classification of different types of immersive media across the literature on VR and AR. Broadly, this is a spectrum that ranges from the real-world environment to purely virtual environments. Meanwhile, those environments that are composed of a combination of real and virtual objects are collectively referred to as mixed reality. Mixed reality can be further broken down into augmented reality, where the real-world is overlayed with virtual objects, and augmented virtuality, where a virtual environment is embedded with representations of real-world objects. 10 Figure 1.1: The Virtuality Continuum, adapted from Milgram and Kishino (1994) Milgram and Kishino (1994) also sought to move beyond a mere distinction between the terms “real” and “virtual” in their taxonomy, and explored three factors related to the quality of displays being used. First, they explained that the extent of world knowledge held by a display should be judged when comparing these media. This refers to the degree that a display has complete knowledge about each object in a virtual environment, including the location of that object, the location and viewpoint of any observers, and any attempts by an observer to change or manipulate objects. Second, high levels of reproduction fidelity, or the degree to which virtual objects accurately reproduce the real objects being displayed, are indicative of higher quality virtual environments. Finally, immersive media can be differentiated by the extent to which a user feels present within a virtual environment. While reproduction fidelity is certainly one aspect of realism, the concept of presence involves the degree to which a user can move around or interact with virtual objects. Several scholars have built upon the concept of the virtuality continuum. For example, Koleva et al. (1999) examined properties related to the boundaries produced between physical and virtual spaces in mixed reality. Specifically, they explored the properties of permeability, situation, dynamics, symmetry, and representation in relation to these boundaries. Whereas permeability refers to how sensory information passes between physical and virtual spaces, situation refers to the relationship between the boundaries of these spaces and the participants or objects contained within them. Meanwhile, the concept of dynamics refers to the temporal properties of such boundaries, symmetry refers to the degree that properties are the same on either side of a boundary, and representation refers to how mixed reality boundaries are known by users of immersive technologies. Next, Kjeldskov’s (2001) taxonomy categorized mixed reality by levels of interaction and immersion, while focusing on orientation, moving, and acting. Orientation refers to the degree that one can look around a virtual environment in order to achieve a sense of presence and 11 moving is the ability of a user to traverse it. Acting “covers the tasks of selection/picking, moving, rotating, and transforming objects in the virtual environment as well as control on a system level” (Kjeldskov, 2001, p. 9). Additionally, a fully immersive VR environment supports a feeling of “being there”, while a partially immersive environment supports the feeling of “looking at” a scene. In all cases, the level of immersion is dependent upon the type of hardware being used. Lindeman and Noma (2007) then proposed a new framework for comparing multisensory AR applications and presented examples of different types of technologies that engage all five senses through multi-modal displays. In doing so, they responded to criticisms of Milgram and Kishino’s original taxonomy, namely that these authors only engaged with properties related to visual displays. Normand et al. (2012) built upon this user-centered approach and combined it with information-centered (e.g., Suomela & Lehikoinen, 2004) and interaction-centered (e.g., Dubois et al., 1999) taxonomies. They proposed a classification scheme based on tracking degrees of freedom, whether an application was augmenting the environment or the user, and the temporal nature of the information being displayed (Normand et al., 2012). In 2018, Speiginer and MacIntyre introduced the Environment-Augmentation framework, and conceptualized immersive experiences as the integration of discrete layers of reality. Environment layers included the technological environment (i.e., the hardware or physical display) and the spatial environment (i.e., the space in which the user is immersed). Meanwhile augmentation layers referred to layers of content which could then be merged with environment layers via information overlays, videos, etc. Different types of immersive technologies could be classified based on whether the environment layer is real or virtual, how these layers and their associated components are mixed, and how users interact with them. More recently, Skarbez et al. (2021) revisited the concept of the virtuality continuum and identified some limitations to the use of this taxonomy given the current state of VR and AR. Specifically, they critiqued the preoccupation with visual displays and realism without showing concern for the overall experience of the user. They argued that the “mediating technology, content conveyed, and the resulting user experience must be considered together to adequately describe [mixed reality] experiences” (Skarbez et al., 2021, p. 2). Skarbez et al. (2021) also provided an updated model for the virtuality continuum (Figure 1.2, p. 12), arguing that Milgram 12 and Kishino’s (1994) description of virtual reality would be better defined as “external virtual reality.” This is because the presence of a head mounted display disrupts immersivity, and therefore results in a mixed-reality environment. They differentiate this from a “matrix-like” experience, whereby complete sensory agreement between users and their virtual environments would be accomplished. Currently, such technology is not available, and the types of brain-computer interfaces that are currently in development are from realizing such potential (Pisarchick et al., 2019). Figure 1.2: Reality-Virtuality Continuum, adapted from Skarbez et al. (2021) Educational researchers seeking to incorporate VR and AR into the classroom have typically delineated these technologies by their levels of immersivity, interaction, and the type of hardware being used (Bacca et al., 2019; Maas & Hughes, 2020; Sala, 2016). In the context of this study, I define virtual reality as media through which a user interacts with a real or constructed environment that has been wholly computer-generated. Generally, there are three types of VR used within the field of environmental education: ▪ Fully Immersive VR: The user has the illusion of being in a computer-generated environment. This illusion is facilitated by using a head mounted display (HMD), a set of controls, and may include a tracking system so that the user’s movements can be mirrored (e.g., Fan et al., 2010; Hsu et al., 2018; Markowitz et al., 2018). ▪ Video and Photospheres: The user has the illusion of being placed at a single location within a computer-generated environment that has been constructed using panoramic or 360º photos/videos. An HMD and/or controls are used to look around this environment, although interaction may be limited. Linked video and photospheres provide a higher sense of immersion in these environments (e.g., Chang et al., 2018; Tudor et al., 2018). ▪ Desktop VR: The user interacts with a computer-generated environment using a desktop monitor. The level of immersion is lower than in other forms of VR, and interactions are 13 generally facilitated by using a controller, joystick, or keyboard and mouse (Barbalios et al., 2013; Chang et al., 2020). Conversely, I define augmented reality as media through which the real-world environment is supplemented by or overlaid with computer-generated sounds and images. AR is primarily delivered through smartphones and tablets in the case of environmental education, and these media can be further differentiated based on how augmentation is triggered: ▪ Location-based AR: Computer-generated information is triggered by the user entering a specific location, and this is facilitated using a global positioning system (GPS), wireless data, or both (e.g., Chiang et al., 2014; Kamarainen et al., 2018). ▪ Image-based AR: Computer-generated information is triggered when the user interacts with a marker, such as a barcode or quick response (QR) code. Other images, or even landmarks and objects, can also be used as markers and identified by the AR application using this method (T.-C. Huang, 2019; Lu & Liu, 2015). While the above definitions of VR and AR may seem straight forward, this is not true in practice, and educational researchers are far from agreeing on a standardized way to apply such concepts when categorizing their own experimental designs. For example, while VR may refer to a number of different types of media (fully immersive VR, 360º videos and photospheres, or desktop VR), researchers often fail to clearly delineate the media type in their study by using these second-order terms (Maas & Hughes, 2020). This issue is exacerbated by the fact that current VR systems, such as the Meta Quest 3 or HTC Vive, have multiple options that can increase or decrease immersivity (Meta, 2023; Vive Studios, 2022). While two researchers may be utilizing the same hardware in their experimental design, one study may see participants using full-body motion tracking to navigate a computer-generated environment, while the other may simply have users seated at a computer and using a handheld controller. In addition, VR and AR development is rapid and highly individualized (Henry, 2019). Development is largely driven by the videogame industry currently where companies keep their design practices under lock and key. Individual, or “indie” developers, often have to come up with their own design practices when creating new VR and AR media; 14 though this is changing as development platforms become more open and affordable. Researchers who are creating VR and AR media for use in environmental education often fall into this category of “indie” developer. 1.4.1.2 Barriers to Using VR and AR in Environmental Education The most common barrier associated with the use of VR and AR in the literature is that these tools often do not meet the expectations of users or suffer from technological difficulties. Specifically, GPS issues can occur due to the remote location of some field trips (Cai, 2013; Chen & Hsu, 2007; Pombo & Marques, 2018). In the case of AR, a user’s location may not be reported accurately and this is often caused by a multipath error which occurs when GPS signals bounce off local obstructions like buildings or trees (Chen & Hsu, 2007). Other authors have pointed to issues with software responsiveness: students have reported that slow response speeds decrease their enjoyment of educational apps and their motivation to engage with them (Ferderbar, 2013; Kamarainen et al., 2018). A lack of familiarity with VR and AR technology may also compound these issues. Teachers often doubt their ability to implement VR and AR without someone to assist them; however, students may have fewer issues, likely due to an increased familiarity with the use of these technologies in recreational contexts (Cai, 2013; Kamarainen et al., 2018; Lu & Liu, 2015). Comfort and health concerns also pose an issue for teachers seeking to use VR and AR. When low-quality headsets are used for VR, Tudor (2018) reported cases of dizziness in students. A comparative study by Gavgani et al. (2018) showed that the symptoms associated with “cybersickness” are not that different from traditional motion sickness and may include gastrointestinal issues, lightheadedness, sweating, or drowsiness. These symptoms can be relieved by removing a headset, or switching to a device like a tablet or phone (Tudor et al., 2018). In terms of other safety concerns, research into the situational awareness of VR and AR users in factory settings has shown that this is not typically a problem, particularly when seated; however, it is important that users are provided with enough space to safely engage with these technologies if they are around other users or environmental hazards (Aromaa et al., 2020). The cost of high-end VR hardware and peripherals is another barrier to the use and creation of this technology in education; although, research shows that low-cost viewers are 15 increasingly being implemented to overcome this issue (Brown & Green, 2016; Tudor et al., 2018; Vishwanath et al., 2017). For example, Vishwanath et al. reported the use of 360º VR field trips using Google Cardboard (retailing for $8 USD) and cellphones salvaged from nearby recycling facilities to support an afterschool program in Mumbai, India. However, Huang et al. (2016) reported that the cost of tablets, coupled with resistance from parents about the use of technology in schools, was a barrier to implementing AR apps in the environmental education of middle school students in Taiwan. Building on this, when low-cost viewers or cellphones are used to reduce the cost of these technologies in the classroom, this can lead to bring-your-own-device programs that may serve to reinforce economic hierarchies and digital inequity within those settings (K. J. McLean, 2016). Additionally, Programs designed to increase access to digital technologies may not benefit underserved communities. For example, in a case study of Washington State libraries where VR fieldtrips were deployed for public use, librarians reflected on how few women, as well as Black and Indigenous people, participated in the program (Dahya et al., 2021). 1.4.2 Environmental Education and Associated Learning Objectives While the original use of the term environmental education has been debated (Palmer, 1998), the first internationally recognized definition was presented by Stapp et al. in 1969. They argued that the purpose of environmental education was to develop citizens who are “knowledgeable concerning their biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware of how they can help to solve these problems, and motivated to work toward their solution” (Stapp et al., 1969, p. 34). This idea that awareness and knowledge can lead to the development of pro-environmental attitudes and behavior was later formalized at the first international conference on environmental education that was held in Tbilisi, Georgia in 1977. The conference was organized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in cooperation with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and established a holistic view of environmental education that viewed environmental problems as resulting from complex interactions between biological, physical, social, economic, and cultural systems (UNESCO, 1977). Delegates suggested that educators and researchers take an interdisciplinary approach and consider environmental education as a lifelong process. They emphasized the importance of both 16 formal and informal learning environments while focusing on the benefits of personal experience. Since their inception, the five primary learning objectives outlined in the Tbilisi Declaration have provided a firm foundation for the field: ▪ Awareness: to help social groups and individuals acquire an awareness of and sensitivity to the total environment and its allied problems. ▪ Knowledge: to help social groups and individuals gain a variety of experience in, and acquire a basic understanding of, the environment and its associated problems. ▪ Attitudes: to help social groups and individuals acquire a set of values and feelings of concern for the environment, and the motivation for actively participating in environmental improvement and protection. ▪ Skills: to help social groups and individuals acquire the skills for identifying and solving environmental problems. ▪ Participation: to provide social groups and individuals with an opportunity to be actively involved at all levels in working toward [the] resolution of environmental problems. (UNESCO, 1977, pp. 26–27) However, states faced challenges in implementing the goals of the Tbilisi Declaration during the 1980s. Dorn (2020) describes how many educators were unable to teach within an interdisciplinary context as they had not received such an education themselves, or even one that had focused on the environment for that matter. Further, many of the teaching materials that were available did not meet this goal either. Political and economic barriers varied, but nations with less centralized political systems, or that did not have the resources to provide teachers with proper training, were also unable to meet the lofty goals of the Tbilisi Declaration (Dorn, 2020). While many delegates renewed their earlier commitments to environmental education at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, language began to shift in support of a conceptualization of conservation that was linked to sustainable development (Dorn, 2020; Macekura, 2019). A shift towards education for sustainable development began in the 1990s (Gough, 2013) and UNESCO’s (2020) integration of education into their 2030 roadmap for sustainable development is the most recent example of this trend. 17 Broadly, childhood education for sustainable development seeks to promote critical and contextualized understandings of social, economic, and environmental issues (Siraj-Blatchford & Samuelsson, 2015). Successful examples of programs in the literature tend to be action-focused, democratic, outdoor, place-based, community-supported, and value-oriented (Bascopé et al., 2019; Hedefalk et al., 2015; Siraj-Blatchford & Samuelsson, 2015). As I discuss alongside my co-authors in Kalla et al. (2022), VR and AR may help to support these approaches to education for sustainable development through the promotion of action competence by engaging students with volunteerism, promoting multiple ways of knowing, providing virtual access to green spaces for those who lack it, enhancing outdoor education through the reification of environmental processes, connecting students with community partners, and promoting environmental attitudes by improving children’s connection with nature. In this study, I seek to promote the development of three specific learning objectives: environmental literacy, pro-environmental attitudes, and connection to nature. These are foundational to the discipline of environmental education and the development of pro-environmental behavior. I conceptualize this using Barnes and College’s (2013) Awareness to Action Continuum, to explain how these learning objectives are related to the broader goals of environmental education. 1.4.2.1 Environmental Literacy The review of environmental literacy frameworks by McBride et al. (2013) draws attention to the considerable lack of consensus surrounding the definition of this learning objective in environmental education. Indeed, they discuss twenty-eight separate frameworks, and compare these across multiple dimensions of affect, knowledge, skills, and behavior. Such a comprehensive investigation is beyond the scope of this literature review. Suffice it to say, I use the term environmental literacy to illustrate an integrated understanding of the relationships that exist between humans and the environment. Environmental literacy moves beyond the mere acquisition of knowledge and involves an understanding of socio-environmental systems and their problems more broadly. I draw on Stables’ (1998) conceptualization of environmental literacy in this study. Specifically, he differentiates between functional, cultural, and critical environmental literacies. 18 Functional environmental literacy refers to a person’s ability to identify, define, and comprehend environmental concepts through the application of accumulated knowledge, skills, and contextual cues. Conversely, cultural environmental literacy is the ability to understand dominant and alternative perspectives about the environment, as well as how human understandings and actions have helped shape it. Critical environmental literacy integrates both functional and cultural literacies, resulting in a reflective and relational understanding of the environment, its processes, and its problems. This understanding of environmental literacy integrates elements of systems thinking, or the ability to understand environmental phenomena as complex, dynamic, non-linear, and self-organizing; meanwhile, environmental problems are seen as having intersecting physical, social, and economic components that reinforce or perpetuate them (Assaraf & Orion, 2009; Mambrey et al., 2022; Rodríguez et al., 2015). Some studies have argued that primary school children lack the ability to engage in complex systems thinking (Hokayem et al., 2015); however, others show that young children are simply better at system organization as opposed to predicting the outcome of changes in complex systems (Sommer & Lücken, 2010). In light of this, educators should make hidden dimensions, like the economy, more legible to students while establishing spatial and temporal contiguity for those who are trying to make connections (Rodríguez et al., 2015). Additionally, children tend to be guided by patterns and assumptions about relationships within systems, but this can be complicated by a lack of understanding about representational conventions like food webs (Mambrey et al., 2022). Educators must be careful when mobilizing such learning materials. Where I diverge from Stables’ (1998) understanding of environmental literacy is in regard to its cultural component. I seek to integrate alternative understandings of the environment in the field trips designed for this study; meanwhile, he saw the acceptance of cultural hegemony as empowering learners through the incorporation of socially accepted values and norms into their environmental reasoning. Although, he does mention briefly that knowledge of what the environment may mean to “others” is important to the development of a critical environmental literacy (Stables, 1998, p. 160). Challenging dominant understandings of nature can help to upset prevailing ideas about nature-child dualisms and the myth of innocence in nature-child relations, amidst other problematic assumptions (Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2013). This can 19 provide an opportunity for children to better understand the complex relationships that exist between themselves, other humans, the environment, and non-humans (Acharibasam & McVittie, 2022; Nxumalo, 2019; Nxumalo & Cedillo, 2017; Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2013). As Nxumalo (2019, p. 70) explains, the act of unsettling place relations in the environmental education of children can “create possibilities toward more equitable orientations and ethical relationalities.” Still, it is important to understand that environmental literacy may be necessary, but is often not sufficient, for the promotion of pro-environmental behavior. Research shows that environmental literacy can play a mediating role, but should be considered alongside pro-environmental attitudes, connection to nature, and other independent variables (De Groot & Steg, 2009; Hsu et al., 2018; Steg et al., 2015). 1.4.2.2 Pro-Environmental Values, Attitudes and Connection to Nature Values tend to be morally prescriptive, relatively stable over time, hierarchical in relation to one another, and act as guiding principles in people’s lives (Steg & de Groot, 2012). These are important to the development of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors (Stern et al., 1999); thus, their cultivation in children is a primary objective of environmental education. However, attitudes can also influence the development of pro-environmental values if they are appropriately reinforced over time (Steg & de Groot, 2012). While values are often abstract, fundamental beliefs that help to guide behavior, attitudes tend to be more specific and are often directed towards certain issues (Steg & de Groot, 2012). Thompson and Barton (1994) argue that there are at least two attitudes that underlie support for environmental issues: ecocentrism and anthropocentrism. Ecocentrism is a perspective that recognizes the intrinsic value of the environment; meanwhile, anthropocentrism prioritizes human interests and well-being over environmental concerns (Thompson & Barton, 1994). However, this conceptualization is not meant to represent a simple binary classification and should be considered to exist along a spectrum. In this study, I measure students’ environmental attitudes according to a similar scheme. Specifically, I incorporate the Two Major Environmental Values (2-MEV) Scale, developed by Bogner et al. (2015), to measure attitudes regarding preservation and utilization of the environment in children. 20 Several studies have shown an association between pro-environmental values and subsequent behaviors (Bouman et al., 2020, 2021; Corraliza & Berenguer, 2000; Poortinga et al., 2004; Wan Hussain et al., 2021). However, Corraliza and Berenguer (2000) found that this relationship is complex: interactions between a person’s values, attitudes and their subsequent behavior are not linear and often depend on personal or situational variables like feelings of control, comfort, alarm, or wealth. Others have also agreed with this assessment, arguing that values alone are often not sufficient when predicting pro-environmental behavior and should be considered in relation to a wide range of sociodemographic variables (Poortinga et al., 2004; Wan Hussain et al., 2021). Finally, it is important to consider values and attitudes at both group and community levels as well, because these may influence personal values and attitudes or even override them in some cases (Bouman et al., 2020, 2021). Connection to nature, or the degree to which a person feels a sense of affiliation or attachment to the natural world, is also associated with pro-environmental values, attitudes and behavior (Chawla, 2007; Collado et al., 2013; Hartig et al., 2007; Whitburn et al., 2019). Indeed, Hartig et al. (2007) found that positive feelings resulting from the use of natural environments for psychological restoration were mediated by pro-environmental concerns when promoting sustainable behaviors. Meanwhile, Collado et al. (2013) explored how children’s summer camp experiences were connected to their emotional affinity for nature. Interestingly, they found that these experiences mediated pro-environmental behavior regardless of whether the camp offered environmental education programming, which may make a case for the importance of nature play to facilitate environmental education even in the absence of more formal learning materials. Finally, Whitburn et al. (2019) found that levels of green space in neighborhoods and past participation in tree planting initiatives were related to the development of pro-environmental behaviors. Of direct relevance to this dissertation, is that some authors have found there to be no difference between virtual and outdoor experiences when measuring their effect on connection to nature (Deringer & Hanley, 2021). However, these findings are not supported by the broader literature yet, and have been called into question by Sneed et al. (2021) who reported that participants taking part in outdoor nature experiences reported higher levels of connection to nature compared to those who watched 360º videos of a nature preserve. One reason for this 21 discrepancy could be a lack of sensitivity in the evaluation tools when measuring connection to nature. Certainly, more research is needed. This is particularly true, since some critics of using VR, AR, and other digital media in environmental education argue that these technologies act as barriers to children connecting with nature or getting outdoors (Bergen, 2017; McCauley, 2017). More broadly, a consistent theme is that a lack of connection to nature in children is a consequence of an increasingly urbanized, post-industrial society, and that this has resulted in a lack of environmental consciousness or values (Folke et al., 2011; Louv, 2006; Sisson & Lash, 2017). Richard Louv’s (2006) book, Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder, represents a recent example of this argument. Louv (2006) pathologizes a lack of connection to nature in children via the idea of nature-deficit disorder, arguing that this has led to a rise in childhood obesity, attention difficulties, depression, and a developmental delay in the formation of pro-environmental attitudes. However, Fletcher (2009) argues that this is not a new conversation in the literature and discusses how similar arguments have been made throughout Western environmental movements (e.g., Marx, 1978; Rousseau, 1975). Further, he draws attention to how this narrative is indicative of a Western understanding of nature that reinforces human-nature dualisms that often do not engage with the political or economic systems that are involved in the ongoing destruction of the environment (Fletcher, 2017). Similarly, Dickinson (2013) argues that the idea of a human-nature divide invokes a false fall-recovery narrative that idealizes a return to pristine wilderness that is untouched by human hands. This focus tends to simultaneously mask a long history of anthropocentric drivers of environmental degradation and their colonial realities (Dickinson, 2013). Still, it is important to understand that neither of these authors promote the abandonment of outdoor education programming or even getting children out into parks. Rather, they are asking educators to engage their students with more critical understandings of nature while being clear about how they are mobilizing this term (Dickinson, 2013; Fletcher, 2017). Given the digital turn that society has undergone and the ubiquity of personal electronic devices, the concerns that Louv (2006) raised are being brought up again by parents and teachers. Indeed, some are concerned that the amount of time children are spending in front of screens is disrupting their ability to explore the world around them (Bergen, 2017). As Quay et 22 al. (2020) explain, these feelings have been heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic. Having been cut-off from colleagues, friends, and physical meeting places through a perpetual cycle of Zoom and asynchronous learning activities, many are working to reduce their time in digital environments. 1.4.2.3 The Awareness to Action Continuum An overarching theme of this discussion on environmental education and its associated learning objectives is that a primary goal of educators should be to promote action. Knowledge, affect, and values associated with building a more sustainable world mean very little if students do not mobilize their education and actively participate. The Awareness to Action Continuum (Figure 1.3) was developed by Barnes and College (2013) and is an adaptation of the original objectives of the Tbilisi Declaration (UNESCO, 1977), as well as Stapp’s (1969) early work in the field of environmental education. Additionally, they draw on the works of place-based, experiential learning theorists like Sobel (2004, 2008), Cornell (1979) and Van Matre (1990) who stress the importance of nature-play and the development of environmental stewardship through hands-on activities. Barnes and College (2013) also engage with elements of critical environmental education from theorists like Bowers (2002) who argue that social and environmental justice should be incorporated through local knowledge and community-based approaches. Figure 1.3: The Awareness to Action Continuum, adapted from Barnes and College (2013) 23 The Awareness to Action Continuum is a five-phase learning model. Barnes and College (2013) suggest that educators should begin by helping children to gain an awareness and appreciation of the living world, followed by knowledge and understanding of natural systems. The development of attitudes and values follows this, which are mobilized through the introduction of problem-solving skills and opportunities to make environmentally sound decisions. Recently, the Awareness to Action Continuum was used by Tudor et al. (2018) in their examination of a 360º VR field trip that used Google Expeditions to help children learn about deforestation. Their study is a prime example of how this learning model can be applied to the use of immersive media in the classroom. Tudor et al. (2018) found that students gained an awareness of how rainforests in Borneo were being impacted by deforestation and that the VR field trip promoted appreciation of this issue via an immersive experience. Students also demonstrated knowledge and understanding about the scale of deforestation, compared this to a local nature reserve, and inferred broader ecosystem impacts. Additionally, students demonstrated pro-environmental values and attitudes through negative sense-making talk and researchers ended the activity with an opportunity to participate in a letter writing campaign to help stop deforestation near their school. This example highlights the sequential and cumulative nature of the Awareness to Action Continuum; albeit, through an educational intervention that took place over a relatively short period of time. However, it is important to understand that experiences and competencies build upon one another as outcomes of environmental education programs or activities are connected to the lessons, interactions, failures, and experiences that have occurred over the course of a person’s life. (Barnes & College, 2013). This process is also iterative, and the role of an educator should be to act as a guide to understanding the complex relationships that exist between humans and natural systems while promoting the development of ecocentric attitudes and actions over time. (Barnes & College, 2013). During the multiple phases of my study these ideas have been foundational to my overall approach to teaching. As an aside, I do not measure pro-environmental behaviors directly in this study. This is for two reasons: One, access to participants was limited and confined to the classroom or field; and two, the measurement of sustained behavioral change would have required a longitudinal 24 design that the timeframe for my degree did not allow for. With that being said, I conceptualize the learning objectives of environmental literacy, environmental attitudes and connection to nature as being part of a longer journey towards personal responsibility and action in students. 1.4.3 Pedagogical Framework: Environmental Education and VR/AR Systematic reviews of the literature have shown that experiential, critical, action-oriented and problem-based approaches to the environmental education of children tend to be commonly applied across the field, and that these often incorporate informal learning through local communities and outdoor education (Ardoin & Bowers, 2020; Bascopé et al., 2019; Hedefalk et al., 2015). However, there tends to be a lack of consensus about how different pedagogical approaches should be mobilized and this has certainly been true in the Canadian context (Pedretti & Nazir, 2014; Sauvé, 2005). These tensions are not particularly surprising: pedagogical approaches tend to become blurred once one moves from theoretical discussions and into the field, as Wood (2007) explains in her discussion of mixed pedagogies in childhood education. In this study I specifically sought to mix elements of experiential, critical, and connectivist-based pedagogies when developing and delivering field trips of Camosun Bog. In the following sections I review these approaches to learning in the context of VR, AR, and outdoor education. 1.4.3.1 Experiential Learning Experiential learning theory was formalized by David Kolb (1984) who described learning as an ongoing, dynamic process rather than simply a set of outcomes. He emphasized its cyclical nature, explaining how individuals construct new knowledge and understanding by reflecting on and integrating experiences through a process of continual adaptation to both their physical and sociocultural environments. Figure 1.4 (p. 25) is adapted from Kolb’s (1984) model that helps to conceptualize the experiential learning cycle: 25 Figure 1.4: Experiential Learning Cycle, adapted from Kolb (1984) This iterative four-stage model includes multiple components: (1) Concrete experience involves the learner encountering a new experience or reinterpreting an existing experience; (2) reflective observation refers to the seeking out of inconsistencies between a learner’s experience and their current knowledge; (3) abstract conceptualization modifies existing knowledge based on new experiences; and (4) active experimentation occurs when a learner applies new knowledge to the world around them. Experiential learning theory is commonly applied to outdoor education programs and field trips where children have an opportunity to engage in hands-on learning outside of a traditional classroom setting (Cincera et al., 2020; Jose et al., 2017; Moseley et al., 2020). Importantly, Cincera et al. (2020) highlight the need to provide memorable, authentic and transformative experiences. They argue that through producing feelings of awe and inspiration, outdoor experiences are more likely to be recalled by children later in life. This agrees with findings by authors like Chawla (1999) who reported that these sorts of formative experiences can inspire individuals to enter professions that are focused on protecting the environment. Meanwhile, Jose et al. (2017) and Moseley et al. (2020) also found that these experiences resulted in better conceptual knowledge about local environments and feelings of attachment. When it comes to the integration of VR and AR into experiential learning there has been skepticism by educators about the efficacy of these technologies (Bergen, 2017; Hills & Thomas, 2020; Quay et al., 2020). Bergen (2017) worries that the use of digital technologies are 26 disrupting outdoor play experiences and that this may result in children not being able to take advantage of the many physical, mental, and social benefits associated with outdoor education. Additionally, she is concerned that these types of experiences lack authenticity, and that highly mediated virtual environments may detract from children having formative nature experiences that will stay with them over time. More recently, Quay et al. (2020) asked educators to reflect on the future of environmental education in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. They highlighted how virtual learning seems to lack moments of spontaneous discovery while explaining that students felt imprisoned by only being able to engage with their friends online during this health emergency. Hills and Thomas (2020) occupy a middle-ground in respect to these concerns and developed a consequence-oriented approach to determining whether or not digital technologies should be applied to experiential learning. They suggest that educators consider this issue on a case-by-case basis, weighing pedagogical considerations alongside the affordances and downsides of specific digital technologies. A case-by-case analysis of VR and AR is prudent when choosing to integrate these technologies into environmental education programming. Regarding the concern that VR and AR may disrupt or replace outdoor experiences, it is important to understand that their best use rarely lies in simulation alone. Winn (1993) discusses the process of reification, through which representations of processes or objects that students would not normally be able to experience are made known to them. For example, Fan et al. (2010) designed a fully immersive VR application that depicted a lake where educators could influence the level of salt coming from nearby agricultural settlements so that students could explore the process of eutrophication. Eutrophication is an excess of nutrients in a lake that can cause the excessive growth of algae, which deoxygenates the water and kills off local fauna. Meanwhile, Lilligreen and Wiebel’s (2023) AR application allowed students to visualize the growth of tree roots and the movement of ground water. In these examples, the use of VR and AR is not replacing outdoor education, it is providing students with experiences that they would not have had otherwise. Instances where simulation alone may be useful are typically related to access in environmental education. Tudor et al.’s (2018) 360º VR field trip of the rainforest in Borneo is good example of a case where students would not have been able to visit the location being simulated due to economic barriers, distance, and safety concerns. 27 Experiential education theorists are also interested in connecting children to nature so that they might act in environmentally friendly ways to help protect it; however, the nature of wicked environmental problems, like climate change, demands an understanding of local, regional, continental, and even global scales (Klaniecki et al., 2018). Those who do not have direct experience with the consequences of environmental issues may perceive a lack of threat due to psychological distance, and this can lead to feelings of apathy or a lack of action (Brügger et al., 2016; Carmi & Kimhi, 2015; Spence et al., 2012). Breves and Schramm (2021) recently found that immersive media are particularly well-suited to decreasing psychological distance of environmental risks; although, they also found that these techniques could backfire when used to communicate local issues that learners already had direct experience with. While experiential learning theory is compatible with the integration of immersive media in environmental education, the use of these technologies requires careful consideration on behalf of educators to ensure these are the best tools for the task at hand. 1.4.3.2 Critical Environmental Education Practitioners of critical pedagogy view education as a tool through which to promote social justice while emphasizing the need to challenge dominant cultural narratives and power structures (Freire, 1970, 1987; Giroux, 1997; McLaren, 1989). Reflecting on the theoretical foundations of this approach to teaching, Giroux (1997, p. 9) argues that critical pedagogy seeks to upset the “culture of positivism,” which is characterized by rationalist and empirical methods being elevated over all others, and the belief that knowledge obtained in such a way is somehow objective and value free. Knowledge becomes a set of facts that are to be known or memorized within such a system, and its social construction is ignored in a way that often promotes an antidemocratic approach to learning that devalues other ways of knowing (Giroux, 1997). Critical educational theorists view curricula as a form of cultural politics, and argue that they can be used to empower students through the integration of multiple perspectives to help “broaden their understanding of themselves, the world, and the possibilities for transforming the taken-for-granted assumptions about the way we live” (McLaren, 1989, p. 149). Within the field of environmental education, such a broad mandate takes many forms, though I primarily draw on critical pedagogies of place and Indigenous environmental education in this dissertation. 28 Critical pedagogies of place engage students with local environments while exploring their socio-cultural contexts using approaches like out-door education or community-based learning, and promote reflection on issues like racial inequality, environmental justice, or settler colonialism (Cole, 2007; Gruenewald, 2003; Häggström & Schmidt, 2020; Miller, 2018; G. A. Smith, 2007). Gruenwald (2003), formalized the concept of critical pedagogies of place in light of critiques that critical pedagogy alone lacked engagement with environmental issues and did not provide practical guidance for educators. He argues that educators should promote reinhabitation and decolonization through place-based, experiential learning; although, he discusses the concept of decolonization in a universal sense. To elaborate, he describes reinhabitation as the process of reconnecting and living well in a place that has been damaged either socially or ecologically; meanwhile, decolonization is the process of transforming underlying conditions and ways of thinking that “injure and exploit other people and places” (Gruenewald, 2003, p. 9). G.A. Smith (2007) explored three cases where educators mobilized these concepts in their own teaching and found that they were successful in engaging their students with the cultural, environmental, economic, and political dimensions of local places while promoting activism. However, they also noted that uncooperative officials may become a barrier to successful programs, as can the inability of some teachers to relinquish control to community leaders when appropriate. Despite such findings, Bowers (2008) argues that critical pedagogies of place ignore the storied histories and intergenerational knowledge that still suffuse local places and some cultures, which could act as the basis for such education as opposed to Western understandings of a universalized approach to decolonization and reinhabitation. Relatedly, Indigenous environmental education specifically focusses on the importance of foregrounding Indigenous voices and knowledge while ensuring that these communities lead such conversations as part of the broader project of decolonization (Datta, 2018; Nxumalo, 2019; Nxumalo & Cedillo, 2017; Scully, 2012; Simpson, 2002). Simpson’s (2002) recommendations for educational reform are extensive in this regard and framed as a form of cultural survival. Specifically, Indigenous instructors, scientists, and allies within the scientific community should act as role models while helping students to navigate conflicts between Western and Indigenous worldviews. She also argues for curricula that foreground Indigenous methods as an equal alternative to Western empiricism while asking to have students reflect on the harms Western 29 systems have caused Indigenous communities. Experiential, land-based, and Elder-led approaches are preferred, and assessment should shift away from a focus on standardized testing to include more reflective assignments (Simpson, 2002). As I discussed briefly in my review of environmental literacy, some scholars have sought to enact such reforms through outdoor learning to unsettle assumptions about the histories of local nature reserves like parks and gardens (Datta, 2019; Nxumalo, 2019; Nxumalo & Cedillo, 2017; Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2013). Several scholars are incorporating the use of VR and AR in critical environmental education to promote multiple ways of knowing and engagement with the histories of local places (Gaertner, 2015; Marques et al., 2019; Mcmahon et al., 2019; Wallis & Ross, 2021). For example, Gaertner (2015) examines how Indigenous artists and thinkers are reconceptualizing their identities and communities within “landless” digital environments while creating new meeting places for themselves. Meanwhile, Marques et al. (2019) reflects on the way that AR can reveal the socio-cultural complexities of place through their co-development of an app with the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa iwi. They argue that AR provides a way to reassemble landscapes in a more complete fashion by allowing Indigenous communities to share their own histories and lessons through the embedding of language, stories, and representations of cultural objects. Similarly, Wallis and Ross (2021) discuss three examples of Indigenous VR applications, and how these communities are using such technologies to take control of how their stories are told. Of particular interest, The Hunt is a 360º VR application that subverts the domination of English by prioritizing the Mohawk language while helping users to imagine what 150 years of resistance might mean in the context of the continual struggle to resist settler colonialism (Wallis & Ross, 2021). Morin’s (2019) examination of the Indigenous Matriarch 4 (IM4) virtual reality media lab adds to this conversation. She argues that while VR and AR provide opportunities to foreground Indigenous culture, it is equally important for communities to be actively involved in training to dismantle underlying inequities surrounding their participation in these media. However, Morin (2019) signals another point of tension in the literature: when VR and AR are not directly developed by Indigenous communities, how should settlers navigate the politics of knowledge integration into environmental education? 30 1.4.3.3 Connectivist-Based Theories of Learning and Knowledge Integration A key gap in the literature surrounding experiential learning and critical environmental education is that the theories of learning supporting these approaches tend not to engage directly with the social realities of digitally connected societies. Siemens (2005) developed the theory of connectivism to help address such concerns, and argues that learning occurs as one compares and assesses different observations, opinions, and perspectives through connections with other nodes within learning networks. These nodes might include teachers, Elders, community leaders, organizations, websites, databases, social media, blogs, etc. VR and AR represent more recent technologies that can act as repositories and distributors of information within these networks. However, Kop and Hill (2008) question the need for a new theory of learning, arguing that several already provide a robust framework from which to engage with sociotechnical learning spaces even if they do not directly discuss the digital turn society has undergone. Further, Clarà & Barberà (2014) highlight three issues with connectivism. First, other nodes in a learning network should not just be considered as objects of learning and may assist students in recognizing other important connections, or even patterns of connections, that they may not have otherwise considered. Second, interactions are not binary, often bidirectional, and may vary in strength or be indirect. Finally, interactions are dynamic, changing over time as trust is earned, responsibilities are shared, and relationships develop. Van Dijk’s (2020, p. 130) discussion of how digital inequities “reflect and reinforce existing social inequalities” is relevant here as well, since there is a tendency when discussing digital networks and their associated technologies to think of them as epistemologically neutral forces. They are not. Indeed, digital technologies and their associated networks can exacerbate social injustice and the spread of misinformation (Franks, 2017; Marlow et al., 2021; Massanari, 2017). For example, Franks (2017) discusses issues related to gender-based violence that can be reproduced in virtual environments. Meanwhile, Marlow et al. (2021) recently reported that bots are increasingly active in spreading climate change denialism in an attempt to shift public discourse. In fact, nearly a quarter of the twitter messages that they analyzed were produced by these automated social actors. Any attempt to critically apply connectivism to VR and AR environmental education should seek to grapple with such issues. If these technologies reproduce 31 existing marginalizations or spread misinformation, then they will fail to produce the kind of socio-environmental transformations that educators are seeking to promote. Building on this discussion and returning to Morin’s (2019) examination of screen sovereignty, there is a concern that colonial realities may be reproduced and knowledge co-opted in cases of settler-produced media that includes Indigenous content. As Evering (2012, p. 365) explains in her discussion of knowledge integration, this process is often relegated to a “box-ticking exercise in the absence of effective processes.” That is, Western and Indigenous knowledges are often conceived of as a simple binary, and attempts to integrate different ways of knowing are seen as an exercise in addition that can result in the reproduction of epistemic marginalizations (Evering, 2012). As a member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Kimmerer (2013, p. ix) beautifully narrates what a successful approach to the integration of Indigenous knowledges and Western science might look like in her metaphor of braiding sweetgrass: “In braiding sweetgrass—so that it is smooth, glossy, and worthy of the gift—a certain amount of tension is needed. As any little girl with tight braids will tell you, you have to pull a bit. Of course you can do it yourself—by tying one end to a chair, or by holding it in your teeth and braiding backward away from yourself—but the sweetest way is to have someone else hold the end so that you pull gently against each other, all the while leaning in, head to head, chatting and laughing, watching each other’s hands, one holding steady while the other shifts the slim bundles over one another, each in its turn. Linked by sweetgrass, there is reciprocity between you, linked by sweetgrass, the holder as vital as the braider.” Knowledge integration requires consent, as well as acts of reciprocity, support and friendship (Kimmerer, 2013). Doing so can provide students with a model of ethical relationality akin to what Todd (2016) refers to as reciprocity of thought, or Blaser (2016) terms working across difference. Lowan-Trudeau (2015) also provides a model for this form of knowledge integration through his discussion of Métissage which combines resources from both Indigenous and Western sources while respecting the oral traditions of storytelling and narrative inquiry, engaging teachers and students in reflection on their roles within broader colonial systems, and encouraging relationships of accountability. Similarly, Hatcher et al. (2009) reflect on knowledge integration through the application of two-eyed seeing (a technique developed by co-author, and Mi’kmaw Elder, Dr. Albert Marshall). Their framework highlights the importance of acknowledging and respecting the agency, creativity, differences, and common ground of all 32 knowledge holders through mindful reflection, as well as recognizing the need for cooperation. However, educators should be cautious as the potential for appropriation, exploitation, and cultural homogenization is likely if such methods are not applied critically (TallBear, 2021; Todd, 2016). Tying such discussions back to connectivism, a critical connectivist-based approach to the development of VR and AR should not reduce media to yet another node in a series of network connections, nor should learning be approached as merely the outcome of pattern recognition by students engaging in such networks. Rather, developers and teachers must contextualize this media, drawing attention to the complex systems of place, people, and knowledge that they are embedded in. The way in which media is sourced, produced, and integrated into digital learning environments requires caution, and special attention should be paid to issues pertaining to appropriation, consent, and the possibility of further entrenching epistemic marginalizations within Western education. 1.4.4 Green Space and Environmental Education I use the term green space when referencing specific, measurable, and observable types of land cover in this dissertation. I make this distinction because when I use the term nature, I am not merely referencing the biophysical environment; rather, I am referring to a construct that is inextricably linked with the socio-cultural processes that co-constitute such places. Indeed, Castree (2014) explains that there is a tendency to promote a Western understanding of nature-culture dualism at the expense of more socio-critical examinations of natural spaces, and asks scholars to be cautious about how they mobilize this term in the literature. Other authors have made a similar request in the context of environmental education (Dickinson, 2013; Fletcher, 2017). Keeping these calls to action in mind, I do not refer to green space only for the sake of definitional clarity. A clear understanding and delineation of the biophysical environments that are being used in the environmental education of children is necessary for replicability and testing when determining students’ access to green space. 33 1.4.4.1 Green Space Green spaces are vegetated areas of land cover that can vary widely in terms of their size, structural complexity, connectivity, and species richness (Grafius et al., 2018; Matthies et al., 2015; Threlfall et al., 2016; Tian et al., 2017; Xie et al., 2023). Additionally, the location of green space relative to where humans are located is important to how it is defined. The term urban green space is commonly used when describing the often limited or highly curated nature of such areas in compact, built environments that serve large populations of people (Kabisch et al., 2016; Lo & Jim, 2012; Threlfall et al., 2016). Others have sought to delineate suburban green spaces, which tend to be larger and more contiguous than those found in urban areas (Lynch, 2021; Tansil et al., 2022). Some authors also differentiate between green, blue, and grey spaces to highlight the differences in land cover between terrestrial, aquatic, and built environments (Abass et al., 2019; Fisher et al., 2021; Tiwary & Kumar, 2014). Broadly, green spaces may be private or public, and range from lawns and gardens to street trees, fields, parkland, and even cemeteries (Coolen & Meesters, 2012; Hanson et al., 2021; Pristeri et al., 2021; Quinton & Duinker, 2019; Threlfall et al., 2016). Within the context of environmental education, there is generally a preference among educators for public green spaces like parks that often have forests, streams, meadows, beaches, and other land cover that can support high levels of biodiversity (Bal & Kaya, 2020; Bentsen et al., 2013; Kola‐Olusanya, 2005; Lugg & Slattery, 2003; Reichstein, 2018). However, Lugg and Slattery (2003, p. 88) point to a preoccupation with green spaces that approximate “pristine wilderness” in their discussion of national park usage in outdoor environmental education, and worry that local, biodiverse spaces may sometimes be ignored as potential learning environments because of this. That said, surveys of educators in both Denmark and Canada have pointed to a preference for local parks that are convenient or close by, so long as they provide opportunities for enriching outdoor experiences (Bentsen et al., 2013; Reichstein, 2018). Other authors have also pointed to the use of community gardens as a type of green space that are often used within the context of education for sustainable development, particularly in relation to food security and healthy eating habits (Bergan et al., 2021; Datta, 2016, 2019; Lee et al., 2019; Rios & Menezes, 2017). Approaches to identifying, locating, and assessing green spaces have traditionally relied on field observations, which are highly valuable but require a significant amount of time and 34 resources to conduct well (Gupta et al., 2012; Rhew et al., 2011; Shahtahmassebi et al., 2021). More recently, the use of remote sensing has significantly improved the ability of researchers to map the location of green space and this trend has been supported through the increased availability of high resolution imagery, as well as the use of Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and hyperspectral sensors (MacFaden et al., 2012; Shahtahmassebi et al., 2021). The use of vegetation indexes and land cover classification are commonly used applications of remote sensing when seeking to quantify and differentiate green spaces (Kabisch et al., 2016; Rhew et al., 2011; Richards et al., 2017; Shahtahmassebi et al., 2021; Xue & Su, 2017). The most common method of estimating greenness is the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), which calculates the ratio between red and near infrared (NIR) reflectance (Rhew et al., 2011; Xue & Su, 2017). This works because healthy vegetation absorbs red light while reflecting NIR and green light. This method returns a value between -1 and +1 for each pixel in a remotely sensed image. Values near +1 correspond to healthy vegetation, values near 0 correspond to bare earth, rocks, or built structures, and values approaching -1 are generally water, snow, or shadows (Rhew et al., 2011). This method does have its limitations though. First, extremely dense canopies will reach a maximum value, saturate, and the NDVI will be unable to further differentiate changes in vegetation density beyond that point (Huang et al., 2021; Xue & Su, 2017). Still, the use of optimized variations of the NDVI can be used to enhance its range (Xue & Su, 2017). Second, this index is not very useful for determining the type of vegetation present, since it is generally used to understand the density of greenness in an area instead (Martinez & Labib, 2023). Land cover classification of remotely sensed data involves the differentiation of specific types of land cover like forests, water bodies, trails, or roads that are associated with specific bands of electromagnetic radiation, and this method can provide a more complete picture of green spaces (Kabisch et al., 2016; Li et al., 2021; Qian et al., 2015; Richards et al., 2017). However, while maps detailing land cover and land use are commonly available through local land authorities, this is not always the case in areas where funding is lacking or data storage has been interrupted (Abebe & Megento, 2017; Byomkesh et al., 2012). Local land authorities may also only update their data periodically, which is a limitation of this study (Metro Vancouver, 2022). Briefly, methods of land cover classification can be roughly broken down into supervised, 35 unsupervised, and hybrid approaches, and use a wide variety of classification algorithms (Abburu & Babu Golla, 2015; Richards, 2013). The primary difference between these approaches is that supervised classification methods rely on the use of training data that is associated with specific land cover types, while unsupervised classification methods identify similarities in the spectral characteristics of pixels before clustering them into specific classes (Abburu & Babu Golla, 2015; Li et al., 2021; Rafiee et al., 2009; Richards, 2013). Hybrid methods combine these approaches. For example, researchers may use unsupervised classification to initially cluster pixels before using this to determine optimal areas to designate as training spaces during supervised classification (Abburu & Babu Golla, 2015; Richards, 2013). While remote sensing provides a powerful way to quantify and qualify green space, it is also important to consider how it can limit our understanding of these environments. For example, the use of hard classification methods assigns pixels and objects to a single class of land cover, often hiding the fact that a variety of land cover types may be present in a single unit of analysis (Feilhauer et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2016). Soft, or fuzzy, classification methods are one approach to dealing with such an issue, and involve pixels or objects being given partial membership across several types of land cover to better simulate this complexity (Feilhauer et al., 2021). 1.4.4.2 Access to Green Space In this literature review I have already discussed numerous benefits for environmental education that are associated with access to green space and time spent outdoors, such as increased connection to nature (Collado et al., 2013), environmental literacy (Jose et al., 2017; Moseley et al., 2020), pro-environmental values (Hartig et al., 2007), and pro-environmental behavior (Whitburn et al., 2019). Studies have also pointed to physical and mental health benefits associated with increased access to green space (Bedimo-Rung et al., 2005; Chawla, 2015; Pretty et al., 2003). More recently, Konijnendijk (2023) suggested a 3-30-300 rule for urban forestry to promote such benefits. Specifically, they suggest having 3 trees in view from every home, school, and place of work, 30% tree canopy in every neighborhood and living within 300m of the nearest green space (Konijnendijk, 2023). Additionally, Wolsink (2016) has 36 investigated how access to green space affects the number of outdoor field trips students participate in. Not only did he find that increased access resulted in a greater number of field trips, but a positive feedback loop existed; whereby, going on field trips improved the chance that classes would go on additional excursions to destinations that were further away. This is particularly important as positive field trip experiences may help to break down common barriers to outdoor education. Access to green space is multi-dimensional. While the literature has primarily focused on physical access, or the ability to travel to green spaces, inequitable distribution of these areas has been shown to intersect with socio-economic status, race, gender, age, and ability (Dai, 2011; Ode Sang et al., 2020; Wong et al., 2023). For example, Dai (2011) found that African Americans, Asians, and socio-economically disadvantaged populations had significantly lower levels of access to green space in Atlanta. Conversely, Vaughan et al. (2013) determined that poorer neighborhoods in Kansas City had more green space, but that it was of considerably lower quality. Connecting such findings to disability, Wong et al. (2023) reported that neighborhoods with high levels of green space tended to have higher numbers of disabled residents; however, clusters of disabled people who lived in areas with relatively low levels of green space tended to intersect with racial and socio-economically marginalized populations. Measures of access to green space tend to focus on three primary dimensions: quality, quantity, and proximity (Rigolon, 2016; Rigolon et al., 2018). Quantity of green space can be calculated using previously discussed methods like vegetation indexes or land cover, which are then summed across areas like neighborhoods or cities and reported as ratios (Kabisch et al., 2016; Richards et al., 2017). To determine if green space is equitably distributed across various sociodemographic dimensions, population-level data is often assessed in relation to quantities of green space, before being compared using various statistical methods (Aly & Dimitrijevic, 2022; Wong et al., 2023). For example, Aly and Dimitrijevic (2022) compared the quantity of green space across districts in Cairo and found that green space was unevenly distributed and had decreased over time. It should also be noted that in cases where sociodemographic data is not provided across comparable aerial units, dasymetric mapping techniques can be used to confine such data to populated areas (e.g., residential land). 37 This data can then be reaggregated across appropriate geographic boundaries using zonal statistics (Dmowska, 2019). Still, quantifying green space using these types of methods only provides a partial understanding of access, one that often lacks information about the perceived importance of different types of land cover to residents. While quality of vegetation and its structural complexity can be assessed through the use of remote sensing and GIS, researchers often seek to incorporate mixed methods into their research to gain a more complete picture of access to green space. (Harris et al., 2018; Lang et al., 2007; Stessens et al., 2020). For example, Lang et al. (2007) sought to address this issue by incorporating peoples’ perceptions about the quality of green space as a weight in their accessibility analysis. Similarly, Stessens et al. (2020) recently used an integrated approach where they incorporated metrics of quietness, spaciousness, cleanliness, and maintenance into their assessment of green space using GIS. Finally, measures of proximity or distance often use buffers or network analysis to measure access to green space (Cetin, 2015; Ertugay & Duzgun, 2018; Oh & Jeong, 2007). Network analysis has increasingly been preferred by those studying accessibility as it better models the distance travelled by persons or vehicles when compared to traditional buffering techniques (Almohamad et al., 2018; Oh & Jeong, 2007). Buffers only measure the Euclidean distance, and do not take terrain or route complexities into account, such as hills, stoplights, or crosswalks (Ertugay & Duzgun, 2018). Meanwhile, network analysis uses a dataset that is composed of edges (e.g., roads, trails, etc.) and nodes (e.g., intersections, facilities, or points of interest) upon which routing can be calculated to estimate the amount of distance a person can travel over a specific period of time given various costs and impediments. For example, Oh and Jeong (2007) found that using network analysis resulted in their estimation of the service area of local parks being halved when compared to using buffers. That is, buffer methods can significantly overestimate service areas while underestimating travel time. 1.5 Chapter Summary The primary goal of this dissertation is to examine the comparative efficacy of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips in the environmental education of children who have different levels of access to quality green space from their schools in Vancouver, Canada. Specifically, I am 38 interested in how these educational interventions can be used to promote the development of environmental literacy, environmental attitudes and connection to nature while supporting critical approaches to environmental education. The literature review in this chapter serves as a bridge between research on VR and AR, environmental education, and access to green space while drawing on experiential, critical, and connectivist-based approaches to teaching. More specifically, the classification of VR and AR should consider the overall user experience, including levels of immersivity, interaction, and the type of hardware used. Barriers to using VR and AR include technical difficulties, health concerns, and cost. Meanwhile, the strategic use of these technologies can help to foster connection to nature, environmental attitudes, and environmental literacy in children, all of which can influence pro-environmental behavior. The Awareness to Action Continuum provides a conceptual model for understanding this process. Further, VR, AR, and outdoor education can promote critical, place-based approaches to environmental education that integrate multiple ways of knowing; however, care must be taken to ensure epistemic marginalizations are not reproduced in the process. VR and AR may also support these approaches through the reification of environmental processes and by connecting students to experiences they would not have otherwise had due to barriers like safety, distance, or cost. Finally, increased access to green space can promote future field trips. Common ways to measure green space include vegetation indexes and land cover classification; meanwhile, approaches to accessibility analysis of green space often involve determining its quantity and quality while comparing these across different dimensions such as socioeconomic status, race, gender, or ability. Incorporation of qualitative data, such as surveys and interviews, or using mixed methods, can strengthen such approaches. Additionally, proximity and distance to green space are typically assessed using buffer techniques and network analysis; although, network analysis is the preferred method. 39 Chapter 2: Methodology In this case study, I used a sequential mixed methods approach to investigate the comparative efficacy of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips in the environmental education of children who have different levels of walking access to quality green space in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. As outlined in Figure 2.1, research was conducted in multiple stages: In 2021, This study began with the community-based development of field trips and a preliminary analysis of access to green space from local elementary schools using land cover and Field Interviews Field Trip Development Accessibility Analysis Participant Recruitment Pre-Survey Field Trips Deployed Qualitative Analysis Field Notes Post-Survey Quantitative Analysis Quant/Qual Integration Figure 2.1: Research Process 2021 2022 2023 40 network analyses. During spring 2022, a review by the UBC Behavioral Research Ethics Board and Vancouver School Board’s (VSB) Research Committee was conducted and the recruitment of grade 3-7 classrooms followed in fall 2022 using a stratified, snowball sampling approach. A quasi-experimental, non-equivalent groups design was combined with a pre-test-post-test methodology to assess changes in students’ environmental literacy, environmental attitudes, and connection to nature across field trip types and access levels. Specifically, difference scores were calculated for each of these dependent variables from survey results collected before and after field trips were conducted. These scores were then compared using factorial ANOVA and post-hoc tests to determine if there were significant differences between study conditions and if there were any interaction effects between access levels and field trip types. Interviews were also conducted with students and teachers as field trips were conducted, before being thematically coded alongside my field notes using an iterative, grounded theory approach. This provided additional context and explanation for the results obtained from my statistical analysis. Case studies like this are commonly employed alongside mixed methods in geography and education research due to the complex, and often contextually specific, phenomena being studied (Hemming, 2008; Rozsahegyi, 2019; Yeager & Steiger, 2013). This study was no exception, as field trip participants explored the historically and culturally significant site of Camosun Bog – a citizen restored wetland that has long been a source of stories, food, medicines, raw materials, and trade commodities for the Musqueam people. While concerns are often raised about the generalizability of case studies to broader populations or settings, the richly detailed findings that emerge from such research are grounded in real-world situations and experiences that can be more easily applied as well (Creswell, 2009; Rozsahegyi, 2019). The use of methodological triangulation can also help to improve external validity in such instances by identifying biases or external influences that may be specific to a single location or group of study participants (Creswell, 2009). In this study, I followed such suggestions through the use of a sequential mixed methods approach that integrated both quantitative and qualitative methods. While the statistical analysis of survey results allowed for the capturing of broader trends in the data, a thematic analysis of interviews and field notes allowed for a more nuanced discussion of my findings. While some themes that emerged found backing from cases in the literature, others were specific to the context within which this research occurred. 41 2.1 Study Area: The Vancouver School District The Vancouver School District (VSD) is located in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada on the unceded and traditional territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish), and səlilwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) nations (see Figure 2.2). It is a large, urban school district with 89 elementary schools, 18 secondary schools, 1 alternate secondary school, and 1 distributed learning school (VSB, 2023d). As of September 2022, the district had a student population of 51,180 students, with 28,794 primary-school students enrolled in kindergarten to grade 7 and 22,386 secondary-school students enrolled in grades 8 to 12 (British Columbia Education Analytics Office, 2022). In terms of public green space, students and teachers primarily utilize city or regional parks for environmental education, of which there are 266 locations in, or directly adjacent to, the study area. In total, they cover 2091 ha. Figure 2.2: Vancouver School District 42 In terms of demographics, the VSD is one of the most diverse in all of Canada with students speaking over 140 different languages and 44% of them speaking a language other than English when at home; meanwhile, 8% of students identify as Indigenous (VSB, 2023d). In terms of ability, 11% of students in the district have diverse needs, while 35% of incoming students are classified as developmentally vulnerable in one or more areas, including physical health and wellbeing, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive development, or communication skills and general knowledge (British Columbia Education Analytics Office, 2022; British Columbia Ministry of Education and Child Care, 2023a). This means that without additional support, they may experience challenges during their time in school or into adulthood (Human Early Learning Partnership, 2021). Economically, the median income for two-parent families in the district was $144,000 as of the 2021 census; meanwhile, single-parent families earned approximately half this income, or $72,500 (Statistics Canada, 2022). Compared to national reporting, this means that two-parent families in the district earn approximately 5.9% more than the average Canadian, while single-parent families earn about the same (Statistics Canada, 2022). However, housing prices and the cost of living remain some of the highest in all of Canada (Grigoryeva & Ley, 2019). 2.2 Field Trip Development and Deployment Three versions of a field trip that highlighted the environmental and cultural significance of Camosun Bog were developed alongside community members throughout 2021, and were available as either a virtual, augmented, or outdoor nature walk for those participating in this study. Camosun Bog is a restored wetland, located in Pacific Spirit Regional Park. It is actively managed by both Metro Vancouver Regional Parks and the Pacific Spirit Park Society’s Camosun Bog Restoration Group in partnership with the Musqueam Indian Band. Collectively, these groups have dedicated a great deal of resources and time to maintaining this space. 2.2.1 Community-Based Development of Learning Materials New learning materials were co-produced alongside the Camosun Bog Restoration Group in fall of 2021 and hosted through the study’s web portal (Jerowsky, 2023b). After permission was granted to partner on this project by the Pacific Spirit Park Society’s board of directors, I 43 met with members of the Camosun Bog Restoration Group, local teachers, and Metro Vancouver park interpreters so that we could share insights and brainstorm which materials should be included in the field trips. An archivist for the Musqueam Indian Band, who had partnered with the Pacific Spirit Park Society on other learning materials for Pacific Spirit Regional Park, directed us to the Musqueam Teaching Kit that Elders and members of the Musqueam Nation had developed alongside the UBC Museum of Anthropology for use by local teachers and students. Eighteen plant and animal cards were developed using the Adobe Creative Suite, and special attention was given to the identification, ecological importance, and cultural significance of each species. Volunteer photography or Creative Commons media were sourced, and written content was developed using Metro Vancouver’s interpretive materials and reference sources, alongside local experts. Additionally, six video interviews were conducted with longtime volunteers of the Camosun Bog Restoration Group to share their experiences regarding volunteerism, their love for the bog, and facts about local flora and fauna. First, a research permit to film in Pacific Spirit Regional Park was obtained from Metro Vancouver Regional Parks before semi-structured video interviews were conducted in Camosun Bog during a volunteer restoration event in the summer of 2021. A Sony FDR-AX100 4K Ultra HD Handycam Camcorder and microphone were used, and post-production was completed in Adobe Premier Pro and Adobe Audition. Volunteers and partner organizations were contacted to review and submit their edits following the creation of these media. Interpretive signage, which was used in both digital and in-person versions of Camosun Bog field trips, was captured using a Samsung Galaxy S21 smartphone in summer 2021. Signage was developed by Metro Vancouver interpretive staff alongside the Musqueam Indian Band, and showcased plants, animals, timelines, community restoration, and Musqueam culture. 2.2.2 Sourcing and Integration of Indigenous Learning Materials In this study, learning materials that highlighted the lived experiences of the Musqueam People and the colonial realities of Camosun Bog were sourced from the Musqueam Teaching Kit (Musqueam First Nation and UBC Museum of Anthropology, n.d.). This open educational resource was designed to be developed and adapted to fit the needs of local classrooms and 44 students in the Vancouver School District. It includes activities and digital learning resources, such as interviews with Elders, reflection exercises, and maps to help students and teachers engage with topics like settler colonialism, language, art, and the present-day experiences of the Musqueam People. The Musqueam Teaching Kit was first suggested as a resource by an archivist with the Musqueam First Nation during previous consultation on the creation of a forest teaching kit that I helped to develop alongside members of the Pacific Spirit Park Society from 2017-2020. Given the large number of requests that the Musqueam First Nation receives to develop curricular resources and activities, the Musqueam Teaching Kit was suggested as it already contained a wide selection of learning materials that were specifically created for local teachers. While I wanted to codevelop additional learning resources alongside the Musqueam First Nation for use in VR and AR field trips during this study, restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic did not allow for this. Following the announcement of a public health emergency in B.C. on March 17th, 2020, all access to the Musqueam Reserve was restricted to members of this community until October 7th, 2022 and conversations were limited to email or Zoom (Musqueam Indian Band, 2022). Although emails introducing this project and follow-up emails were sent to the Musqueam Indian Band Main Office and Protocol Coordinator prior to the development of community-based learning materials, these emails were not returned. This lack of response was completely understandable: the development of learning materials could not take priority over the safety, health, and well-being of the Musqueam People during an unprecedented public health emergency. This situation left me in a precarious position as a researcher, and a choice had to be made to meet program deadlines for my graduate degree. One option was that I could choose not to include Musqueam learning materials in field trips for this study without additional consultation; although, this would likely result in field trips that reproduced the same cultural backgrounding and erasure that I was seeking to combat. Another option was that I could link to those open educational resources in the Musqueam Teaching Kit that had been previously suggested. I chose option two. That being said, careful attention to the explicit intent of the learning materials I chose to include in field trips was necessary to ensure that I was not appropriating 45 media or threatening the Musqueam First Nation’s data sovereignty. That is, I had to ensure that I was respecting their collective rights to data about their people, territories, lifeways, cultural heritage, and natural resources which are supported by their inherent rights to self-determination and self-governance (Larson, 2023). Afterall, the inclusion of open-source learning materials too often results in extractive practices and exploitation by those “who are just looking for another territory to claim” (Daniel Justice qtd. in Engle and De La Vega, 2020). Therefore, I paid attention to how data was downloaded, stored, and accessed during field trips. Importantly, The Musqueam First Nation’s (n.d., p. 137) intent regarding the use of these materials is made explicitly clear in their message to local educators: “Designed as a cross-curricular resource, this teaching kit emphasizes Aboriginal perspectives and critical thinking practices that are major components of the new British Columbia curriculum (2016-2017). We welcome educators to develop and adapt the teaching kit to fit the needs of their class and students. Educators are encouraged to display the included hanging resources, link the content to current events, and use the big ideas as starting points for critical questions or inquiry projects.” These learning materials were made accessible via hot spots in the VR field trip or as temporary QR codes during the AR field trip. Videos were not altered, shortened, or combined, and were kept “as is.” Additionally, I took precautions surrounding the storage of this data. Rather than downloading and incorporating learning materials directly into VR and AR field trips, these resources were embedded as linked content directly from the UBC Museum of Anthropology’s YouTube account where these learning resources are currently found. In all cases, I wanted to ensure that there was no confusion about who created this content or who owned the rights to it. Still, I also wanted to ensure that I was not merely including these materials as part of a box-ticking exercise, as I discuss in my examination of critical approaches to knowledge integration in Chapter 1. Thus, it was incredibly important that I contextualize the Indigenous learning materials sourced from the Musqueam Teaching Kit through self-reflection alongside student participants. This meant sharing information about myself, and examples of how the Pacific Spirit Park Society, Metro Vancouver, and the Camosun Bog Restoration Group have previously worked with the Musqueam First Nation. This also meant discussing past grievances, such as the creation of Pacific Spirit Park, which saw considerable protest from Musqueam 46 (CBC, 1989). Only through the modelling of self-reflection and ethical relationality could I hope for students to also engage with these learning materials in a critical way. While I had hoped for an opportunity to participate in a more iterative engagement process with the Musqueam First Nation, this study and the time during which it occurred is a stark example of how such research rarely meets our initial goals. However, it has also served as a lesson. As a settler, I cannot be fearful of engaging with such materials when Indigenous communities have made clear that they want local educators to do so. What is important is how we present these learning materials to our students. Respect and humility are paramount. One must do their best to adhere to the intents and purposes of such learning materials and be willing to make mistakes (Engle and De La Vega, 2020.). As I will discuss in Chapter 4, this is an important lesson that some teachers in the Vancouver School District need to learn. Indeed, one of the primary barriers that teachers referenced in my interviews for this study was that they were not incorporating Indigenous learning materials into their lessons due to a fear of making mistakes – this was resulting in complete inaction for some. Given the representational and participatory injustice that Indigenous communities face within environmental education, inaction is not an acceptable response. 2.2.3 Virtual Reality: Camosun Bog 360 The VR version of the field trip is an eight-stop tour of Camosun Bog that is composed of interactive, interconnected 4K videospheres, and is hosted on the study’s web portal (Jerowsky, 2023a). It was developed in fall of 2021 using Virtual Tour Pro (3D Vista, 2023), which allows for the creation of 360º tours using panoramic photography or video. In addition, developers can embed sounds, video, and photos through the incorporation of multifunctional hot-spots, which are clickable icons that participants can activate to access different learning materials during the field trip. Discussions with teachers and local environmental non-profits determined that this software was preferred over other options, such as Unity (Unity, 2023) or H5P (UBC, 2023), as it required comparatively low technical abilities and economic investment. This meant that Camosun Bog 360º could be more easily replicated in other parks by community members. Development of Camosun Bog 360º began with environment and audio capture. This was done using an Insta360 Pro 2 8K VR camera. A minimum of ten minutes of video footage was 47 captured at all eight tour stops in spring, summer, and fall of 2021 with the assistance of UBC Geography’s digital media specialist. However, footage was not captured in winter due to the delicate nature of the camera equipment being used. Following this, the resolution of all scenes was downscaled to 4K in Adobe Premier and an equirectangular VR projection and monoscopic layout was selected before uploading to Virtual Tour Pro. Custom hot-spots were designed in Adobe Illustrator, uploaded to each scene, and linked to community-developed learning materials. In the case of signage, audio recordings were made in Adobe Audition and added to embedded imagery as they contained some vocabulary that exceeded the grade levels of participants. Next, interactive hot-spots that linked each scene were added, and a VR hot-spot was included for use with a virtual reality headset. Finally, the field trip was uploaded to the project’s web portal for testing by community members. Following a brief tutorial, study participants accessed Camosun Bog 360º in their classroom, using an internet-connected smartphone, earbuds, and a Google Cardboard headset (Google, 2023). For students who reported motion sickness, or were unable to use the headset, Camosun Bog 360º was accessed via their smartphone’s web browser or a tablet as desktop VR. In these cases, their survey results were flagged due to a change of device. During the field trip, students could access technical support from myself or a teacher by raising their hand for assistance. 2.2.4 Augmented Reality: Camosun Bog AR The AR version of the Camosun Bog field trip was conducted in-person, during which students visited the same eight stops that were available in Camosun Bog 360º. QR codes were placed around each stop that linked to community interviews, stories, and digital learning materials from the Musqueam Teaching Kit, which were then accessed by students using a smartphone or tablet. Those students who did not have their own smartphone, worked in pairs with a peer so that they could share a device. Students were also encouraged to examine plants and animals they saw using the Seek application by iNaturalist. This is a free, child-friendly application that does not require registration or collect user data, and uses image recognition to aid in identification (iNaturalist, 2023). 48 After participating classes arrived, I provided a short introduction to Camosun Bog, ensured students had their phones turned on with data enabled, and gave a short safety talk. Students were led to each stop while being encouraged to explore and examine plants and animals on the way. At each stop, I provided a brief introduction and technical support while answering questions about the bog from participants. Flex time was given at the end of the tour in the children’s bog, an area that was recently built by the Camosun Bog Restoration Group and Metro Vancouver so that students could more easily access plants that grow close to the bog surface. This area was also gated, so that students could not wander too far from myself or their teacher. At the end of the field trip, students and teachers were led back to the pick-up location and returned to their classroom. 2.2.5 Outdoor Education: Camson Bog Nature Walk The outdoor version of the Camosun Bog field trip was conducted as a guided tour without the use of any technology, and I led all classes to reduce differences in instruction between participants. Plant and animal ID cards were laminated and used as teaching aids during the tour. Additionally, volunteers assisted with the walk and shared their experiences and reasons for participating in the restoration and protection of the bog. Students were provided with a safety talk upon arriving with their class, and as with Camosun Bog 360º and Camosun Bog AR, the same eight stops were used on this tour. During the guided tour, students were shown how to identify different plants and animals in the bog, and lessons on the history of Camosun Bog, its importance to the Musqueam People, and recent restoration work were shared. As with Camosun Bog AR, students were provided flex time at the end of the tour in the children’s bog so that they could explore and interact with the bog surface more directly. At the end of the field trip, students and teachers returned to their classroom. 2.3 Accessibility Analysis Elementary school access to green space for use in environmental education was determined in spring of 2022 using a combination of land cover and network analysis in ArcGIS Pro to allow for the stratification of research participants by access levels. Following discussions with local teachers and principals, analysis was constrained to publicly available green spaces, 49 which were large enough to lead outdoor field trips in. Due to this, green spaces like golf courses, cemeteries, or those on private property were excluded. Within a compact urban environment like the City of Vancouver, this meant that analysis should focus on parkland. This decision was supported by Reichstein’s (2018) survey of educators in the Vancouver School District where it was reported that a reliance on parkland consisting of natural land cover was quite common among local teachers. To aid in this analysis, shapefiles that delineated the extent of parkland within and adjacent to the study area were obtained from the City of Vancouver (2019), City of Burnaby (2022), and Metro Vancouver (2020), before being merged in ArcGIS Pro. 2.3.1 Quality Analysis To analyze and assess the quality of green space, hybrid 5m resolution land cover data was used that identified 12 biophysical classes across the study area: buildings, paved, built (other), barren (sand), soil, coniferous trees, deciduous trees, shrubs, modified grass-herb, natural grass-herb, non-photosynthetic vegetation, and water. This was created using 2014 RapidEye multispectral satellite and full feature LiDAR data from 2008-2015 (Metro Vancouver, 2023). Use of this data is recommended by the study area’s regional land manager for planning purposes, and was recently employed by Jarvis et al. (2020) in their examination of natural urban space. The purpose of this analysis was to identify publicly available green space of sufficient quality and quantity to allow for engaging environmental education programming. As there is no formal standard for this, I relied on two reports published by the City of Vancouver: “The Classroom in Open Air” (Reichstein, 2018), and “Rewilding Vancouver” (Crab, 2014). Based on these documents and associated surveys with teachers, it was clear that wild or natural spaces that included complex forests, shrubland, meadows, waterways, and high levels of biodiversity were preferred. The Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation also listed six parks as examples of natural spaces that were commonly visited by teachers when conducting outdoor field trips (Reichstein, 2018), and I calculated the percentage of natural space in each to determine a minimum standard to guide my analysis (see Table 2.1, p. 50). Natural space was calculated using the zonal statistics tool in ArcGIS, and classified as consisting of coniferous and deciduous trees, shrubs, natural grass and herbs, beach and shoreline, or water. Shadows were excluded 50 from the analysis as they represented a technical consequence of the remote sensing data as opposed to a true land cover class. The results suggested a minimal standard of 66.3% natural space. Table 2.1: Percentage of Natural Land Cover in Parks Suggested by Reichstein (2018) The smallest suggested park in the City of Vancouver’s report was 6.1 ha., which is classified as a neighborhood park (Reichstein, 2018). As the minimum size of a neighborhood park is 2.5 ha., this was chosen as a standard for parkland to be included for further analysis. Finally, a local sensitivity analysis was conducted on parkland of at least 2.5 ha. The natural area of parkland was varied by +/- 5% and this showed an average exclusion rate of 4.8%. 2.3.2 Network Analysis The City of Vancouver states that 99% of the population lives, works or goes to school within 10 minutes walking distance of green space (Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, 2018b). Therefore, in this study the network analyst extension for ArcGIS Pro was used to determine which schools were within 10 minutes walking distance of quality green space, defined as parkland that is equal to or greater than 2.5 ha in size with at least 66.3% natural land cover. Street, trail, and routing data were obtained from DMTI Spatial (2021), clipped to the study area, and a network dataset was created in ArcGIS Pro. Additionally, park entry points were manually digitized for all quality parkland. Based on the methodology outlined in the Vancouver Board of Park and Recreation’s provisioning study (Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, 2016), a pedestrian walking time of 80m/min was used. Additionally, as it is more Park Natural Area (ha.) Total Area (ha.) Natural Area (%) Renfrew Ravine Park 6.0 6.1 98.2% Pacific Spirit Regional Park 784.6 799.8 98.1% Everett Crowley Park 35.4 38.2 92.7% Stanley Park 371.9 418.3 88.9% Musqueam Park 20.0 23.8 84.0% Jericho Beach Park 32.0 48.2 66.3% 51 difficult to walk up hilly terrain, the average walking speed was reduced by 0.4m/min per 1% increase in the slope grade when calculating travel times. A closest facilities analysis was used to calculate walking times for all elementary schools to the nearest area of quality green space. A service area analysis was also conducted to calculate 5, 8, and 10-minute polygons for all quality green spaces in the study area to produce an accessibility map. This allowed for a clearer visualization of access to quality green space across the VSD. 2.4 Participant Recruitment and Consent The VSB (VSB, 2023b) requires that any research conducted within the district must not make unreasonable demands on the time of principals, teachers, or students, and should have the potential to contribute to their well-being or education. Once ethics approval is obtained from a researcher’s institution and the VSB’s ethics committee, all researchers must first contact school principals to obtain their permission before approaching teachers or students about inclusion in a study. Afterwards, teachers may self-select whether they and their class will participate. Further, it is preferred that studies take place at the classroom scale, rather than through the random assignment of students to different study conditions. Consequently, a stratified, snowball sampling approach was used to recruit grade 3 to 7 classrooms from elementary schools that were both within and outside of 10 minutes walking distance to quality green space. After permission to conduct research was obtained from elementary school principals by email, they were asked to forward a recruitment poster to teachers along with my contact information if they would like to participate. Interested teachers were asked to discuss the different types of field trips with their class and book a date for the field trip of their choosing. A consent form for participation in this study was provided to teachers, as was a parental consent form for dissemination to the guardians of their students. A date for an introductory meeting was also booked for each class one week in advance of field trips, so that the research study could be explained to students in age-appropriate language, child assent forms for participation in the study could be collected, and a pre-survey could be conducted. 52 A total of 276 students were recruited for this study in fall 2022. Following attrition, 11 classrooms, 236 students and 11 teachers were included in its final analysis. A total of 10 teachers and 21 students participated in field interviews. The attrition of student participants was due to consent or assent not being obtained, absenteeism, and lack of response to the survey. 2.5 Experimental Design A quasi-experimental 2x3 non-equivalent group design (NEGD) was paired with a pre-test-post-test methodology in this study (see Figure 2.3). Figure 2.3: Quasi-Experimental Non-Equivalent Groups Design (n=236; k=11) Specifically, two independent variables were investigated, field trip type and access to quality green space, which resulted in six study conditions. Data was collected on students’ environmental literacy, environmental attitudes and connection to nature using a survey, semi-structured field interviews, and field notes. A statistical power (β) of 0.80 to detect a medium effect size for these dependent variables was sought in my quantitative analysis, and this was based on a significance level (α) of 0.05. A power analysis was conducted in G*Power and indicated that a minimum of 26 participants were required for each study condition to achieve this. Unfortunately, the randomization of research participants was not possible in this study, because students were assigned to study groups based on their classroom and teachers were able to select the educational intervention that their class would take part in. However, pre-test-post-53 test non-equivalent group design “is one of the most commonly used quasi-experimental designs in education research,” specifically for this reason (Cohen et al., 2018, p. 407). Particularly in field research, it is extremely rare that one has enough control over participant selection or assignment to conduct a true experiment. In such cases, the researcher must take additional steps to reduce selection bias, and increase the internal validity of their findings (Cohen et al., 2018). Pre-testing provided baseline measurements of my dependent variables across study groups. While this is a standard procedure in the social sciences to allow for the comparison of study groups (Cohen et al., 2018; Dimitrov & Rumrill, 2003), non-equivalency was expected due to both the non-random nature of group assignment and the range of grade levels that took part in this study. As such, I chose to use difference scores that were calculated by subtracting a student’s pre-test score from their post-test score to determine their gains (Dimitrov & Rumrill, 2003). A limitation of this method is that a lack of reliability in pre-test and post-test scores can be compounded by using differences scores (Dimitrov & Rumrill, 2003; D. W. Zimmerman & Williams, 1982). However, authors have long since demonstrated that difference scores can provide highly reliable estimates of true change (Rogosa & Willett, 1983; Willett, 1989; Williams & Zimmerman, 1996; D. W. Zimmerman & Williams, 1982). Difference scores were also my preferred method to account for non-trivial baseline differences, as both Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) and residual change score methods can lead to biased results when these exist (Jennings & Cribbie, 2021). The sequential use of mixed methods was also key to this experimental design. The thematic analysis of semi-structured field interviews with teachers and students, as well as my field notes, allowed for the triangulation of findings emerging from my quantitative analysis (Creswell, 2009). Thus, integration of these two methods provided converging evidence that the effects observed in this study were due to the manipulation of my independent variables as opposed to underlying differences between study groups. 2.6 Data Collection Three methods of data collection were used in this study: a survey, semi-structured field interviews, and field notes. Data collection took place over a two-month period in October and November of 2022. In all instances, the anonymity of participants was protected: a numerical ID 54 was assigned to each participant and their personal information was removed from all files used during my analysis. Further pseudonyms are used when referring to interviewees throughout this dissertation, and participating schools are not named. Data was kept on an encrypted hard disk and physical documentation was kept in a locked filing cabinet. 2.6.1 Field Trip Survey A short survey and knowledge test that measured the environmental literacy, environmental attitudes, and connection to nature of students was used in this study and completed by 236 participants (see Appendix A). Survey questions used a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree), while the knowledge test was composed of five short-answer questions. Pre-surveys were conducted in the classroom, while post-surveys were also completed at a picnic area close to Camosun Bog following AR and outdoor field trips. Students took approximately 20 to 40 minutes to complete the survey and they were asked not to speak to one another throughout this process. Those who completed the survey early were asked to draw a picture of Camosun Bog on the back of their survey which would later be included with my field notes. The knowledge test assessed students’ understanding of the environmental and cultural dimensions of bogs, such as the plants and animals that live there, what participants could do to help protect them, and why a place like Camosun Bog was so important to the Musqueam People. Meanwhile, the survey component combined two widely used tools: the Two Major Environmental Values Scale (2-MEV) and the Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS). The 2-MEV was originally developed by Bogner and Wilhelm (Bogner & Wilhelm, 1996) but has been revised for use with children between the ages of 9-12 years old by Johnson and Manoli (2010) following a four-year study confirming its efficacy. This scale measures children’s attitudes surrounding the preservation and utilization of nature. Specifically, children who score high on the preservation component tend to believe that nature has intrinsic value, advocate for its protection, and oppose harming it for human purposes. Meanwhile, children who score high on the utilization component tend to believe that nature has instrumental value, that it primarily exists to serve the needs of humans and may advocate for its exploitation. A high internal consistency for this survey instrument was shown by Bogner and Wilhelm (1996), who 55 reported a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84 and 0.77 for measures of utilization and preservation, respectively. Conversely, the CNS was developed by Mayer and Frantz (2014) and measures the extent to which an individual feels a sense of community, equality, embeddedness, and belongingness to nature. A revised version for children with fewer questions was also created through a series of focus groups with participants as young as 10 years old (Salazar et al., 2020), and was used in this study. Mayer and Frantz (2014) report a high internal consistency for this instrument with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84. 2.6.2 Semi-Structured Field Interviews In this study, a total of 31 semi-structured field interviews were conducted: 10 with teachers and 21 with students (see. Appendix B). A semi-structured interview is conducted with a guiding script, while the researcher is encouraged to delve deeper with the addition of follow up questions that naturally emerge throughout the course of conversation (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). As Galletta (2013) explains, this method is particularly useful in exploratory research studies, as it yields comparable data to structured interviews while being flexible enough to allow for the examination of emergent themes that may not have been apparent within the broader literature. Each interview lasted between 20-30 minutes, with student interviews tending to be shorter. These were conducted on-site during breaks, following field trips, or at the end of the school day. Consent and assent were renewed before conducting interviews, and participants were reminded that they could stop the interview at any time. Special care was taken when interviewing students to account for the power imbalance that existed between myself and the child. That is, children will often treat questions asked by adults and educators as “test” questions or attempt to give the “right” answer. They may also be less likely to indicate discomfort or that they would like to stop the interview (Ponizovsky-Bergelson et al., 2019). Due to these considerations, extra attention was given to body language and if a student became disinterested, they were asked if they would like to end the interview. A teacher, teaching assistant, or parent was present during all interviews with children. 56 Teacher interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed using Kaltura. Meanwhile, student interviews were recorded using field notes as the presence of an audio recorder proved to be distracting, particularly among younger children. While longer interviews over Zoom were originally going to be conducted with students alongside their parents, a lack of recruitment from the study pool did not allow for this despite a high rate of initial interest. Semi-structured interview guides were used for both teacher and student interviews (see Appendixes C), and questions focused on environmental education more generally, the use of digital technologies, Indigenous learning materials, difficulties encountered during field trips, and access to green space. 2.6.3 Field Notes Burkholder and Thompson (2020) describe field notes as “a cornerstone of rigorous qualitative research.” While a common practice for anthropologists and ethnographers, they are also used across a variety of disciplines. They are not only integral to keeping a record of one’s time in the field, but represent a mode of critical practice, whereby researchers might reflect on the subjectivities of their research and on their own positionality in relation to those they conduct their work alongside (Burkholder & Thompson, 2020). In this study, field notes were collected over 22 separate site visits, 11 of which were spent conducting field trips. These were particularly important for my research, as they allowed me to record observations, impressions, and theoretical insights that would have otherwise been lost over the course of my research. My notebook also provided me with a place to reflect on my observations, interactions, and positionality. Additionally, I would often make notes to myself on perspective themes to explore, and services I wanted to connect participating teachers with. During field trips, I paid special attention to how students interacted with one another, their teachers, myself, and the environment around them. I also focused on the types of questions they were asking, the conversations students were having with one another, any challenges they were facing, how they were responding to different learning materials, and broader administrative or behavioral issues that were occurring. Notes and quotes were recorded in my field journal as memos, and these were expanded on at the end of site visits through personal reflection given my involvement as the tour guide. Debriefings with teachers and volunteers 57 were conducted following field trips, when possible, which allowed me to cross-check observations, gain additional insights, and to discuss the field trips more broadly. When not conducting field trips, I sought to build rapport with teachers, students, and staff. This began through introductions to principals and teachers via email, informal discussions on the phone, and during introductory sessions with each participating classroom. I introduced myself as both a researcher with the UBC Geography Department and a volunteer with the Pacific Spirit Park Society who has been conducting field trips of Camosun Bog for several years. Discussions were primarily conducted at the classroom level, but I sought to engage with participants one-on-one during breaks or while in transit between the school and Camosun Bog as well. Either during or after these informal moments, I would record memos, reminders, and observations to myself to aid in future analysis. 2.7 Data Analysis Quantitative analysis was conducted using factorial ANOVA and post-hoc tests, while a grounded theory approach was used when thematically analyzing interview data and field notes. The integration of quantitative and qualitative data occurred in early 2023. 2.7.1 Data Preparation, Factorial ANOVA, and Post-hoc Tests Surveys were scored by averaging participant responses to questions measuring environmental attitudes (preservation and utilization of nature), connection to nature, and environmental literacy. When assessing environmental literacy, student responses to short-answer questions were assessed using a grading guide developed with the British Columbia Ministry of Education and Child Care’s (2023b) curricular standards in mind (see Appendix D). A secondary grader also assessed these questions and an interrater reliability of 92.1% was achieved. Records that were assessed differently by graders were re-examined and a final score was determined for these answers. Following this, statistical analysis was conducted in R Studio. Difference scores were calculated by subtracting a participant’s pre-test score from their post-test score. Thus, my analysis focused on comparing how much each participant improved or regressed in their environmental literacy, environmental attitudes and connection to nature. All dependent 58 variables were scored out of 5, thus difference scores had a theoretical range of -5.0 to +5.0. As my data did not meet the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance, a parametric test could not be properly conducted until it was transformed (Navarro, 2018). Data was transformed in R Studio using the LambertW package’s Gaussianize function (Goerg, 2022). As Goerg (2015) explains, the Lambert W function uses an explicit inverse transformation to remove heavy tails from data, the presence of which was not surprising given the use of Likert scales in this study where minimum and maximum scores could produce floor and ceiling effects within the data. Following data transformation, a Shapiro-Wilks test for normality and Levine’s test for homogeneity of variance was conducted for each dependent variable and showed that the data now met the underlying assumptions for factorial ANOVA (p > 0.05). As there were two independent variables in this study (field trip type and access level) a factorial ANOVA (α=0.05) was used to determine if there were significant differences among the group means for these factors and the interaction effects between them (Navarro, 2018). As this study’s design was unbalanced, a Type III ANOVA was used (Lewsey et al., 2001; Navarro, 2018). Additionally, sum-to-zero contrasts were set as no factor levels served as a control group (Navarro, 2018). Following a significant ANOVA result, my post-hoc analysis employed Tukey-adjusted pairwise comparisons of estimated marginal means to determine which study conditions were significantly different from one another. This was conducted using the emmeans package in R Studio (Lenth et al., 2023). These procedures were repeated for each dependent variable. My rationale for using a factorial ANOVA is related to the non-randomized nature of this study’s quasi-experimental design. While a reliability adjusted ANCOVA with pre-test covariate could have also be used in this situation, Van Breukelen’s (2006) comparison of these two approaches indicates that ANOVA tends to be less biased when pre-existing groups (such as classrooms) are used. This is because measurement error worsens when using ANCOVA if the difference between pre-test and post-test scores is too large. 2.7.2 Thematic Analysis and Grounded Theory The thematic analysis of interview data and field notes was iterative in this study and used a grounded theory approach. That is, cycles of qualitative data collection and analysis took place as field trips were conducted so that consecutive interviews and field notes could benefit 59 from the emergence of novel themes alongside my review of the literature. Grounded theory is an inductive, pragmatic approach to qualitative research whereby researchers are encouraged to continually incorporate emerging findings into their conceptual framework, particularly as they begin to reoccur (Charmaz, 2006; Corbin & Strauss, 1990). That is, data collection and analysis are seen as interrelated processes. Following interviews and field site visits, audio records were transcribed using Kaltura, and field notes were digitized for analysis in NVivo. Transcripts were conceptually coded, and these were then compared and grouped into broader themes. As interviews and field notes were conducted iteratively, a saturation of themes eventually occurred whereby novel codes were no longer emerging. This point of saturation indicated that my qualitative data set was comprehensive enough to address the research questions being investigated (Charmaz, 2006). A complete list of codes, the number of individual interviews they appeared in, and their associated thematic categories can be found in Appendix E. Once the quantitative analysis of survey data was completed, empirical findings were triangulated with my thematic analysis. While commonalities were explored, I also actively sought out disagreements between these two sets of findings, which would indicate areas in need of further investigation. These commonalities and areas of disagreement were then compared to the broader literature. 2.8 Limitations A mixed methods approach was employed in this study to help overcome some of the limitations inherent to case studies. While the methodological triangulation of quantitative and qualitative methods helped to identify biases specific to the context of the study area, findings should still be considered with caution (Creswell, 2009; Rozsahegyi, 2019). The non-randomized nature of participant selection and assignment of field trips also threatened the generalizability of this study as some findings could be more relevant to the types learning environments found in the specific classrooms that took part in this research (Cohen et al., 2018). While outside the capacity of this study, the incorporation of multiple cases that span additional school districts would enhance external validity through the replication and cross-validation of my findings (Creswell, 2009). 60 The non-randomized nature of my quasi-experimental design was also a threat to internal validity in this study. However, pre-tests and difference scores were used to reduce the chance that findings were due to baseline differences between participants as discussed earlier in this chapter. Still, pre-tests must be used carefully, as difference scores could be impacted by the maturation of participants during the time between which they were given, and post-tests were conducted (Cohen et al., 2018). To reduce the impact of maturation effects, I limited the time between pre-tests and post-tests to one week. Additionally, retention testing would have been helpful to determine if gains in environmental literacy, environmental attitudes and connection to nature were long lasting; however, that was beyond the scope of this study due to limitations in the length of time I had access to participants. Regarding my qualitative methods, I sought to overcome the limitations inherent to the observations recorded in my field notes and semi-structured interviews through methodological triangulation. First, I had to be wary of the observer effect; whereby, participants alter their behavior due to the mere presence of the researcher (Cohen et al., 2018). While complimenting these observations with interviews and surveys can help to identify such issues, I also took a reflexive approach to my analysis of this data to help identify them in my field notes. Second, the flexible nature of semi-structured interviews often presents more opportunities for interview bias or leading questions (Cohen et al., 2018). To reduce this, an interview script was used, and I used reflective listening techniques while interviewing participants to reduce the chance that I was encouraging particular themes. Finally, there are three primary limitations regarding my analysis of access to green space that should be addressed. First, the remote sensing imagery that was used to create land cover data sets obtained from Metro Vancouver was collected from 2008 to 2015. However, recent research on natural space that included the study area indicated that the bias this may introduce is likely minimal given the relative stability of greenness across the region between the time this data was produced and my study was conducted (Jarvis et al., 2020) Second, while analysis of green space was confined to parkland in this study, that choice may not be replicable in other contexts. Particularly in rural areas where public green space may be less managed, the use of NDVI or another method to assess the percentage of green space near schools could be used instead. Finally, the lack of formal standards for the minimum amount of natural green space 61 when teaching environmental education was specific to the context of this study. While this could result in recommendations and best practices being more easily applied within the study area, future researchers will likely need to conduct a preliminary analysis or survey of local educators if they wish to employ similar types of standards in their own work. 62 Chapter 3: Access to Quality Green Space for Environmental Education In this chapter, I examine the accessibility of quality green space for elementary school students across the Vancouver School District (VSD). Specifically, I report on the results of my land cover and network analysis while discussing the barriers that teachers and students experienced while seeking to utilize these spaces for environmental education. Such context will be helpful when examining the comparative efficacy of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips among students who differ in their walking access to quality green space from their elementary schools. My findings indicate that access to quality green space is lacking in the VSD. In fact, only 16 of 266 parks were shown to be of adequate size and contain the amount of natural land cover teachers preferred when conducting their environmental education programs. Further, only 15 of 89 elementary schools were found to be within 10 minutes walking distance of quality green space due to the uneven distribution of these areas across the VSD. My interviews with teachers indicated that this is a serious problem when conducting activities like nature walks or sensory-based learning. While teachers discussed ways to use areas of lower quality green space, they all maintained that access should be improved. They also highlighted barriers related to transportation, field trip administration, teaching support and disability that were exacerbating their lack of access when travelling to areas of higher quality green space with their classes. 3.1 Measuring Access to Quality Green Space in the Vancouver School District As discussed in Chapter 2, access to quality green space was measured using a combination of land cover and network analysis in this study. The minimum standard for quality green space in this dissertation was based on areas of natural land cover that teachers reported a preference for in a study by Reichstein (2018) who investigated the use of Vancouver parkland by teachers in the VSD. Based on a preliminary land cover analysis of these areas, quality green space was defined as public parkland that was at least 2.5 ha in size and contained 66.3% or more natural land cover. Meanwhile, my network analysis sought to identify those elementary schools within 10 minutes walking distance from quality green space. This was based on the City of Vancouver’s assertion that 99% of its population live, work or go to school within 10 minutes walking distance of green space (Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, 2018b). 63 3.1.1 Land Cover Analysis: The Distribution of Quality Green Space Teachers who participated in this study explained that access to quality green space was particularly important when conducting outdoor field trips as part of their environmental education programs, and this was a recurring theme throughout this study. Indeed, many reported that a lack of biodiversity and the overall structure of parkland in the VSD was a limiting factor when leading these excursions for their students. That is, the manicured fields and tree-lined perimeters that are indicative of smaller parks across the VSD provided fewer opportunities for students to learn about plants or interact with animals while in the field. For example, one teacher described her frustration during our interview: “Well, we go to McBride Park. We just go there to play games and for like a PE class…. I mean, there are trees around the outside of it that we could do some sort of tree study. But yeah, it doesn't really lend itself to a nature study unless you're studying grass.” (Susan, Teacher, Grades 3 and 4) When visiting their local parks, many teachers were interested in using experiential learning techniques and viewed outdoor field trips as an important aspect of this pedagogical approach. In general, they preferred taking their students on nature walks to explore forests, ponds, or creeks whenever possible. While there, they would encourage students to learn about plants and animals while helping them to form a connection with nature through exploration, scientific investigation, art, and a variety of sensory-based learning activities. Specifically, teachers were clear that they prioritized publicly accessible parkland when engaging in outdoor education. Further, they preferred parks with larger areas of natural land cover, as these types of spaces were integral to the kinds of activities that they wanted to engage in with their students. My land cover analysis showed that 61 out of 266 parks contained at least 66.3% natural land cover; however, 45 of these were less than 2.5 ha in size. These smaller, urban plazas and local parks tended to be general use areas, contained passive amenities like sports fields or playgrounds and typically did not include complex ecosystems like forests, meadows, or beaches that teachers were seeking to use in their environmental education programming. This meant that only 16 parks in the VSD met the minimal standards for quality in this study. The distribution of this parkland is more easily visualized using the map in Figure 3.1 (p. 64). 64 Figure 3.1: Map of Quality Green Space Across the Vancouver School District 65 While the finding that only 16 of 266 parks met the minimal standards for quality green space may seem striking, it is important to understand that these parks represent 72% of all parkland in the VSD. In fact, they total 1506.2 ha. However, this quality green space is also unevenly distributed, with a scarcity of these spaces being found in the southern, north-eastern, and central sections of the study area. Further, 81% of this quality green space, or 1218.1 ha, is contained within two large destination parks found in the west and north of the study area. Pacific Spirit Regional Park (799.8 ha) and Stanley Park (418.3 ha) both have high levels of natural land cover and biodiversity. They also contain extensive trail networks, public amenities like bathrooms or play areas, and are representative of large urban forests. The remaining quality green spaces shown in Figure 3.1 are neighborhood or community parks that contain large areas of contiguous natural land cover and are representative of small urban forests. They too contain higher levels of biodiversity, though may lack some of the public amenities that can be found in destination parks. A list of quality green spaces identified in the VSD during this land cover analysis can be found in Appendix F. Of the 250 disqualified parks, 205 of these had less than 66.3% natural land cover and 183 were smaller than 2.5 ha. Disqualified parks tended to show a clustering of modified grass, while both deciduous and coniferous tree-cover was sporadic or formed a border around the periphery of these spaces. This pattern of land cover was indicative of mowed grass fields with tree-lined borders or paths. While some of these spaces showed a clustering of trees, particularly those with a higher percentage of natural land cover, these were not large enough to meet the needs described by teachers when conducting their environmental education programs. However, these spaces were ideal for physical education, free play and were still used by educators for such purposes. To aid in understanding the diversity of parks across the VSD, Figure 3.2 (p. 66) provides photographic examples of parks that vary by their percentage of natural land cover. As the overall percentage of natural land cover increases, the structure of these spaces clearly transitions away from open grass fields towards urban forests with a greater complexity of flora and fauna to aid in the environmental education of children. Figure 3.3 (p. 67) also provides a histogram detailing the frequency of parks with different levels of natural land cover. This frequency distribution is positively skewed with parks in the VSD averaging 45.5% natural land cover. 66 Figure 3.2: Percentage of Natural Land Cover – Representative Parks 67 Figure 3.3: Frequency Distribution - Percent of Natural Land Cover in VSD Parks Before moving on, it is important to note that these findings regarding the quality of green spaces across the VSD are not surprising. The Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation has previously reported the need for further investment to protect, nurture, and expand areas that have a high percentage of natural land cover due to their scarcity (Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, 2014). Further, a map of biodiversity hot spots that they developed through the amalgamation of multiple citywide mapping projects is strikingly similar to the map I have developed in Figure 3.1 through the use of remote sensing imagery and land cover analysis (Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, 2014, p. 45). Importantly, while this corroborates my findings, it also points to the efficacy of the geospatial techniques employed in this study that can be more easily replicated and scaled when compared to those methods previously used by the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation. 3.1.2 Network Analysis: Walking Access to Quality Green Space A consistent topic of conversation when interviewing teachers for this study was the importance of their school’s proximity to quality green space. Broadly teachers preferred taking their classes to nearby parks as this did not incur additional costs for themselves or their students, required less administration and planning, did not involve using transit or parent drivers, and often required less teaching support. While I discuss such barriers in greater detail later in this 68 chapter, a more general understanding of the accessibility patterns of quality green space across the VSD is needed first. The results of my network analysis found that only 15 of 89 elementary schools were within 10 minutes walking distance to quality green space for the purposes of environmental education. A histogram of walking times is shown in Figure 3.4. On average, it took students 24.8 minutes to walk to an area of quality green space; however, there is a large amount of variability between schools in this study with a standard deviation of 14.2 minutes. For a ranking of all elementary schools in the VSD by walking time to quality green space, please consult the table in Appendix G. Figure 3.4: Frequency Distribution – Walking Time to Quality Green Space To better visualize these patterns of accessibility across the VSD, the map in Figure 3.5 (p. 69) shows 5, 8 and 10-minute service areas for those quality green spaces that were identified during land cover analysis. Schools with the highest levels of access to quality green space were in the western and eastern sections of the study area, or in the downtown core that is located on the small peninsula to the north. However, the presence of VanDusen Botanical Garden, in the center of the VSD, considerably improved access for many elementary schools in an area that is dominated by parks that are extremely low in natural land cover. While no schools were within 10 minutes walking distance of this park, its presence nevertheless reduced the average walking times for those in the area. 69 Figure 3.5: Service Area Analysis: Walking Access to Quality Green Space 70 3.2 Barriers to Accessing Quality Green Space in the Vancouver School District My interviews with teachers corroborated my analysis that there is limited access to quality green space from elementary schools in the VSD. Additionally, they reported several barriers related to transportation, field trip administration, teaching support, and disability that they felt exacerbated issues of low access for their classrooms. 3.2.1 Transportation: Parent Drivers, Bus Charters, and Public Transit Barriers related to transportation and associated costs were commonly reported by teachers in this study. For example, a sixth and seventh grade teacher shared difficulties he was experiencing when organizing field trips for the year: “Logistics, transportation, we're lucky we often have available parent drivers. But if we don't, or it's a longer field trip, the availability of a bus adds an extra cost to all the students and families, which isn't always easy to bear, depending on if schools even have buses available. We're planning a field trip in June right now and we're finding buses are already booked. So, we're having trouble getting transportation that far out.” (Luke, Teacher, Grades 6 and 7) Luke’s comments were representative of many teachers I interviewed, and there is a lot to unpack here. First, many teachers described a reliance on parent drivers when taking students on outdoor field trips. This not only reduced the overall cost of these excursions but was easier to organize and often resulted in parents remaining to provide additional support to teachers while in the field. While school buses were available, teachers also explained that they are punishingly expensive for classrooms that already have limited funding, and this means that costs were passed on to families. These costs are often quite high as teachers rely on third party providers when chartering school buses for field trips. In fact, the cost of drop-off and pick-up alone was over $500 per classroom (approximately $18.51 per student assuming a class size of 27) based on the quotes provided to me. Unfortunately, with rising inflation and the cost of living increasing at an incredible pace within the VSD, teachers reported that families are not able to bear their share of these costs or volunteer to the same extent they once did due to work. This issue has also become readily apparent through my charity work as well. Specifically, as a director with the Metro Vancouver Regional Parks Foundation, I am involved 71 in the organization’s bus grant program that subsidizes funding for teachers who are seeking to charter buses to parks throughout the Lower Mainland. Recently, our organization has seen a surge in requests for bus grants, as teachers seek external funding so that their students can access parks for environmental education. This need for supplemental funding seems to be growing and has made it clear how important these sorts of grants are. However, teachers cannot rely on such funding, nor does it represent a sustainable way to tackle issues pertaining to accessibility. Secure funding sources and economic support are needed in this regard. Despite the cost of school bus charters and a decrease in the availability of parent drivers, there have been some promising developments regarding transportation across the VSD. Specifically, the Get on Board program has been impactful for many elementary school classrooms, as children under the age of twelve are able to ride public transit for free (TransLink, 2023b). Given the expansive transit network within the VSD, this means that all of the quality green spaces identified in this study are readily accessible by bus. However, not all teachers reported positive experiences while using public transit with their classes. As one fourth and fifth grade teacher made clear, she often feels overwhelmed and concerned with keeping a close eye on her students while making sure that they behave respectfully: “Public transit, it's free, but it's a lot of constantly reminding them that you sit down when on a school bus, but you stand on a public bus. But when you're on transit and you've got some of the people that came on who are not charged [a fare], and you notice some people with substance abuse issues… and then you're sort of managing and keeping an eye on your [students]…. We had one field trip, our last field trip we went on, where someone was swearing and it was really crowded.” (Anna, Teacher, Grades 4 and 5) Anna’s interview raises the importance of the willingness of teachers to use public transit services. That is, if teachers are unwilling to utilize public transit due to concerns regarding safety, a lack of teaching support, or behavior management, programs like Get on Board may not reach their full potential. Experiencing what Anna described for myself helped me to understand her concerns. As I travelled back to her classroom following our field trip, the bus was extremely busy. Her students easily disappeared between the tightly packed people in their fall jackets and large bags. Additionally, although Anna asked her students to stick with a buddy and stay together, they tended to disregard these requests as children often do. In fact, they would 72 frequently change seats or partners to chat with their friends. More than once, I travelled to the front of the bus to ask a student to please return to the group. Finally, there was one very loud argument between two patrons during this trip, and that also seemed to raise the anxiety levels for both Anna and her students. As we left the bus and had the students line up for roll call, I questioned how a single person could be expected to keep track of so many students in such a hectic environment. This experience does not represent those of every teacher in this study though. Indeed, many teachers indicated that they had taken public transit without difficulty in the past and felt confident when using this option with their students. However, these teachers also taught in neighborhoods that had lower crime rates and less congested transit lines, which was not surprising given that their school catchment areas primarily contained middle to high-income, single-family households. Those teachers who taught in denser urban environments near the downtown core, and whose bus routes travelled through areas like the Downtown Eastside reported much more negative experiences. For readers who do not live in Vancouver or have direct knowledge of its neighborhoods, the Downtown Eastside is one of the poorest in all of Canada. Additionally, it has extremely high rates of crime, homelessness, drug dependency, and mental illness (City of Vancouver, 2020; Vila-Rodriguez et al., 2013). My discussions with teachers indicated that many of these social and community issues are experienced to a lesser degree when taking transit near this area. In summary, while my interviews with teachers indicate that the cost of chartering school buses represents a significant economic barrier when accessing quality green space, the existence of free public transit is an option for many in the VSD. However, the feasibility of public transit is dependent upon several other factors related to safety concerns and teaching support. Due to this, those schools that serve some of the poorest communities in the VSD may not benefit as much from public transit options as others. Parent drivers may be an alternative in some cases, but this informal resource for teachers cannot always be relied on. In terms of future research, a tailored investigation would be helpful to determine the degree to which discrepancies in the quality of public transit across the VSD translate into an inequitable provision of this resource for public schools. 73 3.2.2 Field Trip Administration: Permission, Safety, and A Lack of Teaching Support Administrative barriers also posed a problem for many teachers when seeking to access quality green spaces with their classes. While necessary, parental permission and limitations on areas that classrooms could visit made organizing excursions more difficult for teachers when planning field trips outside of their school’s neighborhood. Additionally, a lack of teaching support while in the field was a problem for many. Field trip permission forms are a requirement for any classroom outing that occurs in the VSD (VSB, 2023a). Although e-signatures thankfully exist to counteract the inevitable loss of such paperwork on the playground or at the bottom of a child’s backpack, some of the teachers I spoke to still used physical copies. The need to send home a permission form, receive it, and then make alternative arrangements for children who do not receive permission meant that many teachers I spoke to would begin planning their outings over a month in advance. In fact, many would plan their field trips at the beginning of the school year. However, a recent policy development at in the VSD has helped to counteract this barrier, as one fourth and fifth grade teacher explained: “Thankfully, at my school, we have a blanket consent form that we ask parents to fill out. This blanket consent allows us teachers permission, if the parent has signed it in September, to take them out for neighborhood walks. So that's really handy to have, because if I didn't have that permission, I couldn't take them [off of] school grounds.” (Tara, Teacher, Grades 4 and 5) This blanket permission form policy was particularly important for teachers I spoke with as it allowed them to conduct spontaneous outings to green spaces that were near their school. If students seemed to be having trouble focusing, many teachers who taught near a park would take their students for a brief walk or conduct a sensory-based learning activity to help them burn off extra energy and focus. In essence, these spontaneous trips allowed green spaces to become an extension of the classroom. Students also spoke fondly about this, with some explaining how their teachers would take them on outings in their neighborhood to assist with a variety of subjects like art and math. For example, one fourth grade student explained how they would go to a park to draw with their class. Her teacher also explained how she would ask students to identify different shapes as they existed in nature to complement her geometry lessons. 74 Unfortunately, very few schools are within easy walking distance of quality green space as my land cover and network analysis has shown. While this form of blanket permission is excellent at promoting outings to nearby parks, it also does very little to promote the extension of classrooms into outdoor spaces for the purposes of environmental education. This is problematic, as those teachers who taught near areas of quality green space made clear that they utilized these parks quite often. This allowed them to promote a more holistic approach to environmental education that incorporated lessons about plants, animals, and environmental problems into different aspects of the curriculum, such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Importantly, this allowed children to create connections between subjects and form new knowledge. Experiential education allowed them to utilize skills related to experimentation, natural inquiry, and observation; meanwhile, outdoor spaces gave children opportunities to engage with abstract topics like food webs, climate change, or cycles of life and death in a way that was both memorable and informative. While these opportunities were also available to students with less access to quality green space when transportation could be arranged, teachers described how these experiences were less integrated into their overall teaching plans in such cases. Teachers also made it clear that parental permission was not the only aspect of planning and administrating field trips that could be difficult when seeking to get students out into nature on a regular basis. Some teachers also reported that access to certain types of quality green space was limited due to concerns over safety or the difficulty of the terrain. While this made sense in some cases, teachers did not always agree. For example, one teacher who taught near the beach expressed their frustration with VSB policies that required additional administration to visit such an area: “Unfortunately, going down to the beach, even though we're nice and close, requires a lot of forms to fill out. We don't do that very often, unfortunately…. I think this is because it's an open body of water. So, it used to be that we could easily just do that like a trip to the park. But because it's water, they're very nervous. There were a couple years that we weren't allowed to go there at all.” (Susan, Teacher, Grades 3 and 4) Her colleague corroborated this, explaining how the administrative procedures to visit areas like beaches seem to be increasing: 75 “Being able to leave the building… there are more, through my experience of teaching for a very long time, there are more checks and balances all the time. And even going to the beach is a big deal.” (Laura, Teacher, Grades 4 and 5) Meanwhile, a teacher from another school explained how only nature walks, as opposed to hikes, were allowed when planning field trips: “There's some limitations because the school board doesn't actually allow proper hikes with students. They differentiate between a hike and a walk. I'm not sure how they do that, but like, we wanted to go to North Vancouver to do a proper hike in the forest there and we weren't allowed to.” (Jesse, Teacher, Grades 4 and 5) All three of these teachers pointed to safety as being a top concern for both school administrators and other VSB officials. Besides ensuring that children are well cared for and not injured while in the field, such policies are partly due to concerns over legal liability and insurance coverage on behalf of the district. As well, policies regarding walks versus hikes may be due to district obligations to ensure equity and inclusion within programming. That is, students of varying levels of physical health should be able to participate in field trips. While not a common topic for academic research, the media has certainly reported on teachers being sued for negligence during field trips, and that concerns about legal repercussions may be preventing some schools from conducting outdoor excursions (Curtis, 2009; The Canadian Press, 2019). Louv (2006) has also discussed how a building obsession over safety and the idea of stranger danger have both led to considerable obstacles for children seeking to access nature. Please do not misunderstand - safety is important. However, teachers who broached this subject also felt that an appropriate balance had to be struck when planning field trips. Officials should not discount the extra time that teachers must put in when meeting additional administrative requirements for field trips. If processes are too onerous, then excursions may simply not happen. Additionally, there seemed to be a consensus between teachers that there is such a thing as field trips being too curated. In essence, students might skin their knees, trip over a root, or get muddy. However, adventure always carries some risk, and we learn from these moments. This is an integral part of experiential learning, outdoor play, and 76 giving children the opportunity to make mistakes. The trick is to ensure that the consequences of such mistakes are reasonable, and to provide support when necessary. A final administrative barrier that teachers reported when seeking to access quality green space for environmental education was a lack of teaching support. As I briefly mentioned when discussing barriers related to transportation, the management and supervision of children while conducting field trips can pose a significant challenge. In fact, one teacher I interviewed felt that this was one of the primary reasons a colleague of hers did not take their class on outdoor field trips: “It's not every teacher that feels like they are capable of bringing their students out. Like my colleague is concerned about behaviors and that would impede her from getting them out, because she's scared that her kids can't handle being out there without proper supervision or enough supervision. Not enough structure. Yeah, enough structure. So she just doesn't do it.” (Jesse, Teacher, Grades 4 and 5) Teachers sought to overcome this barrier in a variety of ways. For example, parent volunteers were quite common when I was conducting both outdoor and AR field trips of Camosun Bog. They were integral to ensuring that students stuck with the group and they also attended to problematic behavior. Indeed, more than one teacher explained to me that they would not have been able to attend the field trip with their class had it not been for the help of parents or volunteers. Additionally, some teachers mentioned that having a person lead the walk while they focused on classroom management was also helpful. For many teachers who did not have formal training in biology or environmental science, leading an interpretive nature walk was already quite difficult. Having to focus on classroom management at the same time was just not a reasonable expectation. However, parents and community volunteers are an informal source of support and cannot be relied on, necessarily. As discussed earlier, it is becoming more difficult for parents to find time to volunteer in the classroom given time constraints related to work. Many teachers discussed that their schools were understaffed when it came to support workers, and that hiring more would be extremely helpful when seeking to go on field trips more often. This was particularly true when students had physical or learning disabilities that made accessing outdoor spaces or participating in activities more difficult for them. 77 3.2.3 Disability: Physical Access and Teaching Support While only one student in this study had a physical disability that required accommodation, several students had developmental or learning disabilities that needed to be accommodated to varying degrees. This posed a barrier for students and their teachers when planning to access areas of quality green space. During the recruitment process, I received an email from a teacher named Kelly who wanted to participate in an outdoor field trip with her students; however, she was concerned that the bog may not be wheelchair accessible. I assured her that the boardwalk could be accessed via wheelchair and also offered to connect her with members of the B.C. Mobility Opportunities Society that often partners with Pacific Spirit Park Society on interpretive nature walks for people living with a wide range of disabilities. In fact, they even use a specialized mobility device called a trail rider that can allow those living with physical disabilities to reach off-trail areas or participate in more rigorous hikes with the aid of a volunteer! Although not required for this field trip, I thought this may be an important resource for her in the future. When I interviewed Kelly after our field trip, she explained that wheelchair access was often a barrier when accessing outdoor spaces with her class and this was exacerbated by the support staff situation at her school: “We haven't been out there as often as we’d like because of our support staff situation. We have a kid with a wheelchair and our support staff is stretched so thin, it's hard to make sure that we have somebody who can get out for all the times that we want.” (Kelly, Teacher, Grade 3) It is important to understand that Kelly teaches very close to Camosun Bog and that other teachers at her school who I spoke with often utilized this space for walks with their class. Despite this proximity to quality green space though, her school simply did not have the resources to support the same level of access that other classrooms enjoyed. In this case, a lack of resources resulted in an inequitable division of learning opportunities for students at her school. While she explained that parents and volunteers could help meet this demand, again, such support structures were not formal and could not be relied on. It’s also worth mentioning that Kelly did not have to use a vehicle to reach the bog with her class. As most classrooms are 78 not within walking distance of quality green space in the VSD, the addition of having to find a vehicle capable of transporting a wheelchair would further exacerbate this issue for others. While not directly related to physical access, developmental and learning disabilities also factored into how teachers chose to access and incorporate outdoor education into their environmental education programs. Generally, those who required learning assistance were paired with a support worker; however, these were not always available, and teachers explained that they required this additional teaching support when conducting field trips. This was so that they could focus on providing lessons while in the field, leading walks, and ensuring that other students were properly supervised as well. While the VSB is committed to equity and inclusion, my discussions with teachers indicated that this may not be adequately reflected in its allocation of support service workers for those students living with developmental or learning disabilities. Specifically, teachers explained that support staff are often shared between multiple classrooms, and that this added another layer of difficulty when organizing and planning excursions. Given that 11% of students across the district have diverse needs and 35% are classified as developmentally vulnerable upon entering kindergarten, such barriers are not uncommon and need to be accommodated (British Columbia Education Analytics Office, 2022; British Columbia Ministry of Education and Child Care, 2023a). 3.3 “Making Do” with Low-Quality Green Space One thing that I admired about every single teacher I worked with in this study was their commitment to getting their classes outdoors. It was very clear that environmental education was not a mere addition to their learning objectives, but a carefully integrated part of their lesson plan. As many did not teach near areas of high-quality green space though, they often had to “make do” with what was available to them in their neighborhood. Sometimes, this was frustrating for teachers because they were unable to lead the types of activities that they felt would be most effective for their students. Some felt that their students weren’t receiving the same quality of environmental education as others who had better access to this resource: 79 “Well, I guess I could still do that activity where we listen to things, but it would be more like, ‘Oh, you hear the car honk over there or the bicycle go by.’ It wouldn't be the same sort of experience.” (Maureen, Teacher, Grades 4 and 5) Some teachers also felt that their students were not able to visit areas of quality green space in their personal lives, and thought that this made accessing these areas while at school even more of a priority: “I think outdoor education and connecting with the outdoors is super important. I know some of the kids don't have that in their home life. They don't get out that often. So, I tried to make that [a priority] …. I'm going to make sure that we do those things in the spring instead of always going to museums, you know, where they have to be careful about their behavior and how loud their voice is. I just find that being outside with them and getting them be themselves outside [while they’re] around trees, water and animals is important.” (Sarah, Teacher, Grades 4 and 5) The above feedback from both Maureen and Sarah also makes clear how lower quality green spaces, or more curated field trips that occur in places like museums, do not benefit from experiential approaches to environmental education in the same way that visiting somewhere like a nearby forest might. First, Maureen describes how the sounds of the city broke children’s connection with the natural world she is seeking to immerse them in. The honking of a car horn or the sound of a bicycle going by tended to divide the attention of her students as they sought to engage in sensory-based learning activities. Students felt similarly, and many described how their appreciation for quality green spaces was connected to a serene atmosphere that allowed them to escape from the hustle and bustle of the city. For example, a fourth grader named Tiffany explained why she loves Pacific Spirit Regional Park: “I feel happy there, and sometimes I just sit and listen.” Similarly, a seventh grader named Shawn described how “it’s easier to relax when there’s not so many people around.” Second, Sarah’s comment about how curated spaces do not allow students to be themselves is worth exploring further. Essentially, she argues that children need opportunities to be themselves while exploring outdoor spaces. As I described earlier on in this chapter, that often involves making mistakes, getting muddy, and sometimes even a few scrapes or bruises. What I 80 find interesting is how teachers are also hesitant when taking children on field trips due to a lack of structure. While some may think this indicates a contradiction, I believe teachers are looking for a compromise – a sort of ordered chaos that simultaneously allows students to explore without the possibility of serious consequences. This is one of the reasons that quality green spaces that are in nearby parks are so desired. These spaces allow for the adventure of visiting “wild” spaces but also have nearby amenities to help deal with unforeseen issues that may occur. This may be as simple as a student needing to use the washroom, or as stressful as having to drive one to the hospital. Moving on, it is also important to understand that even though many teachers did not prefer lower quality green spaces for environmental education, they still used these spaces and believed that incorporating them into their programming was important. As mentioned earlier, many teachers utilize parks with low levels of natural land cover for physical education, free play, and other activities. These spaces play an important role for classrooms, and simply replacing them all with urban forests would likely not serve the best interests of students. Additionally, some teachers explained that they thought it was important to introduce their students to a variety of different types of green spaces that better reflect the urban environment in which they live: “I think that kids should be exposed to a variety of environments. So, I think having curated spaces is good, because then the infrastructure is there for you to do different things. It's also like, this is an urban school. So, interacting with [these spaces] is important. But, I also think learning [about] nature is important.” (Laura, Teacher, Grades 4 and 5) Laura’s discussion of how she teaches in an urban school and whether environmental education programming should reflect this reality is particularly important. Indeed, Bellino and Adams (2017) argue a similar point in their discussion of critical urban environmental education. Briefly, they explain that the emphasis on green spaces or wilderness in environmental education programs is problematic as it promotes a “narrow agenda that does not recognize the lived experiences of youth living in socially and ecologically complex urban environments” (Bellino & Adams, 2017, p. 271). The theoretical underpinning of their argument is three-fold. First, dominant understandings of cities and the built environment incorrectly characterize them as 81 being devoid of nature. Two, children living in urban environments deserve an education that speaks to their own sense of place. And three, urban nature is complex, and traditional forms of environmental education limit the ability of children to understand the connection between urban spaces and the environment. I agree that the complexity of urban nature requires an integration of grey space into the curriculum, as well as an understanding of the animals, plants, and people that share these environments. In fact, many of the environmental issues that children may be affected by in cities demand such an understanding, like gentrification, urban heat island effects, and waste management. However, I am also concerned that a focus on low quality green spaces may normalize their encroachment on those areas that are rich in natural land cover. Additionally, what I have termed high quality green spaces are richer in biodiversity and provide teachers with opportunities to explore a wide variety of topics that would simply not be supported in typical urban parks. Further, if students are not given the opportunity to develop a connection to natural spaces then they may not prioritize its protection to the same degree later in life (Chawla, 2007). While I agree that educators should challenge a preoccupation with wilderness, a compromise needs to be made. Areas like Camosun Bog present rich learning opportunities as the interaction between urban populations and this space have produced complex socio-environmental issues that can also be discussed in the context of regional and global issues as well. For example, students learned about the dangerously low water levels that Camosun Bog is currently threatened by, this issue’s connection to local housing developments, and how such a problem intersects with broader threats like global climate change. This is certainly the approach that most teachers sought to take in the VSD, as they targeted high quality urban green spaces to promote a more holistic understanding of environmental issues. Unfortunately, such an approach was difficult because their access to quality green space was low. While many students seemed to have a great deal of interaction with the built environment, teachers felt that they had far less experience with urban forests, the myriad of plants and creatures that can be found there, or the unique socio-environmental problems that these spaces face. 82 3.4 Chapter Summary My land cover and network analysis found that access to quality green space in the VSD was low. Only 16 of 266 parks were of the appropriate size and contained enough natural land cover to facilitate the programming that teachers were seeking to engage in with their students. Additionally, only 15 of 89 elementary schools were within a 10-minute walk of quality green space, with the average walking time being 24.8 minutes. Teachers also reported several barriers that exacerbated these low levels of access. Specifically, obtaining transportation to quality green space was difficult. Informal support from parent drivers has decreased, and the cost of chartered buses is prohibitively expensive. Meanwhile, public transit is an option for some, but those living in the downtown core reported concerns related to safety and a lack of teaching support. There were also a variety of administrative barriers related to accessing quality green space. While blanket permission to visit areas within walking distance of schools was helpful, this did little to support environmental education programs when there were no parks with high levels of natural land cover nearby. Additionally, teachers commented on how some areas of quality green space seemed to be off limits due to an overabundance of caution by VSB officials. Finally, teachers indicated that a lack of teaching support was a primary concern for them, particularly when they had students with physical, developmental, or learning disabilities who required additional supervision or assistance when on field trips. Further, while teachers showed a commitment to outdoor education, many found that they had to “make do” with areas of lower quality land cover near their schools. This was not always a bad thing, particularly when the focus was on physical education or free play. However, these spaces did little when seeking to forge a connection between students and nature. Some teachers also argued that these spaces were integral to a more complex understanding of urban environments; however, low levels of access to quality green space did not allow for the holistic approach to urban environmental education that they were seeking. In the next two chapters I report on the comparative efficacy of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips in children who have different levels of access to quality green space from their elementary school. Specifically, I examine how these interventions can promote functional and cultural environmental literacy in Chapter 4, and how they can promote pro-environmental 83 attitudes and connection to nature in Chapter 5. I also describe the barriers students and teachers are facing, as well as how different interventions can help overcome these. 84 Chapter 4: Environmental Literacy and the Comparative Efficacy of VR, AR, and Outdoor Field Trips In this chapter, I compare the efficacy of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips when promoting environmental literacy in children. Specifically, I examine how field trips promoted gains to this learning objective across study conditions that varied by field trip type and level of access to quality green space. To achieve this, I summarize the results of my survey data before analyzing the effects of field trip type and level of access using Factorial ANOVA and post-hoc tests. Then, I contextualize these results using student interviews and field notes to compare the efficacy of my different learning interventions. I also explore the barriers teachers faced when promoting environmental literacy and discuss how VR, AR, and outdoor field trips can help to address these challenges. My findings show that students’ access to quality green space had a significant effect on their gains to functional and cultural environmental literacy when participating in field trips. Novelty effects appeared to play an important role in this regard. Comparing different types of interventions, I found that students were particularly engaged by sensory-based approaches to learning and storytelling while participating in outdoor field trips. Meanwhile, the Seek app promoted knowledge of different plant species and facilitated peer learning during AR field trips. Additionally, both VR and AR field trips benefited from allowing students to experience situations that would not have been available to them during traditional excursions. Students also explained that these technologies helped to connect them with Indigenous learning materials that were developed by the Musqueam First Nation and UBC Museum of Anthropology. Teachers reported several barriers when seeking to promote environmental literacy that the field trips provided during this study were effective at helping them to overcome. Regarding functional environmental literacy, teachers lacked general knowledge about processes, plants, and animals that made leading field trips difficult. The use of knowledgeable community members to help lead outdoor walks, context-sensitive AR applications, and pre-designed VR experiences all helped to address this issue. Meanwhile, teachers also faced multiple barriers when promoting cultural environmental literacy. A lack of teaching materials and Indigenous support workers were commonly reported issues. Further, some teachers explained that they 85 were hesitant to engage with Indigenous knowledges and experiences due to a fear of making mistakes. Both AR and VR field trips were seen as particularly helpful in overcoming such barriers as they allowed for the flexible delivery of community produced learning materials. 4.1 Survey Results and Statistical Analysis Environmental literacy was measured using a knowledge test that asked students about what a bog is, how they could help to preserve it, the plants and animals found there, its cultural significance to the Musqueam People, and the importance of bog plants to both humans and animals. Given these focus areas, I differentiate between functional and cultural environmental literacy in my analysis. As a brief reminder, functional environmental literacy refers to a person’s ability to identify, define, and comprehend environmental concepts. Meanwhile, cultural environmental literacy refers to an understanding of dominant and alternative perspectives about the environment while recognizing the role humans can take to help shape it. It would be possible for a lack of differences in one type of literacy to mask those of another in a broad-based analysis; hence, I follow up a discussion of overall-environmental literacy with an analysis of functional and cultural environmental literacy in the proceeding sections. A summary of survey results can be found in Table 4.1, which shows changes to students’ overall environmental literacy across study conditions. Table 4.1: Summary Statistics – Environmental Literacy Pre-test scores indicated that students had a low level of environmental literacy with mean scores ranging from 1.08 to 1.80 on a 5-point scale. Meanwhile, there were considerable Pre-Test Post-Test Difference Score Difference Score W(x) Transform Access Field Trip n ?̅?1 s SE ?̅?2 s SE ?̅?D s SE ?̅?D s SE ≤10 min VR 67 1.59 0.79 0.10 2.31 0.85 0.10 0.72 0.73 0.09 0.72 0.73 0.09 AR 38 1.11 0.82 0.13 2.32 0.79 0.13 1.21 0.98 0.16 1.21 0.97 0.16 OD 41 1.80 0.71 0.11 2.10 0.85 0.13 0.30 0.89 0.14 0.30 0.88 0.14 >10 min VR 28 1.13 0.85 0.16 2.25 0.94 0.18 1.13 0.88 0.17 1.12 0.87 0.17 AR 28 1.08 0.67 0.13 1.86 0.98 0.18 0.78 1.07 0.20 0.78 1.07 0.20 OD 34 1.09 0.67 0.11 2.49 0.79 0.14 1.40 0.97 0.17 1.40 0.96 0.17 86 gains to environmental literacy following field trips with mean post-test scores ranging from 1.86 to 2.49 points as students approached a moderate level of understanding about Camosun Bog. Transformed mean difference scores (post-test – pre-test) ranged from 0.30 to 1.40 points with the lowest gains to environmental literacy occurring for those students who had higher levels of access to quality green space while participating in outdoor field trips. Meanwhile, the largest gains to environmental literacy occurred for those who had lower levels of access while taking part in outdoor field trips. The distributions of transformed difference scores for environmental literacy are visualized across study conditions using a boxplot in Figure 4.1. One outlier was found; however, it represented natural variations in the skill levels of students and was not removed. Visualizations of pre-test and post-test scores are also available in Appendix H; however, it is important to remember that difference scores remain the primary unit of analysis due to the non-equivalency of pre-test groups. Figure 4.1: Boxplot – Environmental Literacy A factorial ANOVA of transformed differences scores was used to examine the effects of access to quality green space and field trip type on environmental literacy. A Shapiro-Wilk test indicated that residuals were normally distributed (W.0.995, p = 0.575), and Levine’s test showed that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not violated, F(5,230) = 1.503, p = 0.190. A significant main effect was found for level of access to quality green space, F(1, 230) = 87 8.740, p = 0.003, with a small effect size. There was no significant main effect for field trip type, F(2, 230) = 0.455, p = 0.635. However, there was a significant interaction between field trip type and level of access to quality green space, F(2, 230) = 12.570, p < .001, with a medium effect size. A summary of these results can be found in Table 4.2. Table 4.2: Factorial ANOVA (Type III): Environmental Literacy Source Sum of Squares df F p Partial η2 Access 6.974 1 8.740 0.003** 0.037 Field Trip 0.727 2 0.455 0.635 . 0.004 Access * Field Trip 20.060 2 12.569 < 0.001*** 0.099 Residuals 183.534 230 Significance level: * p ≤ 0.05 ** p ≤ 0.01 *** p ≤ 0.001 Small effect (partial η2 ≥ 0.01), medium effect (partial η2 ≥ 0.06), large effect (partial η2 ≥ 0.14) A post-hoc analysis of environmental literacy was conducted using a Tukey-adjusted, pairwise comparison of estimated marginal means. Figure 4.2 visualizes differences between study conditions using a compact letter display, showing mean difference scores and their standard error. Study conditions that do not share a common letter were significantly different from one another. For a full summary of pairwise comparisons, please refer to Appendix I. Figure 4.2: Environmental Literacy – Pairwise Comparison of Study Conditions 88 Findings revealed that outdoor field trips were more effective for students with lower levels of access to quality green space (?̅?D = 1.40) than for those with higher levels of access (?̅?D = 0.30). Additionally, AR field trips (?̅?D = 1.21) were more effective than outdoor field trips (?̅?D = 0.30) when students had higher levels of access. Finally, students with lower levels of access benefitted more from VR field trips (?̅?D = 1.12) when compared to students with higher levels of access who took part in outdoor field trips (?̅?D = 0.30). Conversely, those with higher levels of access benefitted less from VR field trips (?̅?D = 0.72) when compared to those with lower levels of access who participated in outdoor field trips (?̅?D = 1.40). An analysis of the functional and cultural aspects of students’ environmental literacy was also conducted, and summary statistics are provided in Tables 4.3 and 4.4. Table 4.3: Summary Statistics – Functional Environmental Literacy Table 4.4: Summary Statistics – Cultural Environmental Literacy Pre-Test Post-Test Difference Score Difference Score W(x) Transform Access Field Trip n ?̅?1 s SE ?̅?2 s SE ?̅?D s SE ?̅?D s SE ≤10 min VR 67 1.68 0.83 0.10 2.29 0.88 0.11 0.61 0.84 0.10 0.62 0.83 0.10 AR 38 1.18 0.94 0.15 2.34 0.96 0.16 1.16 1.10 0.18 1.15 1.07 0.17 OD 41 1.80 0.76 0.12 1.91 0.92 0.14 0.11 1.01 0.16 0.13 0.96 0.15 >10 min VR 28 1.06 0.88 0.17 2.23 1.04 0.20 1.17 1.00 0.19 1.16 0.98 0.19 AR 28 1.17 0.86 0.16 1.89 1.08 0.20 0.71 1.13 0.21 0.71 1.10 0.21 OD 34 1.15 0.75 0.13 2.45 0.79 0.14 1.30 1.14 0.20 1.28 1.10 0.19 Note: Mean difference (?̅?D) scores were transformed using the Lambert W function Pre-Test Post-Test Difference Score Difference Score W(x) Transform Access Field Trip n ?̅?1 s SE ?̅?2 S SE ?̅?D s SE ?̅?D s SE ≤10 min VR 67 1.46 1.04 0.13 2.34 1.05 0.13 0.87 0.96 0.12 0.87 0.96 0.12 AR 38 1.01 0.92 0.15 2.29 0.81 0.13 1.28 1.16 0.19 1.28 1.16 0.19 OD 41 1.83 1.02 0.16 2.38 0.95 0.15 0.55 1.19 0.19 0.55 1.19 0.19 >10 min VR 28 1.23 1.04 0.20 2.29 1.11 0.21 1.05 0.98 0.18 1.05 0.8 0.18 AR 28 0.95 0.81 0.15 1.82 1.12 0.21 0.88 1.29 0.24 0.88 1.29 0.24 OD 34 1.01 0.93 0.16 2.56 0.99 0.17 1.54 1.00 0.17 1.54 1.00 0.17 Note: Mean difference (?̅?D) scores were transformed using the Lambert W function 89 Students saw greater gains in their cultural environmental literacy compared to their functional environmental literacy across nearly all study conditions. Whereas gains to functional environmental literacy ranged from 0.13 to 1.28 on a five-point scale, gains to cultural environmental literacy ranged from 0.55 to 1.54. The lowest gains to both functional and cultural environmental literacy occurred for those students who participated in outdoor field trips while having higher levels of access to quality green space from their schools. Meanwhile, the largest gains occurred for those who had lower levels of access and took part in outdoor field trips. Students’ pre-test scores showed that they had low levels of functional environmental literacy at the beginning of this study. This reflected a lack of understanding about the conditions necessary for a healthy bog, the plants and animals that lived there, and why some plants were important to both humans and animals. In general, students’ pre-test answers were vague. When asked what makes a healthy bog, many students simply replied with answers like “water,” “plants,” or “no plastic.” Similarly, when asked to name plants and animals that could be found in the bog, their descriptions tended to lack specificity at the species level with answers like “birds,” or “trees” being provided. Finally, when asked about plants that could be important to both humans and animals, many students provided one-word responses like “trees” without any explanation. However, some did draw on prior knowledge of the oxygen cycle to explain how trees could provide clean air that both humans and animals needed to survive. Generally, post-test scores showed a considerable improvement in functional environmental literacy. For example, when asked to describe a healthy bog, many students provided answers with multiple dimensions and described areas that were acidic, low in nutrients, wet, and free of invasive species. When describing the plants and animals that lived there, students also tended to provide species level identifications following field trips. In fact, many students referenced plants like sphagnum moss, red huckleberry, and oval leaved blueberry in their answers. This species knowledge also helped to inform their answers about what plants were important to both humans and animals, and many students referenced a wide range of edible species. Others brought in cultural components to their answers, like one student who explained that “bugs can hide under the leaves of Labrador tea, but the Musqueam can make medicines from it.” 90 At the beginning of this study, students also showed low levels of cultural environmental literacy. Specifically, they lacked an understanding of who the Musqueam People are, the significance of Camosun Bog to their culture, and how community members can help to protect and shape the bog more generally. Many students did not provide an answer on their pre-test when prompted to explain why Camosun Bog was important to the Musqueam People, and showed a lack of general knowledge about this Indigenous community when we discussed what we would be learning about on the field trip following their pre-test. Additionally, when asked how they could keep Camosun Bog healthy, students generally described passive approaches to environmentalism like not littering or staying on the boardwalk. They did not describe actions like volunteering or other ways that they could work with their community to help shape the future of the bog. Students showed considerable improvement in their cultural environmental literacy during post-tests. Specifically, their knowledge of who the Musqueam People are increased significantly. Many students correctly identified that Camosun Bog was “their land,” “home,” or that it had been “stolen from them.” Several students also described the Musqueam People’s use of plants and animals, and the importance of Camosun Bog as a place for teaching, medicine, and stories. In particular, several students also referenced the story of sʔi:ɬqəy̓, a two-headed serpent, and how the Musqueam People named themselves after the sacred plant that grew from its droppings. When asked what they could do to help keep Camosun Bog healthy, students’ answers also improved. Specifically, they tended to describe active ways they could help the bog, like removing invasive species or donating money. Some students also described the importance of volunteering alongside community members like the Camosun Bog Restoration Group to help shape the future of the bog. A visualization of pre-test and post-test scores for functional and cultural environmental literacy are available in Appendix H. However, gains to these learning objectives were the focus of my analysis, and the distributions of transformed difference scores for both types of literacy are visualized across study conditions using the boxplots in Figures 4.3 and 4.4 (p. 91). Again, outliers were present; however, these represented natural variations among the skill levels of students and were not removed after checking these for measurement and reporting error. 91 Figure 4.3: Boxplot – Functional Environmental Literacy Figure 4.4: Boxplot – Cultural Environmental Literacy To examine the effects of access to quality green space and field trip type on both functional and cultural environmental literacy, a factorial ANOVA of transformed difference scores was used once more. A Shapiro-Wilk test indicated that residuals were normally distributed in the case of functional environmental literacy (W = 0.992, p = 0.217), and cultural environmental literacy (W = 0.991, p = 0.172). Meanwhile, Levine’s test was used to check the assumption of homogeneity of variance and found that this was not violated in the case of 92 functional environmental literacy, F(5, 230) = 1.519, p = 0.185, or in the case of cultural environmental literacy, F(5, 230) = 0.887, p = 0.491. Regarding functional environmental literacy, a significant main effect was found for level of access to quality green space, F(1, 230) = 9.768, p = 0.002, with a small effect size. However, a significant main effect was not found for field trip type, F(2, 230) = 1.044, p = 0.354. Finally, there was a significant interaction between field trip type and level of access, F(2, 230) = 11.353, p = < 0.001, with a medium effect size. This analysis was repeated for cultural environmental literacy, and a significant main effect was not found for level of access to quality green space, F(1, 230) = 3.063, p = 0.081. Similarly, a significant main effect was not found for field trip type, F(2, 230) = 0.212, p = 0.809. However, a significant interaction between field trip type and level of access was found, F(2, 230) = 7.305, p = < 0.001, with a medium effect size. The results of these factorial ANOVA are summarized in Tables 4.5 and 4.6: Table 4.5: Factorial ANOVA (Type III): Functional Environmental Literacy Source Sum of Squares df F p Partial η2 Access 9.466 1 9.768 0.002** 0.041 Field Trip 2.024 2 1.044 0.354 0.009 Access * Field Trip 22.003 2 11.353 < 0.001*** 0.090 Residuals 222.887 230 Significance level: * p ≤ 0.05 ** p ≤ 0.01 *** p ≤ 0.001 Small effect (partial η2 ≥ 0.01), medium effect (partial η2 ≥ 0.06), large effect (partial η2 ≥ 0.14) Table 4.6: Factorial ANOVA (Type III): Cultural Environmental Literacy Source Sum of Squares df F p Partial η2 Access 3.603 1 3.063 0.081 0.013 Field Trip 0.500 2 0.242 0.809 0.002 Access * Field Trip 17.188 2 7.305 < 0.001*** 0.060 Residuals 270.589 230 Significance level: * p ≤ 0.05 ** p ≤ 0.01 *** p ≤ 0.001 Small effect (partial η2 ≥ 0.01), medium effect (partial η2 ≥ 0.06), large effect (partial η2 ≥ 0.14) 93 As with my examination of overall gains to environmental literacy, a post-hoc analysis of functional and cultural environmental literacy was conducted using a Tukey-adjusted, pairwise comparison of estimated marginal means. However, my results did not reveal significant departures from those found during my analysis of environmental literacy more generally (p. 87). Still, there was one difference concerning students’ gains to cultural environmental literacy. Specifically, there was a lack of significant difference between gains found in students who had higher levels of access to quality green space while participating in outdoor field trips and those who had lower levels of access while participating in VR field trips. For a full summary of these pairwise comparisons, please refer to Appendix I. 4.2 Discussion Survey results showed gains to environmental literacy across all study conditions, leading to participants reaching a moderate level of knowledge about Camosun Bog on average. However, some field trips were significantly more effective when promoting learning gains than others when levels of access to quality green space were considered. Still, my interviews suggest that this may be partly due to novelty effects associated with technologies or experiences that students were unfamiliar with. Meanwhile, environmental literacy was supported by different types of field trips in a variety of ways. Outdoor field trips supported this learning objective through exploration, sensory-based learning, nature interpretation, and storytelling activities. Meanwhile, those participating in the AR field trip used the Seek app to assist with plant identification and I found this activity encouraged peer learning as well. Additionally, both VR and AR field trips benefited students through the reification of concepts or species that were not available during outdoor field trips. These technologies also promoted empathy while allowing students to learn about the cultural significance of Camosun Bog to the Musqueam People using community-produced learning materials. Teachers also found field trips helped them to overcome various barriers they were facing when seeking to promote environmental literacy. Outdoor field trips run by knowledgeable community members, context-sensitive AR applications like Seek, and VR environments that contained pre-designed learning materials were particularly helpful to teachers who did not have the specialized knowledge to lead interpretive nature walks on their own. Additionally, although 94 outdoor field trips run by Indigenous knowledge holders or Elders were the preferred method of engaging students’ cultural environmental literacy, these sorts of experiences were not commonly available. As such, teachers felt that media produced by Indigenous communities were valuable components of AR and VR field trips, and that these helped to address barriers related to a lack of knowledge and a fear of making mistakes. However, teachers must still put in the work to transform their own approaches to teaching if these tools are going to support critical Indigenous environmental education. 4.2.1 Access, Novelty Effects and Gains to Environmental Literacy Before I discuss the specifics of how different types of field trips facilitated gains to functional and cultural environmental literacy, it is important to address novelty effects in this study. Novelty effects are often observed in educational settings when new technologies or unfamiliar teaching methods are introduced (Boeve-de Pauw et al., 2019). Specifically, this lack of familiarity can temporarily increase students’ motivation and attention, leading to short-term learning gains (Boeve-de Pauw et al., 2019; Hurd, 1997; Miguel-Alonso et al., 2023). However, these effects often diminish as students become accustomed to interventions over time (Boeve-de Pauw et al., 2019; Miguel-Alonso et al., 2023). This presents a limitation: the effectiveness of field trips in this study may wane when incorporated into environmental education programs that take place over an extended period. In the context of this study, students reported novelty effects in nearly all conditions. The notable exception was among those with higher levels of access to quality green space who participated in outdoor field trips. This was not unexpected. After all, if access to quality green space influences the environmental education of children, the very nature of this independent variable suggests that effects will be partly related to the familiarity they have with these areas. Novelty effects were certainly present in the case of outdoor field trips. As my statistical analysis suggests, these were found to be significantly more effective at promoting environmental literacy when provided to students with lower levels of access to quality green space. My interviews with students and teachers confirmed that those who went to school more than 10 minutes walking distance from such spaces did not typically engage in outdoor field trips with their class. When they did, field trips were often conducted in public parks that lacked 95 forests or high levels of biodiversity. These outings typically involved physical education or other activities that made use of the large, open fields found in many urban parks within the VSD. When these students visited Camosun Bog, they were particularly excited to identify different types of edible plants, interact with animals, and explore a new environment. As was evident when leading tours, classes who had lower levels of access to quality green space showed high levels of engagement, asked more questions, and seemed more motivated to participate in activities when on outdoor field trips. Importantly, this study condition reported the highest gains to environmental literacy overall, even when more specific measures of functional and cultural environmental literacy were considered. Meanwhile, novelty effects were also reported in AR field trips. All schools I worked with had a policy banning students from bringing their own smartphones into the classroom, and only two of the students who took part in this study reported having a cell phone of their own. Indeed, many of the children in this study had to borrow a device from their parents when participating in this study. The teachers who I spoke with explained that most parents were more interested in reducing the time their children spent on screens, rather than increasing it. Additionally, elementary school children were often considered too young to have their own devices, with ownership tending to increase once they entered middle school. Interestingly, survey results indicated that AR field trips were significantly more effective at promoting gains to environmental literacy compared to outdoor field trips when students had higher levels of access to quality green space. My interviews with students suggested that they were particularly excited to use the Seek app when identifying new types of plants. This was evident during field trips, as teachers and parents often had to ask students to put their phones away when a demonstration was occurring. Still, students had mixed feelings about the use of QR codes to access videos while in Camosun Bog. Most tended to enjoy these videos, because they represented a new way for them to engage with learning materials and they rarely got to use phones in class. However, some students who had lower levels of access to quality green space explained that the use of cell phones interfered with their enjoyment of the bog itself. Although, this was less of an issue with the Seek app, which could be used as students were exploring. For example, one student explained: 96 “I would’ve liked to just go on a walk because it took a long time to watch the videos. I liked Seek though, ‘cause it was easier to use and you didn’t have to wait for other people.” (Brian, Grade 7) It is important to understand that just because a technology is novel, does not mean that it will result in greater learning gains (Miguel-Alonso et al., 2023). In this context, that was particularly true when a technology was competing with or disrupting other new experiences, like an outdoor visit to Camosun Bog. Finally, VR was the technology that students had the least familiarity with during this study. While some students indicated that they had used VR to play videogames, few had used this technology in an educational setting. Teachers reported that they did not have access to VR headsets, and that they were even limited in their access to tablets. The schools I visited did not have computer labs, and teachers were using classroom funds or external grants to purchase additional tablets for their classrooms due to a shortage of resources. Survey results indicated that VR was significantly better at promoting environmental literacy in students with lower levels of access to quality green space when compared to those with higher levels of access who took part in outdoor field trips. However, the gains associated with VR field trips were generally moderate, overall. While students had a wide range of complaints related to internet connectivity, the level of interaction, and motion sickness, they were still particularly excited to try VR. In fact, even when classrooms were participating in AR or outdoor field trips, students and teachers would often request access to the VR field trip later so that they could still experience it. However, while students reported that this technology had a high level of novelty, this did not seem to translate into significant gains to their environmental literacy more generally when compared to other study conditions. While novelty was clearly a factor, it would also be incorrect to assume that reported gains to environmental literacy were simply due to the excitement and increased attention generated by visiting a new place or trying a new technology. Afterall, there were also a variety of other benefits associated with VR, AR, and outdoor field trips that resulted in gains to environmental literacy, as I will now discuss. 97 4.2.2 Promoting Functional Environmental Literacy in Students Regarding outdoor field trips, students enjoyed using touch or active listening when learning about the plants and animals found in Camosun Bog. For example, one engaging part of the outdoor field trip was when students learned to identify red huckleberry. As the end of the fall season was rapidly approaching during data collection, many plants were beginning to lose their leaves. This made differentiating red huckleberry from oval-leaved blueberry more difficult for students. To assist with their identification, they were asked to roll the stems of these plants between their fingers as those belonging to red huckleberry were square, while oval-leaved blueberry stems were round and smooth. Engaging students’ sense of touch in this exercise resulted in higher levels of engagement, and I noticed students practicing this approach to identifying red huckleberry multiple times following my initial demonstration. Another memorable moment for students was the listening exercise. Approximately halfway through each outdoor field trip, students were asked to step off the boardwalk into a small forest clearing beside Camosun Bog. There, they were asked to be as quiet as possible and close their eyes. After a period of silence, I would ask students to identify the different sounds they were hearing. As a fifth grade student named Kyle explained, this was enjoyable but also provided a welcome reprieve from bad weather in some cases: “I liked when we went into the forest because it was dryer there, but I could still hear the rain too.” Students also enjoyed exploring and interacting with animals in the bog when on outdoor field trips. Perhaps the most spectacular event that occurred during the course of this research was when a group of fourth and fifth grade students entered Camosun Bog to find that it had been overrun with hundreds of caterpillars. Their awe and excitement were clear, and this led to an impromptu lesson on the lifecycle of butterflies. Of course, this also led to some behavioral issues as well, such as when a group of students decided that the caterpillars made good projectiles to throw at their friends. Still, even this presented an opportunity to discuss the importance of having respect for the creatures that lived in the bog. A primary benefit of experiential education is that learning is enhanced through children’s exploration of their environment, and this often involves engaging their many senses (Beery & Jørgensen, 2018; Chawla, 2007; Sobel, 2008). As these three examples show, outdoor field trips were particularly effective at promoting functional environmental literacy because 98 students were able to engage with the sensory rich learning environment of Camosun Bog through a diverse array of tactile, auditory, and even taste experiences in some cases. AR field trips also proved to be effective at promoting students’ functional environmental literacy. In fact, my pairwise comparison found that AR field trips were significantly more effective than outdoor field trips when students had higher levels of access to quality green space. These excursions offered many of the same benefits of outdoor field trips but added new ways for them to engage with a familiar locale. While out in the field, students eagerly used the Seek app on their phones to identify various types of vegetation, including trees, shrubs, and smaller plants near the bog surface. Additionally, I frequently heard students share interesting facts about the species they had just identified, such as whether certain plants were edible. The app also sparked enthusiasm for learning outside of the classroom. For example, a seventh grade student expressed her excitement about using the app for future foraging activities with her mother: “I learned a lot about plants and that was great. Me and my Mom did a walk with a forager last month and they taught us about that stuff too [….] Seek was great, I’m going to use that. I think it would be good for foraging.” (Becca, Grade 7) My time in the field and discussion with Becca highlighted an important aspect of the Seek app that I had not initially considered: It was not only helpful in aiding with plant identification but seemed to provide an opportunity for peer learning. As students huddled in small groups around a bog cranberry, or eagerly searched the internet to determine if you could turn Salal berries into jam, this app provided an reason for students to explore the bog together. These findings are supported by the broader literature on the socio-technical dimensions of outdoor mobile learning. For example, Land and Zimmerman (2015) found that the Tree Investigators app encouraged children to discuss science topics, helped them link various learning concepts, and made it easier to overcome challenges related to plant identification. Regarding the use of QR codes to access educational media, one video on sundews consistently stood out during my research. For those who are unaware, sundews are carnivorous plants that are found in Camosun Bog and have nectar-tipped tentacles that they use to trap small insects. Unfortunately, these were not in season when field trips were being provided, and students had to rely on a video that showed a sundew in action as it captured a fly. Interestingly, 99 the video seemed to be even more impactful than providing a real, cultivated sundew to students. Primarily, this was because these plants are incredibly small and difficult to see. Often, they do not get much larger than a quarter. In addition, students were able to witness the plant capture an insect, an opportunity that would have been uncommon on an outdoor field trip. Still, some students did comment that the usefulness of this media was impacted by group size, as they were unable to easily access the Sundew video due to its popularity. These benefits were also translated into VR and many students in this study condition were engaged by media like the sundew video as well. For example, a fifth-grade student named Robert was especially fascinated by this new carnivore, exclaiming, “I only knew about Venus flytraps!” during our interview. However, he felt let down when I clarified that sundews were quite small, despite his hopes to the contrary. Similarly, a fourth grader named Cherise was captivated by the images of hummingbirds in the VR experience, but she wished animals were better represented: “I like how its wings look like purple and green, like shiny, [but…] I wish there were as many animals as plants.” These examples highlight the benefit of reification when using VR and AR technologies to support environmental literacy. As a brief reminder, reification is the process by which the invisible is made visible (Winn, 1993). Students may be shrunk down to the size of a water droplet to better understand how snowflakes are formed in a virtual environment, or as I witnessed in these field trips, gain a better understanding of the feeding behavior of a carnivorous plant. While my discussions with students and teachers were clear that these types of experiences cannot replace time spent outdoors, they can certainly expand on such experiences while allowing for a greater depth of understanding. Finally, while VR was effective at promoting gains to functional environmental literacy, technical issues did hamper the experience for some students. The quality of Google Cardboard headsets made information hard to access in some cases and students often found identification cards to be blurry due to the plastic lenses that were used. Internet connectivity problems also led to slow-loading or interrupted videos. Additionally, some students experienced motion sickness, which negatively affected their learning. Despite these challenges, my survey results indicated moderate gains to environmental literacy across study conditions where VR was used. Additionally, VR field trips were significantly more effective for students with lower access to 100 quality green space when compared to those with higher levels of access that participated in outdoor field trips. This offers hope for educators seeking to use this technology to overcome disparities in learning gains due to access. 4.2.3 Addressing Teaching Barriers Related to Functional Environmental Literacy Besides access issues, the primary barrier that teachers experienced when introducing students to environmental processes or local plants and animals was a lack of general knowledge. Many of the teachers in this study explained that they did not have formal training in biology, forestry, or an associated discipline to provide the background needed to identify species or answer students’ questions on the fly. Typically, they had to put significant effort into finding educational materials, learning the content themselves, and then applying these lessons in the field when running excursions for students. A third-grade teacher described her experience with this during our interview: “I need to do some studying before [a field trip]. I don't feel as a teacher I'm equipped - there's so much that you need to know. Like I've got my head in phonics and then I'm like, okay, we're reading to go outside, and then I would have to pre-read and have some materials [with me] because I can't keep that many things in my brain…. Yeah, you're like, ‘Okay, what leaf is this again?’” (Kelly, Teacher, Grade 3) The field trips that were provided during this study helped teachers to overcome this barrier in several ways. First, outdoor field trips did not require them to actively lead the activity. Instead, I ran all interpretive nature walks with the assistance of knowledgeable community volunteers from the Pacific Spirit Park Society. Not only did we all have training in plant and animal identification, but many of us had spent years conducting ecological restoration in the area or engaging with various park stakeholders. This resulted in lessons that incorporated the history of Camosun Bog while providing context about the socio-environmental problems that threaten its continued existence. Additionally, teachers were able to focus on the management of their class by ensuring students stayed with the group and dealing with minor disagreements. Several teachers reported that they had previously relied on these types of nature walks to overcome their limited environmental literacy and a lack of knowledge about the history of local places they were not familiar with. Community organizations like the Pacific Spirit Park Society 101 are ubiquitous throughout the VSD and teachers explained that they had partnered with non-profits many times in the past, naming groups likes the Stanley Park Ecological Society, Nature Vancouver, or even the Jane Goodall Institute that runs an international program called Roots and Shoots. My interviews with teachers found that these informal relationships with community organizations are an integral part of environmental education programs in the VSD. Unfortunately, like other resources that are not formalized or supported by the province and district, they could not always rely on them. Speaking from personal experience, organizations like the Pacific Spirit Park Society are already being inundated with requests from teachers to lead outdoor field trips and sometimes they cannot meet the growing need for their support. AR and VR field trips also helped to overcome a lack of knowledge about environmental processes or difficulties in identifying bog species. While children were able to use the Seek app to help identify plants on their own or in small group settings, teachers also enjoyed using this app during the AR field trip. In fact, several teachers explained that they could use this app while in the field to help overcome some of the difficulties they faced when trying to discuss different plants with their classes. Not only could the app be used to aid in identification, but teachers could help translate some of the species-specific information that it provided into a more grade-appropriate version for their students. The plant and animal ID cards that were included in the VR field trip served a similar purpose; however, teachers explained that they would prefer if these had audio narration to assist students who could not read some of the more difficult to pronounce words on their own. Some teachers also felt that the VR field trip would have been more effective if it had been conducted as a class activity that was being projected onto their classroom screens. While this would take away from the immersivity provided by the VR headset, this could also allow teachers to conduct classroom discussions as well. Teachers also found media that was embedded into VR field trips, or accessible via QR codes in the field, to be effective examples of learning materials. Regarding functional environmental literacy, they specifically found videos that showcased processes that could not be easily seen during outdoor field trips to be the most valuable. Like students, they found the sundew video to be particularly impactful, and some also commented on the restoration timeline that showed how the bog has changed since restoration began in the early 1990s. Teachers simply did not have the personal or historical knowledge to discuss these subjects with their 102 class, and the ability to visualize this while in the field was immensely helpful. Additionally, as these media were specific to the location being visited and had already been curated for their grade levels, most teachers thought that the use of these learning materials would help save time when preparing for such a field trip. Indeed, a lack of ready-to-use learning materials was a significant issue for teachers in this study and many described a reliance on third-party websites, environmental non-profits, the resources they had collected over their years of teaching, or their school librarian. For example, one fourth and fifth grade teacher described her reliance on YouTube for environmental education, the time pressure she often felt when trying to gather resources for her lessons, and the limitations of the media that were available to her: “I use a lot of YouTube. We also have access to a bunch of databases through different subscriptions with the [Vancouver School District], so I sometimes use those. They're kind of a second option though. because a lot of the time you're just like, ‘Oh, what can I find quickly and easily?’ Because a lot of times you're just on the fly. Figuring out what you'll need last minute, just what is most accessible, which is generally YouTube, because we don't have access to any of the streaming services, like Netflix or Disney. We have none of those documentaries.” (Jesse, Teacher, Grades 4 and 5) This teacher also explained how very few of the learning materials she found for environmental education were appropriate for her grade level or could be used without modification. Given the lack of time she has to properly curate learning materials, opportunities were often passed by due to this: “The problem is there's so much information in some resources for teachers. We just don't have time to get a good look at them. There's all this really great information, but it's made for grade three to grade seven or sometimes to high school. And you have to not only look at the information but think about how you can apply it to your specific class, including where they're at in terms of their education and abilities. So that's a huge challenge too: spending the time to actually look at the resources properly.” (Jesse, Teacher, Grades 4 and 5) One strength of both the AR and VR learning materials in this study was that they were produced after consulting the curriculum and grade levels for which they would be used. While 103 this may be an obvious first step for a teacher, others often do not realize the intricacies involved in such work. This has certainly been reflected in my own experience when creating these alongside local non-profits in the VSD. Regarding a reliance on third-party resources that have been developed by local non-profits to support environmental education programs, this raises the question of whether a process that could better facilitate the production of community-developed learning materials would be helpful in the VSD. If the district partnered with local non-profits and connected them with teachers, the learning materials being produced would likely be more relevant and better able to meet the needs of students and educators. Additionally, underfunded community groups would benefit from support provided by the school district. It is no secret that our schools are using these informal sources for educational materials, and this should be better supported. Siloing the practice of environmental education within the walls of the formal school system is simply not realistic given the lack of environmental education resources provided to teachers. Further, such a practice does not reflect the lived experiences of teachers, students, families, or community members who are collectively involved in the education of children attending elementary school in this district. I discuss this recommendation further in Chapter 6. 4.2.4 Promoting Cultural Environmental Literacy in Students Moving on, field trips also promoted gains to cultural environmental literacy in several ways, one of which was storytelling. For example, students reported that they were particularly interested in the story of sʔi:ɬqəy̓ after participating in outdoor field trips - sʔi:ɬqəy̓ being a two headed serpent that is connected to the origin of the name xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam). In fact, this was brought up multiple times during interviews and was commonly referenced in students’ answers on the knowledge test. Not unexpectedly, many of the younger children were particularly interested that the məθkʷəy̓ (river grass) grew from sʔi:ɬqəy̓’s poisonous droppings, and that the name xʷməθkʷəy̓əm means – place of the məθkʷəy̓. They were also enthralled by the story of four young hunters who ignored the teachings of their Elders and accidentally shot sʔi:ɬqəy̓ in the eye. Understandably, the creature was angered by this act of disrespect and chased the four hunters down. 104 These stories often prompted a number of questions from students, including whether or not sʔi:ɬqəy̓ really existed; although, this question was much more common among younger children. This led to conversations about respecting the beliefs and viewpoints of different cultures. I emphasized the need to ask for permission before sharing such stories and the importance of staying true to their original narrative without adding personal interpretations. Additionally, I often asked students if their parents had shared similar stories with them, seeking to help them empathize with ontological orientations that likely differed from their own. As Svalastog et al. (2021) argue, empathy is an important vehicle for understanding the experiences and perspectives of those in the margins. Indeed, the act of storytelling can often allow us to better understand how the life experiences of others are intertwined with our own. This can represent a small step in overcoming the backgrounding of marginalized communities within our education system. While fantastic, the story of sʔi:ɬqəy̓ served as a great example for students. It was engaging and also taught them valuable lessons, like the importance of respecting your neighbors. Moreover, the story prompted some students to reflect on their role as a settler as we discussed the ethics of learning from and sharing these stories together. Students also expressed an interest in learning about the Musqueam People’s use of plants, and one that came up frequently in both interviews and knowledge tests was Labrador tea. During outdoor field trips, students were given hands-on experience with this plant by rubbing its leaves between their fingers to release essential oils. I explained that these leaves could be brewed into a vitamin C-rich tea, and that this was considered an important medicinal drink by the Musqueam People. Some students liked the scent, while others found it unpleasant. A fourth grader named Caroline explained: “It smells like the lemon stuff we use to clean the table.” Students were also interested in other plants traditionally used by the Musqueam People, such as sphagnum moss, the cambium layer of Western hemlock, and the seeds of yellow pond lilies. Some students were surprised to learn that the Musqueam People still harvested these plants from the bog, helping to combat the myth that their connection to Camosun Bog is historic, rather than current. However, some expressed disappointment over not being allowed to sample the edible plants themselves. Sophie, a third grader, captured this sentiment: “I want to try the popcorn plant [yellow pond lily], but we’re not allowed to pick anything.” 105 Students who took part in AR and outdoor field trips reported that these approaches helped enhance their cultural environmental literacy in similar ways. However, the availability of media while in the field set AR apart as particularly beneficial. For instance, after hearing the story of sʔi:ɬqəy̓, one fifth-grader was pleasantly surprised to watch an animated video of the two-headed serpent: “I didn’t know there was going to be a video after you told us about [sʔi:ɬqəy̓]. The way it moved was weird and the river looked like it followed him. It was good, they did a good job.” (Matthew, Grade 5) A wide range of videos produced by the Musqueam Nation were available to students while on AR field trips. These videos featured Elders and community members discussing their connection to plants and the land, as well as the impact of park policies on their access to Camosun Bog. One specific video, an animation of the Fraser River Delta, highlighted how the Musqueam Nation’s territory shrank due to the reservation system. Although this topic was also covered in outdoor field trips, the visual aid from the AR experience helped deepen students' understanding. One seventh-grader described her realization after watching the video: “The map explained a lot. I know it’s their like territory, but I didn't know how much we took away from them. Can you believe it? Imagine having that all taken away from you and being told you have to stay in one little spot.” (Becca, Grade 7) Videos and animations played a key role when promoting students' cultural environmental literacy during VR field trips as well. Vanessa, a sixth grader, appreciated the authentic perspective these videos offered about Camosun Bog's importance to the Musqueam People: “I liked that they made the videos themselves, it was different than reading about them.” In contrast to outdoor field trips where I had to explain concepts like settler colonialism and share stories from the Musqueam Teaching Kit myself, VR and AR field trips allowed students to learn from the experiences of Elders and community members. While inviting members of the Musqueam Nation to lead outdoor field trips could also help solve this issue, using media offers a scalable way to educate many students within the Vancouver School District without creating a burden on the Musqueam Nation’s time and resources when they are already inundated with requests. 106 The concept of authenticity that Vanessa raised in our interview is a particularly important benefit of both VR and AR field trips in this study. As Simpson (2002) explains in her discussion of Indigenous education for cultural survival, the centering of Indigenous voices and content should be central to any critical approach to environmental education. Indeed, Indigenous knowledge and thought is too often filtered through white intermediaries. At stake in such situations is that through this filtering, Indigenous voices can be lost, distorted, and homogenized (Todd, 2016). Several teachers voiced similar concerns when discussing the barriers they faced when promoting cultural environmental literacy among their students. 4.2.5 Addressing Teaching Barriers Related to Cultural Environmental Literacy The integration of Indigenous knowledges into environmental education programs was a priority for every teacher I spoke to during this study. Not only did they explain that this is mandated by the British Columbia curriculum, but many reported feeling a personal responsibility to carry this out with the care and attention that it deserves. However, teachers felt that they lacked the resources to successfully engage with Indigenous cultures and knowledges. This could often lead to pan-Indigenous approaches being used in their teaching and learning materials that did not allow for critical engagement with local Indigenous voices in the classroom. Additionally, there seemed to be a fear of making mistakes that hindered the willingness of some teachers to engage with their students. Teachers felt that the approaches and media that were included in the outdoor, AR, and VR field trips in this study would be an effective and approachable way to promote cultural environmental literacy in their own programs. One teacher who works with the British Columbia Teacher’s Federation (BCTF) to promote reconciliation and anti-racism had her class participate in a VR field trip, and then also brought them on a complimentary outdoor field trip of Camosun Bog once I had completed data collection. She provided a very positive assessment: “Well, I think that it's amazing that you had those stories from the perspective of the Musqueam people embedded within this whole learning experience. And it definitely would be missing if it wasn't there…. I just want to say I think that this is a very progressive and very transformative form of education that you're doing. I think that this is making Indigenous education more of a real thing that teachers can do.” (Sarah, Teacher, Grades 4 and 5) 107 The most immediate barrier that field trips helped to address was a lack of resources that teachers felt confident using. Importantly, several teachers in this study explained how they did not have enough access to Indigenous education enhancement workers within the VSD to help them when assessing new learning materials. There is a limited number of these support workers across the district, and their services are commonly shared between multiple schools at the same time. One sixth and seventh grade teacher provided his assessment of the situation: “There may be one, [Indigenous] enhancement worker for a family of many schools. So, that person's availability is really, really limited…. It's just money. If we had more people in these roles, there'd be more availability to come out to schools more often. You know, do follow ups… to come in even once a month to tie in learning to culture and place. That's harder to do if you only have one person and they're split between two or three thousand students across several neighborhoods.” (Trevor, Teacher, Grade 6 and 7) However, Trevor’s understanding of this situation fails to consider the actual purpose of Indigenous education enhancement workers. Like many other teachers I interviewed, there was a belief that this role had been created to support Indigenous education more generally, and that this was tied to the provinces shift to engage with these communities throughout the K-12 curriculum. In actuality, these workers are intended to support the education of Indigenous students, and to help address the educational inequities that their communities continue to face (British Columbia Ministry of Education and Child Care, 2023c). The goal of the Indigenous Education Enhancement Agreement that the province, school districts, and Indigenous communities have created is to support the development of collaborative relationships while providing Indigenous communities with more autonomy when finding solutions that work for their children. A fourth and fifth grade teacher from a school with a large population of indigenous students provided some insight into what types of services are actually being provided: “[Indigenous education enhancement workers] are kind of doing more social work a lot of the time, giving actual families access to what they need. If they have time, they might come and do class, but mostly we can just go to them and ask ‘Hey, is this okay? Is there anything you’d add or anything you would take away? Do I have this right?” So, they’re like a reference check, for the most part.” (Jesse, Teacher, Grades 4 and 5) 108 In general, teachers felt that they were left to find their own resources to support the integration of Indigenous knowledges into their environmental education programs. Many found this to be a particularly difficult process and were not aware of the resources available to them at the provincial level. For example, guidebooks have been developed by the First Nations Education Steering Committee (FNESC) (2023) that provide teachers with guidance on what constitutes authentic Indigenous learning materials, how these can be incorporated into a wide variety of disciplines, and what this means for reconciliation. However, teachers who were using these resources also felt that they only provided general guidance and lacked a way for them to locate learning materials that were specific to their geographic context. The result was that students were not being introduced to learning materials that were specific to the Indigenous communities on whose land they were going to school. As Kovach (2021) and McGuire-Adams (2020) have suggested, this often results in the homogenization and pan-Indigenous erasure of local First Nations. As one fourth and fifth grade teacher explained: “I think the main thing that is really highlighted from your field trip is that it [reminds me] way more about the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh People whose land we are on…. We are often learning about the Haida, but we are not learning about the Indigenous People of the land we are on right now.” (Anna, Teacher, Grades 4 and 5) While the generality of available learning materials is understandable given that these curricular resources are meant to support classrooms across an entire province, the way in which they are being mobilized seems to have resulted in problematic approaches to teaching. For example, many teachers who discussed their use of Indigenous learning materials tended to refer to how all Indigenous communities had been affected by a particular environmental issue or were responding to it. Similarly, stories from other nations were often mobilized in a way that seemed to dislocate these teachings from their original context or that incorrectly attributed them to a local Indigenous community. These sorts of issues are not uncommon to settler understandings of Indigeneity within Canada’s formal education system (Schaefli et al., 2018). To be clear, I do not think this was intentional; in fact, many teachers were aware of this issue and wanted to address it without necessarily knowing how or having the time to devote to such a task. However, these realities do not change the fact that these approaches perpetuate the type of ignorance that a critical Indigenous environmental education should be addressing. 109 The place-based, locally relevant nature of the Indigenous learning materials used in this study was a primary draw for teachers who participated in AR and VR field trips. For classes that participated in AR field trips, teachers expressed that they felt the act of engaging with these media while also being physically present in Camosun Bog was particularly impactful for their students. Sarah, the fourth and fifth grade teacher who I mentioned worked with the BCTF on reconciliation and anti-racism programming earlier, described how this mirrored a similar approach that she uses when teaching during the summertime: “I take the kids out. We go to the Museum of Vancouver, talk, and afterwards I say ‘Let's go sit by the beach. Let's talk about which First Nations lived here and how they were forced off this land.’ Being in the place that this happened, looking out over the water, and putting yourself in that timeframe is important. I say, ‘Imagine these people being moved on a barge down east because this land was valuable, and settlers wanted it.’ The more we can bring [students] and put them in these places and talk about what happened, the more connections they form. I think experiential learning, relationships, trust, everything can come out of that. It can't just be us talking about orange shirt day - it can't be.” (Sarah, Teacher, Grades 4 and 5) Nearly all teachers suggested that the most effective approach to promoting cultural environmental literacy would be to visit a place like Camosun Bog, alongside an Elder. While outdoor field trips were not led by an Elder or member of the Musqueam community in this study, my findings that students with limited access to quality green space had the highest gains to their cultural environmental when participating in outdoor field trips certainly corroborates the preferred method of teachers in this study under such conditions. As I mentioned briefly in my discussion on promoting cultural environmental literacy though, Elder led field trips are not commonly available to teachers across the VSD. For example, the Musqueam First Nation tries to connect with teachers whenever possible; however, a lack of time, resources, and the fact that their priorities are rightfully focused on the health of their own community can make answering these requests difficult. To provide some perspective, the Musqueam First Nation has a community of approximately 1,300 members (Musqueam Indian Band, 2023). Meanwhile, there are nearly 30,000 elementary school students in the VSD (British Columbia Learning Analytics Office, 2022). Clearly, a more practical solution is needed, and this was one of the reasons that the Musqueam Teaching Kit was originally created. 110 Neither AR or VR field trips resulted in significantly different learning gains to cultural environmental literacy when compared to outdoor field trips for children who had low levels of access to quality green space. In fact, AR field trips proved to be more effective when compared to outdoor field trips for those who had higher levels of access. This suggests that the use of embedded media while in the field, or when using a VR simulation, would be a reasonable compromise given the limited resources available to teachers and Indigenous communities. VR field trips also have the added benefit of being able to provide similar experiences for those who do not attend school in the VSD. As one concern with currently available Indigenous education resources was that they were being applied out of context, VR also provides a way to re-embed these teaching materials when students are not physically present or cannot travel to specific locations. That is, VR provides students with an opportunity to explore locales away from their school district, while still maintaining the many benefits of a more critical, place-based approach to environmental education. While the authenticity of the media included in VR and AR field trips was a significant advantage, I was initially confused why I also received a great deal of positive feedback from teachers about the outdoor field trip as well. While I certainly utilized tips from the Musqueam Teaching Kit and guides from FNESC when developing this interpretive nature walk of Camosun Bog, I did not see how my approach to leading an outdoor field trip could substantially differ from one that any teacher might lead in the VSD. However, my interviews with teachers revealed an important nuance: I was willing to risk making mistakes as I engaged with Indigenous learning materials. In fact, I explained to students at the beginning of field trips that I was not Indigenous and that we were learning together. A fear of making mistakes was not uncommon among teachers who participated in this study. One grade three teacher shared her personal concerns with me: “Yeah, I struggle, because I want to do it properly. They always say that you should go ahead and make mistakes, but then you see these articles in the CBC where they've been like, ‘Oh, this teacher did this… what an idiot!’. And you're just like, ‘Okay, I don't want to be that person.’ So I struggle with that. I grew up on Haida Gwai and Port Hardy Terrace. [These are] very indigenous communities and I was totally unaware that my friends were on Res. I didn't know their stories and their family's history. They didn't know their family's history either, though. So thankfully, we were kind of learning all of 111 this together. So, I feel obligated to do it justice. But then I feel frozen because I am a white lady. I've gotten more intimidated, and I think that that's due to the culture of like shame that we seem to be in…. I feel that way and I feel very nervous. I don’t think I’m alone in this feeling either where you're like, ‘I want to do this right, but I’m just frozen.’” (Kelly, Teacher, Grade 3) This barrier has certainly been reported in other studies. For example, Dion et al. (2010) found that non-Indigenous teachers who were committed to confronting educational inequities affecting Indigenous students would often withdraw when attempting to decolonize their teaching methods. Reflecting on my discussion with Kelly, I think that an important lesson for any settler involved in Indigenous environmental education is that it is ok to feel uncomfortable. In fact, this feeling usually means that a person is learning something new – something meaningful. As educators, we must be willing to tackle these sorts of feelings, so that our students might also. Jesse, the fourth and fifth grade teacher who I earlier described as working at a school with a large Indigenous population, had a particularly healthy approach to this style of teaching: “I’m not too concerned about [feeling uncomfortable]. I tell my students ‘I don’t know everything; I’m learning with you. We might get things wrong. The important thing is that we’re willing to change our minds, discuss, think about things, and not stay stuck in one perspective.” (Jesse, Teacher, Grades 4 and 5) This type of reflexivity is key to effectively developing and implementing all three learning interventions I have discussed in this chapter. It is imperative that teachers examine their own feelings, reactions, and motivations for teaching. As Tompkins (2002) explains in her examination of the decolonizing process for white educators in Canada, this also requires one to continually take risks as they conduct the intrapersonal and interpersonal work that is necessary when identifying power and privilege, seeking out voices that are seldom heard, and building relationships. Similarly, Reagan (2010) describes how the process of decolonizing involves learning how to unsettle ourselves as “we confront the history of colonization, violence, racism, and injustice that remains part of the [Indian Residential School] legacy today” (p. 11). It is important that teachers are supported during this process, and my interviews indicated that many feel they are not. However, teachers must also be willing to put in the work. 112 During my interview with Sarah, she explained that she has noticed a lack of participation in workshops on anti-racism and reconciliation by those educators who need them most. In fact, she explained that those attending tend to be teachers who have already embraced these types of teaching methodologies: “I've been lucky to be able to help redesign some workshops. What I find is that the teachers that attend those workshops, freely, they already are well on the road to being anti-racist educators and anti-racist humans outside of work as well…. People that we really need to be getting to, they are not signing, they will not sign up for these workshops.” (Sarah, Teacher, Grades 4 and 5) While I have shown that VR, AR, and outdoor field trips are effective tools when helping to promote cultural environmental literacy among students, this is only true if they are implemented effectively as well. While certainly not perfect, and often quite general, the Ministry of Education and Childcare has provided guidance for those who are seeking to transform their own approach to teaching. Additionally, workshops have clearly been developed to promote this process. However, based on my conversations with teachers who claim that these resources have not been provided, I must conclude that the VSB should be doing a better job of promoting these. It may also be helpful to consider whether a minimal amount of engagement with these types of professional development resources should be mandated to ensure an acceptable level of competency among educators across the district. A significant barrier for teachers is time, so the development of ready-to-use, vetted learning materials that are locally relevant and easy to access is important as well. 4.3 Chapter Summary In summary, I found that outdoor field trips were significantly more effective at promoting environmental literacy when students had lower levels of access to quality green space. These students showed higher levels of engagement, asked more questions, and were more likely to participate in field trip activities. My interviews with students indicated that this difference may be due to novelty effects. However, students also reported that these outdoor field trips were effective due to the sensory-based learning and storytelling approaches that were used. 113 AR field trips were also shown to be more effective than outdoor field trips when offered to students with higher levels of access to quality green space. The Seek app not only aided students in identifying plant species but seemed to facilitate peer learning as students self-organized into small groups during field trips. Generally, students reported that both VR and AR allowed them to have experiences that would not normally be available in the field. Additionally, teaching materials provided by the Musqueam First Nation and Museum of Anthropology communicated the cultural significance of Camosun Bog in a more authentic way during AR or VR field trips than students experienced while on outdoor field trips. My interviews with teachers also indicated that the learning interventions provided in this study would be effective at helping them to overcome a variety of barriers they faced when promoting functional and cultural environmental literacy. Regarding functional environmental literacy, outdoor field trips that were guided by community experts, context-sensitive AR applications like Seek, and VR environments with pre-designed learning materials were particularly effective for teachers who lacked specialized skills to run interpretive nature walks. In terms of cultural environmental literacy, educators preferred Indigenous-led outdoor field trips; however, these were not commonly available. Therefore, teachers found value in learning materials that were produced by Indigenous communities and embedded in AR and VR field trips. These helped to address barriers related to a lack of knowledge and support that were compounded by a fear of making mistakes. Still, for any of the interventions in this study to effectively promote critical Indigenous environmental education, teachers must put in the work to overcome such anxieties. While resources are available in the VSD to support this, these may need to be promoted more rigorously to teachers. 114 Chapter 5: Environmental Attitudes, Connection to Nature and the Comparative Efficacy of VR, AR, and Outdoor Field Trips In this chapter, I compare the efficacy of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips when promoting pro-environmental attitudes and connection to nature. As with my analysis of environmental literacy, I examine how field trips promoted gains to these learning objectives across study conditions that varied by field trip type and level of access to quality green space. Following my statistical analysis of survey results, I contextualize my findings through a discussion of interviews with both students and teachers. Regarding pro-environmental attitudes, students reported minimal changes in their views related to the preservation and utilization of nature. However, access to quality green space did impact the efficacy of field trips when seeking to discourage the utilization of nature. Importantly, my conversations with students indicate that while there were not significant gains to pro-environmental attitudes more generally, there may have been attitudinal shifts in relation to Camosun Bog itself. I discuss how this impacted students’ willingness to volunteer, and the importance of distinguishing between an exploitative and appreciative utilization of nature in studies such as this one. Finally, students showed minimal gains in their connection to nature across study conditions; however, a significant interaction between field trip type and level of access to quality green space was found. My findings suggest that children who had higher levels of access to quality green space benefitted more from VR than AR. Specifically, while VR field trips sought a sense of presence, AR field trips sometimes disrupted students’ sense of embeddedness while in the field. Students may not have seen considerable gains in their connection to nature; however, they did report that their understanding of human-bog relations and empathy for living beings translated into a concern for Camosun Bog more specifically. 5.1 Environmental Attitudes: Preservation and Utilization of Nature In this study, environmental attitudes were measured using the 2-MEV survey instrument designed by Bogner and Wilhelm (1996) and re-designed for use with children and adolescents by Johnson and Manoli (2010). Specifically, I measured two environmental attitudes that are 115 commonly associated with pro-environmental behavior: preservation and utilization of nature. While preservation of nature refers to attitudes associated with the conservation and protection of the environment, utilization of nature is defined as an anthropocentric orientation towards the exploitation of natural resources. 5.1.1 Survey Results and Statistical Analysis As summarized in Table 5.1, pre-test scores indicated a moderate level of concern for the preservation of nature among participants, with students reporting that they would like to engage in behaviors that would help to protect the environment slightly more often on average. Mean pre-test scores ranged from 3.51 to 3.68 on a five-point scale, while mean post-test scores ranged from 3.63 to 3.96. A minor gain to attitudes concerning the preservation of nature were shown across all study groups, with mean difference scores ranging from 0.02 to 0.36 following transformation. Those who went to school within 10 minutes walking distance of quality green space and participated in AR field trips reported the lowest gains, averaging 0.02 points. Meanwhile, students who had a similar level of access and participated in VR field trips showed the highest gains, averaging 0.36 points. Table 5.1: Summary Statistics – Preservation of the Nature The range and distribution of students’ difference scores across study conditions can be more easily visualized using a boxplot in Figure 5.1 (p. 116). Outliers represented natural variations in the student population, were checked for measurement or calculation errors, and Pre-Test Post-Test Difference Score Difference Score W(x) Transform Access Field Trip n ?̅?1 s SE ?̅?2 s SE ?̅?D s SE ?̅?D s SE ≤10 min VR 67 3.53 0.60 0.07 3.96 0.43 0.05 0.43 0.63 0.08 0.36 0.52 0.06 AR 38 3.68 0.58 0.09 3.71 0.58 0.09 0.03 0.43 0.07 0.02 0.42 0.07 OD 41 3.63 0.76 0.12 3.67 0.85 0.13 0.05 0.51 0.08 0.03 0.48 0.07 >10 min VR 28 3.56 0.53 0.10 3.68 0.64 0.12 0.12 0.53 0.10 0.10 0.49 0.09 AR 28 3.51 0.55 0.10 3.63 0.52 0.10 0.12 0.45 0.08 0.11 0.43 0.08 OD 34 3.59 0.63 0.11 3.77 0.67 0.12 0.18 0.72 0.12 0.13 0.64 0.11 Note: Mean difference (?̅?D) scores were transformed using the Lambert W function 116 were not removed. Additionally, pre-test and post-test scores are visualized in Appendix H; however, these cannot be directly compared due to the non-equivalency of pre-test groups. Figure 5.1: Boxplot – Preservation of Nature A factorial ANOVA of transformed differences scores was used to examine the effects of access to quality green space and field trip type on gains to environmental attitudes related to the preservation of nature. A summary of these results can be found in Table 5.2. Table 5.2: Factorial ANOVA (Type III): Preservation of Nature Source Sum of Squares df F p Partial η2 Access 0.031 1 0.122 0.727 < 0.001 . Field Trip 1.247 2 2.440 0.089 0.021 Access * Field Trip 1.536 2 3.005 0.052 0.025 Residuals 58.792 230 Significance level: * p ≤ 0.05 ** p ≤ 0.01 *** p ≤ 0.001 Small effect (partial η2 ≥ 0.01), medium effect (partial η2 ≥ 0.06), large effect (partial η2 ≥ 0.14) A Shapiro-Wilk test indicated that residuals were normally distributed (W.0.989, p = 0.074), and Levine’s test showed that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not violated, F(5,230) = 1.898, p= 0.096. No significant main effect was found for level of access to 117 quality green space, F(1, 230) = 0.122, p = 0.727. Further, there was no significant main effect for field trip type, F(2, 230) = 2.440, p = 0.089. There was also no significant interaction between field trip type and level of access to quality green space, F(2, 230) = 3.005, p = 0.052. Moving on, survey results related to students’ environmental attitudes associated with the utilization of nature are summarized in Table 5.3. Pre-tests revealed that students expressed mild to moderate support for altering the environment and the idea that humans should be allowed to exert dominance over the natural world. Mean pre-test scores ranged from 2.45 to 2.66 on a five-point scale, while mean post-test scores ranged from 2.27 to 2.58. A minor reduction in support for the utilization of nature was shown across nearly all study groups, with mean difference scores ranging from -0.27 to 0.00 following transformation. Students who attended school within 10 minutes walking distance of quality green space and participated in the AR field trip showed the smallest reduction in their support for the utilization of nature, effectively reporting no change. Additionally, students who had the same level of access while participating in the VR field trip showed the greatest change, with a reduction of 0.27 points on average. Please note that this measure of utilization of nature assesses students’ attitudes regarding the degree to which they want to exert dominance over nature. Therefore, a reduction in student scores is associated with a pro-environmental shift in their attitudes. Table 5.3: Summary Statistics – Utilization of Nature Again, the range and distribution of mean difference scores is more easily visualized using a boxplot, as shown in Figure 5.2 (p. 118). Like scores related to the preservation of nature, Pre-Test Post-Test Difference Score Difference Score W(x) Transform Access Field Trip n ?̅?1 s SE ?̅?2 s SE ?̅?D s SE ?̅?D s SE ≤10 min VR 67 2.65 0.57 0.07 2.35 0.54 0.07 -0.29 0.64 0.08 -0.27 0.50 0.06 AR 38 2.26 0.45 0.07 2.27 0.49 0.08 0.02 0.44 0.07 0.00 0.40 0.07 OD 41 2.45 0.51 0.08 2.33 0.60 0.09 -0.12 0.48 0.07 -0.12 0.43 0.07 >10 min VR 28 2.66 0.62 0.12 2.58 0.51 0.10 -0.09 0.41 0.08 -0.09 0.38 0.07 AR 28 2.60 0.56 0.11 2.31 0.48 0.09 -0.29 0.58 0.11 -0.26 0.52 0.10 OD 34 2.43 0.64 0.11 2.20 0.69 0.12 -0.23 0.61 0.10 -0.21 0.52 0.09 Note: Mean difference (?̅?D) scores were transformed using the Lambert W function 118 outliers were checked for measurement errors, but were not removed as they represented natural variations in students. Pre-test and post-test scores were also visualized, and are available in Appendix H. Figure 5.2: Boxplot – Utilization of Nature The procedure for factorial ANOVA was repeated to examine the effects of access to quality green space and field trip type on gains to environmental attitudes associated with the utilization of nature. A summary of these results is provided in Table 5.4. Table 5.4: Factorial ANOVA (Type III): Utilization of the Environment Source Sum of Squares df F p Partial η2 Access 0.152 1 0.704 0.402 0.003 Field Trip 0.078 2 0.181 0.834 0.002 Access * Field Trip 1.835 2 4.24 0.016* 0.035 Residuals 49.756 230 Significance level: * p ≤ 0.05 ** p ≤ 0.01 *** p ≤ 0.001 Small effect (partial η2 ≥ 0.01), medium effect (partial η2 ≥ 0.06), large effect (partial η2 ≥ 0.14) A Shapiro-Wilk test indicated that residuals were normally distributed (W.0.990, p = 0.150), and Levine’s test showed that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not 119 violated, F(5,230) = 1.050, p = 0.389. No significant main effect was found for level of access to quality green space, F(1, 230) = 0.704, p = 0.402. Further, there was no significant main effect for field trip type, F(2, 230) = 0.181, p = 0.834. A significant interaction between field trip type and level of access to quality green space was found, F(2, 230) = 4.241, p = 0.016, with a small effect size. A post-hoc analysis of environmental attitudes associated with the utilization of nature was conducted using a Tukey-adjusted, pairwise comparison of estimated marginal means. However, this reported no significant differences between study conditions. For a full list of pairwise comparisons, please refer to Appendix I. Given the small effect size of the interaction reported in my factorial ANOVA, it is possible for a post-hoc analysis to not report statistically significant differences, particularly after correcting for multiple comparisons. Despite this result, my factorial ANOVA does indicate that the effects of field trip type and level of access to quality green space are dependent on one another. However, overall gains across study conditions should also be considered when interpreting the meaningfulness of such a result. That is, mean difference scores showed that even the study condition resulting in the greatest reduction to students’ attitudes about the utilization of nature only amounted to a change of -0.27 points on a five-point scale. Not only is the effect size of the interaction between field trip type and level of access to quality green space small (η2 = 0.035), the overall magnitude of the difference scores across study conditions is also small enough to call into question the usefulness of making distinctions in this case. 5.1.2 Discussion My statistical analysis revealed minimal changes in students’ attitudes related to the preservation and utilization of nature. Although a significant interaction effect was found between field trip type and level of access to quality green space, the effect size was small and post-hoc analysis found no significant differences between study conditions. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. Attitudes represent relatively stable psychological constructs; therefore, minimal gains after only a single field trip are not surprising. More pronounced gains may be observed in the case of an extended education program, and this possibility is supported by my interviews with students. Following field trips, students reported a 120 strong interest in engaging in pro-environmental activities related to Camosun bog, specifically. Over time, such inclinations could influence their general attitudes and values about the environment if properly nurtured. 5.1.2.1 Willingness to Volunteer On average, 71% of interview participants reported that they would be willing to volunteer to help preserve Camosun Bog following field trips. This response rate was relatively similar, regardless of a student’s level of access to quality green space or the type of field trip that they participated in. Those who indicated a willingness to volunteer were interested in a variety of activities, including water level monitoring, invasive species removal, planting, and even cultural services like helping the Camosun Bog Restoration Group to harvest Labrador Tea for the Musqueam People. Students reported many reasons and motivations for wanting to volunteer. Most explained that the various opportunities in Camosun Bog looked enjoyable, and one student who had recently moved to Vancouver from Brazil thought that this represented an opportunity to meet new friends. He also explained that his brother had previously volunteered to plant trees, pointing to a positive role model for pro-environmental behaviors in his life. However, other students also indicated heightened levels of anxiety that the bog may disappear and wanted to do something to help. One student who participated in a VR field trip even linked the issues facing Camosun bog with the more existential threat of climate change in our interview: “We’re getting a lot of fires every summer with all the smoke, and climate change is a huge problem, you know? I didn’t think about the bog though because we go there all the time and there’s a pond, so I didn’t think it was drying out. Something needs to be done about that.” (Jake, Grade 7) By connecting the problems surrounding water levels in Camosun Bog to the broader issue of climate change, Jake simultaneously seemed to be motivated to help while not knowing what actions he could take to make a difference. These feelings were shared by a grade four student, Caroline, who spoke about the problems facing Camosun Bog more generally: “I don’t want it to dry up, but I don’t know what to do about it. It’s a big problem.” 121 Eco-anxiety is increasingly being discussed in the literature on environmental education. Specifically, scholars have highlighted how constant exposure to severe environmental problems can lead to feelings of hopelessness (Kelsey, 2016; Pihkala, 2020; Wallace et al., 2020). Such emotions can paralyze individuals, making them feel overwhelmed by the scale and complexity of these issues (Hoggett et al., 2019). However, Pihkala (2020) also suggests that a moderate level of "practical anxiety" can motivate students and inspire action. As I discussed these feelings with Jake and Caroline during our interviews, I took some time to remind them of the people and groups they had learned about on their field trips who were trying to help protect the bog and solve the water level issue. I reminded them that volunteering in Camosun Bog meant being part of a larger team, and that no one person was responsible for fixing these problems. By reducing the scale of the discussion to Camosun Bog itself, and countering feelings of personal responsibility that seemed overwhelming in this case, both students indicated that they’d be interested in volunteering. Recent research by Gallay et al. (2022) supports this approach and describes the importance of combining environmental education with opportunities for collective action. By doing so, educators can help students feel like they are able to make a difference – even in the face of overwhelming odds. These researchers specifically mention the importance of team building and relationships as part of the learning process. Just like in my discussions with Jake and Caroline, they found that students were more likely to participate in environmentally friendly behaviors if they felt like they didn’t have to face environmental problems on their own. Connecting students with local volunteers during outdoor field trips can help to achieve this. Additionally, media showcasing the experiences and work of community volunteers in AR and VR field trips also seemed to inform students, even if they did not lead to measurable changes in their pro-environmental attitudes. My conversations with Jake and Caroline also highlighted the need for follow-up activities, regardless of the type of field trip being provided to students. As some students may be hesitant to voice their fears or concerns in larger groups, educators can encourage individual expression through assignments like personal reflections or drawings as well. This can allow teachers to work with students to address issues like eco-anxiety as they emerge. These interviews also emphasize the importance of place-based education and field trips in fostering 122 pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. While global environmental challenges often dominate our discussions, localizing these issues can empower students to feel like their actions will have a meaningful impact. Not all students reported a willingness to volunteer in Camosun Bog. In fact, 29% of students who were interviewed reported that they were unwilling to volunteer. Generally, these participants explained that they did not have time, were more interested in other extracurricular activities, or were concerned about bad weather and the level of physical work required. However, one student was also a volunteer with the Stanley Park Ecological Society’s Dedicated Invasive Removal Team (DIRT). While unwilling to volunteer in Camosun Bog due to time, I classified them as “willing to volunteer” given the nature of their extracurricular conflict. One student also provided an interesting reason for not volunteering that was related to family dynamics: “I don’t think I could volunteer; we don’t really do that.” As we sat together at the back of his classroom, this fifth grader named Matthew explained that both of his parents worked and that he did not think they would have time to take him to volunteer. When I asked about his other extracurricular activities, I discovered that he participated in relatively few and that both of his parents worked in retail. Due to this, their schedules changed quite often. While I believed that Matthew would have liked to volunteer, he was clear that he didn’t think this was a good idea. This discussion highlighted how important it is to understand that children’s decisions to not participate in pro-environmental activities, like volunteerism, may not always reflect their underlying attitudes or values. In fact, the barriers they experience when trying to participate can often be compounded by those of their caregiver(s). Finally, bad weather seemed to be a particular topic of concern for those who indicated they did not want to volunteer after participating in outdoor and AR field trips. Those who experienced bad weather while in the field were far more likely to be unwilling to volunteer, citing that they didn’t want to get muddy or that it would be too cold. While many teachers took a “rain or shine” approach to these field trips, my discussions with students indicated that this may not be the best decision if the goal is to encourage pro-environmental attitudes or behaviors like volunteerism. Indeed, Talebpour (2020) recently came to a similar conclusion in their study where they tried to foster children’s connection to nature through a residential environmental 123 education program. One fourth grader named Madison also provided a drawing on the back of her survey that captured this point particularly well: Figure 5.3: Hungry, Wet, Cold and Tired (Madison, Grade 4) 124 5.1.2.2 Preservation and the Appreciative Utilization of Nature Students’ attitudes surrounding the preservation of Camosun Bog were often related to their desire to utilize it for a variety of purposes that included foraging, dog walking, socializing, relaxation, bird watching, and hiking. More generally, students reported using parks for sports, swimming, and playground equipment as well. Many also described visiting wild areas during summer to camp and fish with their families. Foraging and edible plants were both consistent themes that students brought up in relation to Camosun Bog. Either they were interested in foraging there with friends and family or had already done so in cases where they lived nearby. For example, one fourth grader named Tiffany described how her grandmother lived right next to Camosun bog. On weekends they would take the dog for walks and in summer they picked salmonberries and blackberries. When asked if she would volunteer, Tiffany explained that she would like to but that she did not want to cut down the blackberry bushes because she wanted to pick those berries with her grandmother. These feelings were also shared by others. Briar, a grade five student who had participated in an outdoor field trip, expressed frustration with park rules surrounding foraging during her interview: “We should be able to share the berries with the birds but still use them, because we live here too.” Another example related to foraging involved a student named Charles who identified as Indigenous during our interview and participated in an AR field trip. This fifth grader explained that he would like to volunteer to help harvest Labrador tea for the Musqueam People. During the field trip, students learned that the Camosun Bog Restoration Group sometimes receives requests from Musqueam Elders to harvest Labrador tea for cultural uses and he was very interested in helping with this. These examples draw attention to a crucial nuance about how educational researchers should measure attitudes related to the utilization of nature. Specifically, we shouldn't narrowly define the utilization of nature as an exploitative act aimed at dominating the environment for personal or community benefit. Often, people utilize nature out of a genuine appreciation and desire to connect with it or their community. In their study exploring the 2-MEV model, Kibbe et al. (2014) found that the more one values appreciative interactions with nature, the more likely 125 they are to seek its preservation. My interviews with students reinforce this finding and offer a key takeaway for educators: Instead of focusing on curbing exploitative attitudes toward nature, we should also aim to encourage a form of engagement rooted in appreciation, as this may foster a genuine desire to protect the environment. Bringing this discussion to a close, my interviews with students do not contradict the finding that there was no significant difference between study conditions due to field trip type or level of access to quality green space in relation to the preservation and utilization of nature. However, they do bring into question the magnitude of reported difference scores when one considers these attitudes more granularly. While a general change to students’ attitudes was not achieved in this study, my qualitative analysis indicates that students wanted to preserve Camosun Bog. However, this was often related to their desire to utilize this space. The degree to which more general changes to these attitudes are impacted by different levels of access to quality green space or field trip types may be found if longitudinal research is conducted in the future, or a less general survey instrument is used. 5.2 Connection to Nature Connection to nature was measured in this study using the connectedness to nature scale that was developed by Mayer and Frantz (2014) and later revised for children by Salazar et al. (2020). Specifically, those with a high level of connection to nature view themselves as part of the natural world and experience a sense of kinship with it. They feel emotionally affected by the well-being of the environment and are deeply aware of their interdependence with the surrounding ecosystem (Mayer and Frantz, 2014). 5.2.1 Survey Results and Statistical Analysis A summary of survey results measuring students’ connection to nature can be found in Table 5.5 (p. 126). Pre-tests showed that students had a moderate level of connection to nature across all study conditions. Mean pre-test scores ranged from 3.20 to 3.73 on a five-point scale while mean post-test scores ranged from 3.28 to 3.83. There were minor gains in the connection to nature of participants across all study conditions, but these only ranged from an average of .04 to 0.33 points following transformation of the data. The lowest gains in connection to nature 126 occurred for students who participated in the AR field trip and went to school within 10 minutes walking distance of quality green space. Meanwhile, students who had higher levels of access and participated in the VR field trip showed the greatest gains. Table 5.5: Summary Statistics – Connection to Nature The distributions of transformed difference scores across study conditions can be visualized using the boxplot in Figure 5.4. The outliers present were again found to be natural variations among students and were included in my final analysis. A visualization of pre-test and post-test scores is also available in Appendix H. Figure 5.4: Boxplot – Connection to Nature (Transformed Difference Scores) Pre-Test Post-Test Difference Score Difference Score W(x) Transform Access Field Trip n ?̅?1 s SE ?̅?2 s SE ?̅?D s SE ?̅?D s SE ≤10 min VR 67 3.41 0.65 0.08 3.80 0.51 0.06 0.39 0.76 0.09 0.33 0.54 0.07 AR 38 3.49 0.47 0.08 3.51 0.56 0.09 0.01 0.47 0.08 0.04 0.37 0.06 OD 41 3.73 0.85 0.13 3.83 0.90 0.14 0.10 0.52 0.08 0.10 0.42 0.07 >10 min VR 28 3.20 0.67 0.13 3.28 0.77 0.15 0.08 0.51 0.10 0.10 0.42 0.08 AR 28 3.39 0.39 0.07 3.54 0.47 0.09 0.15 0.55 0.10 0.16 0.45 0.09 OD 34 3.54 0.59 0.10 3.74 0.67 0.11 0.21 0.61 0.10 0.19 0.51 0.09 Note: Mean difference (?̅?D) scores were transformed using the Lambert W function 127 A factorial ANOVA of transformed differences scores was used to examine the effects of access to quality green space and field trip type on connection to nature. A Shapiro-Wilk test indicated that residuals were normally distributed (W.0.992, p = 0.243), and Levine’s test showed that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not violated, F(5,230)= 1.968, p= 0.084. No significant main effect was found for level of access to quality green space, F(1, 230) = 0.010, p = 0.921. Further, there was no significant main effect for field trip type, F(2, 230) = 1.019, p = 0.363. However, there was a significant interaction between field trip type and level of access to quality green space, F(2, 230) = 3.289, p = 0.039 with a small effect size. A summary of these results can be found in Table 5.6. Table 5.6: Factorial ANOVA (Type III): Connection to Nature Source Sum of Squares df F p Partial η2 Access 0.002 1 0.001 0.921 0.000 Field Trip 0.447 2 1.019 0.363 0.009 Access * Field Trip 1.443 2 3.289 0.039* 0.028 Residuals 50.471 230 Significance level: * p ≤ 0.05 ** p ≤ 0.01 *** p ≤ 0.001 Small effect (partial η2 ≥ 0.01), medium effect (partial η2 ≥ 0.06), large effect (partial η2 ≥ 0.14) A post-hoc analysis of connection to nature was conducted using a Tukey-adjusted, pairwise comparison of estimated marginal means. Findings suggested that VR field trips (?̅?D = 0.33) were significantly more effective than AR field trips (?̅?D = 0.04) at promoting gains in connection to nature for students who had higher levels of access to quality green space. No significant differences were found between other study conditions. Figure 5.5 (p. 128) visualizes differences between study conditions using a compact letter display, showing mean difference scores and their standard error. Study conditions that do not share a common letter were significantly different from one another. For a full summary of pairwise comparisons, please refer to Appendix I. 128 Figure 5.5: Connection to Nature – Pairwise Comparison of Study Conditions 5.2.2 Discussion Students reported minimal changes in their connection to nature across different study conditions. While there was a significant interaction between field trip type and level of access to quality green space, the effect size of this was small. Post-hoc analysis suggested that students who had higher levels of access to quality green space showed significantly better gains in their connection to nature when participating in VR field trips compared to AR field trips; however, the magnitude of these gains was also small. Still, interviews with students indicated that this may hint at subtle differences between how VR conveyed a sense of presence while AR mediated students’ experiences while in nature. More broadly, my interviews corroborated the findings of my statistical analysis. Students reported a moderate level of connection to Camosun Bog and the surrounding park across my different study conditions, which was evident from their descriptions of human-bog relations and empathy for non-humans. 5.2.2.1 Designing for Presence and Mediating Experience Earlier in this chapter, I discussed some of the technical issues students encountered during VR field trips, such as those related to the low-quality HMD that was used and poor internet connectivity. However, many students also noted factors that increased their sense of 129 presence during these field trips. Despite technical setbacks, students found that the ability to control their viewpoint by physically moving, along with the hands-free activation of hot spots, enhanced their feeling of “being in” Camosun Bog. Sound also played a pivotal role in this. As a seventh grader named Sebastian explained: “The sound helped a lot, I guess. Like I could hear the birds and the wind, so it felt like I was there a little bit more.” Central to an experiential approach to environmental education is the notion that we should immerse children in nature to cultivate feelings of connection, love, responsibility, and environmental stewardship (Sobel, 2004). As previously discussed, outdoor field trips utilized a variety of techniques to foster this sense of embeddedness, such as sensory-based learning. Teachers also explained that fostering this sense of connection was one of their primary learning objectives when taking their classes into the field. For example, a fourth and fifth grade teacher named Maureen explained how she would facilitate this connection when she worked at a school near Camosun Bog in the past: “We would all take a clipboard and a piece of paper and walk into the bog. Then we all found a spot where we could sit quietly…. We just didn't say a word and we just listened to nature, and we drew things that we could hear like a leaf - a leaf falling over there, birds chirping here. So, kind of just like connecting with nature silently.” (Maureen, Teacher, Grades 4 and 5) Teachers were concerned that the use of technology like cellphones may prevent students from taking the time to connect with nature while visiting the bog. Susan, the third and fourth grade teacher who I have mentioned previously, was adamant about her feelings about the use of technology while in nature: “Get them outside. Get them off the screen and get them back relating to nature!” Some students also felt like this sense of connection was interrupted during AR field trips. This was not surprising; after all, the very nature of AR is that devices are meant to act as an intermediary between a person and their environment while offering additional layers of information that would not ordinarily be available. This issue has been reported in the literature. For example, Alakärppä et al. (2017) found that task design and the mechanics of AR applications could disrupt children’s physical interactions with their environment, and gamification could also result in technology drawing too much attention. Similarly, Webber found that AR could act as a distraction when researching interactive technologies and human-130 animal encounters at a zoo. Interestingly, I found no significant difference between AR and outdoor field trips regarding gains in connection to nature in this study. Building on this prior work, perhaps this has to do with the way the Seek app was incorporated into AR field trips. After all, even if there were no significant differences in connection to nature between AR and outdoor field trip conditions, my examination of environmental literacy certainly showed that AR promoted learning engagement while in the field. This was particularly true among students with higher levels of access to quality green space who used the Seek app to engage with their environment in new ways. While I am surprised that this was not reflected in students’ connection to nature as well, knowledge gains need not mirror a sense of connection or kinship. Afterall, common experience would dictate that there are often topics that one might learn about without the addition of an affective dimension, such as this. Considering my finding that VR was significantly more effective than AR when promoting a connection to nature among students with higher levels of access to quality green space, I believe this may be due to the very nature of these technologies. That is, while a goal of VR is to promote connection with a simulated environment, the goal of AR is to mediate a connection with the real world. In this case, the focus of the Seek app and QR code accessible media was to promote environmental literacy as opposed to a deeper connection with the environment itself. Again, this comes back to task design and what learning objectives the AR tool was meant to support in this study. However, this still begs the question as to why those who had less access to quality green space while participating in the VR field trip also did not show similar gains. This will require further research. 5.2.2.2 Human-Bog Relations and Empathy While students did not report large increases in their connection to nature overall, my interviews shed light on how they related to Camosun Bog specifically. Two main themes emerged: a feeling of interconnectedness between humans and the bog, and empathy for the animals that call Camosun Bog home. Sophie, who I mentioned was excited to try the "popcorn plant" earlier in this chapter, gave me a memorable quote during our interview about the relationship between volunteers and Camosun Bog: “They need the bog because that’s where they go with their friends, but I think 131 the bog needs them too or it wouldn’t be there.” Her words resonated deeply with me. As recently as 1991, Western hemlocks had drastically altered Camosun Bog's delicate ecosystem. Dedicated community members, some of whom recalled ice-skating on the central pond as kids, raised money and secured permission from Metro Vancouver to restore the bog. For the past three decades, volunteers have gathered every Saturday to plant sphagnum moss, remove invasive species, and care for this community space. The volunteers who Sophie was introduced to were clear when they spoke about their work in the bog: they have made lifelong friends and Camosun Bog would have been lost if not for their actions. While students may not have reported a significant gain in their connection to nature more generally, they certainly learned about the deep connection that the Camosun Bog Restoration Group has with the bog. This was also evident when interviewing students who took part in AR and VR field trips, as students repeatedly mentioned lessons from the video interviews I produced while working with volunteers in the bog. Role models are particularly important to learning, a concept supported by Bandura's (1972, 1977) social learning theory. More specifically, this is often facilitated through observational learning or direct guidance (Bandura, 1977). In this instance, students not only witnessed positive behaviors and relationships to emulate, but also received explicit guidance on how to respond to environmental situations they likely hadn't encountered before. While immediate gains to their connection to nature were not pronounced, this type of modelling could have greater effects when reinforced over a longer period of time. Students’ understanding of human-bog relations also informed how they approached the water level crisis that the bog is currently facing. Indeed, many students struggled with the dilemma of a drain that was installed in 1929, which both harms the bog and prevents nearby basements from flooding. Those who participated in VR and AR field trips learned about this during a video featuring the water monitoring team, run by the Pacific Spirit Park Society. Meanwhile, those who participated in outdoor field trips had a chance to stand on top of the problematic drain. Faced with a choice between preserving the bog and safeguarding people’s homes, students had a variety of opinions. Some thought the drain should be closed, others felt that people shouldn’t have built homes with basement suites, while still others emphasized that the bog was also home to all of the animals that lived there. A sense of empathy was a key factor 132 influencing students’ connection to Camosun Bog and their desire to protect it in this case. For example, a fifth grader named Robert commented on the water level issue during our interview: “I would help keep the bog wet by adding water [….] All of the frogs will die if we don’t do something about the water.” Empathy, and the connection to non-humans it can evoke, also influenced how students behaved while in the bog during field trips. Returning to my brief vignette regarding an outdoor field trip that was overrun by hundreds of caterpillars, I mentioned that some students thought these creatures made good projectiles. What I didn’t mention was that it was not me, but a student, who initially noticed what was going on and spoke up. Tyler, a fifth grader, was particularly upset that his classmates were hurting the caterpillars and even pushed one of the boys doing the throwing. Their teacher quickly stepped in, but Tyler mentioned in our interview together that he thought we should treat the caterpillars how we wanted to be treated. He also admitted to stepping on a caterpillar himself, but seemed to cheer up when I explained that there were plenty of hungry birds in the bog that were ready to eat the meal he had prepared for them. These experiences in the field and my interviews with students suggest that helping them to develop empathy and a compassion for non-humans is an important step in forging a closer relationship with nature, and hopefully influencing their behaviors. I am certainly not alone in coming to this conclusion, as others have demonstrated this in the literature as well. For example, Talebpour (2020) found that empathy was important to the development of a connection to nature while running a residential environmental education program. Gladwin (2020) also found that the promotion of empathy through digital storytelling was important to the promotion of pro-environmental actions in young children. Meanwhile, Ampuero et al. (2015) found that the use of empathy and critical thinking strategies were particularly useful when helping primary school students to develop strategies for solving environmental problems. Bringing this discussion to a close, while students did not report large gains in their connection to nature after a single intervention in this study, this may occur following a more extended program. I believe this is even more likely after learning how students’ current level of connection to nature seems to have translated to Camosun Bog, itself. In terms of future directions, the need for longitudinal research is once again clear. 133 5.3 Chapter Summary My findings show that gains to pro-environmental attitudes were minimal in this study, and I did not find significant differences between study conditions regarding the efficacy of different field trip types. However, my statistical analysis did indicate that the level of access students had to quality green space interacted with the type of field trip they were given when discouraging the utilization of nature. My interviews with students provided additional insights into these findings. Specifically, interview participants reported a desire to preserve Camosun Bog, and this signified that an attitudinal shift may have occurred at a more granular level than my survey instrument was able to capture. Additionally, students explained that their desire to preserve Camosun Bog was often linked to their appreciative utilization of this space. This suggests that engaging children through the appreciative utilization of nature may be important when trying to encourage pro-environmental attitudes using the learning interventions in this study. Finally, students also reported minimal gains in their connection to nature across study conditions. However, my interviews indicated that although their connection to nature may not have improved in most cases, this did translate into feelings of care and concern for the bog. This was particularly noticeable through their discussions of human-bog relations and their empathy for the creatures that lived there. Additionally, my statistical analysis revealed that VR field trips resulted in significantly higher gains in connection to nature compared to AR field trips for students who had higher levels of access to quality green space. My interviews suggested that this may be due to AR acting as a mediator between students and their environment while participating in field trips. Meanwhile, VR seeks to promote a sense of presence in the learning environment, even if it is merely a simulation. Despite technical difficulties, students described that control over their view in a 360º environment, hands-free activation of hot spots, and the use of soundscapes were beneficial to their immersion in the virtual bog. 134 Chapter 6: Supporting the Integration of VR, AR, and Outdoor Field Trips Throughout this dissertation, I have examined the comparative efficacy of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips when promoting the environmental education of children. However, such an investigation would be incomplete without a discussion of how these interventions should be more broadly integrated into programming initiatives. In this chapter, I suggest that a blended learning approach may be the most practical solution. Based on my findings, the use and mixing of different field trips should be informed by the comparative efficacy of these interventions, barriers that students and teachers are facing in their environmental education programs, and which learning objectives are being targeted. Following a discussion of what a blended approach may look like in the context of this study, I provide actionable recommendations that would support the use of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips across the VSD. Based on reported barriers, I focus on three themes related to improving access to quality green space, technology, and learning materials. When seeking to implement such goals, I suggest that the VSD prioritize my recommendations based on expected impacts and costs. As such, I discuss several “quick wins” that could be enacted within the confines of current resources, funding, and time constraints. I also explore higher impact, long-term projects that will require sustained investment, community engagement, and the development of new support networks or infrastructure. 6.1 Blending VR, AR, and Outdoor Field Trips The findings reported in this study suggest that a one-size-fits-all approach to the use of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips is not appropriate. Even in cases where a specific type of field trip resulted in significantly higher gains to learning objectives, a mixture of these interventions was often useful when addressing various barriers that teachers and students faced in their environmental education programs. A blended learning approach is a useful way to conceptualize this. While there is a great degree of variability in the way blended learning is defined and practiced, this approach is typically understood to involve some degree of hybridity. That is, blended learning relies on a combination of face-to-face instruction with online learning that is 135 often realized through a wide variety of digital tools and educational materials (Kumi-Yeboah & Smith, 2018; Picciano, 2019; Short et al., 2022). Importantly, a blended approach can support the flexible integration of different tools or media, as well as the critical, place-based, and experiential learning approaches that I have prioritized in this study (Hagood & Price, 2016; Korson, 2023; J. McLean et al., 2019). Of course, new tools or learning materials should not be integrated into existing programs uncritically. Blended learning theorists argue that their use should be directly connected to the overarching learning objectives of a program and the needs of students (McPhee, 2022; Picciano, 2019). This study adds to such conversations, specifically in the context of environmental education. A novel finding that emerged from this research was that differences in gains to environmental literacy, pro-environmental attitudes, and connection to nature were not solely due to the type of field trip that was provided to students. In fact, differences in the comparative efficacy of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips were dependent upon how these learning interventions interacted with the level of access students had to quality green space from their schools. However, this was primarily true regarding environmental literacy, as gains to pro-environmental attitudes and connection to nature were shown to be minimal. Although, interviews did suggest that existing environmental attitudes and connection to nature were reinforced and translated into concern for the field trip site. Further, VR was found to be significantly more effective than AR at promoting a connection to nature among students with higher levels of access to quality green space. Figure 6.1 (p. 136) simplifies and summarizes these findings using a matrix that compares how field trips supported gains to different learning objectives across levels of access to quality green space. An attempt to blend VR, AR, and outdoor field trips into an environmental education program should consider such findings before prioritizing specific interventions. However, it is important to understand that this figure only shows if a field trip was more or less effective (α = 0.05) when compared to other field trips. Even though an intervention is comparatively less effective, it may still provide appreciable learning gains for students. Also, in many cases there was not a significant difference between field trips when promoting specific learning objectives. 136 Figure 6.1: Comparative Efficacy of Field Trips and Access to Quality Green Space - Arrows denote the comparative efficacy of field trips; superscripted arrows denote the comparative efficacy of field trips with those of the opposite level of access to quality green space. Taking functional environmental literacy as an example, OD field trips were less effective than AR field trips for students with high access. Further, OD field trips for students with high access were less effective when compared with OD field trips for students with low access. 137 Expanding on such criticism, the efficacy of field trips is not only tied to their ability to promote gains specific learning objectives, but their flexibility to address barriers that students and teachers are facing. This is important, as the strength of blending different interventions is that these can then enhance and support one another. The mixed methods approach I employed in this study provided some important insights regarding this. First, a primary barrier to the use of outdoor and AR field trips was that most schools in the VSD had low levels of physical access to quality green space. This was exacerbated by other factors, such as transportation, safety, funding, a lack of teaching support, and the need for additional resources when providing accommodations to ensure equitable access for students living with disabilities. VR field trips helped to address access issues by providing similar gains to targeted learning objectives within a simulated environment that did not require travel to and from Camosun Bog. Second, teachers described how a lack of expertise related to the environment resulted in difficulties when leading outdoor excursions. AR field trips helped to address this using a context-sensitive application that aided in the identification of different plant species. Meanwhile, both AR and VR field trips used community developed media to provide instruction on environmental processes and issues, including those that were not normally accessible while in the field. Third, many teachers were unsure about how to critically incorporate Indigenous knowledges and learning materials into their programming. Teachers commonly reported that a lack of access to properly vetted learning materials and a fear of making mistakes were a significant barrier when seeking to integrate these into their lessons. While they felt that outdoor field trips that were led by Indigenous knowledge holders or Elders were an important way to engage their students, these were not often available. Additionally, many of the learning materials that were available often lacked a connection to local communities. This resulted in the promotion of pan-Indigenous understandings that perpetuated the backgrounding of local First Nations. The AR and VR field trips used in this study helped to overcome this barrier through the sharing and embedding of learning materials that were produced by the Musqueam First Nation on whose unceded territory Camosun Bog is found. However, the use of these tools does not guarantee that such materials will be available or accessible in other situations. 138 Finally, it is important to understand that although teachers and students reported that the use of VR and AR field trips were helpful when addressing barriers they faced, the use of these technologies in schools also presented several challenges. These included administrative policies that banned the use of smartphones in class, a lack of device ownership among students, technical issues, and classrooms that did not currently have the required technologies to utilize immersive VR experiences. In consideration of these findings, Figure 6.2 summarizes and describes how VR, AR, and outdoor field trips could be blended within a formal environmental education program: Prioritize AR Field Trips… Enhance with Outdoor Field Trips… Support with VR Field Trips… Support with Outdoor Field Trips… Utilize VR Field Trips… Enhance with AR Field Trips… ▪ Increased gains to environmental literacy. ▪ Can support teachers who lack expertise. ▪ May engage with environmental processes or species that are not available in the field. ▪ Promoted peer learning in this study. ▪ Can integrate Indigenous produced media. ▪ May result in decreased connection to nature compared to VR field trips. ▪ Lack of access to technology and barriers associated with its use may pose a problem. ▪ Can enhance AR field trips through sensory-based learning, storytelling, and exploration. ▪ If possible, support Indigenous knowledge integration through Elder led field trips. ▪ Teachers may lack expertise to lead field trips. ▪ Resulted in the lowest gains to environmental literacy across all study conditions and was less effective than AR for those with high access. ▪ Prioritize when access to technology is limited. ▪ Prioritize to address access barriers related to bad weather, safety, disability, etc. ▪ May result in improved connection to nature when compared to AR field trips. ▪ Can support teachers who lack expertise. ▪ Can integrate Indigenous-produced media. ▪ May engage with environmental processes or species that are not available in the field. ▪ Lack of access to technology and barriers associated with its use may pose a problem. ▪ Additional planning, time, teaching support, and funding required due to physical access barriers. ▪ Promotes environmental literacy through sensory-based learning, storytelling, and exploration. ▪ Resulted in highest gains to environmental literacy across all study conditions. Efficacy did not differ from VR or AR for those with low access. ▪ If possible, support Indigenous knowledge integration through Elder led field trips. ▪ Teachers may lack expertise to lead field trips. ▪ Prioritize when barriers to physical access do not allow for outdoor field trips. ▪ Supports teachers who lack expertise. ▪ Can integrate Indigenous produced media. ▪ Engage with environmental processes or species that are not commonly available in the field. ▪ Lack of access to technology and barriers associated with its use may pose a problem. ▪ As students do not attend outdoor field trips often, use of AR may be viewed as a disruption. ▪ Can support teachers who lack expertise. ▪ May engage with environmental processes or species that are not available in the field. ▪ Promoted peer learning in this study. ▪ Can integrate Indigenous produced media. ▪ Lack of access to technology and barriers associated with its use may pose a problem. Figure 6.2: Blending VR, AR, and Outdoor Field Trips 139 To better illustrate how these recommendations may be applied in practice, the following sections include two examples of classrooms that had different levels of access to quality green space. Following a brief description, I describe how these teachers might choose to integrate VR, AR, and outdoor field in their classrooms based on their current resources and barriers. 6.1.1 Example 1: Kelly’s Classroom - High Access to Quality Green Space Kelly teaches third grade at an elementary school that sits on the edge of Pacific Spirit Regional Park, near Camosun Bog, in an upper-middle-class neighborhood. While she utilizes the park for outdoor field trips, she would like to do so more often. However, one of her students uses a wheelchair and requires additional teaching support while in the field. When her class does visit the park, she likes to let them explore, either alone or in pairs. To calm them down afterwards, she often uses meditative or listening activities to refocus them. Unfortunately, Kelly does not feel well equipped to identify many plants and animals in the field, so she usually conducts additional research and scripts those portions of her outdoor lessons to make up for this lack of expertise. Further, while she would like to incorporate more Indigenous learning materials into her environmental education programs, she is worried about making mistakes. As a settler, she feels a responsibility to ensure that she is using such materials appropriately and is also concerned about professional ramifications if she gets something wrong. Kelly is constantly searching for new teaching resources, and generally feels like she has received a lack of support from the school district in this regard. Luckily, she lives in a two-income household, owns her own home, and feels financially stable enough to purchase additional learning materials like worksheets and books for her class. Finally, Kelly uses a limited number of technologies to support her teaching; however, the school does have iPads that she sometimes books for her classroom. None of her students own a smartphone. In this example, Kelly would benefit from incorporating an AR field trip into her broader environmental education program; although, she will have to organize a specific time for this, as additional teaching support will be required to accommodate her student who uses a wheelchair. My findings show that her students would likely find the use of new technologies, like the Seek app, to be particularly engaging when exploring Camosun Bog and this could be effective at promoting gains to their functional environmental literacy when compared to a more traditional 140 outdoor field trip. Such an app could help her students to identify different plants, alone or in small groups, and she could also use this technology to help overcome her own lack of knowledge in this subject area. Additionally, it is often difficult for students to visualize seasonal changes and they may not be able to view many animals while visiting the bog as these will have taken shelter from a large class. Media showcasing these processes or creatures could help to overcome this challenge. Next, Kelly’s class could also engage with videos and animations that were created by the Musqueam First Nation while they are in the bog. This may help them to connect the place they find themselves into the stories that this community has shared. If she can arrange to have a Musqueam Elder lead this field trip, or a separate outdoor excursion, that would be ideal. It would also present an opportunity to build connections while asking questions about resources that she hopes to share with her class. However, this may not be possible given the priorities and resources of this community. Even though Kelly is concerned about making mistakes, there are resources available alongside the teaching materials used in this study to provide guidance on how she can engage with her class. Taking the time to learn with her students while leading them in a discussion that promotes self-reflection would be helpful. While AR field trips would help to enhance the more traditional outdoor excursions that Kelly normally leads, she would have to overcome some barriers associated with a lack of access to smartphones. As her students do not own these devices, she may have to rely on the tablets that her school has, download the Seek app on them, and ensure they are properly charged. Additionally, she may run into issues regarding internet connectivity while in the field, as many schools rely on wireless networks. Luckily, Seek can be operated offline. She could also pre-download the media that would otherwise be accessed via QR codes in the field. Further, she could conduct a pre-visit to Camosun Bog using a VR field trip, have students engage with this media within a simulated environment, and then take them on an AR field trip that only utilizes the Seek apps offline mode. One other issue that Kelly may want to be aware of is that the use of AR could result in her students forming less of a personal connection to the bog when compared to other methods, like VR. However, my findings suggest that overall gains in connection to nature were minimal 141 in this study, particularly following a single field trip. Therefore, she may feel that the benefits of AR outweigh this potential issue. Finally, Kelly should still use the sensory-based or meditative exercises that she typically engages in with her class while on outdoor field trips. These provide yet another way that she can connect her students with the natural world and may help to ground their experiences. Similarly, prioritizing AR does not mean that VR is not a useful alternative. In cases where teaching support is not available or weather does not permit a visit to the bog, she could utilize this technology to help overcome such barriers. However, a lack of VR headsets or smartphones would pose a problem. In such a case, she may need to resort to the use of tablets. This would mean having her students engage in desktop VR, which is a less immersive experience. The results of this study did not explore the comparative efficacy of such a method, specifically. 6.1.2 Example 2: Susan’s Classroom - Low Access to Quality Green Space Susan teaches a split classroom that is made up of both third and fourth grade students and has been an educator for over twenty years. Her school is in the middle of a busy residential neighborhood that is primarily composed of middle-class, single-family homes. The parks near her classroom are mostly sports fields with a smattering of trees around their border; however, one has a small creek that runs through it and sometimes she will bring her students to explore it or study insects. Generally, she uses nearby parks for outdoor play or physical education, and when she does travel to larger parks her students typically use free public transit. While this is an option, she does not have access to much teaching support, and usually relies on parent volunteers to accompany her. During such outdoor excursions she tends to recruit an expert or community volunteer to lead the trip so that it’s “worth her while.” Susan would like to incorporate more Indigenous learning materials into her environmental education program, but she is not sure about what is ok to share and what is not. She has also not been able to connect with the Musqueam First Nation to see if a community member could lead a field trip for her class. Although, she is planning on attending a professional development seminar on Indigenous environmental education and hopes that this will provide her with some guidance. Finally, Susan’s school is new and has many technologies available for use, including tablets, a smartboard, and a classroom computer. She often uses YouTube videos and other forms of media 142 to support her lessons or has students play educational games on tablets. However, she is worried that they spend too much time with this type of technology and would prefer to get them out into nature. My findings suggest that incorporating a mixture of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips into a broader environmental education program would help support Susan’s class. While no intervention was shown to be significantly more effective for classrooms with lower access to quality green space, outdoor field trips did result in the highest gains to both functional and cultural environmental literacy in such cases. Children with lower levels of access to quality green space showed increased engagement while on these field trips and enjoyed identifying plants using their sense of touch or learning about a variety of edible species. However, Susan’s primary barrier to conducting outdoor field trips with her class is physical access. While she relies on public transit, the availability of her parent volunteers has been steadily declining, and she often lacks the necessary teaching support to ensure students are kept safe. Like many teachers, she must often plan such excursions months in advance to ensure volunteer support. Further, she can only take her class to nearby parks that are within walking distance without the need for additional permissions, even if she did have the support necessary for an impromptu visit to an area outside of her neighborhood. As outdoor field trips to areas like Camosun Bog are rare for her class, I support her decision to engage with community partners to help lead these trips. While Susan could research such areas on her own, local experts who have a personal connection to an area may be able to provide historical context and personal stories that will make a trip more memorable for her students. As with my prior example, she may also want to connect with the Musqueam First Nation to see if an Elder or community member would be available to lead this type of field trip. Even if this is not possible, her decision to attend a professional development seminar on Indigenous environmental education will help her to gain the skills to begin critically engaging her students with these materials on her own. In this case, I would not recommend an AR field trip immediately. Although my findings suggested that learning gains did not significantly differ for students who had lower levels of access to quality green space, some felt that stopping to watch videos disrupted their ability to explore. However, AR may still be helpful. Even if students are not utilizing an app like Seek, 143 Susan could use one herself to help overcome some of the limitations she faces when identifying or talking about various plants with her students. Finally, I would recommend the use of a VR field trip for Susan’s class alongside a planned trip to somewhere like Camosun Bog. Even though she has suggested a preference to use less technology, a VR field trip would help to address some of the barriers she faces when accessing areas of quality green space. VR could also be used to introduce her students to the field trip site before visiting in person. For example, they could engage with learning materials developed by the Musqueam First Nation and learn about the history of Camosun Bog’s restoration through materials that have been created by the Pacific Spirit Park Society. They could then apply these lessons while in the field, and this would hopefully lead to deeper discussions. Susan may need to invest in low-quality headsets to support this; however, these could be purchased with classroom funds as a one-time investment given their reduced price. Still, this would also require her students to bring a smartphone from home. Alternatively, she could use tablets to conduct a desktop VR field trip. 6.2 Recommendations: Supporting the Use of VR, AR, and Outdoor Field Trips The blending of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips can promote a more flexible approach to environmental education that is able to address many barriers faced by students and teachers while supporting environmental literacy, pro-environmental attitudes, and connection to nature. However, this means little if these learning interventions are unable to be applied. In my examination of barriers that students and teachers faced when implementing these field trips, a lack of access to green space, technology, and teaching resources have been three overarching themes that emerged. In this section I provide recommendations that may help to address such issues. However, it is important to understand that these recommendations are not exhaustive; rather, they are tied to the findings of this study. While they are specific to the VSD, in many cases there are opportunities for broader applications as well. It is also important that administrators, officials, and policy makers consider the costs and impacts of these recommendations when prioritizing them. To facilitate this, I include “quick wins” whenever possible to direct your attention to barriers that could be addressed with limited changes to 144 existing resources or funding. However, the need for more transformative innovation is clear in many cases. As such, I also recommend higher impact, long-term projects. 6.2.1 Improving Access to Quality Green Space Only 15 of 89 elementary schools in this study were within 10 minutes walking distance of quality green space. Further, only 16 of 266 parks were shown to be of adequate size and to contain the percentage of natural land cover that teachers preferred when conducting their environmental education programs. Teachers also reported that a lack of access to quality green space was the most immediate barrier that was preventing them from conducting outdoor field trips. The following recommendations to improve access to quality green space request that officials continue to prioritize the use of public transit, improve funding for private transportation, reduce administrative barriers for teachers, facilitate classroom management through the hiring of additional support workers, and promote local initiatives that seek to improve the biodiversity of parks through project-based educational programs. Recommendation 1: Use of free public transit should continue to be promoted as the preferred method of transportation for outdoor field trips, and this should be expanded. Additionally, teaching support should be increased or reallocated to support this. The VSB (2022) promotes active travel options like walking, and asks teachers to prioritize public transit to reduce costs while promoting sustainability. This is unlikely to change and is supported by the City of Vancouver’s (2012) Transportation 2040 plan that will expand bus and SkyTrain options for students. It is also supported through the Get on Board and Kids Ride Free programs that provide free public transportation for children under the age of twelve (TransLink, 2023b). Given an extensive network across the VSD, use of free public transit is an economical and sustainable approach to improving access to quality green space. However, the VSB should request that the Kids Ride Free program be expanded to promote this option across all grade levels. Alternatively, they could request a reduction in fares for students over the age of twelve. 145 Indeed, the U-Pass BC program already provides such an option for many post-secondary students (TransLink, 2023c). However, free fares do not address the issue of classroom management that many teachers found to be a barrier when using such services. While there are online materials to support children learning how to use public transit (TransLink, 2023a), the behavioral and safety issues that compounded access barriers in this study require increased teaching support. My findings suggest that teaching support is limited across the district, particularly where off-site activities like field trips are concerned. Funding should be increased, and additional support workers hired to meet this demand. Further, these resources should be allocated based on safety concerns or to meet needs for accommodation by students living with disabilities. Recommendation 2: Increase funding for private transit and ensure the allocation of these resources is informed by safety concerns, economic need, and requests for accommodation by those living with disabilities. Currently, the VSB (1999) is not required to provide transportation for students to and from school unless they are in grades K-3 and live more than 4 km away, or are in grades 4-12 and live more than 4.8 km away. Transportation arrangements for those living with physical disabilities are arranged on an individual basis, but such accommodations are limited by available funding (VSB, 1999). Instead, the district has promoted active travel options, such as walking or biking (VSB, 2022); therefore, the fleet of available school buses is limited, and there is a dependence on the use of private vehicles or chartered buses (VSB, 2018b). While liability insurance has been extended as a courtesy to those using their private vehicles, other forms of compensation have not been provided (VSB, 2018b). As discussed in Chapter 3, the cost of a private bus charter is high, and many classrooms must rely on grant funding or an ever-decreasing number of parent volunteers. I believe a reliance on public transit is preferred, and this is largely because increasing carbon emissions seems counterproductive to the goals of environmental education more generally. However, those teachers who taught in areas where safety issues were identified indicated that this was not an effective option for them. In such cases, I would recommend that 146 the VSB increase funding for classrooms who are identified as having barriers related to safety or require accommodations for students living with disabilities. While a reallocation of funding based on access to quality green space would benefit teachers seeking to conduct outdoor field trips, this is not advised. It is important to remember that field trips to locations such as museums, sports facilities, and universities are also important to all sorts of school programs; therefore, it would not be appropriate to prioritize access for a single program. Further, while the subsidization of private school bus rentals through grants or the use of parent drivers is enticing, these informal sources cannot be depended on in the long-term. Recommendation 3: Reduce administrative barriers for teachers by expanding blanket permission form policies and conduct a risk assessment to ensure this action is supported. Same-day field trips to neighborhood parks or nature reserves are classified as low-risk by the VSB. Currently, these only require the permission of the principal and an annual permission form (VSB, 2023a). Alternatively, any activities that involve higher-risk, outdoor activities near water or extended wilderness travel require additional approvals (VSB, 2023a). While classrooms that had high access to quality green space in this study were able to benefit from field trips regularly, those with low access faced administrative challenges. That is, they required additional approvals prior to using public transit to access areas away from their school. This barrier could be addressed by expanding the VSB’s annual permission form policy to include trips to parks outside of a school’s neighborhood. This is already the policy for sports teams traveling to local tournaments, so there is reason to believe that permission could be extended for regular outdoor education as well. However, it would be prudent to ensure that a risk assessment is conducted prior to such a policy being implemented. Recommendation 4: Increase or reallocate funding for teaching support to improve classroom management when conducting outdoor field trips. Current VSB (2023a) policies related to the supervision of students who are participating in outdoor field trips are that a minimum of 2 supervisors should be present for K-3 students, or 1 supervisor for grade 4-12 students. However, additional volunteer supervisors may be used at 147 the discretion of the teacher, and are required if additional accommodations are needed for students living with a disability (VSB, 2023a). However, the VSB does not provide guidance on this outside of the need for approval by a school’s principal (VSB, 2023a). A primary barrier for teachers was that they were often unable to provide the vigilant supervision required of them while also leading outdoor field trips. Indeed, many teachers depended on parent volunteers or local community groups to provide additional supervision to ensure appropriate classroom management was maintained while out on excursions. However, the VSB’s reliance on volunteer support is unsustainable. I recommend that the requirements for supervision be increased to suggest 2 supervisors when on outdoor field trips for all grade levels. This would require increased funding or the reallocation of existing resources. While parents or community groups could subsidize these costs by volunteering their time, formal structures should be in place to meet this demand as well. Recommendation 5: Support district projects and policies dedicated to improving urban green space. The VSB (2018a) has recommended that existing school properties be leveraged by developing new types of green infrastructure on them to promote environmental education, and the creation of school gardens is a good example of this. However, while district officials acknowledge that parks and beaches provide an opportunity to connect with outdoor spaces, additional engagement with land managers has been limited. The City of Vancouver is engaging in several different strategies to improve local ecosystems while maintaining areas that are rich in biodiversity and natural land cover. Such initiatives are connected to its Climate Emergency Action Plan that is prioritizing the development of blue-green corridors and urban forest strategies that will see the enhancement of areas like forests, wetlands, meadows and streams (City of Vancouver, 2021). There are many opportunities to support these projects by the VSB. For example, they could include project-based environmental education initiatives in their curriculum that would connect students with this work through invasive species removal and tree planting. They could also engage with the city on biodiversity projects that would connect students with citizen science initiatives. While a full review of such opportunities is outside the scope of this dissertation, these community 148 partnerships would not only engage students in outdoor learning but also improve the quality of green spaces available to them. While access to green space is a barrier that students must face, they can also be part of the solution. 6.2.2 Improving Access to Immersive Technologies The primary barrier facing teachers who would like to implement VR and AR field trips is access to technology. Indeed, very few teachers or students who participated in this study had used these types of interventions before. Further, the infrastructure and hardware to realize the full potential of these types of field trips was lacking. Given this, the following recommendations ask officials to reconsider policies that restrict the use of personal devices and to provide professional development opportunities for teachers that would support their ability to utilize VR and AR effectively. Additionally, I suggest that schools improve their access to high-speed internet and that the district develop a shared resource pool for hardware. Recommendation 6: Reconsider policies restricting the use of personal devices to help address a lack of access to hardware during the interim. The VSB (2021, 2023c) does not ban the use of smartphones or other personal electronic devices in their Student Code of Conduct and has provided children with rules to promote the responsible use of technology. However, my research found that school administrators did not support the use of personal devices, and often banned students from bringing these to class. There is a lack of policy alignment in this regard, and that should be addressed. As schools primarily used tablets and lacked the necessary hardware to fully utilize AR and VR field trips, students in this study primarily depended on the use of personal devices. While device ownership was low among students, this increased with age. Further, most students were able to borrow a smartphone from their parents or a family member. If school administrators reconsidered their policies, the use of personal devices may allow educators to begin implementing VR and AR field trips immediately. This could also support additional pilot projects regarding their use. While the misuse of personal devices may result in classroom disruption, many teachers indicated that this was manageable. After all, they were already required to promote the responsible use of school devices. 149 However, this may not be a sustainable solution. For example, McLean (2016) remarks on how “bring your own device” policies can serve to reinforce existing educational inequities. That is, students of low socioeconomic status who may have inferior phone models or data plans benefit less from AR or VR offerings when compared to those who can afford the best technology. This can create unfair hierarchies within classrooms. While improving access to technology is important, programs and policies that fail to engage with underlying inequities often fail to be truly transformative. Recommendation 7: Offer professional development to support teachers implementing VR and AR in the classroom. Teachers in this study reported that they were hesitant to introduce VR and AR field trips into their environmental education programs, because they lacked the technical skills to implement these interventions on their own. My discussions with teachers also indicated that their digital literacies varied considerably. Generally, teachers relied on one another for support when implementing new technologies in the classroom; however, given their lack of familiarity with VR and AR, this is probably not a realistic option. I recommend that the VSB promote the use of immersive technologies through their professional development program. Currently, the VSB intranet connects teachers with both internal and external seminars, so this may be the most immediate way to support such an initiative. The district’s educational technologists may wish to connect with provincial counterparts to develop materials. For example, Set-BC has recently conducted internal studies on the use of immersive technologies in the school system and this could be an opportunity for collaboration. Recommendation 8: Improve school access to high-speed internet to support the use of immersive technologies and utilize offline apps while in remote, outdoor spaces. Utilize emerging internet technologies as they become more available. Students participating in VR field trips often had to rely on personal data plans and this was primarily due to slow Wi-Fi in their schools. This service also varied widely with some classrooms reporting no issues while others existed within “dead zones” where students and teachers were unable to access internet at all. Teachers also reported that this impacted their 150 ability to deliver other digital learning materials to their students. Regarding AR, there were also moments of service interruption when students tried to access the internet in Camosun Bog. This signal obstruction was primarily due to dense tree canopies in the surrounding area. Schools should update their IT infrastructure to improve Wi-Fi and internet access. First, the VSB should ensure they have a more appropriate internet service plan, and then expand the number of access points to service a larger number of devices on their network. Meanwhile, schools seeking to use AR while in the field may want to utilize applications that have an offline mode to ensure usability. They may also wish to pre-download media that would normally be accessed through QR codes when services disruptions are expected. In the long-term, the VSB should pay attention to the development of emerging internet technologies and utilize these as they become available to a broader range of devices. For example, enhanced mobile broadband is a defining characteristic of 5G and is expected to incorporate much higher frequencies that transport data at faster speeds. Further, the reorienting of telecommunications infrastructure will eventually result in a higher density of antennas which will allow for better wireless connectivity (Elbamby et al., 2018). Finally, multi-access edge computing is a synergistic technology that will provide cloud-computing capabilities at the “edge of networks,” close to users. This will reduce latency and increase data delivery in the future (Hu et al., 2015). Recommendation 9: Create a shared resource pool where schools and classrooms can borrow or lease VR equipment. While hardware like tablets can be used when running AR field trips, VR requires more specialized equipment. Google Cardboard (Google, 2023) was used as a low-cost alternative to more advanced HMD’s in this study; however, students indicated that this resulted in a variety of technical issues that impacted the readability of text and their broader sense of immersion. It also caused motion sickness in many students. To utilize the full potential of VR, the VSB will need to invest in more advanced hardware. Currently, the price of high-quality VR headsets like Meta Quest 3 (Meta, 2023) are prohibitively expensive and the ability of individual classrooms to utilize such hardware in their everyday lessons is not realistic. However, the VSB could purchase a limited supply of these devices and create a shared resource pool to incentivize their use. The uptake of VR is likely to 151 be slow as teachers orient themselves to a new technology, and this would provide opportunities for classrooms to pilot these types of experiences for their students. The VSB already utilizes a similar method of hardware deployment within schools when providing tablets to classrooms. I would recommend that they scale this to share more expensive hardware between clusters of schools. This would improve access for many, but also requires a long-term strategy to ensure this technology is appropriately cared for, supported, and updated. The VSB currently has strategies in place to address this requirement. 6.2.3 Improving Access to Teaching Resources Another overarching theme that emerged during this study was the need for additional teaching resources to support the use of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips. Indeed, educators cited a lack of time, funding, and ready-to-use learning materials as a primary barrier when running their programs. Additionally, several teachers felt unsure about how they should engage with or access learning materials that foregrounded the voices of local Indigenous communities. Finally, as VR and AR represented new tools for many teachers, they lacked access to learning materials or apps that specifically utilized these technologies. My recommendations suggest that the VSB support a community of practice using online collaboration tools while continuing to engage with First Nations and local community organizations to produce new learning materials. Additionally, they should seek to improve the cultural and environmental literacy of their teachers through professional development programs. Finally, they should conduct an environmental scan of VR and AR applications to find ready-to-use experiences while also investing in accessible software to promote the development of field trips in-house. Recommendation 10: Support the sharing of learning resources, techniques, and practices between teachers using online collaboration tools. Teachers in this study often discussed the informal relationships they had with other educators in their grade level and how they relied on these networks when vetting and sourcing learning resources. In essence, they described a community of practice (Wenger, 1998, 2000). However, the networks teachers shared were often limited in scope. 152 I would recommend the use of online collaborations tools to better facilitate such practices across the district. A starting point would be to leverage the Microsoft 365 and Teams (Microsoft, 2023) infrastructure that was implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic to promote online collaboration in the short term. Many teachers I spoke with had not considered this option, so it would need to be promoted. Some teachers also suggested online marketplaces like Teachers Pay Teachers (2023); however, I would not recommend this. Research has shown that the economization of teaching resources through these types of websites can lead to a host of issues, including the dissemination of misinformation and shallow engagement with topics like anti-racism (Swalwell et al., 2023). Recommendation 11: Continue to engage with First Nations and local community groups to develop learning materials and improve the dissemination of these resources using a centralized database. As discussed in Chapter 4, the B.C. Ministry of Education works with the First Nations Education Steering Committee (FNESC) to provide services for Indigenous students and families while ensuring their communities have authority over the education they receive (FNESC, 2023). In turn, the FNESC works alongside the First Nations Schools Association and Indigenous Adult and Higher Learning Association to meet this mandate (FNESC, 2023). However, my research indicated that the pedagogical tools and learning resources provided by the FNESC were not well known by the teachers who took part in this study. Further, teachers who did use these materials explained that it was difficult to find content that was relevant to the local First Nations on whose land they resided. Less formal partnerships with local community groups were also common. This resulted in the development of many learning materials; however, these did not often meet the curricular standards that were set out by the province. Additionally, these rarely provided guidance on how to apply lessons across different grade levels. As a long-term goal, I would recommend the development of a centralized network or database to disseminate such learning materials, while providing additional means of searching and navigating them to promote resources that are relevant to specific districts or grade levels. Combined with appropriate vetting by the B.C. Ministry of Education and partner organizations, this could also improve quality and help teachers to trust the learning materials that they are 153 providing to their students. However, I would stress that it is important for communities to maintain full ownership and control over any learning materials that they create. Recommendation 12: Promote and mandate professional development resources to improve the functional and cultural environmental literacy of teachers. Teachers suggested that a primary barrier when implementing outdoor field trips was a lack of cultural and environmental literacy. That is, teachers found it difficult to identify different species while in the field and often lacked general knowledge about environmental issues or processes. Others indicated that they were unsure how to engage with Indigenous environmental education resources and were concerned about professional consequences if they made mistakes. Discussions with a member of the BCTF who developed seminars on anti-racism and reconciliation explained that those who needed these resources most were often not in attendance. I recommend that the VSB not only promote professional development resources related to anti-racism and reconciliation, but mandate these. As a core part of the curriculum, it is imperative that teachers learn to engage with these resources appropriately. Such education may help to address consequences of problematic teaching strategies that I witnessed throughout the course of this research, such as the pan-Indigenous erasure of local First Nations communities. These programs should promote a reflexive approach to engaging students with these resources and highlight the relational ethics involved in sharing Indigenous knowledges. I also recommend that the VSB more vigorously promote the functional environmental literacy of its teachers through community partnerships. Groups like the B.C. Invasive Species Council, Nature Vancouver, Stanley Park Ecological Society, and even the Pacific Spirit Park Society provide professional development seminars for teachers. While such seminars have been given in the past, my research indicated that a more aggressive promotion of these resources would be helpful as many teachers were not aware of their existence. Recommendation 13: Conduct an environmental scan of VR experiences and AR apps while investing in technology to produce these in-house or alongside community partners. 154 As VR and AR represent new tools for environmental education, many teachers I interviewed did not know of specific field trips or apps that they could engage their classrooms with. Even if access to hardware is improved, this will mean very little if teachers do not have access to associated learning materials. An environmental scan of VR and AR opportunities should be conducted by the VSB in concert with provincial partners like Set-BC. It would also be beneficial to collaborate with Indigenous communities who are involved in the development of VR and AR media. For example, the Indigenous Matriarch 4 (IM4) Media lab is located on Vancouver Island and creates content that foregrounds Indigenous imaginaries while also training community members to promote their entrance into VR and AR industries (IM4, 2023). To promote the development of VR field trips I would also recommend that the VSB invest in technologies that would help them to produce these in-house. As detailed in Chapter 2, 3D Vista was a low-cost alternative for the creation of 360º tours that also required relatively little technical knowledge. Such software could present an important opportunity to produce locally relevant field trips. 6.3 Chapter Summary In this chapter I discussed how VR, AR, and outdoor field trips could be more broadly integrated into environmental education programs. Specifically, I suggested that a blended learning approach is a useful way to conceptualize this. I also argued that this should be informed by the comparative efficacy of field trips, barriers that students and teachers were facing, and the specific learning objectives that were guiding such initiatives. Importantly, I suggested ways that different field trips could support and enhance once another. Following this, I discussed a list of thirteen recommendations to support the use of these field trips across the VSD. I focused on three primary themes related to improving access to green space, immersive technologies, and learning materials. When prioritizing recommendations, I suggested that officials and policy makers focus on those that would require the least amount of resources first while building towards projects that required more significant investment and community engagement. 155 Chapter 7: Concluding Remarks The primary objective of this dissertation was to examine the comparative efficacy of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips when being used to promote the environmental literacy, environmental attitudes, and connection to nature of elementary school students who have different levels of walking access to quality green space. In addition, I aimed to explore how these interventions may help overcome barriers to teaching and learning while promoting a critical approach to environmental education. To achieve this, I conducted a mixed methods case study of elementary school students in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Prior to commencing my formal study, I worked alongside local community organizations in 2021 to develop VR, AR, and outdoor field trips of Camosun Bog in Pacific Spirit Regional Park. Then, I conducted land cover and network analyses to determine the level of walking access students had to quality green space from their schools. In 2022, I recruited 236 grade 3-7 students that differed in their level of walking access to quality green space. I then measured their gains to environmental literacy, pro-environmental attitudes, and connection to nature using a pre-test-post-test methodology as they took part in these field trips. Finally, in 2023 I compared the results of surveys and knowledge tests while corroborating and grounding my findings using the themes that emerged during interviews with students and teachers. Bringing this work to a close, I now provide a summary of my contributions and findings in the next section. Then, I discuss the limitations of this study and opportunities for future research. 7.1 Summary of Contributions and Findings In my introduction to this dissertation, I explained that there has been a lack of engagement with how access to green space may influence the comparative efficacy of immersive media and outdoor field trips. Additionally, grounded accounts of how these interventions should be used in classrooms with different levels of access are also lacking. Such gaps are understandable: VR and AR are rapidly evolving and research in this field in this field is progressing quite quickly. However, it was important for me to address these problems in this 156 study given the influence that access to green space has on the provision of environmental education more generally, and the potential for immersive media to help overcome barriers that are being experienced by students and teachers. Additionally, answers to these questions are needed by those who are seeking to make informed decisions about which tools are most appropriate for their classrooms or learning objectives. Finally, administrators, officials, and policy makers require answers so that they can more equitably allocate resources and support across classrooms, schools, and districts. In Chapter 3, I found that walking access to quality green space from elementary schools in the VSD was low. In fact, only 16 of 266 parks were of the appropriate size and contained enough natural land cover to facilitate the programs teachers were seeking to implement. Due to this, only 15 of 89 elementary schools were within a 10-minute walk of quality green space, and the average walking time was 24.8 minutes. I also found that several barriers were exacerbating access issues for classrooms looking to take part in outdoor education. Specifically, safety, administrative bottlenecks, disability, and a lack of funding for private transportation and teaching support were contributing to the difficulties teachers and students faced. An important side-consequence of my analysis in this chapter was that it also pointed to the lack of specificity in prior work by the City of Vancouver, which claimed that 99% of all people lived, worked, or went to school within 10 minutes walking distance of green space while not paying attention to the quality of land cover in those areas. Further, my analysis was similar enough to previous work mapping biodiversity hot spots in the city to suggest that their team should rely more on remote sensing data to save time and resources in the future. In Chapter 4, I examined the comparative efficacy of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips when promoting the environmental literacy of students who had different levels of access to quality green space. Broadly, I found that differences in the efficacy of these interventions were influenced by students’ levels of access. Specifically, students with a high level of access to quality green space saw significantly greater gains to environmental literacy when participating in AR field trips compared to outdoor field trips. Meanwhile, there was no significant difference between interventions for students who had a low level of access. However, I did find that students with low levels of access to quality green space that participated in outdoor field trips saw greater gains than those with high levels of access who were provided outdoor or VR field 157 trips. Similarly, students with a low level of access who participated in VR field trips also showed greater gains to their functional environmental literacy when compared to students with a high level of access who took part in outdoor field trips. My qualitative findings corroborated my statistical analysis; however, I also found that students reported a high level of novelty when using VR and AR, or when participating in outdoor field trips if they were in a low access classroom. As a repeated measures design or retention testing were not possible in this study, these effects could not be quantified. Another important set of contributions that emerged from Chapter 4 was my examination of the ways different interventions addressed barriers that students and teachers were facing in their environmental education programs. First, teachers felt that the use of VR represented an effective way to engage their students with the functional and cultural aspects of outdoor spaces, and this was supported by my statistical analysis that showed no significant differences between VR and outdoor field trips within access conditions. However, teachers in this study would prefer to use VR as a supplemental experience alongside outdoor field trips, as opposed to using it exclusively to address a lack of access to quality green space, bad weather, or other barriers they are facing. Further, I found that several technical barriers would need to be overcome before VR field trips could be implemented in classrooms effectively. These included a lack of technical expertise among teachers, a lack of access to smartphones or high-quality HMDs, and poor internet quality. Additionally, I found that several participants in this study suffered from cybersickness and that this may have been connected to the low-quality headsets used in this study. Second, I found that AR field trips provided a way for teachers to overcome a lack of expertise regarding plant identification. Third, VR and AR field trips were an effective way to promote functional environmental literacy by engaging students with processes, animals and plants that were not commonly available while on outdoor field trips due to their size or the timeframe over which they occurred. This raised the potential for these field trips to be used to supplement outdoor excursions. Four, I found that VR and AR field trips were an effective way to promote cultural environmental literacy through the sharing of Indigenous learning materials. These represented authentic, place-based learning materials that allowed Indigenous communities to foreground the voices of their members. I suggested that sharing these digital learning materials represented a scalable solution when compared to Elder-led, outdoor field 158 trips that were often not available due to the large number of requests being made of Indigenous communities. Teachers also reported that this reduced barriers they faced related to a shortage of vetted learning materials, and a fear of making mistakes when engaging with topics related to settler colonialism and decolonization. In Chapter 5, I extended my analysis and examined the comparative efficacy of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips when promoting environmental attitudes and connection to nature in students who had different levels of access to quality green space. I found that gains to both learning objectives were minimal regardless of the intervention used or the level of access students had. Further, I found no significant differences between interventions when attitudes concerning the preservation of nature were examined. However, my interviews suggested that existing attitudes may have been translated into care and concern for the field trip site, as evidenced by the willingness of students to volunteer in community-based restoration activities. Additionally, I found a weak interaction between the type of field trip being provided and the access students had to quality green space when I examined their attitudes concerning the utilization of nature; however, this was not supported by my post-hoc analysis. Although, my interviews with students suggested that the measurement instrument used in this study was not sensitive enough to discern between their desire to participate in an appreciative utilization of nature (e.g., such as berry picking with family members) vs. an exploitative utilization of nature (e.g., cutting down a forest to build a department store). Regarding connection to nature, I found a weak interaction between the type of field trips being provided to students and the level of access to quality green space they had. Specifically, students with a high level of access had significantly greater gains in their connection to nature when participating in VR field trips as opposed to AR field trips. Student interviews also suggested that VR may have promoted a feeling of presence in students, while AR may have disembedded them from the outdoor environment through its mediation of their experiences. However, I concluded that follow-up research would be required to verify this. As with student attitudes, I also found that existing levels of connection to nature were translated to the field trip site, and this was represented during interviews through discussions of human-bog relations and the empathy displayed for creatures living in Camosun Bog. 159 In Chapter 6, I closed my analysis by discussing how VR, AR, and outdoor field trips could be integrated into broader environmental education programs. Specifically, I suggested that a blended approach would be the most appropriate way to conceptualize this process: efforts to integrate different types of field trips should be informed by their comparative efficacy when promoting specific learning gains, as well as the flexibility they provide when addressing barriers related to teaching and learning. Broadly, the barriers discussed in this study included access to green space, insufficient hardware and technical issues, a lack of environmental expertise among teachers, time constraints, logistics, classroom management, insufficient learning materials, a lack of teaching support when vetting Indigenous learning materials, and a fear of making mistakes when engaging with issues related to settler colonialism or decolonization. I concluded Chapter 6 with a series of actionable recommendations for consideration by the VSB and BC Ministry of Education and Childcare to promote the use of VR, AR, and outdoor field trips across the VSD. While I acknowledged that these recommendations were not meant to be comprehensive, they help to address several of the most pressing barriers that emerged during this study. First, I suggested that access to quality green space could be improved through: (1) the expansion of free public transit options for children over the age of twelve; (2) increased funding for private transit in cases where safety or the need for accommodations may arise; (3) an expansion of blanket permission form policies; (4) increased funding for teaching support to improve field trip management; and (5) increased support for district projects and policies dedicated to improving urban green space. Second, I suggested that the accessibility of immersive technologies could be improved through: (6) a realignment of bring-your-own-device polices between school administrators and district officials; (7) professional development opportunities to promote the use of VR and AR by teachers; (8) improving high-speed internet and Wi-Fi access in schools; and (9) the creation of a shared resource pool to improve access to more high quality VR hardware. Finally, I suggested that access to learning materials should be improved by (10) the use of online collaboration tools to support the sharing of learning resources, techniques, and practices between teachers; (11) continued engagement with First Nations and local community groups to develop learning materials while disseminating these through a centralized database; 160 (12) promoting, and sometimes mandating, professional development resources to improve the functional and cultural environmental literacy of teachers; and (13) conducting an environmental scan of existing VR experiences or AR apps while investing in software to produce these in-house or alongside community partners. 7.2 Limitations and Opportunities for Future Research A primary limitation of this study is that gains to environmental literacy, environmental attitudes, and connection to nature were based on a single use of each intervention. This was due to the limited access I had to classrooms. More specifically, my research was conducted after classrooms were reopened to researchers following the COVID-19 pandemic. I was unsure if a new moratorium would be imposed and felt that use of a single intervention was necessary to ensure enough participation in each study condition. Unfortunately, retention testing was also not included as this was not possible following the winter break in 2022. Consequently, I was unable to quantify novelty effects and the longevity of learning gains is unknown in this study. In the future I would be interested in conducting a longitudinal study that incorporates a repeated measures design and retention testing. This would also provide an opportunity to explore how different interventions could reinforce or enhance one another over time, which would build on my discussion presented in Chapter 6 of this dissertation. Another limitation of this study was that surveys were used to measure both environmental attitudes and connection to nature; therefore, this data is based on self-reports. While I took the time to remind students that these surveys were not a test and that they would not be graded on it, the potential for social desirability bias is present in this study. Given the nature of survey questions, it is possible that some respondents gave answers to try and make themselves look more environmentally conscious than they actually were. This is a common issue with surveys of this nature and an inherent consequence of this research style. Future research may wish to utilize direct measures of behavioral change (for example, electricity consumption or rates of volunteerism following an intervention). This would also help to address a lack of engagement with behavioral change in this study that was regrettable, but also tied to the limited access I had to participants and their classrooms. 161 Also related to the use of surveys in this study, the 2-MEV model that was used to measure environmental attitudes lacked granularity. I discovered this through my interviews with students who seemed to discern between an appreciative and exploitative utilization of nature. While this survey has internal consistency, this was an unexpected shortcoming that emerged over the course of my research that I was not able to adjust for as several classrooms had already been debriefed at this point. During future studies, I would recommend that researchers develop additional survey instruments to account for this. Research conducted by Kibbe et al. (2014) may be helpful in this regard as they explored the relevance of exploitative vs. appreciative uses of nature for environmental education. Moving on, the minimal standards that were used to measure access to quality green space in this study were defensible, but contextually specific. The calculation of a minimum standard for natural land cover was based on the results of a district wide survey of teachers (Reichstein, 2018). While this provided a good basis from which to judge the preferences of teachers in this study, future researchers may have to conduct similar surveys if they wish to apply such a method. Further, the minimum standard for walking access was set as 10 minutes in this study, based on a previous analysis conducted by the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation (2016). This was done so that results could be more easily translated and applied by local officials or policy makers; however, a more universal standard could have been applied to promote replicability of this experiment. This would be an interesting topic for future research that I would like to engage in. Specifically, I would like to investigate if similar findings regarding the comparative efficacy of these interventions could be found if a different method of accessibility analysis was employed. Next, given the VSD’s reliance on tablets I would like to extend this study to include desktop VR in the future. Several teachers indicated that this would be a more accessible way for their students to engage with 360º field trips. If these interventions showed comparative learning gains for students with different levels of access to quality green space, they could represent a cost-effective option for students and teachers. I would also like to continue being involved in the creation of new 360º field trips as part of my charitable work. As a director with the Metro Vancouver Regional Parks Foundation, I believe that this type of media could represent an effective way to engage local school children and the public with our regional park system. I 162 truly enjoyed the process of creating Camosun Bog 360º and would like to continue working with park associations to help them develop the skills necessary to make these types of learning materials on their own as well. Finally, an important last step to this research will be to communicate my findings and recommendations to the Vancouver School Board. Following the completion of my oral defense, I will be contacting them to issue a white paper that details the findings of this dissertation more concisely. 7.3 A Final Word Following my initial round of testing, I am pleased to report that I have been contacted by several teachers who have used the teaching materials and field trips from this study in their classrooms. Further, they have found ways to adapt these teaching tools to meet their needs in ways that I had not initially intended! Some have laminated the animal and plant identification cards before using them in other parks around Vancouver, BC. Others have conducted the VR field trip using a projection screen so that their classes could participate in this activity together. Importantly, some who I worked with during this study have connected their colleagues with the Musqueam Teaching Kit and used the many other resources that have been created by this Nation to begin a more critical dialogue with their students on topics like settler colonialism and decolonization using videos, maps, animations and more (Musqueam First Nation & UBC Museum of Anthropology, n.d.). While I could not include these classrooms within this study formally, the fact that teachers are finding new ways to blend such learning materials into their classrooms in so many creative ways inspired me to write Chapter 6 the way that I did. Immersive media may be new and exciting, but they are not technical panaceas. They should also not be viewed as a quick fix for access issues, or a replacement for outdoor education. Rather, VR, AR, and outdoor field trips can support and enhance one another while promoting a more critical approach to environmental education. 163 Bibliography 3D Vista. (2023). 3DVista Virtual Tour Pro. https://www.3dvista.com/en/products/virtualtour Abass, K., Afriyie, K., & Gyasi, R. M. (2019). From green to grey: The dynamics of land use/land cover change in urban Ghana. Landscape Research, 44(8), 909–921. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2018.1552251 Abburu, S., & Babu Golla, S. (2015). Satellite Image Classification Methods and Techniques: A Review. International Journal of Computer Applications, 119(8), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.5120/21088-3779 Abebe, M. T., & Megento, T. L. (2017). The City of Addis Ababa From ‘Forest City’ to ‘Urban Heat Island’: An Analysis of Urban Green Space Dynamics Using Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System. Journal of Urban and Environmental Engineering, 10(2), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.4090/juee.2016.v10n2.254262 Acharibasam, J. B., & McVittie, J. (2022). Connecting children to nature through the integration of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge into Early Childhood Environmental Education. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2022.37 Aguayo, C., & Eames, C. (2023). Using mixed reality (XR) immersive learning to enhance environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 54(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2022.2152410 Al Shuaili, K., Al Musawi, A. S., & Hussain, R. M. (2020). The effectiveness of using augmented reality in teaching geography curriculum on the achievement and attitudes of Omani 10th Grade Students. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences, 7(2), 20. https://doi.org/10.4995/muse.2020.13014 Alakärppä, I., Jaakkola, E., Väyrynen, J., & Häkkilä, J. (2017). Using nature elements in mobile AR for education with children. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3098279.3098547 Almohamad, H., Knaack, A., & Habib, B. (2018). Assessing Spatial Equity and Accessibility of Public Green Spaces in Aleppo City, Syria. Forests, 9(11), 706. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9110706 Aly, D., & Dimitrijevic, B. (2022). Public green space quantity and distribution in Cairo, Egypt. Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, 69(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44147-021-00067-z Ampuero, D., Miranda, C. E., Delgado, L. E., Goyen, S., & Weaver, S. (2015). Empathy and critical thinking: Primary students solving local environmental problems through outdoor 164 learning. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 15(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2013.848817 Araujo-Junior, R. M., & Bodzin, A. M. (2022). Effects of a place-based digital gameful learning experience on middle school students’ watershed literacy and attitudes about desktop virtual reality gameplay. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2118785 Ardoin, N. M., & Bowers, A. W. (2020). Early childhood environmental education: A systematic review of the research literature. Educational Research Review, 31, 100353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100353 Aromaa, S., Väätänen, A., Aaltonen, I., Goriachev, V., Helin, K., & Karjalainen, J. (2020). Awareness of the real-world environment when using augmented reality head-mounted display. Applied Ergonomics, 88, 103145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103145 Ash, J., Kitchin, R., & Leszczynski, A. (2018). Digital turn, digital geographies? Progress in Human Geography, 42(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132516664800 Assaraf, O. B.-Z., & Orion, N. (2009). System thinking skills at the elementary school level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, n/a-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20351 Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., & Graf, S. (2019). Augmented Reality Trends in Education: A Systematic Review of Research and Applications. 18. Bal, E., & Kaya, G. (2020). Investigation of Forest School Concept by Forest School Teachers’ Viewpoints. 10(2), 167–180. Bandura, A. (1972). Chapter 3—Modeling Theory: Some Traditions, Trends, and Disputes. In Recent Trends in Social Learning Theory (1–Book, Section, pp. 35–61). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-545050-8.50008-0 Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall. https://go.exlibris.link/DgfZjtDR Barbalios, N., Ioannidou, I., Tzionas, P., & Paraskeuopoulos, S. (2013). A model supported interactive virtual environment for natural resource sharing in environmental education. Computers & Education, 62, 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.029 Barlow, G. (2015). The essential benefits of outdoor education. International School: IS, 17(3), 53–55. Barnes, J. C., & College, P. (2013). Awareness to Action: The journey toward a deeper ecological literacy. 5, 1–5. Bascopé, M., Perasso, P., & Reiss, K. (2019). Systematic Review of Education for Sustainable Development at an Early Stage: Cornerstones and Pedagogical Approaches for Teacher Professional Development. Sustainability, 11(3), 719. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030719 165 Bates, C. (2020). Rewilding education? Exploring an imagined and experienced outdoor learning `space. Children’s Geographies, 18(3), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2019.1673880 Beck, J., Rainoldi, M., & Egger, R. (2019). Virtual reality in tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tourism Review, 74(3), 586–612. Bedimo-Rung, A. L., Mowen, A. J., & Cohen, D. A. (2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.024 Beery, T., & Jørgensen, K. A. (2018). Children in nature: Sensory engagement and the experience of biodiversity. Environmental Education Research, 24(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1250149 Behrendt, M., & Franklin, T. (2014). A Review of Research on School Field Trips and Their Value in Education. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 9(3), 235–245. Bellino, M. E., & Adams, J. D. (2017). A critical urban environmental pedagogy: Relevant urban environmental education for and by youth. The Journal of Environmental Education, 48(4), 270–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2017.1336976 Bentsen, P., Schipperijn, J., & Jensen, F. S. (2013). Green Space as Classroom: Outdoor School Teachers’ Use, Preferences and Ecostrategies. Landscape Research, 38(5), 561–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2012.690860 Berg, L., & Vance, J. (2017). Industry use of virtual reality in product design and manufacturing: A survey. Virtual Reality, 21(1), 1–17. Bergan, V., Krempig, I. W., Utsi, T. A., & Bøe, K. W. (2021). I Want to Participate—Communities of Practice in Foraging and Gardening Projects as a Contribution to Social and Cultural Sustainability in Early Childhood Education. Sustainability, 13(8), 4368. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084368 Bergen, D. (2017). Technology and Outdoor Play: Concerns and Opportunities. In The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning (pp. 55–68). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526402028 Blaser, M. (2016). Is Another Cosmopolitics Possible? Cultural Anthropology, 31(4), 545–570. https://doi.org/10.14506/ca31.4.05 Boeve-de Pauw, J., Van Hoof, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2019). Effective field trips in nature: The interplay between novelty and learning. Journal of Biological Education, 53(1), 21–33. Bogner, F. X., Johnson, B., Buxner, S., & Felix, L. (2015). The 2-MEV model: Constancy of adolescent environmental values within an 8-year time frame. International Journal of Science Education, 37(12), 1938–1952. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1058988 166 Bogner, F. X., & Wilhelm, M. G. (1996). Environmental perspectives of pupils: The development of an attitude and behaviour scale. The Environmentalist, 16(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01325101 Bos, D. (2021). Geography and virtual reality. Geography Compass, 15(9). https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12590 Bouman, T., Steg, L., & Zawadzki, S. J. (2020). The value of what others value: When perceived biospheric group values influence individuals’ pro-environmental engagement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101470 Bouman, T., Van Der Werff, E., Perlaviciute, G., & Steg, L. (2021). Environmental values and identities at the personal and group level. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.022 Bowers, C. A. (2002). Toward an Eco-justice Pedagogy. Environmental Education Research, 8(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620120109628 Bowers, C. A. (2008). Why a critical pedagogy of place is an oxymoron. Environmental Education Research, 14(3), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802156470 Breunig, M., Murtell, J., & Russell, C. (2015). Students’ experiences with/in integrated Environmental Studies Programs in Ontario. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 15(4), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2014.955354 Breves, P., & Schramm, H. (2021). Bridging psychological distance: The impact of immersive media on distant and proximal environmental issues. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 106606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106606 British Columbia Education Analytics Office. (2022). BC Schools—Student Enrolment and FTE by Grade [dataset]. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/bc-schools-student-enrolment-and-fte-by-grade British Columbia Learning Analytics Office. (2022). BC Schools—Student Enrolment and FTE by Grade [dataset]. British Columbia Ministry of Education and Child Care. (2023a). School District Vancouver (39): The Early Development Instrument—Characteristics of Students Entering School. https://studentsuccess.gov.bc.ca/school-district/039/report/students-entering-school British Columbia Ministry of Education and Child Care. (2023b). Building Student Success—B.C. Curriculum. https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/ British Columbia Ministry of Education and Child Care. (2023c). Indigenous Education Enhancement Agreements—Province of British Columbia. Indigenous Education Enhancement Agreements; Province of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/k-12/administration/program-management/indigenous-education/enhancement-agreements 167 Brown, A., & Green, T. (2016). Virtual Reality: Low-Cost Tools and Resources for the Classroom. TechTrends, 60(5), 517–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0102-z Brügger, A., Morton, T. A., & Dessai, S. (2016). “Proximising” climate change reconsidered: A construal level theory perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.04.004 Bruno, R. R., Wolff, G., Wernly, B., Masyuk, M., Piayda, K., Leaver, S., Erkens, R., Oehler, D., Afzal, S., Heidari, H., Kelm, M., & Jung, C. (2022). Virtual and augmented reality in critical care medicine: The patient’s, clinician’s, and researcher’s perspective. Critical Care, 26(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-022-04202-x Burkholder, C., & Thompson, J. A. (Eds.). (2020). Fieldnotes in Qualitative Education and Social Science Research: Approaches, Practices and Ethical Considerations (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429275821 Byomkesh, T., Nakagoshi, N., & Dewan, A. M. (2012). Urbanization and green space dynamics in Greater Dhaka, Bangladesh. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 8(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-010-0147-7 Cai, H. (2013). Using Augmented Reality Games as Motivators for Your Environmental Education: An American Hart’s Tongue Fern Conservation Project. State University of New York. Carmi, N., & Kimhi, S. (2015). Further Than the Eye Can See: Psychological Distance and Perception of Environmental Threats. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 21(8), 2239–2257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2015.1046419 Castree, N. (2014). Making sense of nature. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. CBC. (1989). Musqueam protest at Pacific Spirit Regional Park. https://amp.cbc.ca/embed/index.html?mediaId=1487050307706&embed_type=videoplayer Cetin, M. (2015). Using GIS analysis to assess urban green space in terms of accessibility: Case study in Kutahya. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 1–5. Chang, E. (2020). Redacting ‘Stock Stories’ of Education Inequities: Toward Legitimate Digital Participation. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 22(2), 163. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v22i2.2409 Chang, S.-C., Hsu, T.-C., Chen, Y.-N., & Jong, M. S. (2018). The effects of spherical video-based virtual reality implementation on students’ natural science learning effectiveness. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1548490 168 Chang, S.-C., Hsu, T.-C., Kuo, W.-C., & Jong, M. (2020). Effects of applying a VR-based two-tier test strategy to promote elementary students’ learning performance in a Geology class. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 148–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12790 Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage. Chawla, L. (1999). Life Paths Into Effective Environmental Action. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969909598628 Chawla, L. (2007). Childhood Experiences Associated with Care for the Natural World: A Theoretical Framework for Empirical Results. Children, Youth and Environments, 17(4), 144–170. Chawla, L. (2015). Benefits of Nature Contact for Children. Journal of Planning Literature, 30(4), 433–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412215595441 Chen, C.-M., & Hsu, T.-Y. (2007). Learning Sustainable Development with Mobile Devices. Proceedings of Geographical Views on Education for Sustainable Development, 6. Chiang, T., Yang, S., & Hwang, G. (2014). An Augmented Reality-based Mobile Learning System to Improve Students’ Learning Achievements and Motivations in Natural Science Inquiry Activities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 352–365. Chien, Y.-C., Su, Y.-N., Wu, T.-T., & Huang, Y.-M. (2019). Enhancing students’ botanical learning by using augmented reality. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18(2), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0590-4 Cincera, J., Johnson, B., & Kroufek, R. (2020). Outdoor environmental education programme leaders’ theories of experiential learning. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(6), 729–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2020.1770693 City of Burnaby. (2022). Park Inventory [dataset]. City of Burnaby Open Data Portal. https://data.burnaby.ca/datasets/burnaby::park-inventory/explore City of Vancouver. (2012). Transportation 2040 (pp. 1–99). https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Transportation_2040_Plan_as_adopted_by_Council.pdf City of Vancouver. (2019). Parks [dataset]. City of Vancouver Open Data Portal. https://opendata.vancouver.ca/explore/dataset/parks/information/ City of Vancouver. (2020). Downtown Eastside Plan: Three Year Summary of Implementation (2017-2019) (pp. 1–141). https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/dtes-plan-implementation-summary-2017-2019.pdf City of Vancouver. (2021). Climate Emergency Action Plan—Big Move 6: Natural Climate Solutions (pp. 1–17). https://council.vancouver.ca/20211208/documents/cfsc2.pdf 169 Clarà, M., & Barberà, E. (2014). Three problems with the connectivist conception of learning: Connectivist conception of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(3), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12040 Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed., Vol. 1). Routledge. Cole, A. G. (2007). Expanding the Field: Revisiting Environmental Education Principles Through Multidisciplinary Frameworks. The Journal of Environmental Education, 38(2), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.38.1.35-46 Collado, S., Staats, H., & Corraliza, J. A. (2013). Experiencing nature in children’s summer camps: Affective, cognitive and behavioural consequences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 33, 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.08.002 Coolen, H., & Meesters, J. (2012). Private and public green spaces: Meaningful but different settings. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 27(1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-011-9246-5 Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons and Evaluative Criteria. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie. Cornell, J. B. (1979). Sharing nature with children: A parents’ and teachers’ nature-awareness guidebook. Ananda Publications. Corraliza, J. A., & Berenguer, J. (2000). Environmental Values, Beliefs, and Actions: A Situational Approach. Environment and Behavior, 32(6), 832–848. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972829 Corres Gallardo, A. del C., & Ruiz-Mallén, I. (2023). Digital technologies and the COVID-19 pandemic: Opportunities and challenges for environmental educators in Barcelona. The Journal of Environmental Education, 54(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2022.2152409 Crab, B. (2014). Rewilding Vancouver: Environmental Education & Stewardship Action Plan (p. 54). Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage. https://go.exlibris.link/jHNr0DbR Curtis, P. (2009, October 2). Children denied school trips over teachers’ fears of being sued. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/oct/02/school-trips-teachers-legal-action Dahya, N., King, W. E., Lee, K. J., & Lee, J. H. (2021). Perceptions and experiences of virtual reality in public libraries. Journal of Documentation, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-04-2020-0051 170 Dai, D. (2011). Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: Where to intervene? Landscape and Urban Planning, 102(4), 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.05.002 Datta, R. (2016). Community garden: A bridging program between formal and informal learning. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1177154. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1177154 Datta, R. (2018). Rethinking environmental science education from indigenous knowledge perspectives: An experience with a Dene First Nation community. Environmental Education Research, 24(1), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1219980 Datta, R. (2019). Sustainability: Through cross-cultural community garden activities. Local Environment, 24(8), 762–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2019.1641073 De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2009). Morality and Prosocial Behavior: The Role of Awareness, Responsibility, and Norms in the Norm Activation Model. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(4), 425–449. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.149.4.425-449 Deringer, S. A., & Hanley, A. (2021). Virtual Reality of Nature Can Be as Effective as Actual Nature in Promoting Ecological Behavior. Ecopsychology, 13(3), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2020.0044 Detyna, M., & Kadiri, M. (2020). Virtual reality in the HE classroom: Feasibility, and the potential to embed in the curriculum. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 44(3), 474–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2019.1700486 Dickinson, E. (2013). The Misdiagnosis: Rethinking “Nature-deficit Disorder.” Environmental Communication, 7(3), 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2013.802704 Dimitrov, D. M., & Rumrill, P. D. (2003). Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change. Work, 20(2), 159–165. Dion, S., Johnston, K., & Rice, C. (2010). Decolonizing Our Schools: Aboriginal Educationin the Toronto Disrtrict School Board. Dmowska, A. (2019). Dasymetric Modelling of Population Distribution – Large Data Approach. Quaestiones Geographicae, 38(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2019-0008 DMTI Spatial Inc. (2021). CanMap Content Suite, v2021.3 (Version 2) [dataset]. Abacus Data Network. https://hdl.handle.net/11272.1/AB2/K4JVA5 Dolan, J. E. (2016). Splicing the Divide: A Review of Research on the Evolving Digital Divide Among K–12 Students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(1), 16–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.1103147 Dorn, C. (2020). A New Global Ethic: A History of the United Nations International Environmental Education Program, 1975-1995. Foro de Educación, 18(2), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.14516/fde.808 171 Dubois, E., Nigay, L., Troccaz, J., Chavanon, O., & Carrat, L. (1999). Classification Space for Augmented Surgery, an Augmented Reality Case Study. Conference Proceedings of Interact ’99, 353–359. Elbamby, M. S., Perfecto, C., Bennis, M., & Doppler, K. (2018). Toward Low-Latency and Ultra-Reliable Virtual Reality. IEEE Network, 32(2), 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1109/MNET.2018.1700268 Engle, W. and De La Vega, V. 2020. Open Dialogues: Daniel Heath Justice on Decolonizing Open Educational Resources. https://open.ubc.ca/open-dialogues-daniel-heath-justice/ Ertugay, K., & Duzgun. (2018). Understanding accessibility: Accessibility modeling with geographical information systems (GIS). In Intelligent Transportation and Planning: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice (pp. 576–608). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5210-9 Evering, B. (2012). Relationships between knowledge(s): Implications for ‘knowledge integration.’ Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(4), 357–368. Fan, S., Zhang, Y., Fan, J., He, Z., & Chen, Y. (2010). The Application of Virtual Reality in Environmental Education: Model Design and Course Construction. 2010 International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Computer Science, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBECS.2010.5462324 Feilhauer, H., Zlinszky, A., Kania, A., Foody, G. M., Doktor, D., Lausch, A., & Schmidtlein, S. (2021). Let your maps be fuzzy!—Class probabilities and floristic gradients as alternatives to crisp mapping for remote sensing of vegetation. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, 7(2), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.188 Ferderbar, C. (2013). The Effect of In-Nature and Virtual-Nature Field Trip Experiences on Proenvrionmental Attitudes and Behavioursm and Environmental Knowledge of Middle School Students [PhD Thesis]. Cardinal Stritch University. Finnegan, W. (2022). ‘It’s beautiful, living without fear that the world will end soon’ – digital storytelling, climate futures, and young people in the UK and Ireland. Children’s Geographies, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2022.2153329 Fisher, J. C., Irvine, K. N., Bicknell, J. E., Hayes, W. M., Fernandes, D., Mistry, J., & Davies, Z. G. (2021). Perceived biodiversity, sound, naturalness and safety enhance the restorative quality and wellbeing benefits of green and blue space in a neotropical city. Science of The Total Environment, 755, 143095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143095 Fletcher, R. (2009). Against Wilderness. Green Theory & Praxis, 5(1), 169–179. Fletcher, R. (2017). Connection with nature is an oxymoron: A political ecology of “nature-deficit disorder.” The Journal of Environmental Education, 48(4), 226–233. 172 FNESC. (2023). Learning First Peoples Classroom Resources. Learning First Peoples Classroom Resources. https://www.fnesc.ca/learningfirstpeoples/ Folke, C., Jansson, Å., Rockström, J., Olsson, P., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., Crépin, A.-S., Daily, G., Danell, K., Ebbesson, J., Elmqvist, T., Galaz, V., Moberg, F., Nilsson, M., Österblom, H., Ostrom, E., Persson, Å., Peterson, G., Polasky, S., … Westley, F. (2011). Reconnecting to the Biosphere. AMBIO, 40(7), 719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y Franks, M. A. (2017). The Desert of the Unreal: Inequality in Virtual and Augmented Reality. U.C. Davis Law Review, 51(2), 499–538. Frantz, C., & Mayer, S. (2014). The importance of connection to nature in assessing environmental education programs. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 41, 85–89. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). Herder and Herder. https://go.exlibris.link/P4ZT9qyN Freire, P. (1987). Education for critical consciousness. Continuum. Gaertner, D. (2015). Indigenous in Cyberspace: CyberPowWow, God’s Lake Narrows, and the Contours of Online Indigenous Territory. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 39(4), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.17953/AICRJ.39.4.GAERTNER Gallay, E., Furlan Brighente, M., Flanagan, C., & Lowenstein, E. (2022). Place‐based civic science—Collective environmental action and solidarity for eco‐resilience. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 27(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12537 Galletta, A. (2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design to analysis and publication. New York University Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/9780814732953 Garcia, M. B., Nadelson, L. S., & Yeh, A. (2023). “We’re going on a virtual trip!”: A switching-replications experiment of 360-degree videos as a physical field trip alternative in primary education. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 17(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-023-00110-x Gavgani, A., Walker, F. R., Hodgson, D. M., & Nalivaiko, E. (2018). A comparative study of cybersickness during exposure to virtual reality and “classic” motion sickness: Are they different? Journal of Applied Physiology, 125(6), 1670–1680. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00338.2018 George, R., Howitt, C., & Oakley, G. (2020). Young children’s use of an augmented reality sandbox to enhance spatial thinking. Children’s Geographies, 18(2), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2019.1614533 Giroux, H. A. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, and schooling; a critical reader. Westview Press. 173 Gladwin, D. (2020). Digital storytelling going viral: Using narrative empathy to promote environmental action. Media Practice and Education, 21(4), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741136.2020.1832827 Goerg, G. (2022). LambertW [dataset]. CRAN. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/LambertW/index.html Goerg, G. M. (2015). The Lambert Way to Gaussianize Heavy-Tailed Data with the Inverse of Tukey’s h Transformation as a Special Case. The Scientific World Journal, 2015, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/909231 Google. (2023). Google Cardboard. Google Cardboard. https://arvr.google.com/cardboard/ Gough, A. (2013). The Emergence of Environmental Education Research: A “History” of the Field. In R. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon, & A. Walls (Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Environmental Education (pp. 13–22). Routledge. Grafius, D. R., Corstanje, R., & Harris, J. A. (2018). Linking ecosystem services, urban form and green space configuration using multivariate landscape metric analysis. Landscape Ecology, 33(4), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0618-z Graham, M., Zook, M., & Boulton, A. (2013). Augmented reality in urban places: Contested content and the duplicity of code: Augmented reality in urban places. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 464–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00539.x Grigoryeva, I., & Ley, D. (2019). The price ripple effect in the Vancouver housing market. Urban Geography, 40(8), 1168–1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2019.1567202 Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The Best of Both Worlds: A Critical Pedagogy of Place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3–47. Gupta, K., Kumar, P., Pathan, S. K., & Sharma, K. P. (2012). Urban Neighborhood Green Index – A measure of green spaces in urban areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(3), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.01.003 Hagge, P. (2021). Student Perceptions of Semester-Long In-Class Virtual Reality: Effectively Using “Google Earth VR” in a Higher Education Classroom. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 45(3), 342–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2020.1827376 Häggström, M., & Schmidt, C. (2020). Enhancing children’s literacy and ecological literacy through critical place-based pedagogy. Environmental Education Research, 26(12), 1729–1745. Hagood, A., & Price, C. E. (2016). Classroom Ecotones: Connecting Place-Based Pedagogy and Blended Learning. Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment, 23(3), 603–625. https://doi.org/10.1093/isle/isw043 174 Hanson, H. I., Eckberg, E., Widenberg, M., & Alkan Olsson, J. (2021). Gardens’ contribution to people and urban green space. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 63, 127198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127198 Harris, V., Kendal, D., Hahs, A. K., & Threlfall, C. G. (2018). Green space context and vegetation complexity shape people’s preferences for urban public parks and residential gardens. Landscape Research, 43(1), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1302571 Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Strumse, E. (2007). Psychological restoration in nature as a source of motivation for ecological behaviour. Environmental Conservation, 34(04). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892907004250 Hatcher, A., Bartlett, C., Marshall, A., & Marshall, M. (2009). Two-Eyed Seeing in the Classroom Environment: Concepts, Approaches, and Challenges. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 9(3), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150903118342 Hedefalk, M., Almqvist, J., & Östman, L. (2015). Education for sustainable development in early childhood education: A review of the research literature. Environmental Education Research, 21(7), 975–990. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.971716 Hemming, P. J. (2008). Mixing qualitative research methods in children’s geographies. Area, 40(2), 152–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2008.00798.x Henry, R. (2019). Designing a Taxonomy for Evaluating Virtual 3D Interfaces and Experiences. Ontario College of Art and Design University. Hewitt, N., Wood, S., & Wilson, B. (2023). Ecosystem Education with Augmented Reality: A Flexible Tool for In-Field Learning. The Professional Geographer, 75(4), 577–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2022.2134151 Hills, D., & Thomas, G. (2020). Digital technology and outdoor experiential learning. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 20(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2019.1604244 Hoggett, P., Springer Behavioral Science and Psychology eBooks 2019 English/International, & SpringerLink (Online service). (2019). Climate Psychology: On Indifference to Disaster (1st 2019.). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11741-2 Hokayem, H., Ma, J., & Jin, H. (2015). A Learning Progression for Feedback Loop Reasoning at Lower Elementary Level. Journal of Biological Education, 49(3), 246–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2014.943789 Holloway, S. L., & Jöns, H. (2012). Geographies of education and learning: Boundary Crossings. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(4), 482–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00542.x 175 Hsu, W., Tseng, C., & Kang, S. (2018). Using Exaggerated Feedback in a Virtual Reality Environment to Enhance Behaviour Intention of Water Conservation. Educational Technology & Society, 21(4), 187–203. Hu, Y., Patel, M., Sabella, D., Sprecher, N., & Young, V. (2015). Mobile edge computing—A key technology towards 5G (White Paper 11; p. 16). European Telecommunications Standards Institute. Huang, S., Tang, L., Hupy, J. P., Wang, Y., & Shao, G. (2021). A commentary review on the use of normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) in the era of popular remote sensing. Journal of Forestry Research, 32(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-020-01155-1 Huang, T.-C. (2019). Seeing creativity in an augmented experiential learning environment. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18(2), 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0592-2 Huang, T.-C., Chen, C.-C., & Chou, Y.-W. (2016). Animating eco-education: To see, feel, and discover in an augmented reality-based experiential learning environment. Computers & Education, 96, 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.008 Human Early Learning Partnership. (2021). Early Years Development Instrument—Overview. https://earlylearning.ubc.ca/monitoring-system/edi/edi-overview/ Hurd, D. (1997). Novelty and its Relation to Field Trips. Education, 118(1), 29–35. IDC. (2022). IDC Spending Guide Forecasts Strong Growth for Augmented and Virtual Reality. IDC: The Premier Global Market Intelligence Company. https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS49916122 IM4. (2023). Indigenous Matriarchs 4. https://im4lab.com/im4/ iNaturalist. (2023). Seek by iNaturalist. Seek. https://apps.apple.com/au/app/seek-by-inaturalist/id1353224144 James, J., & Williams, T. (2017). School-Based Experiential Outdoor Education: A Neglected Necessity. Journal of Experiential Education, 40(1), 58–71. Jarvis, I., Gergel, S., Koehoorn, M., & Van Den Bosch, M. (2020). Greenspace access does not correspond to nature exposure: Measures of urban natural space with implications for health research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 194, 103686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103686 Jennings, M. A., & Cribbie, R. A. (2021). Comparing Pre-Post Change Across Groups: Guidelines for Choosing between Difference Scores, ANCOVA, and Residual Change Scores. Journal of Data Science, 14(2), 205–230. https://doi.org/10.6339/JDS.201604_14(2).0002 Jerowsky, M. (2023a). Camosun Bog 360. https://mikejerowsky.com/camosun-bog-360/. Last visited January 14th, 2024. 176 Jerowsky, M. (2023b). Teaching Resources [Mike Jerowsky | PhD Candidate]. https://mikejerowsky.com/teaching-resources/ Jerowsky, M., & Borda, A. (2022, July 11). Virtual reality can support and enhance outdoor environmental education. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/virtual-reality-can-support-and-enhance-outdoor-environmental-education-183579 Johnson, B., & Manoli, C. C. (2010). The 2-MEV Scale in the United States: A Measure of Children’s Environmental Attitudes Based on the Theory of Ecological Attitude. The Journal of Environmental Education, 42(2), 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2010.503716 Jose, S., Patrick, P. G., & Moseley, C. (2017). Experiential learning theory: The importance of outdoor classrooms in environmental education. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(3), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2016.1272144 Kabisch, N., Strohbach, M., Haase, D., & Kronenberg, J. (2016). Urban green space availability in European cities. Ecological Indicators, 70, 586–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.029 Kalla, M., Jerowsky, M., Howes, B., & Borda, A. (2022). Expanding Formal School Curricula to Foster Action Competence in Sustainable Development: A Proposed Free-Choice Project-Based Learning Curriculum. Sustainability, 14(23), 16315. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142316315 Kamarainen, A., Reilly, J., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T., & Dede, C. (2018). Using Mobile Location-Based Augmented Reality to Support Outdoor Learning in Undergraduate Ecology and Environmental Science Courses. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 99(2), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1002/bes2.1396 Kelsey, E. (2016). Propagating collective hope in the midst of environmental doom and gloom. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 21, 23–40. Kibbe, A., Bogner, F. X., & Kaiser, F. G. (2014). Exploitative vs. Appreciative use of nature – Two interpretations of utilization and their relevance for environmental education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 41, 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.11.007 Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants (First). Milkweed Editions. https://go.exlibris.link/WrC7z87x Kinsley, S. (2014). The matter of ‘virtual’ geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 38(3), 364–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513506270 Kjeldskov, J. (2001). Interaction: Full and Partial Immersive Virtual Reality Displays. Proceedings of IRIS24, 587–600. 177 Klaniecki, K., Leventon, J., & Abson, D. (2018). Human–nature connectedness as a ‘treatment’ for pro-environmental behavior: Making the case for spatial considerations. Sustainability Science, 13(5), 1375–1388. Kola‐Olusanya, A. (2005). Free‐choice environmental education: Understanding where children learn outside of school. Environmental Education Research, 11(3), 297–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620500081152 Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. Koleva, B., Benford, S., & Greenhalgh, C. (1999). The Properties of Mixed Reality Boundaries. In S. Bødker, M. Kying, & K. Schmidt (Eds.), ECSCW ’99 (pp. 119–137). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4441-4 Konijnendijk, C. C. (2023). Evidence-based guidelines for greener, healthier, more resilient neighbourhoods: Introducing the 3–30–300 rule. Journal of Forestry Research, 34(3), 821–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-022-01523-z Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v9i3.523 Korson, C. (2023). A place-based approach to blended learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 47(4), 569–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2022.2122032 Kovach, M. (2021). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press. Kučerová, S. R., Holloway, S. L., & Jahnke, H. (2020). The institutionalization of the geography of education: An international perspective. Journal of Pedagogy, 11(1), 13–34. https://doi.org/10.2478/jped-2020-0002 Kumi-Yeboah, A., & Smith, P. (2018). Trends of Blended Learning in K-12 Schools: Challenges and Possibilities. In I. R. Management Association (Ed.), Online Course Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 43–61). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5472-1 Kumpulainen, K., Wong, C.-C., Byman, J., Renlund, J., & Vadeboncoeur, J. A. (2023). Fostering children’s ecological imagination with augmented storying. The Journal of Environmental Education, 54(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2022.2152407 Land, S. M., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2015). Socio-technical dimensions of an outdoor mobile learning environment: A three-phase design-based research investigation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9369-6 178 Lang, S., Schöpfer, E., Hölbling, D., Blaschke, T., Moeller, M., Jekel, T., & Kloyber, E. (2007). Quantifying and Qualifying Urban Green by Integrating Remote Sensing, GIS, and Social Science Method. In Use of Landscape Sciences for the Assessment of Environmental Security (pp. 93–105). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6594-1_6 Larson, K. (2023). 6 R's of Indigenous OERs: Rethinking and Reworking Indigenous Open Ed. Open Education Global. Online. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGY7KSDmn-I Lee, R. E., Soltero, E. G., Ledoux, T. A., Sahnoune, I., Saavadra, F., Mama, S. K., & McNeill, L. H. (2019). Sustainability via Active Garden Education: Translating Policy to Practice in Early Care and Education. Journal of School Health, josh.12734. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12734 Lenth, R. V., Bolker, B., Buerkner, P., Giné-Vázquez, I., Herve, M., Jung, M., Love, J., Miguez, F., Riebl, H., & Singmann, H. (2023). Emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means (1.8.8) [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/emmeans/index.html Lewsey, J. D., Gardiner, W. P., & Gettinby, G. (2001). A Study of Type II and Type III Power for Testing hypotheses from Unbalanced Factorial Designs. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, 30(3), 597–609. https://doi.org/10.1081/SAC-100105081 Li, J., Huang, J., Chen, X., Bai, Y., Shi, H., & Xiao, Y. (2021). Comparison of five common land cover supervised classification algorithms based on GF-2 and Landsat8 data. In J. Tian, K. Mao, D. Qian, Y. Xie, & Y. Lyu (Eds.), Twelfth International Conference on Signal Processing Systems (p. 40). SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2589321 Lilligreen, G., & Wiebel, A. (2023). Near and Far Interaction for Outdoor Augmented Reality Tree Visualization and Recommendations on Designing Augmented Reality for Use in Nature. SN Computer Science, 4(3), 248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-023-01675-7 Lindeman, R. W., & Noma, H. (2007). A classification scheme for multi-sensory augmented reality. Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, 175–178. https://doi.org/10.1145/1315184.1315216 Liu, T., Tan, T., & Chu, Y. (2009). Outdoor Natural Science Learning with an RFID-Supported Immersive Ubiquitous Learning Environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 161–175. Lo, A. Y. H., & Jim, C. Y. (2012). Citizen attitude and expectation towards greenspace provision in compact urban milieu. Land Use Policy, 29(3), 577–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.09.011 179 Louv, R. (2006). Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill. Lowan-Trudeau, G. (2015). From Bricolage to Métissage: Rethinking Intercultural Approaches to Indigenous Environmental Education and Research. Peter Lang. Lu, S.-J., & Liu, Y.-C. (2015). Integrating augmented reality technology to enhance children’s learning in marine education. Environmental Education Research, 21(4), 525–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.911247 Lugg, A., & Slattery, D. (2003). Use of national parks for outdoor environmental education: An Australian case study. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 3(1), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729670385200261 Lynch, A. J. (2021). The role and potential of residential open space in a suburban green space network. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 58, 126971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126971 Maas, M. J., & Hughes, J. M. (2020). Virtual, augmented and mixed reality in K–12 education: A review of the literature. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 29(2), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1737210 Macekura, S. (2019). Towards ‘Sustainable’ Development: In W. Kaiser & J.-H. Meyer (Eds.), International Organizations and Environmental Protection (1st ed., Vol. 11, pp. 241–267). Berghahn Books; JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvss40m7.13 MacFaden, S. W., O’Neil-Dunne, J. P. M., Royar, A. R., Lu, J. W. T., & Rundle, A. G. (2012). High-resolution tree canopy mapping for New York City using LIDAR and object-based image analysis. Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, 6(1), 063567–1. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JRS.6.063567 Mambrey, S., Schreiber, N., & Schmiemann, P. (2022). Young Students’ Reasoning About Ecosystems: The Role of Systems Thinking, Knowledge, Conceptions, and Representation. Research in Science Education, 52(1), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09917-x Markowitz, D. M., Laha, R., Perone, B. P., Pea, R. D., & Bailenson, J. N. (2018). Immersive Virtual Reality Field Trips Facilitate Learning About Climate Change. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2364. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02364 Marlow, T., Miller, S., & Roberts, J. T. (2021). Bots and online climate discourses: Twitter discourse on President Trump’s announcement of U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Climate Policy, 1–13. Marques, B., McIntosh, J., & Carson, H. (2019). Whispering tales: Using augmented reality to enhance cultural landscapes and Indigenous values. AlterNative, 15(3), 193–204. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing qualitative research (Sixth edition). SAGE. 180 Martinez, A. D. L. I., & Labib, S. M. (2023). Demystifying normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) for greenness exposure assessments and policy interventions in urban greening. Environmental Research, 220, 115155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.115155 Marx, K. (1978). Economic and Philisophical Manuscripts of 1944. In R. Tucker (Ed.), The Marx-Engles Reader (2nd ed.). W.W. Norton. Massanari, A. (2017). #Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media & Society, 19(3), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815608807 Matthies, S. A., Rüter, S., Prasse, R., & Schaarschmidt, F. (2015). Factors driving the vascular plant species richness in urban green spaces: Using a multivariable approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 134, 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.014 McBride, B. B., Brewer, C. A., Berkowitz, A. R., & Borrie, W. T. (2013). Environmental literacy, ecological literacy, ecoliteracy: What do we mean and how did we get here? Ecosphere, 4(5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00075.1 McCauley, D. J. (2017). Digital nature: Are field trips a thing of the past? Science, 358(6361), 298–300. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao1919 McGuire-Adams, T. D. (2020). Paradigm shifting: Centering Indigenous research methodologies, an Anishinaabe perspective. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 12(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1662474 McLaren, P. (1989). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education. Longman. https://go.exlibris.link/3yk1J1XC McLean, J., Graham, M., Suchet-Pearson, S., Simon, H., Salt, J., & Parashar, A. (2019). Decolonising strategies and neoliberal dilemmas in a tertiary institution: Nurturing care-full approaches in a blended learning environment. Geoforum, 101, 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.02.025 McLean, K. J. (2016). The Implementation of Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) in Primary [Elementary] Schools. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01739 Mcmahon, R., Almond, A., Whistance-Smith, G., Steinhauer, D., Steinhauer, S., & Janes, D. P. (2019). Sweetgrass AR: Exploring Augmented Reality as a Resource for Indigenous–Settler Relations. McPhee, S. R. (2022). Advocating for blended pedagogy as a shift to more holistic inclusive geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 46(4), 495–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2021.1957802 181 Meta. (2023). Meta Quest 3: New Mixed Reality VR Headset. https://www.meta.com/ca/quest/quest-3/ Metro Vancouver. (2020). Regional Parks Boundaries [dataset]. Metro Vancouver Open Data Portal. https://open-data-portal-metrovancouver.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/2fbf1ad2936a404fa79ad8e0ae83f45c_11/explore?location=49.200538%2C-123.129449%2C11.66 Metro Vancouver. (2022). Land Cover Classification 2014—2m LiDAR (Raster) [dataset]. Metro Vancouver Open Data Portal. https://gisportal.metrovancouver.org/portal/apps/sites/#/open-data-portal/datasets/19be85b54b4d4b2094bc659a9161e1d4/about Metro Vancouver. (2023). Land Cover Classification 2014—5m Hybrid (Raster) [dataset]. Metro Vancouver Open Data Portal. https://open-data-portal-metrovancouver.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/9aace81eb942416ab0cd6189d9a840e3/about Microsoft. (2023). Introducing Microsoft 365. https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/microsoft-365 Miguel-Alonso, I., Rodriguez-Garcia, B., Checa, D., & Bustillo, A. (2023). Countering the Novelty Effect: A Tutorial for Immersive Virtual Reality Learning Environments. Applied Sciences, 13(1), 593. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13010593 Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. IEICE Transactions on Information Systems, E77-D(12), 1–15. Miller, H. K. (2018). Developing a critical consciousness of race in place-based environmental education: Franco’s story. Environmental Education Research, 24(6), 845–858. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1357802 Morin, C. (2019). Screen Sovereignty: Indigenous Matriarch 4 Articulating the Future of Indigenous VR. BC Studies, 201, 141–176. Moseley, C., Summerford, H., Paschke, M., Parks, C., & Utley, J. (2020). Road to collaboration: Experiential learning theory as a framework for environmental education program development. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 19(3), 238–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2019.1582375 Musqueam First Nation, & UBC Museum of Anthropology. (n.d.). Musqueam: Giving information about our teachings. http://www2.moa.ubc.ca/musqueamteachingkit/media/pdf/Full%20Teaching%20Kit.pdf Musqueam Indian Band. (2022). Covid-19. Musqueam: A Living Culure. https://www.musqueam.bc.ca/covid19/ Musqueam Indian Band. (2023). Musqueam’s Story. Musqueam: A Living Culture. https://www.musqueam.bc.ca/our-story/ 182 Navarro, D. (2018). Learning Statistics with R: A tutorial for psychology students and other beginners. LibreTexts Project. https://go.exlibris.link/ZT6TjL6p Normand, J.-M., Servières, M., & Moreau, G. (2012). A new typology of augmented reality applications. Proceedings of the 3rd Augmented Human International Conference, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/2160125.2160143 Nxumalo, F. (2019). Unsettling Forest Encounters. In Decolonizing Place in Early Childhood Education (1st ed.) (pp. 54–70). Milton: Routledge Ltd. Nxumalo, F., & Cedillo, S. (2017). Decolonizing place in early childhood studies: Thinking with Indigenous onto-epistemologies and Black feminist geographies. Global Studies of Childhood, 7(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043610617703831 Ode Sang, Å., Sang, N., Hedblom, M., Sevelin, G., Knez, I., & Gunnarsson, B. (2020). Are path choices of people moving through urban green spaces explained by gender and age? Implications for planning and management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 49, 126628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126628 Oh, K., & Jeong, S. (2007). Assessing the spatial distribution of urban parks using GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.01.014 Osborne, T., & Jones, P. (2022). Embodied virtual geographies: Linkages between bodies, spaces, and digital environments. Geography Compass, 16(6). https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12648 Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2013). Frictions in Forest Pedagogies: Common Worlds in Settler Colonial Spaces. Global Studies of Childhood, 3(4), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.2304/gsch.2013.3.4.355 Palmer, K. (1998). History and Development of Environmental Education. In Environmental Education in the 21st Century (pp. 3–31). Routledge. Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2014). Tensions and Opportunities: A Baseline Study of Teachers’ Views of Environmental Education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 9(3), 265–283. Picciano, A. G. (2019). Blending with Purpose: Th Multimodal Model. Online Learning, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v13i1.1673 Pihkala, P. (2020). Eco-Anxiety and Environmental Education. Sustainability, 12(23), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310149 Pisarchik, A. N., Maksimenko, V. A., & Hramov, A. E. (2019). From novel technology to novel applications: Comment on "an integrated brain-machine interface platform with thousands of channels" by elon musk and neuralink. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(10), e16356-e16356. https://doi.org/10.2196/16356 183 Pombo, L., & Marques, M. M. (2018). The EduPark Mobile Augmented Reality Game: Learning Value and Usability. 23–30. Ponizovsky-Bergelson, Y., Dayan, Y., Wahle, N., & Roer-Strier, D. (2019). A Qualitative Interview With Young Children: What Encourages or Inhibits Young Children’s Participation? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–9. Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, Environmental Concern, and Environmental Behavior: A Study into Household Energy Use. Environment and Behavior, 36(1), 70–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503251466 Pretty, J., Griffin, M., Sellens, M., & Pretty, C. (2003). Green Exercise: Complementary Roles of Nature, Exercise and Diet in Physical and Emotional Well-Being and Implications for Public Health Policy. Pristeri, G., Peroni, F., Pappalardo, S. E., Codato, D., Masi, A., & De Marchi, M. (2021). Whose Urban Green? Mapping and Classifying Public and Private Green Spaces in Padua for Spatial Planning Policies. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(8), 538. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10080538 Qian, Y., Zhou, W., Yu, W., & Pickett, S. T. A. (2015). Quantifying spatiotemporal pattern of urban greenspace: New insights from high resolution data. Landscape Ecology, 30(7), 1165–1173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0195-3 Quay, J., Gray, T., Thomas, G., Allen-Craig, S., Asfeldt, M., Andkjaer, S., Beames, S., Cosgriff, M., Dyment, J., Higgins, P., Ho, S., Leather, M., Mitten, D., Morse, M., Neill, J., North, C., Passy, R., Pedersen-Gurholt, K., Polley, S., … Foley, D. (2020). What future/s for outdoor and environmental education in a world that has contended with COVID-19? Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 23(2), 93–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-020-00059-2 Quinton, J. M., & Duinker, P. N. (2019). Beyond burial: Researching and managing cemeteries as urban green spaces, with examples from Canada. Environmental Reviews, 27(2), 252–262. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2018-0060 Rafiee, R., Salman Mahiny, A., & Khorasani, N. (2009). Assessment of changes in urban green spaces of Mashad city using satellite data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 11(6), 431–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2009.08.005 Rauschnabel, P., Rossmann, A., & tom Dieck, M. (2017). An adoption framework for mobile augmented reality games: The case of Pokémon Go. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 276–286. Regan, P. (2010). Unsettling the settler within: Indian residential schools, truth telling, and reconciliation in Canada. In Unsettling the settler within (1st ed., p. xi). UBC Press. https://go.exlibris.link/Brft8QsH 184 Reichstein, N. (2018). The classroom in open air: Outdoor environmental learning in Vancouver Parks (p. 82). Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation. Rhew, I. C., Vander Stoep, A., Kearney, A., Smith, N. L., & Dunbar, M. D. (2011). Validation of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index as a Measure of Neighborhood Greenness. Annals of Epidemiology, 21(12), 946–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2011.09.001 Richards, D. R., Passy, P., & Oh, R. R. Y. (2017). Impacts of population density and wealth on the quantity and structure of urban green space in tropical Southeast Asia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.005 Richards, J. A. (2013). Remote Sensing Digital Image Analysis: An Introduction. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30062-2 Rigolon, A. (2016). A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 153, 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.017 Rigolon, A., Browning, M., & Jennings, V. (2018). Inequities in the quality of urban park systems: An environmental justice investigation of cities in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 178, 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.026 Rios, C., & Menezes, I. (2017). ‘I saw a magical garden with flowers that people could not damage!’: Children’s visions of nature and of learning about nature in and out of school. Environmental Education Research, 23(10), 1402–1413. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1325450 Ritter, K., Stone, H. N., & Chambers, T. L. (2019). Empowering Through Knowledge: Exploring Place-based Environmental Education in Louisiana Classrooms Through Virtual Reality. 10(1), 7. Rodríguez, M., Kohen, R., & Delval, J. (2015). Children’s and adolescents’ thoughts on pollution: Cognitive abilities required to understand environmental systems. Environmental Education Research, 21(1), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.862613 Rogosa, D., & Willett, J. (1983). Demonstrating the Reliability of the Difference Score in the Measurement of Change. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20(4), 335–343. Rousseau, J. J. (1975). The Essentia Rousseau (L. Blair, Trans.). Median. Rozsahegyi, T. (2019). Case study. In M. Lambert (Ed.), Practical Research Methods in Education (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 124–131). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351188395-12 185 Saker, M., & Frith, J. (2020). Coextensive space: Virtual reality and the developing relationship between the body, the digital and physical space. Media, Culture & Society, 42(7–8), 1427–1442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720932498 Sala, N. (2016). Virtual Reality and Education: Overview Accross Different Disciplines. In D. H. Choi, A. Dailey-Hebert, & J. Simmons Estes (Eds.), Emerging Tools and Applications of Virtual Reality in Education: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9837-6 Salazar, G., Kunkle, K., & Monroe, M. C. (2020). Practitioner Guide to Assessing Connection to Nature. North American Association for Environmental Education. Sauvé, L. (2005). Currents in Environmental Education: Mapping a Complex and Evolving Pedagogical Field. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 10(1), 11–37. Schaefli, L. M., Godlewska, A. M. C., & Rose, J. (2018). Coming to know Indigeneity: Epistemologies of ignorance in the 2003–2015 Ontario Canadian and World Studies Curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 48(4), 475–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2018.1518113 Scully, A. (2012). Decolonization, reinhabitation and reconciliation: Aboriginal and place-based education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 17, 148–158. Scully, D., Lehane, P., & Scully, C. (2021). ‘It is no longer scary’: Digital learning before and during the Covid-19 pandemic in Irish secondary schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30(1), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1854844 Shahtahmassebi, A. R., Li, C., Fan, Y., Wu, Y., Lin, Y., Gan, M., Wang, K., Malik, A., & Blackburn, G. A. (2021). Remote sensing of urban green spaces: A review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 57, 126946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126946 Short, C. R., Hanny, C., Jensen, M., Arnesen, K., & Graham, C. R. (2022). Competencies and Practices for Guiding K-12 Blended Teacher Readiness. In A. G. Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, C. R. Graham, & P. D. Moskal (Eds.), Blended Learning (pp. 193–213). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10. Simpson, L. (2002). Indigenous Environmental Education for Cultural Survival. Journal of Environmental Education, 7(1), 13–25. Siraj-Blatchford, J., & Samuelsson, I. P. (2015). Education for Sustainable Development in Early Childhood Care and Education: A UNESCO Background Paper. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3197.2564 Sisson, J. H., & Lash, M. (2017). Outdoor Learning Experiences Connecting Children to Nature. Young Children. 186 Skarbez, R., Smith, M., & Whitton, M. C. (2021). Revisiting Milgram and Kishino’s Reality-Virtuality Continuum. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 2, 647997. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2021.647997 Smith, G. A. (2007). Place‐based education: Breaking through the constraining regularities of public school. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701285180 Smith, T. A., & Dunkley, R. (2018). Technology-nonhuman-child assemblages: Reconceptualising rural childhood roaming. Children’s Geographies, 16(3), 304–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2017.1407406 Sneed, J. C., Deringer, S. A., & Hanley, A. (2021). Nature Connection and 360-Degree Video: An Exploratory Study With Immersive Technology. Journal of Experiential Education, 44(4), 378–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/10538259211001568 Sobel, D. (2004). Place Based Education: Connecting Classrooms & Communities. Orion Society. Sobel, D. (2008). Childhood and Nature: Design Principles for Educators. Stenhouse Publishers. Sommer, C., & Lücken, M. (2010). System competence – Are elementary students able to deal with a biological system? Nordic Studies in Science Education, 6(2), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.255 Speiginer, G., & Maclntyre, B. (2018). Rethinking Reality: A Layered Model of Reality for Immersive Systems. 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct), 328–332. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct.2018.00097 Spence, A., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. (2012). The Psychological Distance of Climate Change: Psychological Distance of Climate Change. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 957–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x Spiteri, J. (2023). Environmental learning across generations: Spontaneous encounters and interactions between young children, mothers and teachers. Children’s Geographies, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2023.2170747 Sprague, N., Berrigan, D., & Ekenga, C. C. (2020). An Analysis of the Educational and Health-Related Benefits of Nature-Based Environmental Education in Low-Income Black and Hispanic Children. Health Equity, 4(1), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1089/heq.2019.0118 Stables, A. (1998). Environmental Literacy: Functional, cultural, critical. The case of the SCAA guidelines. Environmental Education Research, 4(2), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462980040203 187 Stapp, W. B., Bennett, D., Bryan, W., Fulton, J., MacGregor, J., Nowak, P., Swan, J., Wall, R., & Havlick, S. (1969). The Concept of Environmental Education. Journal of Environmental Education, 1(1), 30–31. Statistics Canada. (2022). Profile table, Census Profile, 2021 Census of Population. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E Steg, L., & de Groot, J. I. M. (2012). Environmental Values. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology (p. 0). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0005 Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., & Van Der Werff, E. (2015). Understanding the human dimensions of a sustainable energy transition. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00805 Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2). Stessens, P., Canters, F., Huysmans, M., & Khan, A. Z. (2020). Urban green space qualities: An integrated approach towards GIS-based assessment reflecting user perception. Land Use Policy, 91, 104319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104319 Sun, H., Wu, J., & Xu, X. (2016). A Method to Determine Appropriate Spatial Resolution for Hard Image Classification. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 44(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-015-0471-3 Suomela, R., & Lehikoinen, J. (2004). Taxonomy for visualizing location-based information. Virtual Reality, 8(2), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-004-0139-8 Sutherland, I. (1965). The Ultimate Display. In Proceedings of the IFIP Congress (Vol. 2, pp. 506–508). Spartan Books. Svalastog, A. L., Wilson, S., & Hansen, K. L. (2021). Knowledge versus Education in the Margins: An Indigenous and Feminist Critique of Education. Education Sciences, 11(10), 627. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100627 Swalwell, K., Rodríguez, N., Updegraff, A., & Winters, L. (2023). Distracting, Erasing, and Othering: A Critical Analysis of the Teachers Pay Teachers’ Teach for Justice Collection. Harvard Educational Review, 93, 104–131. Talebpour, L. M., Busk, P. L., Heimlich, J. E., & Ardoin, N. M. (2020). Children’s connection to nature as fostered through residential environmental education programs: Key variables explored through surveys and field journals. Environmental Education Research, 26(1), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1707778 TallBear, K. (2021). Close Encounters of the Colonial Kind. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 45(1), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.17953/aicrj.45.1.tallbear 188 Tansil, D., Plecak, C., Taczanowska, K., & Jiricka-Pürrer, A. (2022). Experience Them, Love Them, Protect Them—Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Changed People’s Perception of Urban and Suburban Green Spaces and Their Conservation Targets? Environmental Management, 70(6), 1004–1022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-022-01721-9 Teachers Pay Teachers. (2023). Teaching Resources & Lesson Plans | TPT. https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/ Thatcher, J. E., Burns, R., & Lauriault, T. P. (2020). Digital Geographies. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (pp. 335–340). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10537-2 The Canadian Press. (2019, December 5). Teacher to stand trial in drowning of student on trip to Algonquin park | CTV News. https://barrie.ctvnews.ca/teacher-to-stand-trial-in-drowning-of-student-on-trip-to-algonquin-park-1.4716819 Thompson, S. C., & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14(2), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80168-9 Threlfall, C. G., Ossola, A., Hahs, A. K., Williams, N. S. G., Wilson, L., & Livesley, S. J. (2016). Variation in Vegetation Structure and Composition across Urban Green Space Types. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2016.00066 Tian, Y., Liu, Y., Jim, C., & Song, H. (2017). Assessing Structural Connectivity of Urban Green Spaces in Metropolitan Hong Kong. Sustainability, 9(9), 1653. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091653 Tiwary, A., & Kumar, P. (2014). Impact evaluation of green–grey infrastructure interaction on built-space integrity: An emerging perspective to urban ecosystem service. Science of The Total Environment, 487, 350–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.032 Todd, Z. (2016). An Indigenous Feminist’s Take On The Ontological Turn: ‘Ontology’ Is Just Another Word For Colonialism: An Indigenous Feminist’s Take on the Ontological Turn. Journal of Historical Sociology, 29(1), 4–22. Tompkins, J. (2002). Learning to See What They Can’t: Decolonizing Perspectives on Indigenous Education in the Racial Context of Rural Nova Scotia. McGill Journal of Education, 37(3), 405–422. TransLink. (2023a). BusReady. https://busready.bctransit.com/ TransLink. (2023b). Pricing and Fare Zones. https://www.translink.ca/kidsridefree TransLink. (2023c). U-Pass BC. U-Pass BC. https://www.translink.ca/transit-fares/u-pass-bc Tudor, A.-D., Minocha, S., Collins, M., & Tilling, S. (2018). Mobile virtual reality for environmental education. Journal of Virtual Studies, 9(2), 25–36. UBC. (2023). UBC H5P Open Hub. UBC H5P Open Hub. https://h5p.open.ubc.ca/ 189 UNESCO. (1977). Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education (Tbilisi): Final Report (p. 96). UNESCO. (2020). Education for sustainable development: A roadmap. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/YFRE1448 Unity. (2023). Unity Real-Time Development Platform | 3D, 2D, VR & AR Engine. Unity. https://unity.com Van Breukelen, G. (2006). ANCOVA versus change from baseline had more power in randomized studies and more bias in nonrandomized studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(9), 920–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.02.007 van Dijk, J. (2020). The digital divide. Polity Press. van Heel, B. F., van den Born, R. J. G., & Aarts, M. N. C. (2022). Everyday childhood nature experiences in an era of urbanisation: An analysis of Dutch children’s drawings of their favourite place to play outdoors. Children’s Geographies, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2022.2071600 Van Matre, S. (1990). Earth education: A new beginning. Institute for Earth Education. Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation. (2014). Rewilding Vancouver: Environmental Education & Stewardship Action Plan (pp. 1–54). https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/enviromental-education-stewardship-action-plan.pdf Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation. (2016). Park Provision Study 2016. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/park-provision-study.pdf Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation. (2018a). Park Provision Study, V.2 (p. 54). Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation. Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation. (2018b). Vancouver’s Parks and Recreation: Inventory and Analysis (pp. 1–190). https://vancouver.ca/images/web/vanplay-inventory-and-analysis-full-report.pdf Vaughan, K. B., Kaczynski, A. T., Wilhelm Stanis, S. A., Besenyi, G. M., Bergstrom, R., & Heinrich, K. M. (2013). Exploring the Distribution of Park Availability, Features, and Quality Across Kansas City, Missouri by Income and Race/Ethnicity: An Environmental Justice Investigation. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 45(S1), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-012-9425-y Vila-Rodriguez, F., Panenka, W. J., Lang, D. J., Thornton, A. E., Vertinsky, T., Wong, H., Barr, A. M., Procyshyn, R. M., Sidhu, J. J., Smith, G. N., Buchanan, T., Krajden, M., Krausz, M., Montaner, J. S., MacEwan, G. W., & Honer, W. G. (2013). The Hotel Study: Multimorbidity in a Community Sample Living in Marginal Housing. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(12), 1413–1422. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.12111439 190 Vishwanath, A., Kam, M., & Kumar, N. (2017). Examining Low-Cost Virtual Reality for Learning in Low-Resource Environments. Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, 1277–1281. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064696 Vive Studios. (2022). Vive. https://www.vive.com/ca/product/ VSB. (1999). Student Transportation Services. https://media.vsb.bc.ca/media/Default/medialib/eea-student-transportation-services.d001ad27505.pdf VSB. (2018a). Environmental Sustainability Plan. https://media.vsb.bc.ca/docs/0bd1f97e-02ab-405f-b5f4-c13836ab7433_VSB_Env-Sust-Plan_Approved_2018-05-28_cover%20page_1.pdf VSB. (2018b). Special Use of School Buses. https://media.vsb.bc.ca/media/Default/medialib/ap_562_special_use_of_school_buses.c17ea120773.pdf VSB. (2021). District Student Code of Conduct. https://media.vsb.bc.ca/media/Default/medialib/ap_350_district_student_code_of_conduct.7a335314501.pdf VSB. (2022). Active Travel Toolkit. https://media.vsb.bc.ca/media/Default/medialib/at-toolkit.626d1313849.pdf VSB. (2023a). Educational Field Studies. https://media.vsb.bc.ca/media/Default/medialib/ap_260_field_studies.e38fa220617.pdf VSB. (2023b). Vancouver School Board Guidelines for Conducting Research Studies in Vancouver Schools. https://media.vsb.bc.ca/docs/06f8bca2-409a-4755-86b9-c955ac8d108d_Research%20Guidelines.pdf VSB. (2023c). Acceptable Use of Technology. https://www.vsb.bc.ca/page/62211/acceptable-use-of-technology VSB. (2023d). Our District. Our District. https://www.vsb.bc.ca/page/4775/our-district Wallace, R. L., Greenburg, J., & Clark, S. G. (2020). Confronting anxiety and despair in environmental studies and sciences: An analysis and guide for students and faculty. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 10(2), 148–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-020-00609-6 Wallis, K., & Ross, M. (2021). Fourth VR: Indigenous virtual reality practice. Convergence (London, England), 27(2), 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856520943083 Wan Hussain, W. N. H., Halim, L., Chan, M. Y., & Abd Rahman, N. (2021). Predicting Energy-Saving Behaviour Based on Environmental Values: An Analysis of School Children’s Perspectives. Sustainability, 13(14), 7644. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147644 191 Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. https://go.exlibris.link/dhS93zZV Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems. Organization (London, England), 7(2), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072002 Whitburn, J., Linklater, W. L., & Milfont, T. L. (2019). Exposure to Urban Nature and Tree Planting Are Related to Pro-Environmental Behavior via Connection to Nature, the Use of Nature for Psychological Restoration, and Environmental Attitudes. Environment and Behavior, 51(7), 787–810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517751009 Willett, J. (1989). Questions and Answers in the Measurement of Change. Review of Research in Education, 15, 345–422. Williams, R. H., & Zimmerman, D. W. (1996). Are Simple Gain Scores Obsolete? Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169602000106 Winn, W. (1993). A Conceptual Basis for Educational Applicatons of Virtual Reality (HITL Report No. R-93-9). http://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/learning_center/winn/winn-paper.html~ Wolsink, M. (2016). Environmental education excursions and proximity to urban green space – densification in a ‘compact city.’ Environmental Education Research, 22(7), 1049–1071. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1077504 Wong, S., Rush, J., Bailey, F., & Just, A. C. (2023). Accessible Green Spaces? Spatial Disparities in Residential Green Space among People with Disabilities in the United States. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 113(2), 527–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2022.2106177 Wood, E. (2007). Reconceptualising Child-Centred Education: Contemporary directions in policy, theory and practice in early childhood. FORUM, 49(1), 119. https://doi.org/10.2304/forum.2007.49.1.119 Xie, C., Wang, J., Haase, D., Wellmann, T., & Lausch, A. (2023). Measuring spatio-temporal heterogeneity and interior characteristics of green spaces in urban neighborhoods: A new approach using gray level co-occurrence matrix. Science of The Total Environment, 855, 158608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158608 Xue, J., & Su, B. (2017). Significant Remote Sensing Vegetation Indices: A Review of Developments and Applications. Journal of Sensors, 2017, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1353691 Yamada-Rice, D. (2018). Licking planets and stomping on buildings: Children’s interactions with curated spaces in virtual reality. Children’s Geographies, 16(5), 529–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2018.1495316 192 Yeager, C. D., & Steiger, T. (2013). Applied geography in a digital age: The case for mixed methods. Applied Geography, 39, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.12.001 Zimmerman, D. W., & Williams, R. H. (1982). Gain Scores in Research Can Be Highly Reliable. Journal of Educational Measurement, 19(2), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1982.tb00124.x Zimmerman, H. T., Land, S. M., Maggiore, C., & Millet, C. (2019). Supporting children’s outdoor science learning with mobile computers: Integrating learning on-the-move strategies with context-sensitive computing. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(4), 457–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2019.1667823 193 Appendices Appendix A Field Trip Survey 194 195 196 Appendix B List of Interview Participants # Pseudonym Gender Grade Role 01 Sarah Female 4 and 5 Teacher 02 Tara Female 4 and 5 Teacher 03 Maureen Female 4 and 5 Teacher 04 Kelly Female 3 Teacher 05 Jennifer Female 3 Teacher 06 Luke Male 6 and 7 Teacher 07 Jesse Female 4 and 5 Teacher 08 Anna Female 4 and 5 Teacher 09 Susan Female 3 and 4 Teacher 10 Laura Female 4 and 5 Teacher 11 Tyler Male 5 Student 12 Briar Female 5 Student 13 Jake Male 7 Student 14 Sebastian Male 7 Student 15 Robert Male 5 Student 16 Samantha Female 5 Student 17 Cherise Female 4 Student 18 Frank Male 5 Student 19 Sophie Female 3 Student 20 Bryce Male 3 Student 21 Vanessa Female 6 Student 22 Shawn Male 7 Student 23 Matthew Male 5 Student 24 Dana Male 5 Student 25 Charles Male 5 Student 26 Caroline Female 4 Student 27 Tiffany Female 4 Student 28 Chris Male 5 Student 29 Kyle Male 5 Student 30 Becca Female 7 Student 31 Brian Male 7 Student 197 Appendix C Semi-Structured Interview Guide 198 199 200 Appendix D Environmental Literacy Grading Guide 201 202 203 204 Appendix E Thematic Coding E.1 Student Interviews Theme Sub-Themes/Codes Cases References Aggregate 20 139 Accessibility Proximity 19 41 From Home 17 22 Frequent Visits 8 11 Infrequent Visits 9 10 From School 15 17 Frequent Visits 6 8 Infrequent Visits 9 9 Quality 19 72 Biodiversity 9 9 Land Cover (General) 18 28 High Quality Land Cover 7 10 Low Quality Land Cover 14 17 Maintenance 3 3 Safety 5 5 Quantity 16 26 “Large” Parks 10 13 “Small” Parks 11 13 Aggregate 20 139 Connection to Nature Appreciation 6 6 Awe 1 1 Empathy 3 3 Human-Bog Relations 4 4 Human-Animal Relations 7 7 Disruptive Technologies 2 2 Environmental Values Aggregate 21 150 Preservation of Nature 21 57 Eco Anxiety 3 3 Park Rules 3 4 Reasons Not to Volunteer 7 8 Donate Money Instead 1 1 Physically Difficult 1 1 Time 4 4 Weather 2 2 Reasons to Volunteer 16 19 Provide Cultural Services 1 1 Continued…. 205 Theme Sub-Themes/Codes Cases References Environmental Values (Continued) Hesitant 6 6 Invasive Species Removal 3 3 Bird Nest Monitoring 1 1 Environmental Restoration 2 2 Social Benefits 2 2 Water Level Testing 3 4 Role Models 2 2 Unwilling to Volunteer (Count) 6 6 Willing to Volunteer (Count) 15 15 Utilization of Nature 20 93 Aesthetics 4 4 Beach Days 3 3 Bike Riding 4 4 Bird Watching 1 1 Camping 7 7 Dog Walking 7 8 Family Time 16 20 Fishing 2 3 Foraging 6 7 Foraging in Bog 6 9 Hiking 9 10 Park Amenities 8 8 Relaxation 1 1 Socializing with Friends 5 5 Sports 3 3 Environmental Literacy Aggregate 21 128 Cultural Environmental Literacy 21 66 Cultural Resource Use 12 16 Empathy 2 2 Erasure 5 5 Land Rights 9 10 Language 4 4 Pan-Indigeneity 2 2 Residential Schools 1 1 Settler Colonialism 7 8 Truth and Reality 2 3 Two-Headed Serpent 12 15 Functional Environmental Literacy 21 62 Animal Behavior 4 4 Animal Identification 7 11 Continued…. 206 Theme Sub-Themes/Codes Cases References Environmental Literacy (Continued) Climate Change 1 1 Food Web 6 7 Plant Identification 18 36 Water 2 3 Familiarity with Bog Aggregate 20 20 Familiar with Bog 6 6 Unfamiliar with Bog 14 14 AR Field Trips Aggregate 6 58 Novelty 5 6 Strengths of AR Field Trips 6 30 Community Content 3 6 Indigenous Learning Content 5 10 Peer Learning 1 1 Plant and Animal Cards 1 1 Reification 2 2 Seek App. 4 9 Social Media 1 1 Weaknesses of AR Field Trips 5 22 Technical Issues 2 2 Social Media Ban 5 6 Group Size 2 3 Engagement 4 6 Device Ownership 2 2 Device Ban 3 3 Outdoor Field Trips Aggregate 9 48 Strengths of Outdoor Field Trips 9 32 Exploration 7 8 Interacting with Animals 2 2 Nature Interpretation 4 9 Sensory-based Learning 6 7 Storytelling 4 6 Weaknesses of Outdoor Field Trips 7 16 Accessibility 4 5 Group Size 2 3 Seasonality 2 2 Weather 5 6 VR Field Trips Aggregate 8 78 Gamification 1 1 Novelty 7 7 Continued…. 207 Theme Sub-Themes/Codes Cases References VR Field Trips Strengths 8 30 Authenticity 1 1 Community Content 7 9 Indigenous Learning Materials 7 8 Plant and Animal Cards 3 5 Presence 4 5 Reification 2 2 Weaknesses 8 40 Content 1 1 Device Ownership 3 3 Device/HMD Quality 8 13 Motion Sickness 3 4 Presence 4 5 Safety 1 1 Technical Issues 8 13 Experience with Technology Aggregate 11 20 Limited Screen Time 4 4 Owns a Phone 1 1 Owns a Tablet 4 4 Videogames 5 5 Virtual Reality 6 6 Experience with Field Trips Aggregate 21 78 Art 2 2 Augmented Reality 1 1 Beach Day 3 3 Critical Environmental Education 2 2 Frequency 15 17 Frequent Field Trips 6 8 Infrequent Field Trips 9 9 Informal Environmental Education 1 2 Nature Meditation 2 2 Nature Walks 13 16 Physical Education 4 4 Science 4 4 Sensory Learning 6 6 Technology Use (Other) 7 10 Videos 2 2 Virtual Reality 7 7 208 E.2 Teacher Interviews Theme Sub-Themes/Codes Cases References Accessibility Aggregate 10 81 Proximity 10 35 Barriers 5 15 Disability 1 3 Safety 1 1 Transportation 4 11 Frequency of Field Trips 10 20 Frequent 9 14 Infrequent 2 4 Infrequent From Home 1 2 Quality 8 45 Biodiversity 3 3 High Quality Land Cover 8 13 Land Cover (General) 8 15 Low Quality Land Cover 5 7 “Making Do” with Low Quality 5 7 Quantity 1 1 Space for Activities 1 1 Administrative Aggregate 9 43 Behavior Problems 5 7 Classroom Administration 3 5 COVID-19 2 4 Field Trip Administration 8 14 Resource Bottlenecks 1 1 Safety 6 7 Time Constraints 3 5 Connection to Nature Aggregate 6 19 Appreciation 4 8 Embeddedness 5 6 Empathy 1 1 Environmental Citizenship 1 1 Human-Animal Interactions 2 2 Human-Bog Relations 1 1 Critical Environmental Education Aggregate 10 105 Anti-Racism 1 3 Authenticity 4 7 Barriers for Teachers 10 30 Fear of Making Mistakes 5 7 Continued…. 209 Theme Sub-Themes/Codes Cases References Critical Environmental Education (Continued) Lack of Knowledge 9 15 Pan-Indigenous Lens 3 3 Connecting Communities 1 1 Cultural Resource Ethics 1 1 Cultural Resource Use 2 2 Elder-Led Initiatives 1 1 Empathy 2 2 Erasure 1 2 Ethics of Knowledge Sharing 4 6 Human Rights 2 2 Intersectionality 2 2 Knowledge Sharing 5 7 Land Rights 4 6 Personal Responsibility 3 6 Politics 2 2 Privilege 1 1 Reflexivity 2 4 Residential Schools 2 4 Respect 5 6 Settler Colonialism 3 4 Strength-Based Approaches 1 2 Truth and Belief 1 4 Economic Barriers Aggregate 8 27 Community Fundraising 1 2 Community Partners 6 8 Field Trip Costs 3 4 Grants 2 2 Lack of Funding 5 11 Field Trip Type Aggregate 10 131 AR Field Trips 6 18 Community Content 1 1 Device Ownership 3 6 Indigenous Learning Content 5 6 Novelty 1 1 Reification 1 1 Supporting Outdoor Education 2 2 Wireless Connectivity 1 1 Outdoor Field Trips 10 85 Awe and Excitement 1 4 Continued…. 210 Theme Sub-Themes/Codes Cases References Field Trip Type (Continued) Lack of Knowledge (Teachers) 5 8 Exploration 5 6 Follow-up Activities 4 9 Free Play 1 1 Functional Environmental Literacy 5 8 Gardening 2 6 Lack Interpretive Materials 1 1 Lack of Support 2 5 Nature Interpretation 4 10 Nature Meditation 2 2 Nature Walks 8 12 Peer Learning 1 1 Seasonality 1 1 Sensory-based Learning 5 8 Weather 3 3 VR Field Trips 7 28 Device Ownership 3 5 Engagement 2 4 Gamification 1 3 Indigenous Learning Content 5 8 Lack of Structure 1 1 Length of VR Experience 2 2 Supporting Outdoor Education 2 3 Wireless Connectivity 2 2 Pedagogy Aggregate 10 45 Experiential Learning 5 11 Holistic Approach / Integrative Learning 8 15 Hope 1 2 Motivation to Learn 1 2 Motivation to Teach 1 3 Appreciation of Nature 1 1 Parenting 1 2 Multimodal Learning 2 2 Praxis 2 4 Social Justice Approach 2 5 Structure 1 1 Teaching Resources Aggregate 9 91 Child-friendly Websites 1 1 Community Partnerships 7 18 Continued…. 211 Theme Sub-Themes/Codes Cases References Teaching Resources (Continued) Indigenous Ed. Enhancement Worker 5 11 Knowledge Sharing 6 8 Lack of Participation in Training 1 1 Lack of Support 4 14 Online Resources 3 4 Professional Collaboration 8 14 Professional Development 3 7 Resource Allocation 5 12 School Partnerships 1 1 Technology Aggregate 10 98 Barriers 10 39 Age of Technology 5 5 Dislike of Technology 4 7 Equity 5 6 Lack of Resources 2 5 Misinformation 1 1 Technical Knowledge 4 8 Technical Support 3 4 Technology Policies 1 1 Wireless Connectivity 2 2 Digital Literacy 3 4 Tools 10 55 Adobe Creative Suite 2 2 Documentaries 1 1 Facebook 1 1 Google 1 1 Internet 3 3 Laptops 5 5 Pinterest 1 1 Print 4 6 Smart Board 3 3 Tablets 8 15 Videogames 3 4 Videos 5 6 Wikipedia 1 1 YouTube 5 6 212 Appendix F : Quality Green Space in the VSD Park Natural Area (ha.) Total Area (ha.) Natural Area (%) Kaymar Creek Ravine Park 11.8 11.9 99.4% Boundary Creek Ravine Park 3.6 3.6 99.3% Renfrew Ravine Park 6.0 6.1 98.2% Pacific Spirit Regional Park 784.6 799.8 98.1% Second Narrows Park 10.8 11.4 94.3% Everett Crowley Park 35.4 38.2 92.7% Stanley Park 371.9 418.3 88.9% Captain Cook Park 4.7 5.5 84.7% Musqueam Park 20.0 23.8 84.0% Hastings Park – Sanctuary 3.5 4.2 84.0% Central Park 65.8 86.4 76.1% Broadview Park 2.8 3.7 75.5% VanDusen Botanical Garden 16.9 22.4 75.4% Champlain Heights Park 5.7 7.9 72.6% Locarno Beach Park 9.8 14.7 66.7% Jericho Beach Park 32.0 48.2 66.3% Note: Quality Green Space includes all parkland ≥ 2.5 ha and ≥ 66.3% natural land cover. 213 Appendix G : VSD Elementary Schools Ranked by Access to Quality Green Space School Name Travel Time (minutes) Southlands Elementary 0.4 Champlain Heights Annex 0.8 Captain James Cook Elementary 1.0 University Hill Elementary 1.1 Queen Elizabeth Elementary 2.1 Norma Rose Point School 2.1 Queen Elizabeth Annex 3.2 Dr A R Lord Elementary 3.9 Dr H N MacCorkindale Elementary 5.8 Queen Mary Elementary 6.4 Nootka Community Elementary 7.1 Hastings Community Elementary 7.3 Champlain Heights Community Elementary 8.1 Lord Roberts Elementary 8.2 John Norquay Elementary 9.2 Ecole Jules Quesnel Elementary 10.1 Lord Beaconsfield Elementary 10.6 Bayview Community Elementary 11.5 Lord Kitchener Elementary 11.6 Sir Wilfred Grenfell Community 11.9 Sir William Osler Elementary 12.2 Collingwood Neighbourhood School 12.9 Kerrisdale Annex 13.6 Renfrew Community Elementary 13.6 Sir John Franklin Community 13.7 Emily Carr Elementary 14.1 wək̓ʷ an̓əs tə syaqʷəm Elementary 14.3 Tillicum Community Annex 16.1 Quilchena Elementary 16.5 Sir Guy Carleton Community Elementary 16.5 Graham Bruce Community Elementary 17.1 Dr George M Weir Elementary 17.8 Lord Roberts Annex 18.0 Shaughnessy Elementary 18.0 Xpey Elementary 18.3 G T Cunningham Elementary 18.6 Dr Annie B Jamieson Elementary 21.1 Kerrisdale Elementary 22.3 Continued…. . 214 Name Travel Time (minutes) Maple Grove Elementary 22.6 General Gordon Elementary 22.6 Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith 23.5 Thunderbird Elementary 24.2 Carnarvon Community Elementary 24.4 Chief Maquinna Elementary 24.9 Lord Nelson Elementary 24.9 L'Ecole Bilingue Elementary 25.6 Edith Cavell Elementary 25.7 Lord Selkirk Elementary 26.3 Sir Wm Van Horne Elementary 26.4 Trafalgar Elementary 27.1 Laura Secord Elementary 27.1 General Wolfe Elementary 27.2 David Oppenheimer Elementary 27.6 Waverley Elementary 29.3 Tyee Elementary 29.7 Sir James Douglas Elementary 30.1 Sir Wilfrid Laurier Elementary 30.2 Lord Selkirk Annex 30.4 Tecumseh Annex 31.7 Britannia Community Elementary 32.3 Elsie Roy Elementary 33.2 Tecumseh Elementary 33.6 General Brock Elementary 34.5 Sir Richard McBride Elementary 35.6 Admiral Seymour Elementary 36.0 Crosstown Elementary 37.5 Charles Dickens Annex 37.5 Sir James Douglas Annex 37.7 Charles Dickens Elementary 37.7 Henry Hudson Elementary 38.0 David Livingstone Elementary 38.2 Dr R E McKechnie Elementary 38.2 Lord Tennyson Elementary 38.4 Simon Fraser Elementary 38.6 False Creek Elementary 39.3 Queen Alexandra Elementary 39.9 David Lloyd George Elementary 40.3 Sir Richard McBride Annex 40.5 Continued…. . 215 Name Travel Time (minutes) J.W. Sexsmith Community Elementary 42.9 Sir Sandford Fleming Elementary 43.1 Grandview Elementary 43.5 Queen Victoria Annex 43.6 Sir Alexander Mackenzie Elementary 44.2 Lord Strathcona Community Elementary 45.0 John Henderson Elementary 47.1 Walter Moberly Elementary 47.1 Florence Nightingale Elementary 52.0 Pierre Elliott Trudeau Elementary 54.1 Mount Pleasant Elementary 56.8 216 Appendix H Pre-Test and Post-Test Scores – Bar Charts H.1 Environmental Literacy Pre-Test Scores: Environmental Literacy Post-Test Scores: Environmental Literacy 217 H.2 Functional Environmental Literacy Pre-Test Scores: Functional Environmental Literacy Post-Test Scores: Functional Environmental Literacy 218 H.3 Cultural Environmental Literacy Pre-Test Scores: Cultural Environmental Literac Post-Test Scores: Cultural Environmental Literacy 219 H.4 Preservation of Nature Pre-Test Scores: Preservation of Nature Post-Test Scores: Preservation of Nature 220 H.5 Utilization of Nature Pre-Test Scores: Utilization of Nature Post-Test Scores: Utilization of Nature 221 H.6 Connection to Nature Pre-Test Scores: Connection to Nature Post-Test Scores: Connection to Nature 222 Appendix I Pairwise Comparisons of Estimated Marginal Means: Difference Scores I.1 Environmental Literacy I.2 Functional Environmental Literacy Contrast Estimate SE df t-ratio p < 10 min AR - > 10 min AR 0.427 0.222 230 1.918 0.394 < 10 min AR - < 10 min OD 0.907 0.201 230 4.509 < 0.001*** < 10 min AR - > 10 min OD -0.191 0.211 230 -0.907 0.945 < 10 min AR - < 10 min VR 0.489 0.181 230 2.694 0.080 < 10 min AR - > 10 min VR 0.082 0.222 230 0.369 0.999 > 10 min AR - < 10 min OD 0.480 0.219 230 2.193 0.245 > 10 min AR - > 10 min OD -0.617 0.228 230 -2.707 0.078 > 10 min AR - < 10 min VR 0.062 0.201 230 0.309 0.999 > 10 min AR - > 10 min VR -0.345 0.239 230 -1.443 0.701 < 10 min 0D - > 10 min OD -1.098 0.207 230 -5.297 < 0.001*** < 10 min 0D - < 10 min VR -0.418 0.177 230 -2.361 0.175 < 10 min 0D - > 10 min VR -0.825 0.219 230 -3.766 0.003** > 10 min 0D - < 10 min VR 0.679 0.188 230 3.611 0.005** > 10 min 0D - > 10 min VR 0.273 0.228 230 1.196 0.838 < 10 min VR - > 10 min VR -0.407 0.201 230 -2.023 0.333 Contrast Estimate SE df t-ratio p < 10 min AR - > 10 min AR 0.439 0.245 230 1.791 0.474 < 10 min AR - < 10 min OD 1.018 0.222 230 4.593 < 0.001*** < 10 min AR - > 10 min OD -0.131 0.232 230 -0.564 0.993 < 10 min AR - < 10 min VR 0.536 0.200 230 2.681 0.083 < 10 min AR - > 10 min VR -0.009 0.245 230 -0.038 1.000 > 10 min AR - < 10 min OD 0.579 0.241 230 2.399 0.161 > 10 min AR - > 10 min OD -0.570 0.251 230 -2.270 0.211 > 10 min AR - < 10 min VR 0.097 0.222 230 0.437 0.998 > 10 min AR - > 10 min VR -0.449 0.263 230 -1.705 0.530 < 10 min 0D - > 10 min OD -1.149 0.228 230 -5.032 < 0.001*** < 10 min 0D - < 10 min VR -0.482 0.195 230 -2.469 0.138 < 10 min 0D - > 10 min VR -1.027 0.241 230 -4.257 < 0.001*** > 10 min 0D - < 10 min VR 0.667 0.207 230 3.218 0.018* > 10 min 0D - > 10 min VR 0.122 0.251 230 0.484 0.997 < 10 min VR - > 10 min VR -0.545 0.222 230 -2.462 0.140 223 I.3 Cultural Environmental Literacy I.4 Utilization of Nature Contrast Estimate SE df t-ratio p < 10 min AR - > 10 min AR 0.401 0.270 230 1.486 0.674 < 10 min AR - < 10 min OD 0.728 0.244 230 2.979 0.037* < 10 min AR - > 10 min OD -0.268 0.256 230 -1.046 0.901 < 10 min AR - < 10 min VR 0.403 0.220 230 1.830 0.448 < 10 min AR - > 10 min VR 0.223 0.270 230 0.825 0.963 > 10 min AR - < 10 min OD 0.326 0.266 230 1.227 0.823 > 10 min AR - > 10 min OD -0.669 0.277 230 -2.417 0.155 > 10 min AR - < 10 min VR 0.002 0.244 230 0.008 1.000 > 10 min AR - > 10 min VR -0.179 0.290 230 -0.616 0.990 < 10 min 0D - > 10 min OD -0.995 0.252 230 -3.956 0.001** < 10 min 0D - < 10 min VR -0.324 0.215 230 -1.508 0.659 < 10 min 0D - > 10 min VR -0.505 0.266 230 -1.898 0.406 > 10 min 0D - < 10 min VR 0.671 0.228 230 2.938 0.042* > 10 min 0D - > 10 min VR 0.491 0.277 230 1.772 0.486 < 10 min VR - > 10 min VR -0.180 0.244 230 -0.739 0.977 Contrast Estimate SE df t-ratio p < 10 min AR - > 10 min AR 0.261 0.116 230 2.253 0.218 < 10 min AR - < 10 min OD 0.119 0.105 230 1.140 0.864 < 10 min AR - > 10 min OD 0.204 0.110 230 1.857 0.432 < 10 min AR - < 10 min VR 0.270 0.095 230 2.860 0.052 < 10 min AR - > 10 min VR 0.084 0.116 230 0.724 0.979 > 10 min AR - < 10 min OD -0.142 0.114 230 -1.242 0.816 > 10 min AR - > 10 min OD -0.057 0.119 230 -0.481 0.997 > 10 min AR - < 10 min VR 0.009 0.105 230 0.088 1.000 > 10 min AR - > 10 min VR -0.177 0.124 230 -1.425 0.712 < 10 min 0D - > 10 min OD 0.085 0.108 230 0.784 0.970 < 10 min 0D - < 10 min VR 0.151 0.092 230 1.635 0.576 < 10 min 0D - > 10 min VR -0.036 0.114 230 -0.311 1.000 > 10 min 0D - < 10 min VR 0.066 0.098 230 0.676 0.984 > 10 min 0D - > 10 min VR -0.120 0.119 230 -1.011 0.914 < 10 min VR - > 10 min VR -0.186 0.105 230 -1.780 0.481 224 I.5 Connection to Nature Contrast Estimate SE df t-ratio p < 10 min AR - > 10 min AR -0.122 0.117 230 -1.047 0.901 < 10 min AR - < 10 min OD -0.062 0.106 230 -0.583 0.992 < 10 min AR - > 10 min OD -0.153 0.111 230 -1.379 0.739 < 10 min AR - < 10 min VR -0.288 0.095 230 -3.027 0.032* < 10 min AR - > 10 min VR -0.056 0.117 230 -0478 0.997 > 10 min AR - < 10 min OD 0.061 0.115 230 0.528 0.995 > 10 min AR - > 10 min OD -0.030 0.120 230 -0.254 1.000 > 10 min AR - < 10 min VR -0.166 0.105 230 -1.573 0.617 > 10 min AR - > 10 min VR 0.066 0.125 230 0.530 0.995 < 10 min 0D - > 10 min OD -0.091 0.109 230 -0.838 0.960 < 10 min 0D - < 10 min VR -0.227 0.093 230 -2.438 0.148 < 10 min 0D - > 10 min VR 0.006 0.115 230 0.050 1.000 > 10 min 0D - < 10 min VR -0.136 0.099 230 -1.373 0.743 > 10 min 0D - > 10 min VR 0.097 0.120 230 0.809 0.966 < 10 min VR - > 10 min VR 0.232 0.105 230 2.203 0.241
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Geography
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Klinkenberg, Brian, 1954-
Brown, Loch T.
Comparing the use of virtual, augmented, and outdoor field trips in the environmental education of children
Text