A QUANTITATIVE COMPARISON OF ENVIRONHENTAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATION EDUCATION. OUTDOOR EDUCATION, ECOLOGICAL EDUCATION. ENVIRONMENTALIZED EDUCATION, AND GENERAL EDUCATION BASED ON GOALS A DisserIaIlon Ior The Degree of DE. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY David I. Johnson 1977 1.,4L’ Q1 ‘. 'L' L- 'L' M“ t r.‘ r r“ Ra’qRY Lam State LJHIVCHHEY \ um... ”‘14 "rl. This is to certify that the thesis entitled "A Quantitative Comparison of Environmental Education, Conservation Education, Outdoor Education, EcoIogicaI Education, EnvironmentaTizedrEducation and General Education Based on Goals" presented by David 1. Johnson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreeigrisheries & Wildlife W Major professor Date May 16; 1977 0-7639 / 7 III IIIIIIIIII III L 900300 009851 CT‘IL‘I‘G' I 200 A284 'flffi;wi .1333 335?? 5052? 0194 3092 “b tW~ ~ I b oct~l212096 M OCMTISZIIUG ABSTRACT A QUANTITATIVE COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATION EDUCATION, OUTDOOR EDUCATION, ECOLOGICAL EDUCATION, ENVIRONMENTALIZED EDUCATION AND GENERAL EDUCATION BASED ON GOALS By David I. Johnson The relationship of environmental education to established fields such as ecological education, conservation education, outdoor education, and new terms like environmentalized education has been confusing. This study was designed to evaluate the relationship of environmental education, ecological education, outdoor education, conservation education, environmentalized education and general education. Goals because of their long term perspective and internal development were chosen as a basis for comparison. Goals selected from the literature were juried to obtain sixty goals representing each of the six areas. Using a Q sort procedure, 65 selected individuals represen- ting the six areas, rank-ordered the goal statements into a quasi-normal distribution with scores ranging from +6 to -6. The resulting scores were analyzed using multivariant analysis of variance and one—way analysis of variance followed by Scheffe's Test. Goals describing man's relationship to and utilization of the environment were ranked high by all groups. Goals describing specific subjects such as health, population growth, and outdoor science were ranked low by most groups. Environmental educators, environ- mentalized educators, and conservation educators ranked many of the same goals highest. The ecological education and the general education goal categories had a reliability coefficient of .8. Ecological educators ranked their goals significantly higher than all other groups. No differences were found between environmental educators, conservation educators, and environmentalized educators. Personal data, education, and occupation most often influenced the rankings of the environmental education and environmentalized education goal categories. The courses that participants were currently teaching influenced the rankings of four goal categories. A model developed to illustrate the relationship between the six groups showed environmental education -over1apping the five other areas with especially strong overlaps with conservation education and environmentalized education. The uniqueness of ecological education, general education and outdoor education is also illustrated. /-‘ A QUANTITATIVE COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATION EDUCATION, OUTDOOR EDUCATION, ECOLOGICAL EDUCATION, ENVIRONMENTALIZED EDUCATION AND GENERAL EDUCATION BASED ON GOALS By. David I. Johnson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 1977 Copyright By DAVID l. JOHNSON 1977 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my gratitude to the members of my committee for the guidance and advice: Dr. G. W. Mouser, Major Professor, Dr. R. W. George, Dr. R. H. Baker, and Dr. Lewis Moncrief. Appreciated also was the constructive advice and aid in preparing this manuscript by Dr. H. H. Prince and Robert Wilson in the Office of Research Consultation. Financial support for the project came from the National Wildlife Federation. Special appreciation also must go to the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife for its indirect support, cooperation and understanding. No possible words could express my appreciation to my wife for her long hours of work related to the thesis and holding the family together. ii CHAPTER I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction. . . . . . . . Literature Review . . . . INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW Environmental Education and Conservation Education . . . . . . Environmental Education, Outdoor Educa- tion and Conservation Education Environmental Education and Ecological Education . . . . . . Outdoor Education, Ecological Education and Conservation Education. Environmentalized Education. Summary. . . . . . . . . Goals, Objectives, and Needs . MTHODS O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Development of the Test Instrument Process of Data Collection. The Sample . . . . . . . Experimental Design . . . . Analysis. . . . . . . . . . RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 Sample Demographics Personal Data. . Education. . . . Occupation . . . Demographic Variables Personal Data. . . . Education. . . . . . we... :3 seems... Occupation . . . . 0 Sort Distribution . The Top and Bottom Ten Statements as Ranke by All Groups. . . . . . a Se le The TOp Ranked Goals by Each Group. Category Reliability. . . . Multivariant Analysis of Variance . Congruency Test . . . . . Group Ranking Within Each Category of Statements . . . . . . . iii cti on 00.009.000.00... al ° 8 CHAPTER IV. DISCUSSION Sample Demographics . . . . . . Demographic Variables and Goal Selection. Top Ten and Bottom Ten Goals as All Groups . . . . . Ecological Education. . General Education . . . Outdoor Education . . . Conservation Education. . Environmentalized Education Environmental Education . . V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . Group Relationships . . . . . Demographic Variables and Goal Selection Recommendations . . . . . . . . Relationships Between Groups . Clarification of Goal Statements. Demographic Variables . . . . . APPENDIX A. THE ORIGINAL 180 GOAL STATEMENTS . Goals Goals Goals Goals Goals Goals B. THE RANKINGS OF THE FINAL MIDDLE FORTY GOAL of of of of of of STATEMENTS Ranked by Conservation Education . . Ecological Education . Environmental Education. . Environmentalized Education. General Education. . . Outdoor Education. . . C. COVER LETTER, PROCEDURE FOR COMPLETING Q SORT, DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM, AND PERSONAL DATA SHEET. BIBLIOGRAPHY. . GENERAL REFERENCES iv PAGE 56 56 57 59 61 64 65 67 70 73 73 79 80 80 82 83 95 103 109 113 TABLE 1. 10. 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCA- TION AND RELATED AREAS AS LISTED BY AUTHORS PE RS ONAL DATA 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O E DUCAT I ON C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OCCUPATIONAL DESCRIPTION AND TEACHING EXPERIENCE O C C C O O O O O O O I O O O C 0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES AND CATEGORIES OF GOAL STATEMENTS . . . . . THE MEAN RANKINGS OF THE FIVE STATEMENTS RECEIVING THE HIGHEST RANKINGS BY ALL GROUPS LISTED FROM HIGHEST RANKING TO LOWEST RANKING WITH A RANGE OF +6 TO -6 . . THE MEAN RANKINGS OF THE SIXTH THROUGH TENTH RANKED STATEMENTS BY ALL GROUPS LISTED FROM HIGHEST RANKING TO LOWEST RANKING WITH A RANGE OF +6 TO -6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE MEAN RANKINGS OF THE FIVE STATEMENTS PER- CEIVED AS.LEAST APPROPRIATE BY ALL GROUPS LISTED FROM THE LOWEST RANKING TO THE HIGH- EST RANKING WITH A RANGE OF +6 TO -6. . . . THE MEAN RANKINGS OF THE FIVE STATEMENTS PER- CEIVED AS NEXT LEAST APPROPRIATE BY ALL GROUPS LISTED FROM THE LOWEST RANKING TO THE HIGHEST RANKING WITH A RANGE OF +6 TO -6. O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O C THE TOP FIVE RANKED GOAL STATEMENTS BY EACH GROUP OF PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . . . . THE TOP FIVE RANKED GOAL STATEMENTS BY EACH GROUP OF PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . . . . HOYT'S ALPHA RELIABILITY COEFFICIENT FOR EACH CATEGORY OF GOAL STATEMENTS . . . . . . . . V PAGE 26 27 28 32 40 41 43 44 46 47 49 TABLE PAGE 13. THE MEAN RANKING BY GROUP WITHIN EACH CATEGORY OF GOAL STATEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 14. THE MEAN RANKINGS OF STATEMENTS 11-15 BY ALL GROUPS I O O C O C C C O C O O O C O O O O 9 5 15. THE MEAN RANKINGS OF STATEMENTS 16-20 BY ALL GROUPS 0 O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O 9 6 16. THE MEAN RANKINGS OF STATEMENTS 21-25 BY ALL GROUPS 0 O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O 9 7 17. THE MEAN RANKINGS OF STATEMENTS 26-30 BY ALL GROUPS 0 C O O C O O O C O O O O O I O O O 9 8 18. THE MEAN RANKINGS OF STATEMENTS 31-35 BY ALL GROUPS I O O O O O O O O O O C C O O O O O 99 19. THE MEAN RANKINGS OF STATEMENTS 36-40 BY ALL GROUPS 0 O O O C I O O C O O O O O O O O O 100 20. THE MEAN RANKINGS OF STATEMENTS 41-45 BY ALL GROUPS 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O C O O O C 101 21. THE MEAN RANKINGS OF STATEMENTS 46-50 BY ALL GROUPS 0 O O O O O O C O O C O C O C C O O 102 vi LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Flow Diagram of Research Methodology . . . . . . 16 2. The Frequency of Goal Statements in Each Class of Average Ranking . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3. The Mean Rankings on the Congruent Scale and Incongruent Scale Are Listed by Group. The Difference Between the Two Scales is Listed at the Top . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4. Overlapping of Environmental Education with Two of the Other Educational Movements . . . . . 73 5. A Model of This Study's Conclusions is Presented to Illustrate the Relationship Between the Six Component Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The year 1970 was a pinnacle year for the environ- mental movement. President Nixon's State of the Union Address emphasized environmental issues. The National Environmental Policy Act came into effect. On April 22, thousands marched, cheered, and smashed cars because people cared about the environmental future. Americans historically have reacted to social movements by creating educational programs. Environmental concern was no exception. The Environmental Education Act was passed by Congress in response to environmental concern. The purpose of the act was: to encourage and support the development of new and improved curricula to encourage understanding of policies, and support of activities designed to enhance environmental quality and maintain ecological balance; to demonstrate the rise of such curricula in model educational programs and to evaluate the effectiveness thereof; to provide support for the initiation and maintenance of programs in environ- mental education at the elementary and secondary levels; to disseminate curricular materials and other information for use in educational programs throughout the nation; to provide training programs for teachers, other educational personnel, public service personnel, and community, labor, and industrial and business leaders and employees, and government employees at state, federal, and local levels; to provide for the planning of outdoor 1 2 Ecological study centers; to provide for community education programs on preserving and enhancing environmental quality and maintaining ecological balance; and to provide for the preparation and distribution of materials by mass media in dealing with the environment and ecology (Public Law 91-516). One year later the administrative structure authorized in the act had not been forged, and only $1.7 million of the authorized $5 million had been granted. But the act had supplied federal support and a definition for environmental education. The definition supplied by the act was a major advancement in the emergence of environmental education as an education movement. Any educational movement has a history of theory development, hypothesis testing, and literary discussion attempting to relate the similarities of and differences between the developing movement and other spawning or related movements. During the late sixties and early seventies, environ- mental education was such a developing educational movement. Writers attempted to relate environmental education to or distinguish it from established fields such as ecology, conservation education, and outdoor education. Even a new term such as environmentalized education was to be found in current journals. Confusion over these terms was pervasive among educators and the public. Much of this confusion still exists today. 3 In a step toward understanding the relationship of environmental education to ecology, outdoor education, conservation education, environmentalized education and general education, a study using identified goals from each of these educational groups was designed. The primary purpose of the study was to determine if each of the participating groups would rank their own goals highest when mixed with the goals of the five other groups; secondarily, to determine which goals were most important to all the groups, and lastly to determine if other demographic variables might influence goal selection. Accomplishment of these purposes would hopefully provide some insight into the relationship of the subjects involved and stimulate further research into the goals of environmental education. Literature Review Environmental Education and Conservation Education Clay Schoenfield (1970) differentiated environ- mental education from conservation as indicated in Table 1. Other authors also have supported differences between environmental education and conservation education. The natural resources orientation suggested by Schoenfield was supported by Swan (1969) and Stapp et a1. (1975).. With the statement "Environmental education is not conservation education," Dr. George Lowe (1972) from the GOAuoosom amazoEcouw>cm can» omoou uouoouo auocwamwomwououCH mconauwo ounuouaa Saaoucuscouw>co mooscoum cocoa osam> EcoumuoHo on» Oofimuso DCOwuoczm cofiuoosom uooouso c0wucosom Hmucoecouw>cm ouowuomcnm moocofiuomxo mcwcuoon Capo? Anon on» can» ououocoo CCU uoouwo .soufia HOUR: mom: nocucu naoou mascunoH uomuuunu non: mfidumoua Hoocom one uuouoo newuflmoosfi oz loom HOCOMODOMoum co sawuwuomfiu muonooou an cofimuououm :ofiuoosoo Esasofluuso mowmcw Scum oomo~o>00 on» wowuuzo mamooa an oomoHo>oo ucoucoo Dauwoomm o: sues ocficuooH how mcwuumm Rename Downnsm mo acoucoo :o maumnmsm mo>wa DOOHDODOR nonuo one .uouo: .qum cues: mo huwaosv on» vea>oumEH ocfi>ou one mcw>oumEH .mcwuuououm :ofiumosom uooouso cofiumosom Houcoscoufi>cm uoHsz Hwom one memo oca>aoa EmanORQ Houses .xuumou0w no zoom amouDODOH Icouw>co can xuwaosv Hmucoe Emeon. onu nu“: vocuoocou Icoua>co now :uoocoo mo mooaufiuua cofiuoosom :oHuo>uumcoo coHumosom Houcoscoufl>cw cusm CODGOARO oocofiom Edaaowuuso on» Ocean czou Hanan can Housm >DMGDEEOO one cooks ucosumouu can unoEommcma .wmoHocnooa poucowuo CONMDAOIHnowuHHom coucowuo OORDODTm ooucowuo aoHnoum Godumfioonud acauoosom :oHuoonom COwuo>uomcoo :oHumosom anacoecoufl>cu sewuu>uOmcou ooucofluo :mmoumoumz nukoum no cacaowmusm moououmoa n.0usumz amoou m.cmz momma Hausa can some noun Hausa one ammo .cooua moou50mou Hosanna mo auwucoso mocoHuooxo cuss: on» no hufiauso oououaooiousuoz concuCOOIcoz cowumosom coHuo>uomcou :Owuoosom Hmucoecoua>cm oaowucoozom cont oouuaom m> oou‘ Rosana mmozfiat um omamHA m‘ mdfixfl QNBCAmm 924 ZOHBzu ZNNZBmm mmuzmmmthn ”tom A man‘s 5 United States Office of Environmental Education also supported the difference. A parental relationship between conservation edu- cation and environmental education is suggested by Rillo (1974) when he stated that, "Environmental education is a term that has recently emerged from a chrysalis known as conservation education and outdoor education." The definition of conservation education is, "The study of man's intelligent use of his natural environment through the development, management, preservation, and renewal of natural resources for his material, cultural, and aesthetic needs to benefit present, and future generations" (Conservation Education Association 1970). In opposition to Schoenfield's opinion, this CEA definition seemed man- centered, futuristic and quality-oriented. But this defini- tion could be the result of a convergence of conservation education and environmental education. Historically, similarities between conservation education and environmental education were evident. Three decades ago, conservation educators desired conservation to be multidisciplinary. "Every teacher in every grade, in every subject, has unlimited opportunities to teach conservation" (Fink 1942). The main objectives expressed by Ollie Fink (1942) were as follows: 1. Insight into the nature of the world, the interrelationship of man and other forms of life and the physical world: 2. Information, habits and attitudes conducive to health: 6 3. Growth through a variety of purposeful scientific experiences; 4. Emotionalized attitudes toward the natural environment and its interrelation- ships; 5. Ability to solve problems through an examination of evidences; 6. Willingness to act intelligently upon the basis of best evidence; 7. A sense of social responsibility. Even at this fairly early point in conservation education, as a discipline it seemed based on ecological ideas, public and individual health, experiential education, attitudes and values, problem solving, citizenship, and the future-n-all with a man-orientation. Many of the words now used to describe environmental education were found in "Conservation for Tomorrow's America", but the textual emphasis concentrated on renewable and non- renewable resources. Environmental Education, Outdoor Education, and Conservation Education As quoted earlier, Rillo (1974) implicated outdoor education in the development of environmental education. The Conservation Education Association agreed in the statement, "Understanding the natural world is a goal common to outdoor education, conservation education, and environmental education" (CEA 1970). Swan (1969) also supported the idea that outdoor education and environmental education have some common goals. The relationship between conservation education, outdoor education, and environmental education has been explained by the National Education Association in this way: 7 Environmental education has recently been undergoing new developments. To the familiar concepts of outdoor education and conservation education have been added new concerns with pollution and human ecology. Long established areas of study, such as nature study in the lower grades and sciences in the upper grades, social studies, history, and geography have been placed in a new light when viewed as different aspects of the complex interrelation of man and his environment. Quantitatively, the three educations - conservation, environmental and outdoor were found to be related by B. Ray Horn (1969). When he factor analyzed the response to the term "outdoor education" by the American Association of Health, Physical Education and Recreation's Council on Outdoor Education, three different response groups were identified: an environmental oriented group, a conservation oriented group, and an outdoor activities oriented group. Philosophically and quantitatively many authors have agreed that conservation education, environmental education, and outdoor education have historical relationship. The differences between environmental education and outdoor education as stated by Miller (1971) and Hungerford (1975) are summarized in Table 1. Environmental Education and Ecological Education The relationship between ecology, science, and environmental education has been brought to question also by Hungerford (1975) and Rillo (1974). Hungerford believed the differences between ecology and environmental education were related to values. Hungerford concluded 8 that ecology has been a science and therefore has not been value laden; however, environmental education has been naturally value laden. A differentiation from science was also mentioned by Rillo (1974): Environmental education should not be interpreted as being the same as environmental science. Environmental science can lay claim to a specific body of knowledge and concerns itself with the monitoring of environmental conditions and the application of scientific knowledge to the solution of those environmental problems. Environmental education is aimed at producing an environmentally literate citizenry. It is inter- disciplinary in approach and cuts across many departmental boundaries and disciplines. Dr. Arnstein (1971) addressed the same question from a different perspective: "There are those who think environmental education surely must have scientific content." After describing briefly the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS), he further explained this idea: "This is science education; it is part of environmental education, and it also contains welcome elements of reform of educational methods and techniques." Outdoor Education, Ecological Education and ConservaEIOn Education In Outdoor Education--Its Origin and Purpose, Kirk (1968) suggested that conservation was the major purpose and contributor of outdoor education. That idea was evident in his definition of outdoor education: Outdoor education is the method which utilizes the out-of—doors to cultivate a reverence for life through ecological exploration of the interdependence of living things, one on the other, and to form a land ethic illustrating man's temporary stewardship of the land (Kirk 1968). 9 Kirk's definition included the traditional outdoor education definition: "The method which utilizes the outdoors,” plus ecology: "ecological exploration of the interdependence of living things," and conservation education which has been defined as "the cultivation of a reverence for life and the formation of a land ethic." Environmentalized Education The site and the methodology of the educational process has been a strong current flowing through all the definitions discussed. More recently a different line of thinking called "Environmentalized Education" has emerged. The source of this term was the following quote by Noel McInnis (1972). "What we need, before we produce more education materials, is a new education strategy. We need to environmentalize education, to make education environmental in essence, rather than merely in content." According to Dr. McInnis' thinking, environmental education has been education which maximized the learner's interaction with "environments and facilitates the organisms' ability to function in that environment." The teaching strategy aspects of environmentalized education are illustrated by this statement: "Education is most environmental when you are learning with your environments as well as about what they consist of." In this statement the emphasis of McInnis has been that the individual must learn with the changing environment. 10 Therefore the procedure by which an individual learned or interacted with his environment as well as where that interaction occurred have been important in environ- mentalized education. Procedures which McInnis believed important were those, "dynamics common to other environmental processes;" to teach environmentally one teaches "with" knowledge and environments rather than "at" students about environments (McInnis 1972L In environmentalized education, environment seemed to have a more comprehensive definition. This environment included the person, his/her immediate surroundings, community, planet, and universe. Under- standing each person's place and the functional relationship from the immediate environment to ultimately the universe, but in particular the planet seemed to be the primary goal. When the world has been perceived as a gestalt, then people have been truly "environmentalized" and have been environmentally educated. Summary In summary, between environmental education and conservation, the primary difference was man versus resources. In environmental education, the quality of man's environment, both present and future with special emphasis on present problems had priority whereas in conservation education the biotic and physical resources used by man were of priority. Outdoor education is ll delineated from environmental education and conservation education by concentrating on the outdoors as a quality educational experience for the school learner. Differences or similarities between the other three component groups in this study have not been clearly identified in the literature. A review of pertinent literature advocated potential differences between the various educations, but the same literature suggested much similarity also. Could it be that stated philosophical differences never existed or could it be that real differences have existed and could have been measured? Assuming the differences can be measured, which of the many educational planning components might best measure the differences? Would goals,objectives, behavioral objectives, or needs best measure the differences? Goals, Objectives and Needs After much consideration, goals were selected as the dependent variable. The goal setting process is considered one of the most important aspects of educational development, and goals are considered one of the most important components of educational programs as illustrated in Education in Focus: A Collection of State Goals for Public Elementary and Secondary Education (Zimmerman 1972): Goals, when developed through the cooperation of educators and citizens first serve to communicate clearly the responsibilities and purposes of education. 12 These broad purposes, when further translated into performance objectives are the standards against which the present status of educational needs can be determined. Changes in program emphasis through reallocation of human, physical and financial resources in meeting these needs then can be systemically initiated in light of the specific purposes they are intended to serve. Finally, it is by reference to stated goals and objectives that progress and attainment can be most meaningfully reported to all groups and individuals concerned with education. As stated in the previous quote, goals have communicated the purpose or direction (Hutchinson et al. 1973) that an "education" is striving to reach. This general direction should be determined and developed by the participants who will be attempting to achieve the stated goals. Since these goals are the comparison criteria for the success of the program or process, and will determine how resources will be spent to accomplish the stated purposes. When numerous goals have been identified, a priority sequence becomes expedient if the "desired" outcomes are going to be achieved. Blackwell (1973) described the priority sequence as goal structure when she said, "A goal structure is the entire set of goals, which are ordered according to priorities, and which have particular needs, seem as essential for their outcomes assigned to them." In the initial quote, objectives and needs were mentioned. These two words should be differentiated from goals. Usually, an objective has had a more specific contribution to the accomplishment of the longer range goals. 13 An objective definition has been designed by the Mississippi Department of Education (Hutchinson et al. 1973) as including six variables determined by the following questions: . Of whom is the behavior expected? 2. What behavior is desired and/or is expected to occur? 3. To what instructional variable will the behavior be related? 4. "How will the behavior be specifically measured? 5. What is the expected proficiency level? 6. What is the time needed to bring about the expected behavior? Answering these questions could provide a precise description of the desired behavior. Objectives, though different from goals, are related because it has been necessary for the more specific objectives to move the individual or institution toward goal accomplishment. Goals have also been confused with needs. "Needs of education refer to a perceived lack or deficit in education or something that, if withdrawn from the educational system would lead to a perceived lack or deficit" (Blackwell 1973). Or needs have been used to isolate difficulties in the goal structure or the objective structure. Also, goals may have been written to meet a perceived need. The long term perspective of goals rather than the immediacy of objectives or the void of needs should quantitatively show differences between the six educational components of this study, if a difference exists. 14 Since goal development is an internal process by the associated members, goals should be a suitable measure for the beliefs regarding the purpose, direction or intent of the group in which they participate. CHAPTER II METHODS Development of the Test Instrument Figure l is a diagrammatic summary of the methods that were used in the completion of this research study of goals. The test instrument that was used in this goal study was created by reviewing literature to obtain representative goal statements. Thirty statements for each six subject areas: conservation education, ecological education, environmental education, environmentalized education, outdoor education, and generaleducation were selected, modified slightly to maintain parallel sentence structure, and typed on 3 x 5 cards for convenient handling. To establish content validity, ten specialists in each of the six categories were asked to rank order the thirty goal statements from most important, ranked number 1, to least important, ranked number 30. Participants in the rank ordering process were selected on the basis of their participation in professional organizations, professional occupation, or by recommendation of another person in their same specialty category. Each participant received a cover letter requesting his/her help, thirty goal statements on cards, and 15 16 Literature Review to Obtain Goal Statements 180 Goal Statements (30 statements in each of the six goal categories) Jurying of Goal Statements by Experts in Each of the Categories. Statements are rank ordered from 1-30 60 Item Instrument Formed from Top Ten Ranked Goal Statements in Each Category Sorting Directions and Dis- tribution Established Q Sorting of the Sixty Statements by Selected Experts in Each of the Six Categories Ranking of Each Statement by the Respondents into a Quasi-normal Distribution Each Respondent's Mean Mean Ranking of Each Goal Ranking of the Ten Goals Statement by Group in Each Category Calculate Hoyt's Top Five Ranked Goals Reliability for by Each Group Each Goal Cate- 9°rY One-way ANOVA on the Demographic Group Responses to: Sc. E.--Scheffe's Test G. E. --Scheffe's Test 0. E. --Scheffe's Test C. E. --Scheffe's Test Ez. E.--Scheffe's Test L Ev. E.--Scheffe's Test ‘\ Progressively Delete Goal Sample Divided into Statements to Maximize ———9 New Groups Based on Reliability in Each Demographics Goal Category Multivariant ANOVA on the Goal Categories Based on the Most Reliable Items One-way ANOVA between Cate- /gories of Coal Statements-- ! Congruency Test Scheffe 8 Test ~“‘-‘~““T; One-way ANOVA of the “Diff“ Sca e--Scheffe's Test One-way ANOVA on the Group Responses in the O O I I Ecological Education Category--Scheffe's Test General Education Category --Scheffe's Test Outdoor Education Category --Scheffe's Test Conservation Education Category --8cheffe‘s Test Environmentalized Education I Category --Scheffe's Test Environmental Education Category --Scheffe's Test Figure 1. Flow Diagram of Research Methodology l7 instructions to facilitate the rank order procedure (see Appendices A and C for a listing of statements, cover letter and instructions). The rankings from all participants in each of the six categories were summed. Those 10 statements that received the highest ranking (lowest total score for each of the six subject areas) were considered the most important goals in the six subject areas and were combined to form the testing instrument used. Process of Data Collection To determine if the experts representing the six subject areas would differentiate their goals from ‘the goals in the other five fields, a Q sort was used because it was more efficient in handling larger numbers of items and tended to emphasize the tOp and bottom ranked items while deemphasizing the more neutral items. Generally, the participants involved in a Q sort rank order piles of statements or objects along a continuum according to set instructions. The number of cards in each pile is arranged to form a normal or quasi-normal distribution for statistical convenience. From this arrangement, several dependent variables may be obtained including average scores for each statement, intercorrelation of statements, or intercorrelation of subjects. These data can then be analyzed using analysis of variance or factor analysis to determine the relationships between each person 18 or groups of people and their distribution of the items (Kerlinger 1964, Stephenson 1953). In this Q sort procedure, the participants were asked to place the card numbers of the sixty goal statements into a quasi-normal distribution ranging from a +6 to a -6. Two goal numbers were placed in the +6 and -6 ranks,three goals in the +5 and -5 ranks, four goals in the +4 and -4 ranks, five goals in the +3 and -3 ranks,and then six goals in each of the seven remaining ranks (See diagram in Appendix C). To assist in completing the diagram, the goals were first to be subdivided into three piles: a most appropriate goals' pile, a most in- appropriate goals' pile, and an undecided pile. Each of the three piles were then sorted on to the distribution diagram beginning with the most appropriate, then the most inappropriate pile, and lastly, the undecided pile. Before the undecided goals were recorded on the diagram, the participants were asked to circle or outline the un- decided goal squares. Participants were encouraged to change the placement of the goals until they were satisfied. The Sample For this Q sorting procedure, participants were selected on the basis of their participation in professional organizations, professional occupation, or by recommendation of another person in the same category. A list of representatives was solicited from a recognized leader in l9 outdoor education and a recognized leader in environ- mentalized education for use in both test construction and data collection. Some participant overlap occurred between test construction and the actual data collection in the four other areas also. All participants in ecological education and general education were faculty members of Michigan State University. All others were from a variety of geographical locations. Since the general education group was to serve as control, particular care was taken to balance the group with people from the natural sciences, social sciences, arts and letters, and education. A minimum of ten people per group was set. The participants were contacted by telephone or by an office call. Each person was informed of the purpose, the procedure, the time required and if appropriate, who recommended their participation. If an affirmative answer was received, the test package which contained a cover letter, the sixty goal statements, instruction sheet, demographic data sheet, distribution diagram and post-paid return envelope was sent to each participant. If the material had not been returned by the deadline, a follow-up package was mailed which included a self-addressed envelope and a request for a response. If no response was received, another follow-up call was placed to the individual. Contacts were made until the minimum of ten people per group was met. A total of 65 people ultimately responded. 20 Experimental Design The goal statement instrument had ten items in each of the six categories: conservation education, ecological education, environmental education, environ- mentalized education, outdoor education and general education for a total of sixty items. To sort the goals, representatives from each of the same six categories were selected. (Hereafter referred to as ecological educators, conservation educators, etc.) The instrument and sample design resulted in a two-way (factorial) structured Q sort (Kerlinger 1964), a design well suited to the use of analysis of variance. Analysis After accumulating 65 responses, the Office of Research Consultation at Michigan State University assisted in developing the analytical procedure, the data preparation, and the computer programming. The analysis consisted of reliability testing of the instrument, multivariant analysis of variance using repeated measures and univariant analysis of variance across groups and across measures. All analyses of variance tests were followed by Scheffe's Post Hoc Comparisons. Analytical procedures were completed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (Nie et a1. 1975) and the Finn Program (Finn 1967). 21 To determine if differences might exist between individuals, other than along group lines, a demographic questionnaire gathered information on sex, age, degrees, majors, minors, school of highest degree, present occupation, political orientation, hobby and recreational interests, and affiliations. If teaching as an occupation was specified, additional questions on subjects now teaching, years teaching, levels of educational experience, and other subjects taught were asked. If categories were not specified on the questionnaire, response categories were created a posteri for analysis. To determine if demographic variables influenced goal orientation, the 65 respondents were reclassified into new groups based on their response to the demographic questionnaire. The new groups within each of the fourteen demographic variables were then compared on their mean responses to each of the six categories of goal statements. The means were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance followed by Scheffe's Test for the Homogeniety of Variance when significant differences between means were found. Each of the ten goal statements in the six categories were first tested for reliability to determine which statements were contributing to the underlying constructs of each successive scale. The purpose of the reliability procedure was to remove those test items that were responded to randomly. If the items were being 22 sorted randomly, then those items were not consistent with the philosophical basis for that scale and would not serve as good indicators of differences in group responses. Reliabilities for each of the six scales were estimated using Hoyt's Test. Items were progres- sively deleted in successive computer runs to maximize the reliability in each of the six scales. The reliable item scores in each category were then averaged within that category (i.e., the item responses were added and then divided by the number of items in each scale). Each individual or subject then had six scores which were the mean of the responses to the reliable items in the six categories. Two additional scales were created to assist in later analysis. The first scale, the congruent scale, was the same score that.the respondee made in the category which corresponded to his group (e.g., conser- vation educators-~conservation education scale, general educators--general education scale, etc.). The second, incongruent scale, was then created by averaging the scores on the remaining five scales which did not correspond to the group; e . g . , Conservation Educator Incongruent Score = Environmental Educ. Scale Score Environmentalized Educ. Scale Score 5 + 5 + 23 Ecological Educ. Scale Score + Outdoor Educ. Scale Score 5 5 + General Educ. Scale Score 5 After reliability testing, the data was orthonormalized to obtain good ANOVA assumptions. Then a multivariant analysis of variance was used because that procedure would be particularly sensitive to all the potential relationships or interactions within the design. An F-Ratio for Multivariant Test of Equality of Mean Vectors was used for testing significance. The multivariant analysis was followed by a method using the congruent and incongruent scales for comparing any one group with the remaining five groups. By subtracting the incongruent scale (the average from the remaining five categories) from the congruent scale, (the average score in the category which is the same as the group designation), a new variable entitled "Diff"was created. This new variable was then tested using a univariant one-way ANOVA to determine differences between the two scales and also to determine if the groups were significantly different on their "Diff" scores. Scheffe's Post Hoc Comparisons followed to determine the contributions to overall significance. All six groups were then compared on their mean ranking in each of the six categories. A univariant one—way ANOVA was computed across all groups in each of 24 the six categories. If significant differences between groups were found, the differences were explored using Scheffe's Post Hoc Pair-Wise Comparisons for the Test of Homogeniety. CHAPTER III RESULTS Sample Demographics In a study that is not based on a random sample such as this one, the population description becomes excep- tionally important. Random selection in a study provides a more universal application of the results. The non- random study requires that the reader must have adequate information about the population in order to make appli- cation of the results. This information has been provided in Tables 2, 3, and 4, and described in three sections entitled personal data, education, and occupation descrip- tion and teaching experience. Personal Data Ninety-two percent of the participants were males (Table 2). Two-thirds of the people interviewed were between the ages of 40 to 60 years. Conservation educators, members of an old and well-established field, had all respondents in the 50 and older age brackets. Politically, 49 percent of the participants were moderates, and 37 percent perceived themselves as liberals. The remaining were equally divided between very liberal and conservative. 25 TABLE 2 PERSONAL DATA Recreational Organizations Political Orientation Interests 5 Societies Age Sex 26 Other Indoor Non-athletic Artistic- Aesthetic Outdoor Non-athletic Athletic Honor Societies Environmental Organizations Conservation Societies Naturalist Societies Professional Education Societies Professional Societies None Conservative Moderate Liberal Very Liberal 61 and Up 51-60 41-50 31-40 20-30 Female Male Group 19 12 Conservation Educators 23 11 11 11 Ecological Educators 15 15 Environmental Educators 10 Environmentalized Educators 21 10 11 Outdoor Educators 12 10 General Educators 27 uuoumosom. 0 HH .H h N N v v m HH I I Hmuocoo I I I muouooavm H m N o N m m m m uooouso ououmooom N e v v N e m n v N m N oouHHousoasouH>cu mucusoaou H m H m H H m m N w m H HoucoacouH>su I I I I uuouoosou N m e H oH HH OH H HOOHmoHoom muoumosom o w v v H o h N m h m .I soHum>uoocoU rt dt t r n 1e r n 1e e s s osouo ads i_s s e 0 31¢ e o sac It r r . w.e Mue a an .1 rln .n .1 pin .a e o W W no it t nae .t t nae r t 1. Au a +.1 no a til 0 s a. .c an. c sac it a h .m N.a .w N“: c M M“ E E m B mHoosom oucsomuo mo ooumoo ooumoo possum :oHumoon HDOHnooumoou HmcHEuoa HmcHEuoB mooumon :H HOCHZ cH Mono: onamuaom m mqmda 28 muoumosom 3H5 "5.3 3:3 m I m m H I H. Hmumcmo . I. . . I I I muoumosom 2.... OHI a mo 8 R m H m a uooeuso . I. . . muouoosom 13 CHI o 8 HH 3 m H H H H H H HOONHHBGEOAHEH . I. . . I I muouoosom Awe m .I a my mm NH > H m H e HmucoEGOHH>cm . I. . . I I I .. muoumosom How m .I a my me VH HH H OH HMUHmOHoom . I. . . I .. I muoumosom .n. Ma mmm a ma u. a a a m 988 einaao h ao n h t h s Mheedi t h 0 t a c s ciYnt O ec O r a e ar aa 98 e t e f eenti e 9 s T o TPiSv 1h e i r x (e 19 l n P E D oi l 1 FOR no m C A mUZmHmmmxm OZHmU oHnooumOEo on» o momsomuou cmoE cooauon Duos m ucoonHcon m mouooHocH chHHuoosD I I I I I I unmade aHmsoH>oum nuoonaam I mo» mo» mom I no» 3WMHMMMMwnsm I MMM mmm I I I oosoHuooxu mo mHo>oH ooouo I I I I I I mCHnomoe ammo» no Honasz mo» I I I I I COHusosooo ucououm coHuomsooo mo» I I I mo» I :oHumsoouo mo Hoonom I I I I I no» MocH: I no» no» I I I Home: I mow mo» I now I ooumoo coHusosou I no» mow I I I moHuoHoom HosoHooomoum I I no» I I I ovmouousH soHuoouuom I no» I now I I coHumusoHuo HCOHuHHom I I I I I I out I I I I I I xom sumo Hoconuom 1.n r n n n 1.n a w ma m a o o o o o a o moHnsHum> OHnoouooeoo I1 021 ti oi ii Ci act r.1.c n.c act +.t i1t n a .1.1.a e_a t a a a a.a e c v.a c m c u c v c o c G u nut u u 0 u r u Ilu d E n d o d d e d o d E eE rE no sE cE m .1 n E v o n C E moHuooovmo Hooo mfizmzmaflam 4400 no mmHmowwado 024 mmademfl> UHEQ¢MUOSHD zmmzhmm mHmmZOHBCAmm mmB m NAQ¢H 33 Demographic Variables and Goal Selection In this aspect of the study, no relationship was found on four variables: sex, age, number of years teaching, and subject previously taught. Ten other variables had significant F Tests. In seven of the ten, Scheffe's Test was not powerful enough to determine where the significant differences between means existed. Personal Data Under the personal data, three significant F Tests resulted. Scheffe's Test did not show a difference in two of the three with the third being split. Under the politi- cal orientation variable, a significant F Test was obtained on the outdoor education goal statements and the environ- mentalized education goal statements, but the Scheffe's Test could not determine a difference. Those participants that perceived themselves as having a very liberal political orientation ranked the outdoor education goals highest, and the conservatives ranked those goal statements lowest. In the environmentalized education goal statements, the moderates ranked the highest and the liberals the lowest. Because the number of very liberal respondents was small (3), the confidence intervals were broad which inhibited Scheffe's Test from determining a difference. When examining goals in education, particularly outdoor education and environ- mentalized education, political orientation should be considered as having a potential influence. 34 Recreational interests had a significant effect on the environmental education category, but the Scheffe's Test could not determine where the differences were. However, athletic individuals ranked those goals highest, and that category of goals was ranked equally lowest by the outdoor non-athletic group and the artistic-aesthetic group. The ranking of the environmental education goal statements was also influenced by professional organizations, and Scheffe's Test did determine a difference. Those individuals that belonged to nature organizations ranked environmental education goal statements significantly lower than those that belonged to environmental organi- zations. Though Scheffe's Test did not detect where the differences were, the opposite occurred on the environmentalized education scale. Those belonging to environmental organizations ranked the goals lowest and nature organizations ranked the goals highest. Apparently recreational interests and organizations did influence goal selection in environmental education, and organi- zations influenced goal selection in environmentalized education. Education All four variables under education had significant effects on at least one of the categories of goal statements. However, where the differences existed could not be determined in the major and minor variables. 35 Differences could be determined in the degree and school of graduation variables. The respondents' degrees influenced goal ranking on the conservation education goals, the environmental education goals, and the environmentalized education goals. Respondents with a Doctor of Philosophy ranked conservation education goals higher than those with Bachelor's Degrees. Ph.D.‘s also ranked the environ- mentalized education goals highest. On the environmental education goals, those with Doctors of Education were significantly higher than those with Doctors of Philosophy Degrees. Additional education did influence goal selection in three categories of goal statements. Education majors ranked the environmental education goals highest, but that ranking was only slightly positive. English majors ranked that scale lowest. .English majors did rank the environmentalized education goal highest and the "other" group ranked those goals lowest. In minors, the "other" category ranked the ecological education goals highest. The social science minors ranked ecological education goals lowest. The conservation education goals and the general education goals were influenced by the location of the school from which they graduated. Though both groups ranked the conservation education goals negatively, the Midwesterners ranked the goals significantly lower than the Far Westerners. The Westerners were significantly 36 lower than both the Eastern and Midwestern graduates on the general education goals. Generally and as expected, the educational background did influence goal selection, but the effect was not as persuasive or as definite as hoped in the study. Occupation Under this division, three variables had a significant influence on goal orientation: present occupation, grade levels of experience, and subjects now teaching. Scheffe's Test could not determine a difference on the present occupation variable. Present occupation influenced the ranking of the general education goal statements. The "other" category ranked the general education goals highest and administrators ranked these goals lowest. Rankings of the environmental education goals and the environmentalized education goals were significantly affected by the grade levels of teaching experience. Respondents that had taught in grades K-16 ranked the environmental education goals on the average significantly higher that the college (13-16) only group, the 9-16 group, and the "other" group, but not different from the K-12 group. Therefore, interaction with students at a variety of grade levels modified responses to environmental education and environmentalized education goals. 37 Subjects now being taught had a significant effect on four of the six categories of goal statements. Ecological education goals were ranked significantly higher than all the other groups by those presently teaching courses with environment in the title. Those teaching humanities ranked the outdoor education goals significantly higher than all the other groups. Environmental education goals were ranked significantly higher by those now teaching outdoor education courses than by those now teaching biological science, social science, and environmental courses. Teachers of the biological sciences ranked the general education goals significantly higher than those teaching outdoor education classes. Most of the categories were affected by the groups based on the subjects now being taught, but the effects were inconsistent. In summary, 19 significant F Tests of a possible 70 were obtained. Sixty-three percent of the significant tests occurred in the environmental education category or the environmentalized education category. The remainder of the significant differences were inconsistently spread among other categories of goal statements. Q Sort Distribution The distribution of the average ranking on the sixty statements is presented in Figure 2. The distribution was generally normal with only a slight negative skewness. 38 .ucHxssm ommuo>¢ no mmMHU comm :H mucosousum Hooo uo mucosvoum oza .N ousmHm UZHMZ‘M NU‘KN>¢ o.m m.N o.N m.H o.H m. 0.0 m.l o.HI m.HI o.NI m.NI o.MI m.nl o.vI m.VI o.mI SJNEHHLVES 1‘09 80 ADNHDOEXJ 39 Two statements contributed to the skewness by being ranked very low by most participants as did the thirteen statements that averaged l to 1.5. Using an average score of 0.0 as a dividing line, thirty-three statements were ranked positively, and thirty-two statements were ranked negatively so that the testing instrument was balanced despite no overt attempt to maintain an equal number of statements on the positive and negative side. The Top and Bottom Ten Statements as Ranked by All Groups The top ten represented the items which were viewed as most appropriate by all groups (Tables 6 and 7). Six of the top ten goals were cognitive, three were affective, and one was a process goal. Four of the top five goals were man-oriented. The top ranked goals were a pot pourri of the six groups with three coming from the environmentalized education category, two from environmental education, two from conservation education, and one goal each from the general education, ecological education and outdoor education categories. The goal statements were not rated highest by the representatives of the category from which the goal state- ments came. Only the fourth, fifth and tenth ranked goals were judged highest by the group that statement represented. Less agreement between groups existed on the top five goals than on the second five goals. The range of .P will. b a, .i h 40 M coHuooaom HsonoHoou coHusosom coHum>uomcoo coHuoosom pouHHsuc0lcouH>cu coHuoosom coHusauomcou coHuoozom HmucoacouH>cm .suosu one numoocoo HsonoHooo no oovoHsocx oHasn osou o>on OB .DQOHGOIOH I.S&HGO mo ucoaooHo>ov use ucoaommsoa .oa: m.:ma Ham OHSHO COHuU>HOOCOO s ooHo>ou ca .uucoscouH>co no coHuauHoHa Ixo suns uonusu on: o>Huusuussoo on» one ouHH uo auHHssv on» ou ouanuusoo ca .oHuos HUOHsaso on» one ouHH uo sau0u uonuo .ssfl no mHsusoHuoHouuoucH one canvassed: ca .ucossouw>:o HsoHsano IoHn on» use .ousuHso .:48 no ucHunHocoo sauna» s uo uusm oHnm IusooocH cs uH no! nos» ocouauooc: ca museum :oHuoosom couHHoucoecouH>cm HmucoscouH>cm :oHus>uomcoo HsonoHoom macho an ucchom oousom we xuovouoo mIH aucofiousum OI 08 0+ ho muzdm mm? :8H3 02szHmumm mfiszmBHh mm? ho mUZsz¢m z02» ass: usons as . . I . . . . . :oHusosom m H o H o H a o o H h N m m ooNHHoucossouH>cm HHo3 as coHuossu massacouH>so so: susoH OB .ssuoosoo use sowsssoHusHou HausoscouHaso w. . . . . . coHusosom novsoun no uxousoo H o m H o N m H a H m N oouHHousolcouH>cm on» sH mucoscouHaso susHvoslH on» no msHvssusuovss onu osssuosH OF .soHoHosHuo HsoHuoHooo use w.H o.H o.H w.H m.o n.N m.H Hsnmwunwmwmsm sosHs> OHEosooo use :oozuon uoHHusou on» ouHsmoosu 09 .usolsouHass HsoHuanm one . . . . . . . :oHusosom .oHsocooo .HsHoos n H m N o N v N m o m N m o Hsuosoo ng CH mHsOCONHuHo OHansomsou uo IOCDUHuus ouHsvos ca mdsouo :oHuaosom :oHumosom :OHuoosom coHusosom :OHusosom coHusosom oousom OHIo ausoaousum HH< Hsuocoo ooNHHoueoscouH>cm HsucoscouH>cm sooouso coHus>uoocoo HOOHmOHoom no >uooouso macho ho OCchsm ml 08 m+ ho NUZ‘G 4 EBH3 UZHKZ¢¢ BmmZOH OB UZHKZ‘K BmHEUHm 20mm omBmHH mmDOmU Add fin mezmzwadem nuxzHm e no ousuosuue HeoHooHoom on» usone sueoH Oh .ouen ou suaoum . I . I . I . I . I . . I :oHueosom :oHueHDQOA o N N m N v o N o m m o m H HeucoscouH>cm e.oHuoa ecu sosvou ca .suHes: o» e>Husvsoo . I . I . I . I . I . I . I :oHueosom N N e H H N N N o m H m m n coHueaueecoo . esvsuHuue one sanea .soHu Iesu0usH s>Hu ca .ussl a.HI N.HI e.nu o.m- a.~- «.mI e.eu :oHueoaem IdoHo>oe HeoH-Naa uooouso eucloud ea .usel IsouH>se use anus . . . . I . I . I . I coHueosom 0:0 sen» uonueu m eI n mI m «I h m e v m m I o m oosHHeucoEcouH>sm oueuemoe ee eoaHos Iuso o>Houuoo ca mascuo COHueoDom coHueosom :OHueosom coHueoscm coHueosom COHueosom oousom omIce sucosoueum HH< Heuocoo oouHHeucoEcouH>cm HeucoEcouH>cm uoocuso :OHue>uoecoo HeoHooHoom Nu MO 0 oueu osouu an mstcem ml Cu. 6... ho @0243 4 IBM». UZszg BmmmOHm 5:... 9H. 0,—ng 9mg wan. 20mm 0&9.de mmDOmU Add Mm mfithmOmmmd Bmqu m4 ngHmummm mfizgfidfim th NE. ho mUZHKS 24M! mg m Manda 44 H.NI m.NI No.NI n.0I oN.HI em.HI M .eoue se :H ecan use .eHeEHce 0.7 m4- HHI EH- AS IT as :mwmeosem .353 .5 case ruHa vousHesuoe osooon OB .euosuo use .eanneu .eoxece eeoHauen .emouu . I . I . I . I . . I . I 33393 a H H v N n N N m o m H N H coHue>uoecoo .eHHess we so:- eHesH:e HHesi :uHs oocoHuooxo ocesueuHu you 09 .ve: so» . I . I . I . I . I . I . I coHueosom roux uo>oc m H H o N o m o H N v m N m oouHHeucoficouH>cm so» omooHsocx uo>oueHo 09 .3Oum Nos» . . I . I . I . I . I . I 53328 .6: e5 3.83 o NI H v H n m H N o H N m o coHue>uoecoo CHHs :H aeououcH ooHo>ov ca .eeeoaoo e on: use one! veou O» 30: ucHsueoH coH eo NH- E? E? oHI To- H.NI TH- saweuwwm e5 33033 use .ooceueuv .eoue no euooocoo on» useueuoocs oa mdsouo coHueooom coHueosom coHueosom coHueoscm coHueosom coHueosom oousom HmImm mucosoueum HH< Heuocoo oouHHeucoscouH>cm HeucoacouH>cm uooouoo COHue>uoecoo HeonoHoom wo Nuomoueu osouu Na mcchem w! 08 w+ m0 moz¢m 4 mBH3 UZszHmUmwm m92m2m9<9m w>Hh m:9.EUmUszzco HeoHONco .moueHsEsooe oocooH>o me .NuHHHo one .oHeocooo .HeHUOe coHueosom ooceco ou uooflozm .o>Hu coHueosom IHmcoomou HesoH>HocH oce coHueosom eH: CH oHcocouHuHo HmoHooHoom Ieucou mH ooooH3ocx oHuHu uooouso moHnmcoHueHou HeHUOO mo Houocoo oHoHecooeou uo m.N IcoHom uezu oceumuooc: 09 N.N ucoeooHo>oo on» ouoeouo 0B e.N moosuHuue oquooe 09 .oHu03 HeoHeNno coHueosom .mo>Hue:uouHe wo mHmNHece on» one ouHH uo Heucoe ooHHeuoo e uouue oocooH>o coHueoDom .ucoucoo :H NHouoE coHueusom mau0u uonuo 0» sea IcouH>cm oHneHHe>e umon ocu co oouHHeucoecouH>cm uoc oce oocommo CH Heucoe coHue>uoecou no oHnecoHueHouuoucH N.m Umnmfl MCOHMHUOU OxcE OB m.N ICOHM>CO COMUOUDOO OXQE 09 v.N Ocu UnduuNOCCD OB .ecuoocoo oce edHnecoHueHou HeucoecouH>co uooeoun mo axoucoo on» :H coHueozom .muocuo mo muanu coHueosom COHueusom eucoficouH>co oueHooEEH Heuocoo ocu u0u uooomou oce uo uooouso .moocoHuooxo uoouHo .Heou ooNHHeucoecouH>cm osu no mcHoceue v.m :oHumHoouooo cm QoHo>oo OB m.N cmoougu @chueoH noHuco 08 w.N Iuoocs on» oneouocH OB .ucoa IcouH>co HeoHeNzooHn onu one .ousuHao .oHu03 HeonNCQ .cea mo ucHueHecoo coHueosom .wHomEHs mo coHueosom on» one owHH mo mEuOu :oHueosom Eouexe e uo uueo Houocoo ocHoceumuoocz ce ouHsooe ou coHue>uomcou uonuo .ceE no oHnmcoHueHou HeucoECOuH>cm oHneueooecH :e eH sea o.m HeDoH>HocH >uo>o umHmme OH o.m IuoucH on» oceumuooc: OB N.m uenu oceueuoocs OH .ucoficouH>co Heonxco .uucoecouu>co mo coHu IoHn on» one .ousquo IeuHodeo cenu uozueu coHueosom .HesoH>HocH on» we coHueosom .ceE no wcHumHmcoo Eoumxm :oHueosom om: o>Huo=uuucoo on» Heuocoo NuHcmHo oco nuuoz on» HeucoecouH>cm e no uueo oHoeueoomcH ce ooNHHeucoEcouH>cm oce owHH uo NuHHeso e.v ocouxo oco o>uomouo OB m.m mH :eE pen» oceumuoocs 09 N.m on» 0» ousoHuucoo oe oousom mucoEoueum oousom mucosoueum oousom mucoEoueum e coo: uOueoaom e coo: uOueosom a Geo: u0ueozom .occhem Heuocou .occhem oouHHeucoEcouH>cm .mcchem HeucoecouH>cm mfiz¢mHUH9mHm m0? mmfi 0H mdmfla 47 m.m u m em.m u m mo.v n M .unosnouHano noHueoaom .moouDOmou m.nuueo uo unoE euH no euouoeu HeoHooH noHue> IooHo>oo one unoEooeneE noHueooom .euoeu one noHueonom IoHn one HeoHoano.onu Iuomnou .oms w.neE qu oHnuo HeonoHoom muooonoo HeonoHooo mo HeuHmoHoom ow moHoooo m no dune H.m noHue>uomnoo e ooHo>oo 09 m.N ooooHsonx oHoen oEOm o>en 09 w.n InoHueHou onu Nonue.oa .eunoEnOuH>no wo .mo ueHenoo noHueosom .oEHu ousmHoH mo own noHueosou noHueuHoHoxo nenu uonueu on: noHueosom Nona uens uaone we uooouno o>Hueouu one o>Huonuuenoo ooNHHeunoEnouH>nm o>Huosuunnoo one one ouHH mo ooNHHeunosnouH>nm HHo3 me noHuonnu eunofl HH 9: AOL ".3me .1233 On. SH .3226 on» 3 33328 2. SH 15.32:. so: 583 2. .oHuos .oHu03 HeOHeNno HeoHeNno on» one ouHH noHueosom .NuoHue> noHueosom on» one .ouHH no usuou noHueosom mo usu0u uonuo .neE uooouno one Nuseoo muH nH ounuen noHue>uoenoo uonuo .neE mo QHnonoHueHou noHue>uounou mo oHnenoHueHouuounH v.m uo oHu03 on» Nonno ca m.m IuounH on» oneueuoons oa a.n one oneueuoonn 09 .noHuoouHo n30 .oHu03 HeoHeNno mHn ue NHmnoanunoo nueoH IoHn on» one .ounano noHueonom ou one nOHuesuHm Nne noHueonom .nee mo onHueHonoo sounae noHueosom .EouoNeooo Heuonoo nH manueoH uOu Nuemmooon HeunofinouH>nm e No uueo oHneueoomnH ne HeoHooHoom ne mo ouzuen m.m mHHme on» mmoemoo oe m.v mH nee uenu oneuouoons ca e.e one oneueuoonn as nuHueosom .moonoHuooxo nOHueonom .moousomou o.nuueo mo unoe noHueosom .euoeu one eudoonoo uooouso uoouHo .Heou nonounu noHue>uomnou Iomenefi .oms n.neE u0u oHnuo HeoHooHoom HeonoHooo uo omooHsonx v.v oanueoH noHuno OB m.e noHue>uomnoo e ooHo>oo ca N.e onen oEoe o>en 09 oounom munoEoueum oousom nunoEoueum oousom eunoaoueum a new: uOueosom a new: uoueosom a neo: u0ueonom .oonnem uooouno .oonnem noHue>uomnou .monnem . HeoHooHoom m92Hh m0? mmfi HH mHm¢B 48 the fifth outdoor educators' goal. None of the top five general education goals overlapped any of the other five groups. Thirteen of the thirty goals (43%) were cognitive goals mostly using the verb to understand. Nine (30%) of the goals were affective promoting the develOpment of attitudes or values. Two goals (7%) in outdoor education were psychomotor oriented. Five goals (17%) dealt with the educational process. Cognitive goals were predominant among ecological educators. At least three cognitive goals were in the top five among environmental educators and conservation educators. The top three goals rated by general educators were affective. Affective goals were also top-rated by environmental educators and conservation educators. Category Reliability To determine the predictability or consistency of the categories of goal statements, a reliability analysis was completed as listed in Table 12. The general education category was the most reliable or consistent, followed by ecological education. Both reliabilities plateaued with nine goal statements remaining. Goal statements from the conservation education category were the third most reliable, and that category also plateaued at nine statements. Little or no change occurred when deleting goal statements from the outdoor education 49 mm. mm. am. as. ea. coHumosem Hmumnme mm. me. be. mm. mm. coHumoaem uooeuso om. mm. we. we. we. nowueosom ooNHHeunoEnouH>nm Hm. em. om. He. He. aoHueosem HaDaGEAOAH>cm SN. om. SN. mN. NN. :oHDmosem HMOHmoHoom Ne. HN. me. MN. me. cOHDmonem couumsummaoo o H N m e muomoueo oouoHoa munofioueum mo uonfisz mfizmzmaflfim HflOU ho Mmowmfidu ZU o 8 o E o e 0 Hz! 0:! H5 :1 9 US 0 E o o a a o o n E o m m u m o m n -H E 8 > o E I. -H E GROUP 'k Indicates significance with 95% confidence. a,b Indicates that the differences having the same superscript are homogeneous. + Indicates that the grand mean was signifi- cant with 95% confidence. Figure 3. The Mean Rankings on the Congruent Scale and Incongruent Scale are Listed by Group. The Difference Between the Two Scales is Listed at the Top. 53 environmentalized educators. But no rating of goal differences has been established between conservation educators, environmental educators, environmentalized educators, or outdoor educators. Group Ranking Within Each Category of Goal Statements Finally, to complete the understanding of how the groups responded to each of the six categories, the mean group response within each of the six categories was examined, and the data summarized in Table 13. Significant F Tests with 95 percent confidence intervals were obtained in five of the six goal statement categories. No significant differences between groups were found in the environmental education category. Within the five categories, Scheffe's Post Hoc Simple Contrasts for Homogeniety (Hayes 1963) were again calculated to determine which differences contributed to the significant F Tests. Ecological education goals and outdoor education goals were ranked significantly higher by their corresponding group than all the other five groups. Within the general education category, general educators did rank their statements highest, but not significantly higher than the environmentalized educators. Environmentalized education goals were ranked highest by environmentalized educators educators, but the mean ranking was negative and not significantly different from three other groups. 554 .mummuucoo m.wwmwnom mcwms moowcmmoson who umwuomummsm 080m 0:» mcw>ms mace: u.n.u o4- memo £06 .36. guano- and- nude Houcwmmwmwwmm a..- 17 «To- «04 nag naméu .36.. £9? uuwwumwmw can a Yo Amman $6.. sic. «man and; coufluuawmmwmwmmw TN- 2.? «m4 «m4- and- am.~ «m4- Hmwwwwnmuwm man one- no.7 «c4: 9%.? 35 um.” numwmwuww Edm cowumosom coHumosom COwumosom newumusom coaumosom :ofiumocom macho Hmucmecoufi>cm cowum>ummcou uooouso omnwamucmficoua>cm HmowooHoom Hmumcwu macaw an mcwxcmm mBszMBdfim A can aussun HA To o4 To in H4 To: :mwwmwmmu 3a 5 332. no OHuO3 on» aohco OB .aowaom asusuacoun>co HowOOn oocusflucw cOaunosOm N4 N; H; «4 RH m.~ 9o 39.33328 :3 asucmscoum>cm aocu so: we cunts acoquQ oucuoucoo .OoauOucw oxsa OB .ao>wuscuouas «O awnaasco . . . . . u . . :Owususom codasuoo a sound m H m m m on m H h o m a o w Houcoacouw>cm occupa>o cannaas>s anon on» so vouch n:OwnwOOp oxna OB .uco&:ou«>co on» uO nucocom IEOO Duncan Ono .HOOweoso .Hsuaaxnm noduuosom . . u .o «A N; a; m.m . 65 o» cocoa-3 m H v o m Havamo~oom ea OO>HO>0 as: .nauwssmuo Macao Has oxwa .cua pus» oeouuuovcs OB :Oauoosom .Bouuuaooo . . I . . m.o mofl Gov . EC WC Ohflfiflc v a m o v o N H HsOHOOHOow on» ocouuuuocs OB masouo ceaumosom cOaunosom cOaumosom newumosom ceaumosom coHumusom mousom mauaa nu:u&0uoum HH< Hmuwcwu ownaamucwscoua>cm Houcoecouw>cm nooouso :Oaum>ummcoo HsOfiOOHoom > we so muuu dsouu xn mcaxcsm mmDOmO 4A4 an mAIHH mBZHZmfidfim m0 mUZsz¢m 24m: mmh VA wqmdfi 96 .oHnHuusonxocH :OHuwosom uo: ous OOOHDOmOu coHuu>uOmcou Housusc ass» O>OHHOO can sons 09 .uuocuo mo aucoHu cOHuoosom may uOu uooamou can kuocww no :OHusHouummu cu OOHO>OO OH .uususu u.caa mo oxen as» use sxsu :30 auH new coHuooscm nucOacOuH>co one HuOHmOHoom uauHcomuO an cashew uauunxn Hausuoc uo oozsuuomBH an» pssuuuovcs Oh .auHHHnHOOOduou HMOOH>HOQH can codususpu . . h.~ h.H m.o o.o m.H| . decucoHusHuu HOHOOO H H m N uooouso uO uCOEuOHO>OO on» OuOEOua OH .ocH>um on aHmuoa uoc can .0»: . . . 533:3 8333... new and. H.H m.o m.o H.o m H m m m H cOHuc>uomcou ucst ucmeHHoucH OH :OHus>uoncOO ass» Ocsuuumocs OB mageno cOHumosom :oHumosom coHusospm coHunooom coHunosom :OHuoosOm ouusom o~IOH nucoamuuum HH< Hmnwcwu OONHHOOCOECOHH>cm HouswscouH>cm noopuso coHum>uochU HsOHooHOOm » We no sumo msouu >3 mcchmm mmbomo Add rm ONIoH mezmxmficu coHusosou Hsuosuo cOHusOOOm cOHus>uoncou cOHuoosou Hsuocso .m:H>HH HOCOauom new socHHOOHsm 0:500 ouH>oua HHHz ans» nocHs> Huowcuo use HquE.HssuHuHma muHsvos OB .ucwucou :« >H0uoa uoc use oucouao :H HousoacouH>co nodusosoo oxafi 09 .nuaououcH :uHuHoa ouaHOOIIH occaon can o>ons nonoausd coaloo Ou ucOeuHsEOO a OOHO>OO Oh .aouuso-ou uaououm n.5uuso «O ouso can as: OOH) uOu amOHocnoou can oucmwua cH ousuHuo Inc. 0: OH cuss» .ocH>HH unsusu can unwound o>oudfla O» can» unsunuoocs OH .cOHuOOqu :30 aw: as stsoscHusoo cusoH Ou use :oHuusan xss :H mcwcuaoH now aussusuoc nHHHxa on» monsoon 09 mascuu HH< :oHusOSOm coHusosom Hmumcmu OONHHmucOEcOuH>cm coHusosom HmucmEcOuH>cm coHusosom Hooouso cOHuuosom cOHusosom cOHuu>uOncOU HsoHooHoom acouu xn ocHxsnm mousom uo auouwusu nuuH~ aucoaouuum mm90m0 Add mm mNIHN mezmzmstfim m0 mUZsz<¢ z<fi2 ma wand? NEH 9&3 o.HI :oHusospm HOOHOOHOON cOHusosom Hnumcwo cOHuoosOm HuoHooHOOM :OHuoosom HsucoscouH>cm cOHusosom Hsuwcvu .ouuo on muudumoumds acowusuHHsuocwm can ucoHosHocOO ouosHu>0 pas ousHsauOu Oh .uHmnaws no ocHOcaun nuoocs so Onwsvou Ou HssoH>HvsH >uo>w unHuus OH .uousHsasoos oocooH>o no «cause on uoonnsa O>Husucou OH suuoHsosx OHuHucoHou ass» ocouauOOcs OB .m:H>HH now asaHumO ous ass» mucus usOuH>co omu0>Ho no ucoadoHo> .00 nocuusu can oocscoucwus on» photo» xuoa OH .HosOH>Ho:H 0:» mo auHcmHO Ocs capo: 0:» ocuuxo can o>uououm OB mdsouo HHc coHumosom Hmumcmu COHHQUHHUW :OHuoospm OONHHoucmEcouH>cm Hsucoecoud>cm cowumospm uooouso coHusospm coHus>uOchU cOHuoosom HMOHOOHOON dsouo an mcchsm oousom mo huommuoo onno~ nanosouuum NH NAQGB mmbomo Add rm onloN mfizmzmfidfim ho mUZsz<¢ z<fiz mmfi 99 .mcH30H> 0:: .m:HuHu3 .ocHouou .uchouuHH N . o- N . N o a . H- m .o- o .9. To- :mwwmwmmu 6:338 9.8305 .:OHusoH:saEOO :H uHHHxa OOH0>OO OB .uOsHs> pounce . u . . . . n . n . u :OHuuosom N o a o H N a o o H o H H N HmucoecouH>cm no wo:squdEH on» ocsunuoocs 09 .u:OE:OuH>:O nuH no uuououu HuoHuOHoHn . . u . I . I . . cOHumosom 0:: HooHoxnd H o m N v o o m o m o w n HmOHmOHOOm on» on OOHOOQO n no aHzncoHusHuu 0:» son»: 09 .:OHuos HoHOOO o>Huouuuo . . . . . . . coHuuusvm H o m o N H n H a on m o v NI anon: ocHun Ou HoucoacouH>:m O>Howou cc: auHHHnd :ouHuHo mOHo>OO OH .nuonoauu 0:0 nHHdsd sussuon uuoaasu 0:0 mchcsun :Oauoosom lumps: Hugues uOu H.o m.on N.H m.o o.N N.H: m.Hn uqoouso anun a as 0>uou Ou nuunosou cc: uHHmsd x: :OEBOO :H pounce nouns nHuomxm OOH>OHQ OB mdsouu :OHumosOm :OHumosom :OHuuusom :oHusosom :OHusosOm :OHusosou mousom mnan nucoaousum HH< Hmumcmo OONHHsu:OE:OHH>:m HnucoscouH>:m uooouso :OHuo>uOm:OU HuOHmOHOON mo auowouau dsouu xn occhsm mmDOmU Ad< um mmlAm m92m2fl9<9m m0 WUZsz<¢ zC0 :oHususom v.ou v.HI m.on 5.0 N.H: 5.0: 5.0: . ou nocHHdHOnHo OONHHuu:OE:OuH>cm cc: uuouusa younnso ucHuono HHs aHdds OB .uMansg . . . . . . n . :OHusosom usHsuHuuu s :H v on a HI N HI w on m o a o w H :OHus>uOm:ou ousuo: uo oocsHon 0:» O>Houu0d OB .uchusoH uo vows»: >uo>o . :oHuuosou v.0: v.Hu m.o H.H m.ou m on «.0: How 0>Hu00da OONHHsu:OE:OuH>:m laud HsOHooHOOo :s O>Hu OH .noHdHu:Hud HOOHOOHOOO . . . n . . :oHususom N.ou a H: H on m o p o o o H :OHuo>uOmcou OWOMMMMHMMWMM osu >Hdds OB .oosuHuon OH: HO yuan a one usau nosHu> :Oausosom HscoHusquacH . u . o . u . m. o N.H: . O:O.Hs:OHuuouoou N o m o m o v o H Hooouso .HucoHusosvo .HcOHuOuuH: on» new OOHHQ mo mason s OOH0>OO OB mnguo :oHumosom :OHuuosom :OHumosom :OHuoosom :OHusosOm :oHuoosom oouoom ovuwm suaveuusum HH< Hmnwcmo OONHHmucoecouH>cm Huucme:OuH>:m uooouso :OHum>umm:OU HmoHooHoom a we no Ouuu dsouo >n mcchmm mmDOmU Add rm owlom wfizmtmfidfim ho MUZH&de 2dm2 mm? ad mAmdB 101 .ncoHusuHun:H 0:: neuuu>n Moo . I . I . . I . I . .. . I 53893 .35 36333.8 a o m H H o m o m H H o m H HoucwecouH>cm 0:: mosHm> use :H omcono OHqusu0 u wanna ca .605» cu uuwuuu:H :64: . . . . :OHusos0m . . m.oI m.o N.o 0 HI o o n NI m NI uO on HHH3 :OH:3 0ONHHoucoscouH>cm OOHuH>HuOs :H uu:u0:uo umuuco OB .hHucu0:0du0:H . . . . . I . I . I 838:8 fie: 8 323.. a OI n N H HI m oI m H a N m H Hsuvcwo a.Has0H>H0:H >uo>u doHo>o0 Oh .nuuosuOON: uOu «us0 :OHumos0m m6- TH THI N.H- MN- H.H- MN. . mo :0 356383.. HuoH Hoom on» 0couuuo0cs ca .oaHu ouanOH no on: . . . . . . I :oHusos0m O>Hus0uo 0:: o>Hu m.OI h o m HI o NI H m n HI H N noo0uso Iusuuucoo 0:» saw uHHHxn OOHO>00 OH mdsouo :OHumos0m :OHumos0m :OHuaos0m :OHumos0u :OHusOs0m :OHumOsom mousow vaHv nucufiououm HH¢ Hmumcmo OONHHOO:OE:OHH>:N ch:OE:OHH>:m Hoo0uso :OHum>uom:OO HOOHooHoom > we no Oumo dsouu zn mcchsm whoomo Add Mm mele mBZNEMHdBm ho mUZHXZdM ZdNI NIB ON mAmdB 102 .w:H:uu:HH dsouo x: mcHx::m v.NI m.mI H.0I :OHu:us0m 0:: m:H0:ou H:H::OU :msounu n:00H 0:0:oudaoo oa .om:::o H:OH0:u ud::u0d m.OI v.HI N.HI :OHu:O=0m 0:: 0>Huosuuu HoucoE:OuH>:m Icou uOu auHunoOO: any we auH::EBOo on» oo:H>:OO ca .uoHuaHuouO:u::O 0Hn:>uo: . I . I . :oHu:O:0m v N m H H o HmuHmoHoom Ibo «0 «shop :H .nmcqu. :u:Hu:ououuH0 ca .:oHu:o>uou:H uHs0: usozuHD H.o N.HI m.NI :OHu:Os0m u:oa:OuH>:: 0ONHH:u:Oa:OHH>:u uHunu muOdeO O» :u:o0=uu ou:u:oo:o OH .uNHuOHOOO 0:» HO «HO: Oz» 0:: . . . :OHu:O= v NI v HI v N H:OHoonmw amOHooo no 00:0HO: ozu no :OHuH: IHu00 : o>Hu OB :OHu:O:0m :OHu:o:0w :OHumosom wousom omIov :u:maou:um 0O~HH:u:OE:OuH>:m H:O:OE:OHH>:m uOO0uso :OHu:>uOm:oo H:OHoOHoom mo xuomouuu AN mAmdB mmaomu Add rm omlwv mhzmtmedkm m0 mOZHXde ZdNZ NSF APPENDIX C COVER LETTER, PROCEDURE FOR COMPLETING THE Q SORT, DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM, AND PERSONAL DATA SHEET 103 Dear I appreciate your willingness to assist me in completing my research. My purpose is to establish the relationship Of to the ubiquitous field of environmental education. From the information you give me by arranging the enclosed cards according to the directions, I will attempt to determine the uniqueness and/or overlaps within the subject matter areas surveyed. Enclosed you will find a packet Of sixty cards, an instruc- tion sheet, and a distribution diagram. The instruction sheet will assist you in arranging the cards tO complete the distribu- tion diagram as here illustrated. Most Most Appropriate Undecided Inappropriate .113. Im- -2-3- :5.- rfutffil3 4 j 11 2 20 l 1:2618 3 [B 17 9 21 8 2 7 “23 162415 2514' 304931503 51 33 52 3453 35 Statement’l’ Wm 36 54 3 55 38 56 39 57 40 fig; 59 45 so :2. Statement numbers from Pile 2 When the diagram is completed, the distribution should re- present your judgment as tO the appropriateness or inappropriateness Of the goal statements to your area Of specialization. I hope you will find this procedure both interesting and challenging. Your completion Of this task by will greatly assist me. Once again, I thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to write or call me collect. Sincerely, David I. Johnson 104 Procedure for Completing the Q Sort Step 1) General Categorization of Goal Statements. a. Read through the 60 goal statements and sort them into three piles: b. Pile 1 - Those goals which are most appropriate to your subject area. c. Pile 2 - Those goals which you are undecided about in relation to your subject area. d. Pile 3 - Those goals which are most inappropriate tO your subject area. Place these piles in front Of you in the following order: Pile l Pile 2 Most Appropriate Goals Undecided Most Inappropriate *Use the distribution diagram on page two tO complete Steps 2, 3, and 4. Step 2) Selecting the Most Appropriate Goals for your subject area. a. Choose the two goal statements you feel are most appropriate to your subject area and with pencil write their numbers in the diagram under the +6 Most Appropriate column. b. Now choose 3 more goal statements that are the next most appropriate goals to your subject and write their numbers beneath the +5 column. c. Continue filling in the diagram with most appropriate goal statements until you exhaust Pile l. Step 3) Selecting the Most Inappropriate goal statements for your subject area. a. From Pile 3, choose 2 goals that are the most inappropriate to your subject area and write their numbers under -6 in the Most Inappropriate column. 105 b. Write the numbers of 3 goal statements in the -5 column that are not quite as inappropriate as those in the -6 column. c. Continue filling in the distribution diagram with goal numbers until you exhaust Pile 3. Step 4) Selecting goals from the Undecided pile. a. Draw a box around the remaining empty spaces. b. Lastly, record the remaining goal state- ment numbers in the remaining empty spaces so that when the diagram is completed, all the goal statements are ranked from most appropriate to the most inapprOpriate. ** Remember that you can change the order and placement Of these goals whenever you wish until you are satisfied with the results. When you are done you should have numbers in all the boxes Of the distribution diagram representing a range Of goals from most apprOpriate to least appropriate. 106 Distribution Diagram (Please complete this diagram in pencil.) Most Appropriate Undecided Most Inappropriate +6 +5 +4 +3. +; +1 0 -1 4 -3 -4 -5 -6 107 PERSONAL DATA Please complete the following information about yourself: 1. Sex: Male Female 2. What is your age bracket? 20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61 and above 3. Please circle the degree(s) you have earned: B.A. B.S. M.A. M.S. Ed.D. Ph.D. 4. With what major and minors did you graduate? Major Minor(s) 5. From what school did you receive your highest degree? If you are in a teaching occupation, please answer questions 6-9. If you are not in a teaching occupation, procede with question 10. 6. What subject(s) are you now teaching? 7. How many years have you been teaching? 8. At what levels have you taught? 9. What other subjects have you taught? 10. DO you feel your political orientation is: Very Liberal Liberal Moderate Conservative Very Conservative 11. 12. 108 What hobby or recreational interests dO you participate in? TO what clubs, organizations or professional societies do you belong? BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Arnstein, George E. 1971. What is environmental education? Journal Of Environmental Education. 3(1):7-9. Blackwell, Peggy J. Parental Viewpoints Of Goals in Secondary Education: The Methodology Procedures. Humanic Designs Corp., Manhasset, New York, New Mexico University, Albuquerque, Institute for Social Research and Development, NOV. '73. 24 p. Paper for Rocky Mt. Educ. Res. Assoc.: ERIC Doc. ReprOd. Service, ED 088 933. Buell, Lawrence A. 1974. A Content Analysis Of Selected Literature tO Determine Core Concepts Defining the Term Environmental Education. Master's Thesis. The Pennsylvania State University. Clepper, Henry. 1966. Origins Of american conservation. The Ronald Press Company, New York. 193 p. Fink, Ollie E. 1942. Conservation for tomorrow's america. The Ohio Division Of Conservation and Natural Resources. Columbus, Ohio. 144 p. Finn, Jeremy D. 1967. Multivariance: fortran program for univariate and multivariate analysis Of variance and covariance. Buffalo, New York. Department Of Educational Psychology, State University Of New York at Buffalo. Fitzpatrick, Clinton N. Philosophy and Goals in Outdoor Education. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univ. Microfilms, 1968. 105 p.: ERIC Doc. ReprOd. Service, ED 039 084. Funderburk, Robert Steele, 1948. The history Of conservation education in the united states. Nashville, Tennessee: George Peabody College for Teachers. Hayes, William L. 1963. Statistics. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. New York. 719 p. Horn, B. Raymond. 1969. A factor analysis Of attitudes toward the term outdoor education. Journal Of Outdoor Education. 4(1):15-17. 109 110 Hungerford, Harold R. 1975. Myths Of environmental education. Journal Of Environmental Education. 7(2):21-26. Hutchinson, Jerry R. (and others). Goals for Public Elementary and Secondary Educ. in Miss. Jackson, Miss.: Miss. State Dept. Of Educ., 1973. 135 p.: ERIC Doc. Reprod. Service, ED 089 149. Kerlinger, Fred. 1964. Foundations Of behavioral research. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. New York. 739 p. Kirk, John J. Outdoor Educ.--Its Origin and Purpose. Address at Conf. Outdoor Educ. Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1968. 16 p.: ERIC Doc. Reprod. Service, ED 035 493. Kormondy, Edward J. 1969. Concepts Of ecology. Prentice Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 209 p. Krebs, Charles J. 1972. Ecology: the experimental analysis Of distribution and abundance. Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc. New York, New York. 694 p. Lowe, George. 1972. What is environmental education? In Michigan's Environmental Future, 1973. Lansing, Michigan. Governor's Environmental Education Task Force. 90 p. Mand, Charles L. 1967. Outdoor education. J. Lowell Pratt and Company, Publishers. New York. 180 p. McInnis, Noel. 1972. You are an environment: teaching environmental attitudes. Center for Curriculum Design. Evanston, Illinois. 95 p. McInnis, Noel. 1973. You are an environment. Journal Of Environmental Education. 4(4):25-30. Miller, Peggy L. 1971. Environmental education/outdoor education: the essential differences. ERIC/CRESS Newsletter. 6(4). 2 p. National Conf. Of the Conserv. Educ. Assoc. Defipition: Conserv. Educ., Environmental Educ., Outdoor Educ. Lafayette, La., 1970. 47p.: ERIC Doc. Reprod. Service, ED 048 992. Nie, Norman H., Hadlai C. Hull, Jean G. Jenkins, Karin Steinbrenner, and Dale H. Bent. 1975. Statistical package for the social sciences. Second edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. New York. 675 p. 111 Nowak, Paul F. 1971. Education in and about our environment. Journal Of Outdoor Education. Winter:6-7. Odum, Eugene P. 1959. Fundamentals Of ecology. W. B. Saunders Company. Philadelphia. 546 p. Oregon State Dept. Of Educ. Outdoor Educ. in Ore. Schools. Salem, Ore.: Ore. State Dept. Educ., 1968. 12 p.: ERIC Doc. Reprod. Service, ED 040 079. Orford, Gale B. A Study Of Outdoor Educ. and Its Objectives as a Basis for Determing Current Trends: A Res. Rep., 1973. 80 p.: ERIC Doc. Reprod. Service, ED 082 893. Pianka, Eric R. 1974. Evolutionary ecology. Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc. New York, New York. 356 p. Rillo, Thomas J. 1974. Basic guidelines for environmental education. Journal Of Environmental Education. 6(1):52-55. Russell, Jacqueline. A Resident Outdoor Educ. Program for Public Schools: Goals and Objectives. Branckville, N. J.: N. J. State School Of Conserv., 1967. 3 p.: ERIC Doc. Reprod. Service, ED 035 491. Schoenfield, Clay. 1970. Toward a national strategy for environmental education. Journal Of Educational Research. 64(1):5-11. Smith, Julian. 1970. Where we have been--what we are-- what we will become. Journal Of Outdoor Education. 1(1):3-7. Stephenson, William. 1953. The study Of behavior. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois. 375 p, Swan, James. 1969. The challenge Of environmental education. Phi Delta Dappan. 51(1):26-28. Swan, Malcolm. 1975. Forerunners Of environmental education. 13 N. McInnis and D. Albrecht (eds.). What Makes Education Environmental. Data Courier, Inc. and Environmental Education, Inc. (copubl.). Louisville, Kentucky, p. 4-20. U. S. Department Of the Interior, National Park Service, National Education Association. 1970. Environmental education in the public schools. A pilot study, special report. Washington, D. C. 69 p. 112 U. S. Ninety-First Congress. Public Law 91-516. Washington, D. C. Vogl, Robert L., and Sonia Vogl. Outdoor Education and Its Contributions to Environmental Quality: A Research Analysis. Las Cruces, New Mexico: New Mexico State University, 1974. 71 p.: ERIC/CRESS Doc. Reprod. Service, ED 91 095. Watt, Kenneth E. F. 1973. Principles Of environmental science. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York. 319 p. Whittaker, Robert H. 1970. Communities and ecosystems. The MacMillan Company, Collier-MacMillan Limited. London. 162 p. Zimmerman, Alan. 1972. Education in focus: a collection Of state goals for public elementary and secondary education. Cooperative Accountability Project. Denver, Colorado. 50 p. GENERAL REFERENCES GENERAL REFERENCES Allen, Shirley W., and Justin Wilkinson Leonard. 1966. Conserving natural resources. McGraw—Hill Book Company. New York, New York. 432 p. American Association Of SchOOl Administrators Commission on Imperatives in Education. 1966. Imperatives in education. Washington, D. C. 180 p. Bathurst, Effie G., and Wilhelmina Hill. 1957. Conservation experiences for children. U. S. Depart- ment Of Health, Education, and Welfare Office Of Education Bulletin NO. 16. Washington, D. C. 192 p. Bogan, Walter J. 1973. Environmental education redefined. Journal Of Environmental Education. 4(4):1-3. COOk, Robert S., and George T. O'Hearn (edsJ.. 1971. Processes for a quality environment. The University Of Wisconsin--Green Bay. Green Bay, Wisconsin. 166 p. Dasmann, Raymond F. 1968. Environmental conservation. Second ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. 375 p. Hendee, John C. 1972. Challenging the folklore Of environmental education. Journal Of Environmental Education. 3(3):l9-23. Maine Depart.of Education. 1966. Conservation education program for elementary schools of maine. Augusta, Maine. 11 p. McInnis, Noel and Don Albrecht (ed.). 1975. What makes education environmental? Environmental Education, Inc. Washington D. C., and Data Courier, Inc. Louisville, Ky. (copubl.). 470 p. National Science Teachers Association, Committee on Curriculum Studies: K-12. 1971. School science education for the 70's. The Science Teacher. 38(8). 6p. 113 114 Pennsylvania Department Of Public Instruction. 1964. Pennsylvania teaching guide tO natural resources conservation. Curriculum Services Series NO. 7. Harrisburg, Pa. 110 p. Rogers, Martin H. 1955. Principles and functions Of outdoor education. Ed.D. Thesis. Syracuse University. In Research in Outdoor Education. American Association f6: Health, Physical Education, and Recreation. Washington, D. C.: Diss. Abstr. 16:1416. Roth, Robert E. and Stanley L. Helgeson. 1972. A Review Of Research Related to Environmental Education. The Ohio State University. Columbus, Ohio. 56 p.: ERIC Doc. Reprod. Service, ED 068 359. Smith, Julian W., Reynold E. Carlson, Hugh B. Masters, and George W. Donaldson. 1972. Outdoor education. Second edition. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 335 p. Stapp. William B. 1970. Environmental encounters. Journal Of Environmental Education. 2(1):35-41. Weiner, Morris. 1965. DevelOping a rationale for outdoor education. Ed.D. Thesis. Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan 288 p. full-I. V I II, I14. . l ‘9... II .alIcIVI l..r 1| . .IIV..V I 101'... III‘I‘: let's’III'JIII. I I IO’II I. . III’III I...”tl.>:1 ‘ "IIIIIHIIIIIITII111W“