Extensive research highlights the cognitive, affective, and social benefits of out-of-school learning (OSL) (DeWitt & Storksdieck, 2008) such as promoting understanding of facts and concepts (Bamberger & Tal, 2007; Eshach, 2007), increasing student attention (DeWitt & Storksdieck, 2008), and fostering science awareness (Eshach, 2007). However, the potential of OSL remains underutilized (Eshach, 2007; DeWitt & Storksdieck, 2008), and educators may refrain from using OSL as part of their instructional practices. Despite the growing interest in out-of-school environments, Falk and Storksdieck (2005) assert that “...a full understanding of the complexities of the processes of learning that occurs during a visit to a free-choice setting remains elusive” (p. 745). 

This gap may stem from various factors, one of which is insufficient emphasis on OSL in pre-service teacher education programs. Insufficient or lack of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in planning, designing, implementing, and evaluating OSL diminishes its effectiveness and reduces teachers’ long-term motivation to integrate OSL into their instruction. Developing awareness of how OSL occurs is crucial for maximizing its potential and ensuring equitable educational experiences for all students. School counselors are one group that integrates OSL into their professional practices. While extensive research exists on OSL and its environments, limited attention has been given to how prospective school counselors develop awareness and make meaning of OSL and its environments as part of their instructional and guidance practices. This study explores how prospective school counselors develop awareness and make meaning of OSL through new knowledge and skills gained in an OSL course grounded in Falk and Dierking’s (2000) conceptual model of learning. 

Falk and Dierking’s (2000) conceptual model of learning is rooted in “constructivist, cognitive, as well as sociocultural theories of learning” (p.745). Suggesting that the conceptual model of learning could be used as a framework rather than a model for organizing information on learning, Falk and Storksdieck (2005) argue that “The view of learning embodied in this framework is that learning can be conceptualized as a contextually driven effort to make meaning in order to survive and prosper within the world; an effort that is best viewed as a continuous, never-ending dialogue between the individual and his or her physical and sociocultural environment. The Contextual Model of Learning portrays this contextually driven dialogue as the process/product of the interactions between an individual’s (hypothetical) personal, sociocultural, and physical contexts over time. None of these three contexts are ever stable or constant; all are changing across the lifetime of the individual” (p. 745).

They identified twelve key variables influencing museum learning experiences, which is applicable to various OSL environments. These variables are grouped into three contexts: personal, sociocultural, and physical. The personal context encompasses “visit motivation and expectations, prior knowledge, prior experiences, prior interests, choice and control” (p. 747). It reflects the individual's personal and genetic history brought to the learning situation. The sociocultural context includes social mediation within the group and by others outside it (e.g., guides or demonstrators). The physical context consists of “advance organizers, orientation to the physical space, architecture and large-scale environment, design and exposure to exhibits and programs, and subsequent reinforcing events and experiences outside the museum” (p. 747). 

Building on this conceptual framework, this study explores how prospective school counselors develop awareness and make meaning of OSL in a course designed using Falk and Dierking’s (2000) conceptual model of learning. Research questions are as follows: 

1. How do prospective school counselors develop awareness and make meaning of out-of-school learning as a result of their new learning and experiences in the Learning in Non-school context course?

2. How do personal, social, and physical contexts influence prospective school counselors’ learning experience?

A qualitative case study approach (Patton, 2015) was used to answer the research questions. The case in this study was a Learning in Non-School Contexts course offered as an elective for students in Guidance and Psychological Counseling (GPC) and Teaching English as a Foreign Language programs at an internationally recognized university in Northern Cyprus. The course covered planning, developing, implementing, and evaluating OSL. Instructional practices included article presentations on OSL in different countries, tasks designed to stimulate discussions by revisiting OSL memories, video-supported activities, visits to five OSL environments (a science center, museum, historical mansion, local market, and antique bookstore with an art gallery), all structured around Falk and Dierking’s model, as well as reflection papers, a take-home exam focused on creative instructional design, and a panel discussion on OSL experiences open to other students. The study sample included five female sophomore prospective school counselors, aged between 20-23. Among seven students in the course, five from the GPC program voluntarily participated. To maintain confidentiality, detailed participant information was withheld. Data was collected using reflective writing, semi-structured interviews, and document analysis. Reflective writing was the primary tool, with six reflection tasks. The first task focused on students’ perceptions of learning and OSL as well as their OSL experiences. The next four tasks prompted reflections on their OSL course experiences after each field visit, and the final task was a meta-reflection on their term-long OSL experiences. Photos taken during OSL visits, used in reflective writings, were also data sources. Semi-structured interviews were conducted at the end of the term, after the course was over and grades were assigned, to deepen understanding of changes in students’ perceptions of OSL and their PCK. The interview schedule was developed by the researcher, aligned with research questions, literature, and course learning outcomes, and revised with expert feedback. Document analysis supplemented findings from reflective writings and interviews. Documents included student-produced documents such as photos, take-home exam responses, panel discussion observations, and article presentations on OSL. The data were analyzed using inductive content analysis (Patton, 2015) on NVivo 11 Plus. A preliminary code list based on research questions, OSL literature, and course learning outcomes was used and revised during data analysis to include emerging codes and remove irrelevant ones. Data from all sources were double-coded to categorize themes and eliminate redundancies (Creswell, 2011). Illustrative codes included intellectual navigation, meaning-making, and ghost memories.

Three themes emerged: changes in conceptualization of OSLchanges in PCK about OSL, and factors influencing meaning-making of OSL. The participants initially thought that learning primarily occurred in a classroom environment, and viewed OSL as fun learning with minimal structure limited to places like science centers and museums. After the course, they recognized that learning extends beyond classrooms and that any environment could serve as an OSL setting. They developed insights into the various benefits of OSL (e.g., enhancing motivation, promoting creativity, sparking interest in STEM, exposing students to diverse career paths). As for the changes in their PCK, before the course, the participants had difficulty defining clear goals for OSL and underestimated its potential. Through their new experiences, they developed strategies to plan, design, implement, evaluate, and follow up on OSL experiences. They emphasized the importance of aligning OSL activities with curricula, student developmental levels in various domains (e.g., cognitive, affective, moral), and interests. They started to consider potential challenges (e.g., managing large groups) while planning and designing OSL experiences. They approached OSL through dual lenses (i.e., students and teachers), and intended to translate their new learning by guiding teachers, motivating OSL use, and designing effective OSL experiences for students. The participants' personal and genetic histories (e.g., prior knowledge, interests), sociocultural interactions (e.g., peer discussions, guidance from others during the field trips), and physical contexts of OSL setting (e.g., design of OSL environments) collectively shaped their meaning-making process as well as the changes in their PCK. This study highlights the importance of incorporating courses on OSL into teacher education programs that include field experiences designed around the three factors in Falk and Dierking’s model and reflective activities to enhance prospective counselors’ meaning-making of OSL, develop their PCK, and maximize the benefits of OSL.

Bamberger, Y., & Tal, T. (2007). Learning in a personal context: Levels of choice in a free choice learning environment in science and natural history museums. Science Education, 91(1), 75-95. Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson Education. DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A short review of school field trips: Key findings from the past and implications for the future. Visitor Studies, 11(2), 181-197, DOI: 10.1080/10645570802355562 Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out of school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171-190. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9027-1 Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Falk, J. , & Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education, 89(5), 744–778. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.