‘11. .61.

H.

‘.

«was

.32

m.
.fllli‘
z...

 

 

 

 

 

 

. If“ A “C”

t «$53.3; .
. nu

an

i. m

.f

3!».
Ii ..

y

lISlt.‘-IP,$\. v
1 ‘1 -11

n‘hUH

 

THeas

(\‘i M )

LIBRARIE

Imumnilii‘ﬁiiiﬂiImintuit

3 1293 01801 7057

LIBRARY
Mlchtgan State
University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

EFFICACY OF THE WORLD WIDE WEB IN
K—12 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

presented by

Kimberly Jane York

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Resource Development

 

 

degree in

 

 

M a jor professor

Dog/1M} M 2/

MSU is an Aﬂirmatiw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

PLACE IN REIURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

   

PAN
{v
cw"-
i -'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo mu

EFFICACY OF THE WORLD WIDE WEB IN
[(-12 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

By

Kimberly Jane York

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Resource Development

1998

ABSTRACT
EFFICACY OF THE WORLD WIDE WEB IN
K-12 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
By

Kimberly Jane York

Despite support by teachers, students, and the American public in general,
environmental education is not a priority in US. schools. Teachers face many barriers to
integrating environmental education into K-12 curricula. The focus of this research is
teachers’ lack of access to environmental education resources.

New educational reforms combined with emerging mass communication
technologies such as the Internet and World Wide Web present new opportunities for the
infusion of environmental content into the curriculum. New technologies can connect
teachers and students to a wealth of resources previously unavailable to them. However,
signiﬁcant barriers to using technologies exist that must be overcome to make this
promise a reality.

Web-based environmental education is a new field and research is urgently
needed. If teachers are to use the Web meaningfully in their classrooms, it is essential
that their attitudes and perceptions about using this new technology be brought to light.
Therefore, this exploratory research investigates teachers’ attitudes toward using the Web
to share environmental education resources.

Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to investigate this problem.

Two surveys were conducted—a self-administered mail survey and a Web-based online

survey—to elicit teachers perceptions and comments about environmental education and
the Web. Preliminary statistical procedures including frequencies, percentages and
correlational measures were performed to interpret the data. In-depth interviews and
participant-observation methods were used during an extended environmental education
curriculum development project with two practicing teachers to gain insights into the
process of creating curricula and placing it online.

Findings ﬁ'om the both the mail survey and the Web-based survey suggest that
teachers are interested in environmental education—97% of respondents for each survey
agreed that environmental education should be taught in K-12 schools. In addition, a
small percentage of respondents for each survey reported they are already using the Web
to ﬁnd curricular resources. Most importantly, more than 86% of those responding to the
Web-based survey indicated that they would visit and use an environmental education
Web site designed speciﬁcally for teachers. Findings also indicate that time is a major
constraint faced by teachers; Web sites must offer high-quality information and be easy
to navigate. Finally, teachers reported having greater access to the Web and Web-based
environmental information than they do to any kind of environmental education-related
curriculum guides. Such ﬁndings indicate that ﬁthher research and an investment of

resources in Web-based environmental education are warranted.

To the newest member of our family who inspired me to ﬁnish—or else.

And to Ocek, my family and friends who were always

great sources of encouragement and support. -

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my research committee for their unwavering support during
my years at Michigan State: Dr. Eckhart Dersch, Dr. Tom Edens, Dr. Cynthia Fridgen,
and Dr. Carrie Heeter. All of them, in one way or another, have provided me with
invaluable opportunities and experiences for which I am very grateful. In addition, I
would like to extend a special thanks to Dr. John Schweitzer who was not on my
committee but spent enough time with me to become an honorary member.

Finally, I would like to thank the many teachers who contributed their time and

effort to make this research possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
Background ......................................................................................................... 1
Current Trends in K-12 Education .................................................................. 4
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................... 7
Overview and Scope of the Study ....................................................................... 8
Research Questions ............................................................................................. 8
Phase 1: Investigating a Need for the Research ............................................. 8
Phase 2: Developing K-12 Environmental Education Curriculum ................ 9
Phase 3: K-12 Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Environmental Education and
Web ................................................................................................................. 9
Research Hypotheses ........................................................................................ IO
Guiding Assumptions ....................................................................................... 10
Summary ........................................................................................................... 12
Preview ............................................................................................................. 13
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 14
Environmental Education Literature ................................................................. 14
The Unique Role of Teachers ....................................................................... 14
Barriers to Enviromnental Education ............................................................ 15
Quality of Environmental Education Curricular Materials ........................... l7
Curriculum Development in Environmental Education ............................... I9
Curriculum Development and the Education Literature ............................... 22
Change Processes in Schools ........................................................................ 25
K-12 Educational Technology Literature ......................................................... 28
The Promise of Educational Technologies ................................................... 29
Barriers to Integrating Educational Technologies ........................................ 30
The Unique Role of the Teacher ................................................................... 32
History of Technology in Schools ................................................................ 32
The Web and Online Environmental Education ............................................... 35
The Web: A New Digital Medium ................................................................ 36
Using the Web in K-12 Schools .................................................................... 39
Computer-Aided Environmental Education ................................................. 41
Online Environmental Education .................................................................. 43
Summary ........................................................................................................... 45

vi

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 47

Overview ........................................................................................................... 47
Phase 1: The Self-Administered Mail Survey ................................................. 47
Purpose .......................................................................................................... 47
Research Questions Addressed ..................................................................... 48
Rationale ....................................................................................................... 48
Sampling Procedure ...................................................................................... 49
Data Collection Methods .............................................................................. 50
Phase 2: Two Descriptive Cases ...................................................................... 51
Purpose .......................................................................................................... 51
Research Questions Addressed ..................................................................... 52
Rationale for Qualitative Methods ................................................................ 52
Selection of Teachers .................................................................................... 53
Data Collection Methods .............................................................................. 54
Phase 3: The Web-Based Survey ..................................................................... 55
Purpose .......................................................................................................... 55
Research Questions Addressed ..................................................................... 55
Rationale ....................................................................................................... 56
Sampling Procedure ...................................................................................... 57
Data Collection Methods .............................................................................. 60
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ..................................................................... 64
Overview ........................................................................................................... 64
The Mail Survey ............................................................................................... 64
Response Rate ............................................................................................... 64
Presentation of Frequencies .................................................. . ....................... 66
Research Questions Answered ...................................................................... 75
Results from Two Descriptive Cases ................................................................ 77
Brief Description of the Teachers ................................................................. 78
Research Questions Answered ...................................................................... 90
Brief Description of Materials Developed for the Web ................................ 92
Web-Based Survey ............................................................................................ 93
Sampling Distribution ................................................................................... 93
Presentation of Frequencies .......................................................................... 94
Hypotheses Tested ...................................................................................... 111
Research Questions Answered .................................................................... 115
CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 118
The Mail Survey ............................................................................................. 1 18
Key Findings ............................................................................................... 118
Implications for Using the Web in Environmental Education .................... 120
Two Descriptive Cases ................................................................................... 121
Key Findings ............................................................................................... 121
Implications for Using the Web in Environmental Education .................... 123
The Web-Based Survey .................................................................................. 125
Key Findings ............................................................................................... 126

vii

Limitations to the Study .............................................................................. 130

Implications for Using the Web in Environmental Education .................... 131
Recommendations ........................................................................................... 1 32
APPENDIX A - MAIL SURVEY .................................................................................. 134
APPENDIX B - WEB-BASED SURVEY ..................................................................... 142
APPENDIX C - SUMMARY OF TEACHER CASES .................................................. 147
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 150

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Internet and Web-Based Contacts for Survey Recruitment ................................ 59
Table 2. Mail Survey Distribution By School District ..................................................... 66
Table 3. Summary of General Characteristics of Respondents ........................................ 67
Table 4. Respondents’ Experience Teaching EE .............................................................. 68
Table 5. Resources Used to Develop EE Cun‘icula ........................... . .............................. 69
Table 6. Respondents’ Beliefs About Teaching EE .......................................................... 70
Table 7. Respondents’ Access to Computers and Internet ............................................... 71
Table 8. Software Available to Respondents .................................................................... 72
Table 9. Respondents’ Experience with Computers ......................................................... 74
Table 10. Computer-Using Teachers’ Responses ............................................................. 75
Table 11. District Standards Selected for Greenview EE Unit ......................................... 87
Table 12. Summary of General Characteristics of Respondents ..................................... 96
Table 13. Summary Statistics for Environmental Education ......................................... 100
Table 14. Summary Statistics for Hypothetical EE Web Site ....................................... 103
Table 15. Summary Statistics for Using the Web in Education .................................... 107
Table 16. Summary Statistics for Access to EE Resources ........................................... 110
Table 17. Summary of Teacher Cases ........................................................................... 148

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Comparison by means for statements measuring environmental attitude ......... 99
Figure 2. Comparison by means for hypothetical EE Web site ...................................... 102
Figure 3. Comparison by means for statements measuring attitude toward Web ......... 106

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This research investigates K-12 teachers’ attitudes toward environmental
education and the World Wide Web (Web). The literature indicates that teachers are
interested in environmental education but often lack access to curricular resources.
Emerging mass communication technologies such as the Internet and Web present new
opportunities to connect teachers instantly to a multitude of rich and diverse
environmental education resources. However, there are also signiﬁcant challenges.
Research in this ﬁeld is essential. This research examines K-12 teachers’ attitudes
toward the Web and environmental education to investigate the feasibility of using the
Web as a means for sharing resources to overcome a signiﬁcant ban'ier to environmental
education. The ﬁndings should provide insights about the value of using the Web to

connect teachers to the environmental resources that they seek.

BACKGROUND

There is a compelling need for improved environmental education in the United
States. The National Environmental Education Act of 1990 called for national leadership
to increase environmental literacy in this country (US. Environmental Protection Agency
[USEPA], 1998). Six years later, very little was known about the status of environmental
literacy in the US. (V olk & McBeth, 1998). Surveys of the American public’s
environmental knowledge have indicated “disappointingly low” levels of understanding

of basic environmental concepts (Arcury, 1990). A recent national survey of high school

seniors found that while most understood basic concepts related to the environment, few
could comprehend the consequences or potential solutions related to environmental
problems (Gambro & Switzky, 1996). Other research has shown that teachers and
students hold serious misconceptions about fundamental environmental concepts
(Beiswenger, 1991; Hooper, 1988; Munson, 1994).

Environmental education is not a priority in this country (National Environmental
Education Advisory Council [NEEAC], 1996). If it exists at all, it is loosely organized
and has little sense of direction. It is neither systematic nor comprehensive; attempts at
environmental education are often sporadic and vary widely by school and teacher
(Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Ramsey, Hungerford & Volk, 1992). Because environmental
education is essentially omitted from the K-12 curriculum, students learn that
environmental education is not important. Thus, our nation is not preparing its young
people to be environmentally literate and concerned individuals.

The rationale for environmental education is simple: educated citizens make
better decisions about complex environmental problems than those less informed. Carol
Browner, the Administrator of the EPA, invites all citizens to become involved:

An informed and involved local community always does a better job of

environmental protection than some distant bureaucracy. If we are to

move beyond environmental regulation to true environmental protection,

Americans in businesses and communities throughout this country must be

full and active participants in solving environmental problems (Browner,

1998).

In order to maintain and improve environmental quality, individuals must
understand the complex interrelationships between the natural environment and human

activity (Disinger, 1993). Environmental problems oﬁen involve the sciences,

engineering, sociology, psychology, politics, communication, history, and many other

subject areas. Solutions are not necessarily “common-sense” and instead require
educated individuals with the knowledge, problem solving skills and abilities to
understand the multiple dimensions of a problem in a holistic manner.

Since its inception, environmental education has a deﬁnitional problem (Disinger,
19983); it means different things to different people. The roots of environmental
education can be found in nature study, outdoor education and conservation education,
and many people use the terms interchangeably. It is therefore necessary to deﬁne
“environmental education” for the purposes of this research. The deﬁnition coined by
William Stapp is sufﬁcient,

Environmental education is aimed at producing a citizenry that is

knowledgeable concerning the biophysical environment and its associated

problems, aware of how to help solve these problems and motivated to

work toward their solution. (Stapp, 1969)

Environmental education can and should begin in the public schools—at the
earliest grade levels and continue throughout a student’s educational experience. Today’s
students are tomorrow’s future leaders. They will make decisions, design policies and
take actions that will impact the environment. These students must be able to assess and
devise alternative solutions to the complex environmental problems they will encounter
as adults. If one of the aims of public education is to prepare young people to become
knowledgeable adults able to contribute to society, environmental education is needed
now more than ever.

There are several important barriers to integrating environmental education into

the curriculum that have been identiﬁed in the literature. This research focuses on one

ban'ier: teachers’ lack of access to environmental education resources. (Ham & Sewing,

1988).

Educators simply do not know where to turn for assistance in teaching about the
environment (Childress & Wert, 1976). A recent study (Wilson & Smith, 1996) found
that there is a scarcity of environmental education information in the education literature
compared to that available 20 years ago. Although many environmental education
resources have been developed and exist, they are often scattered and ﬁnding them
requires additional time and funding that many teachers do not have (Samuel, 1993;
Simmons, 1989). Other studies indicate that more curricular materials need to be
developed (Culen, 1998; Simmons, 1989). Teachers cannot be expected to integrate
environmental education into their curricula if they lack resources and assistance in doing
so.

Clearly, some teachers are able to overcome formidable barriers to include
environmental education in their curricula, but they are the exception rather than the
norm. Disinger writes, “environmental education is currently in schools to the extent that
teachers want to include it strongly enough to ﬁnd ways to do so” (Disinger, 1998b, p.6).
If our nation is to move beyond piecemeal environmental education to a more
comprehensive and systematic approach, teachers must have quick and easy access to

environmental education resources.

Current Trends in K-12 Education

There are two important trends in education today relevant to this research:
systemic reform and technology integration. New concepts of educational reform hold
promise for environmental education in the 19908 and beyond. Systemic reform
embodies three components: (1) the promotion of ambitious student outcomes for all

students; (2) the alignment of policy approaches and institutions to promote these

outcomes; and (3) a restructuring of the governance system to support improved
achievement (US. Department of Education, 1996).

Although it is beyond the scope of this research to address all of the aspects of
systemic reform, there is one concept that relates directly to environmental education.
Systemic reform focuses on restructuring the curriculum in schools such that students
continually build upon their prior knowledge throughout their schooling and connections
are made between disciplines. Such a restructured curriculum can facilitate
environmental education. The current practice of discipline-based education does not
support inquiry and exploration of multidisciplinary subjects like environmental
education. As educators move away from teaching discrete subjects toward a more
thematic and integrative approach to teaching, environmental education becomes
possible.

Another important change occurring in education is technology integration-—
speciﬁcally, the introduction of the Internet and Web in K-12 schools. President
Clinton’s State of the Union Address (1997) issued seven priorities for all students in the
United States. One of the seven was, “Every classroom will be connected to the Internet
by the year 2000 and all students will be technologically literate” (US. Department of
Education, 1997). There is strong public support and political will to bring these new
technologies to all schools.

Emerging mass communications technologies such as the Internet and Web
present new opportunities for teaching and learning such as increasing student motivation
and connecting teachers and students to a world of resources beyond the classroom walls

(US. Congress, 1995). However, there are important challenges as well. Barriers to

integrating technology into K-12 classrooms include teachers’ lack of access to
technologies, technical support and curricular support.

Research is urgently needed to demonstrate that these new technologies can
support and enhance K—12 environmental education classroom instruction and teacher
professional development by connecting teachers and students to environmental
resources that were previously unavailable to them. In the environmental education
literature, this is an emerging ﬁeld called “computer-aided environmental education.”
According to Rohwedder, it offers “a vast expanse of uncharted territory ﬁlled with both
problems and promises” (Rohwedder, 1990, p. 1) worthy of study.

Several studies have examined the use of computer-aided environmental
education to enhance students’ learning experiences. Some researchers have focused on
virtual reality (Clark, 1995; Taylor & Disinger, 1997) and hypermedia systems (Huning,
Palmer & DiSilvestro, 1990; Lynch, 1990; Tway, 1995) as a way for students to
investigate and explore environments. Similarly, in the past few years, there has been an
unprecedented grth in telecommunications projects like GLOBE (Global Learning and
Observations to Beneﬁt the Environment) (Pyke, 1995), the JASON Project (JASON
Foundation, 1998), and “electronic ﬁeld trips” (Copen, 1995; Dyrli & Kinnaman, 1996;
Holzberg, 1996). These projects connect classrooms of students to authentic data and
resources such as databases of environmental information or audio, video and text
information about explorations in different parts of the world.

However, there is a dearth of research related to the use of the Web as a means for
sharing environmental education resources among K—12 teachers. Although Web sites

exist that serve as clearinghouses for environmental education such as EE-Link (hgpzl/ee-

link.net) and Envirolink (http://wwwenvirolinkcrg), they are not focused on the special
needs of K-12 teachers. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate Whether or not K-12
teachers perceive the Web as a useful means for sharing environmental education

I’CSOLII'CCS.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

American students’ level of environmental knowledge is unacceptably low. Few
K- 12 students are prepared to assess and devise alternative solutions to complex
environmental problems. Currently, environmental education occurs sporadically and the
quality tends to vary by teacher and school. One important barrier to environmental
education infusion is teachers’ lack of access to environmental education resources.

The current wave of educational reform efforts combined with the introduction of
mass communication technologies in schools present new opportunities to infuse
environmental content into the curriculum. New approaches to teaching allow for the
study of interdisciplinary subjects like environmental education. Similarly, new
technologies have the potential to connect teachers to environmental resources that were
previously unavailable to them. However, there are signiﬁcant barriers to integrating
technologies into the curriculum that must be overcome.

If teachers are to use the Web, it is important to bring to light their attitudes about
using this new technology in their classrooms. Research is needed to guide our actions in
this ﬁeld. Given the multitude of educational Web sites that vie for teachers’ attention
and time, research focusing on teachers’ attitudes toward the Web is essential.

Therefore, this exploratory research examines K-12 teachers’ attitudes toward

using the Web to share environmental education resources. Assuming that teachers are

interested in environmental education but lack access to resources, this study also seeks
to develop recommendations for needed online environmental education resources and

for future research directions for Web-based environmental education.

OVERVIEW AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The overall objective of this research is to investigate K-12 teachers’ attitudes
toward using the Web to share environmental education resources. However, before this
objective can be met, it is important to address several underlying issues. First, it is
necessary to determine whether or not teachers are interested in environmental education,
and whether or not schools have the hardware, software and Internet access necessary.
Second, although there are many environmental education sites on the Web, few of them
publish teachers’ lesson plans and curricula. Therefore, it is necessary to design and
publish a Web site that highlights teachers’ curriculum and comments, and provides
examples of students’ work. Finally, in order to elicit teachers’ attitudes toward the Web
and environmental education, an online survey is added to the Web site. Thus, the
research study is composed of three phases; each of the research questions below is

speciﬁc to a particular phase.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The study seeks to answer the following research questions.

Phase 1: Investigating a Need for the Research

1. Is there sufﬁcient evidence to suggest that Michigan teachers are interested in

environmental education?

2. Is there sufﬁcient evidence to suggest that the preposed research is technically
possible (i.e., do Michigan schools have the necessary hardware, software and

Internet access)?

Phase 2: Developing K-12 Environmental Education Curriculum

1. How does each teacher approach (i.e., begin) the environmental education
curriculum development process?
a) Do teachers begin with curriculum standards, selected activities or students’
suggestions? .

2. Which environmental topics does each teacher select as central to the
curriculum development process?
a) What can be learned about teachers’ conceptions of environmental
education based on the topics they choose to teach?

3. Into which subject areas are environmental concepts inﬁrsed?
a) Do teachers select science only, or other subject areas?

4. What types of resources do teachers use to help them develop environmental
education curricula?

a) Do teachers use textbooks, colleagues, the Web, et cetera?

Phase 3: K-12 Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Environmental Education and Web

1. Do K-12 teachers who complete the online survey exhibit positive
attitudes toward environmental education?
2. Do K-12 teachers who complete the online survey exhibit positive

attitudes toward using the Web in education?

3. .Is there a relationship between teachers’ access to environmental
education resources and their attitudes toward environmental education?

4. Is there a relationship between teachers’ attitudes toward environmental
education and their attitudes toward using the Web in education?

5. Using only electronic methods to advertise the online survey, how many
K-12 teachers will complete and submit the online survey in a 45-day

period?

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

In association with these research questions, the following hypotheses were
tested.
H1: Teachers who have greater access to environmental education resources
will exhibit a more positive attitude toward environmental education than

teachers who have access to fewer resources.

H2: Teachers who exhibit a more positive attitude toward environmental
education will also exhibit a more positive attitude toward using the Web

in education.

GUIDING ASSUMPTIONS

In educational research, it is important to make assumptions about pedagogy
explicit. This research is grounded in constructivist educational theory. The following

assumptions have been made throughout the study.

10

Teachers are learners. Rather than tell teachers what to think about
environmental education, it is appropriate to begin the curriculum
development process with teachers’ conceptions of environmental education.
Environmental education curriculum development is not for environmental
education specialists only. Teachers have special knowledge about their
students, school and community. They are likely to know the kinds of
activities their students will enjoy, and are able to take advantage of local
opportunities.

Teachers tend to use environmental education activities and curricula that
have been developed or used by other teachers and have been tested in the
classroom.

Placing environmental education curricula onathe Web requires hardware,
software and technical skills that many teachers do not have. It is appropriate
to team educators with technology specialists (i.e., Web designers,
programmers, artists, etc.) to place content online.

Because environmental education is not required in most US. states, any
efforts made by teachers to integrate environmental education into curricula
are commendable. Unless and until environmental education is made a
priority in this country and curricular integration is required by state education
agencies, it is likely that environmental education will continue to vary widely

by teacher, school and geographic region.

11

SUMMARY

Environmental education is aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable
about the multiple dimensions of environmental issues and has the skills and motivation
to resolve environmental problems. Unless and until environmental education is made a
priority in this country, comprehensive, systematic environmental education is not likely
to occur. In the United States today, it is clear that environmental education in K-12
schools can be much improved.

An important barrier to integrating enviromnental education in K-12 curricula is
teachers’ lack of access to environmental education resources. The literature indicates
that teachers are often disconnected to the environmental education curricula that exists.

The current wave education reform and the advent of mass communication
technologies in schools create new opportunities for the infusion of environmental
education in K-12 schools. As educators begin thinking and teaching in more integrative,
thematic and multi-disciplinary ways, doors open for the study of environmental issues.
Similarly, as more schools become connected to the Internet and Web, there are more
opportunities to connect to a multitude of rich resources such as experts, databases,
primary source materials, and other educators. Teachers may be able to use this medium
to share ideas about environmental education curricula, activities, news and local or
regional opportunities.

Because computer-aided environmental education is a new ﬁeld, more research is
necessary to bring the opportunities and limitations to light. There are many
environmental Web sites available today, and it is likely that more will continue to be

developed. However, very few focus on the special needs of ,K-12 teachers. If the Web

12

is to be used to connect K-12 teachers to the resources they seek, it is imperative that
research brings to light the expectations, needs and perceptions of K-12 teachers for using
this medium. This exploratory research will examine K-12 teachers’ perceptions about
environmental education and the Web to determine the feasibility of using this medium to

share environmental education resources.

PREVIEW

The rationale for the research questions and hypotheses are further developed in
Chapter 2—the literature review. Chapter 3 describes the methods used to answer the
research questions and hypotheses. The results and analyses are presented in Chapter 4

and ﬁndings and recommendations are discussed in Chapter 5.

l3

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review consists of three sections. The ﬁrst section reviews the
environmental education and curriculum development literature. The second section
examines the education technology literature and highlights the promises and challenges
to technology integration in K-12 schools. The third section provides an overview of the
Internet and Web in K-12 education and reviews the status of computer-aided and online

environmental education.

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION LITERATURE

The Unique Role of Teachers

Classroom teachers are the gatekeepers of formal environmental education.
Teachers are ultimately responsible for what is taught in the classroom (Childress, 1978;
Eisner, 1985) and research indicates they inﬂuence their students’ environmental
attitudes (Buethe & Smallwood, 1987). Because most states do not mandate
environmental education, it exists in curricula today to the extent that teachers want to
include it (Disinger, 1998b). According to Stone, “If change is to come about, teachers
can be the primary instigators of these changes. It is teachers who hold the key to the

presently locked environmental education classroom door.” (Stone, 1989, p. 159)

14

Barriers to Environmental Education

However, teachers face many signiﬁcant barriers to integrating environmental
education into the existing curricula. Ham and Sewing (1988) identiﬁed four general
categories of barriers: conceptual, logistical, educational, and attitudinal. Conceptual
barriers result ﬁom the lack of consensus about the sc0pe and content of environmental
education (Knapp, 1972; Samuel, 1993). For example, teachers may not be sure what
environmental education is or how to create instructional objectives. Logistical barriers
stem from teachers’ perceived lack of time, funding, curricular resources and support
(Childress, 1978; Groves, Cauley & Smith, 1978; NAEEAC, 1996; Samuel, 1993;
Simmons, 1989; Volk, Hungerford & Tomera, 1986). For example, teachers must take
additional time out of the school day to ﬁnd environmental education resources and plan
how they will be used in the classroom. Educational barriers arise from teachers’ own
misgivings about their competence to teach environmental education (Samuel, 1993).
Many teachers have had little or no background in environmental education and are
reluctant to teach it in their classrooms. Finally, attitudinal barriers stem from teachers’
attitudes about environmental education and science instruction (Clark, 1975; Disinger,
1993; Hungerford, 1975; Ritz, 1977). For example, many teachers believe that science is
the most appropriate subject for environmental education integration. This conception
precludes them from integrating environmental education into language arts, social
studies and other non-science subjects.

One of the logistical barriers most often cited in the literature is teachers’ lack of
access to environmental education resources. There is a need to develop more classroom

curricula and there is a concomitant need to connect teachers to the materials that already

15

exist (Childress, 1976; Culen, 1998; Simmons, 1989). A recent report published by the

National Environmental Education Advisory Council (1996) found that one of the

greatest challenges for environmental education is limited access to materials and

information on programs. Additional studies similarly conclude that teachers lack access

to environmental education resources.

Champeau, Gross and Wilke (1980) surveyed Wisconsin teachers about their
perceptions of the ‘Goals for Curriculum Development in Environmental
Education’ as put forth in a document by Hungerford et al. in 1980. They
found that the majority of teachers in central Wisconsin believed the goals to
be an important component of educational programs but lacked the training or
instructional resources to accomplish them.

Volk and Tomera (1986) surveyed enviromnental educators and Concluded
there is an immediate and critical need for the development of new curricula
which address the goals for environmental education.

Wilson and Smith (1996) examined the education literature from the 19705 to
the 19903. They concluded that teachers need access to information, guidance
and resources to infuse environmental education into all areas of the
curriculum and they are unable to use the formal education literature as a
resource.

Beiswanger, Sturges and Jones (1991) surveyed Wyoming educators on their
knowledge of water topics and incentives to include water topics in the

curricula more often. They found that pre-developed materials, hands-on

l6

activities and software speciﬁc to grade level would serve as important
incentives to teachers.

Lane, Wilke, Champeau and Sivek (1994) surveyed Wisconsin teachers about
their perceived competencies in and attitudes toward teaching environmental
education. Teachers indicated that inservice training and better access to
resources would most inﬂuence them to teach environmental education more
often.

Groves et al. (1978) surveyed teacher education students enrolled in natural
resource courses to determine their knowledge of forestry topics. They found
there is a need to increase teachers’ awareness of the availability of different
educational materials.

Samuel (1993) examined the process and problems of integrating
environmental education into a secondary school. She found that materials for
environmental education have been developed but they are scattered and take

an investment of time and funds to accumulate.

Quality of Environmental Education Curricular Materials

Also at issue is the need for high quality materials. Much curricula has been

developed by government, educational institutions, non-proﬁt organizations and public

and private commercial entities. Not only is there duplication of curricula but the quality

of curricula varies greatly (NEEAC, 1996). This creates additional burdens for teachers

by requiring them to sift through and weed out inappropriate or poorly designed

materials. To address such problems, the North American Association for Environmental

Education (1996) published a document Environmental Education Materials: Guidelines

17

for Excellence. The purpose of the document is to help curriculum developers and
evaluators make informed decisions about designing and selecting curricular materials.
However, the guidelines are strictly voluntary and only available for purchase from the
North American Association for Environmental Education. It is not known how widely
distributed this document is at this time.

A relatively new phenomenon related to the quality of environmental education
curricula is the recent “backlash” against environmental education by conservatives. In
their 1996 book Facts Not Fear written for parents who are “worried about what our
children are learning” (p. l), Sanera and Shaw write,

Environmental activism is the latest in a series of social reforms

championed in our schools. Schools are ﬁghting the war on drugs,

encouraging physical ﬁtness, fostering self-esteem, teaching about sex—

you name it. And now our children are supposed to save the Earth (p. 13)

The debate about what to teach in environmental education is not new. Two
decades ago Kauchak, Krall and Heimsath (1978) wrote about the need for education not
“indoctrination.” Indoctrination implies telling learners what to think; education is
presenting the learner with a balanced view of the issue in question. According to
Kauchak et a1. (1978), “Most controversies in the environmental education curriculum
can be viewed as clashes between competing value orientations” (p. 21). This is clearly
evident today.

Both anti- and pro-environmental education advocates bemoan the fact that any
organization can develop “environmental” curricula to provide to K-12 schools.
However, unlike textbooks and other educational materials, there is no ofﬁcial review

process for such materials (Lapp, 1994). Thus, a corporate curriculum that expounds

upon the beneﬁts of nuclear power can ﬁnd its way into schools just as easily as curricula

18

created by anti-nuclear groups. Today, school curricula is being developed by many
corporations including Shell, the American Plastics Council and the American Nuclear
Society (Manilov & Schwartz, 1997). Similarly, pro-environmental groups like the
National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club and the National Audubon Society make
curricula available to schools. The problem, according to Adler (1993) is that,
...few educators take the time to investigate these matters for themselves.
Many classroom materials are developed by, or under the advisement of,
leading environmental lobbying organizations. The Sierra Club has been
publishing environmental materials for children since 1977 and the World
Resources Institute’s teacher’s guide is used in schools around the world.
This results in materials that present the environmental view most
conducive to these organizations’ political agendas (p. 13).

The current controversy raises the question, Whom should develop environmental

education curricula?

Curriculum Development in Environmental Education

Traditionally, environmental education content “specialists”—oﬁen non-
teachers—have developed formal environmental education curriculum to be used in
classrooms. It is only recently that more discussion in the environmental education
literature has focused on the role of the teacher in the curriculum development process
(Cantrell, 1993; Hart, 1993; Robottom, 1993). There are many factors that may
discourage teachers from becoming involved in the process. For example educational
paradigms and perspectives regarding teachers’ roles, the lack of academic environmental
education standards, and teachers’ lack of environmental education professional
development opportunities may all be contributing factors.

For decades the environmental education literature has indicated that teachers

desired curricula (Beiswenger et al., 1991; Childress, 1978; Groves et al., 1978;

19

Simmons, 1989). In response, environmental education curriculum developers created
pre-packaged products for teachers to use in their classrooms. Developers assumed that
pre-packaged curricula could be easily integrated into teachers’ existing curricula.
However, follow-up studies and surveys indicated that teachers were not using the
curricula to any great extent (Childress, 1978; Ham, Rellergert-Taylor & Krumpe, 1988).
Ham et al clearly state the problem with this approach.

It was hoped that if teachers understood that environmental education was

both multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary, they would feel that the time

spent planning and conducting environmental education was time also

spent on their usual subjects. Still, teachers are continually pressed to

emphasize the basics, and each subject is usually taught separately, from a

pre-planned curriculum. Interdisciplinary environmental education

activities presented in ready-to-use-packages to a teacher who already has

a set plan for teaching the basic subjects could indeed be seen as taking

extra preparation time and additional classroom time. (p. 31)

In addition to problems associated with pre-packaged curricula, teachers are
confused about how environmental education ﬁts into the overall curriculum. This is a
result, in part, to the lack of academic standards for environmental education (Simmons,
1998). Teachers are often required to teach speciﬁc content for math, science, and
language arts that is based on academic standards. These standards are then translated
into instructional and behavioral objectives that further clarify teaching and learning
expectations. Although voluntary standards for environmental education are in
development, at the present time, no speciﬁc academic standards exist for environmental
education. According to Simmons (1998),

A set of standards not only provides educators in general, and the ﬁeld of

environmental education speciﬁcally, with an understanding of the

knowledge and skills that lead to environmental literacy, but a vision of
environmental education’s place within the school curriculum (p. 73)

20

If teachers are to integrate environmental education into their existing curricula, it is
imperative that they understand how different environmental education concepts and
activities correspond to standards in other subjects. The development of environmental
education standards may help teachers more easily identify points of integration within
their curricula and help them to make transdisciplinary connections with students.

Another factor affecting teachers’ involvement in the curriculum development
process is the teachers’ level of environmental knowledge and education. Environmental
education teacher “training” traditionally has involved persuading teachers to adopt ideas
and behaviors determined by external “authorities” and encouraging them to implement
particular environmental education activities in their classrooms (Stevenson, 1993). In
other words, teachers have been treated as “cunicular consumers rather than professional
educators” (Wade, 1996, p. 14). According to Hart,

It is apparent that environmental educators have focused their attention on

the development of environment-related goals and have neglected to probe

deeply enough into pedagogy, particularly at the level of the teacher. The

process problem remains in environmental education because

environmental educators have not focused on the real-life working

conditions of teachers, their perceptions about change, and the support

system needed to facilitate change in teaching method demanded by these

new curriculum materials. (Hart, 1993, p. 118)

Again, the role of the teacher is critical to the success of environmental education
programs. Stevenson (1993) argues that the failure of environmental education
curriculum efforts is a result of neglecting teachers’ knowledge of what can be
implemented in their own settings. Other researchers have concluded sirrrilarly:

I A survey of environmental educators found that one area for improvement is

to better understand “where teachers are coming from” including the demands

21

on teachers and the kinds of activities that can be practically implemented in
the classroom (Wade, 1996, p. 13).

Samuel (1993) describes the implementation of a new environmental
education program in a secondary school. She concludes that teacher
participation in decision making is imperative. Teachers need time to
“explore the assumptions and philosophy behind environmental education and
to assess it in terms of their own values, expectations, and teaching patterns”
(p. 28).

Suggesting new directions for environmental education research, Hart (1993)
concludes that the central problem in environmental education change is the
lack of teacher involvement and participation; “Authentic teacher participation

in curriculum research and development must be supported” (p. 119).

According to Wade, there has been a goal to infuse environmental education into schools,

but there has not been a corresponding goal to infuse environmental education with

education (Wade, 1996).

There has been much written in the education literature about curriculum

development, educational paradigms and planned change in schools. Although an

extensive review is beyond the scope of this research, it is important to highlight

fundamental concepts related to each to better understand Why new approaches to

environmental education curriculum development and teacher professional development

are needed.

Curriculum Development and the Education Literature

According to Gay (1980), curriculum development is

22

...far ﬁom being a purely objective or scientiﬁc enterprise that follows a
universal, predetermined planning process; curriculum development is
more of an “artistic” endeavor that is often chaotic, political, and
emergent. It embodies a combination of intuition, individual initiative and
creativity, trial-and-error experimentation, social politics, and educated
guesses (p. 120).
The pedagogical perspective one subscribes to has profound implications for curriculum
development. Educational theorists have described a variety of perspectives in the

literature. For the purpose of this discussion, three broad perspectives will be outlined

and their implications for curriculum development noted.

The Technical Perspective

The technical perspective assumes that knowledge exists outside of the learner.
All can discover the “truth” through objective, scientiﬁc study. The ends (i.e.,
knowledge, facts) are known, therefore curriculum development is a careful process of
planning the sequential steps needed to attain the desired ends. Curriculum is developed
by “specialists” who are able to determine the most effective ways to organize learning
on a particular topic because they have studied the topic in-depth. Traditionally, this
perspective has dominated the thinking and research approach in environmental

education (Hart, 1993; Robottom & Hart, 1995; Stevenson, 1993).

The Interpretive Perspective

The interpretive perspective assumes that knowledge is a social construction and
that all learners are engaged in a continual process of meaning-making. The learner
generates knowledge through interactions with others. As such, there are multiple
realities that exist and understanding the learning context is essential. From this
perspective, the purpose of curricula is to help learners investigate their world and come

to terms with their discoveries; curricula is problem-centered (Eisner, 1985). Curricula

23

may be developed by someone external to the teacher, but the teacher will always

interpret the curricula and re-present it to students based on his or her own knowledge.

The Critical Perspective

The critical perspective critiques the sociopolitical structures that serve to oppress
individuals. In order to free themselves, students must look critically at who is in control,
and determine what power structures perpetuate social inequity and injustice. Power
relationships are recognized only through praxis; reﬂection and action (Friere, 1970).
Individuals must be self-critical and self-aware to reﬂect on power structures; action is
reﬂexively generated. The focus from this perspective is on emancipation from
repression. The emphasis in curriculum development is on questions of power rather than
subject matter or content. Curricula is emergent and is developed ad hoc by the students
and teachers together (Hart, 1993).

Each of the three orientations described—Technical, Interpretive, and Critical—
advances particular assumptions about the nature of knowledge, learning, teaching and
curriculum development. These assumptions greatly affect what is included or excluded
from the curriculum. Not surprisingly, curriculum developers (both teachers and non-
teachers) have certain agendas in mind when designing curricula and their perspective
inﬂuences all aspects of the educational process. In practice, however, it is likely that the
curriculum developer or teacher chooses from several perspectives to suit the purposes at
hand.

In environmental education today, there is a trend toward research that reﬂects
more and diverse perspectives including the interpretive and critical views. Although

one’s theoretical orientation toward education inﬂuences curriculum development, there

24

are other powerful forces that affect the acceptance or rejection of curriculum innovations

in schools.

Change Processes in Schools

There are many forces shaping curriculum change both within and outside of the
school. New educational programs and curricula are continually being developed and
schools are regularly engaged in the task of implementing multiple innovations
simultaneously (Fullan, 1993). Essentially, schools are in a perpetual process of social
change.

According to Rogers and Shoemaker (1970), social change involves three
sequential steps: innovation, diffusion, and consequences. Difﬁrsion is the process by
which new ideas are communicated to others. For the purposes of this research,
curriculum adoption includes the process of diffusion. Change occurs on two levels—at
the individual level, and within the social system. Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) suggest
that the transfer of ideas occurs most frequently between a “source” and “receiver” who
are homophilous—the degree to which pairs of individuals who interact are similar in
certain attributes such as beliefs, values, education and social status (Rogers &
Shoemaker, 1971, p.14). Thus, an effective strategy for the diffusion of curricular
programs might be to encourage teachers to share (i.e., “transfer”) new cuniculum ideas
to other teachers.

Hall and Hord’s research (1987) supports this. They studied the adoption of
curriculum innovations by teachers and developed a “concems-based” theory of change.
The theory proposes that teachers perceive innovations differently based on the

considerations and concerns they experience in the classroom. For example, beginning

25

teachers tend to be concerned with class control, their own content adequacy and
evaluations by supervisors. More experienced educators are likely to have concerns
about the impact of their teaching on students and therefore may be more receptive to
innovations.

The theory deﬁnes four developmental stages of concern through which teachers
proceed, as they become more experienced.

Concerns theory and research reveal that concenrs change over time in a

fairly predictable, developmental manner. If we can predict how concerns

will change throughout the phases of the change process, we can design

in-service and other intervention activities in advance. Those interventions

could be designed to address the different concerns as they emerge (Hall

& Hord, 1987, p. 70).

In conclusion, the researchers recommend that change facilitators consider the different
needs of teachers when delivering teacher interventions. Essentially, the “source” (i.e.,
change facilitator) must understand the concerns of the “receiver” (i.e., teacher) if
communication and transfer of ideas is to be successful.

Change also occurs at the societal level. There are other forces beyond the
individual which affect the adoption of an innovation (Gay, 1980). These forces include
local, state, and national educational organizations and agencies, political interest groups,
school boards, parent groups and community organizations. The literature indicates that
too often change is implemented or initiated in schools based on ﬂawed assumptions.
Some of the assumptions that lead to failure include the following ideas:

I That you can mandate what matters (Eisner, 1985; Fullan, 1993).

Implementing change requires skills, creative thinking and committed action.

I That there is a “best way” to implement change (Czajkowski & Patterson,

1980; Fullan, 1993). Rather than following a “blueprint,” change is a process

26

that is dependent upon the organizational culture of the school. The “best
way” to implement change will likely vary dramatically by school.

I That schools are objects to be manipulated (Czajkowski & Patterson, 1980).
The cultural and political dimensions of school communities are often
overlooked.

I That people are resistant to change (Czajkowski & Patterson, 1980). People
tend to adopt curricular changes when they see value added to the educational
process.

According to Fullan (1993), important lessons have been learned about the school
change process. First, rapid change does not work. It tends to create confusion,
ambiguity and conﬂict. Similarly, Gay (1980) found most innovations took three to ﬁve
years to be accepted and implemented. Second, every person is a change agent: “Only
when individuals take action to alter their own environments is there any chance for deep
change” (Fullan, 1993, p. 130). Third, connection to wider environments is critical to
success. If schools are to be learning organizations and respond to the issues of the day,
they must engage with and learn from the ideas of others in the broader educational
community.

How, then, does school change occur? Czajkowski and Patterson (1980) describe
three ways of initiating change. First, change can occur when school staffs note a
discrepancy between what the curriculum is and what it could be. Second, an innovation
may happen to be an attractive alternative to something currently done in school, and

momentum for it grows. Third, the change is mandated.

27

Similarly, the authors pr0pose three strategies for change: power, inﬂuence, and
reason strategies. A power strategy usually emanates from the “top-down;” the school or
teachers have little control over the decision to participate. Inﬂuence strategies are
designed to persuade participants that the change proposed is a desirable one. Reason
strategies appeal to the participants’ commitment to the change itself. Teachers see the
need for the change and take the steps necessary to achieve their goal (p.168).

In summary, the path to curriculum change, acceptance, integration and adoption
is complex. Given the ﬁndings from research on curriculum development, educational
pedagogy, and school change, it is not surprising that environmental education
integration to date has been less than successful. Teachers are expected to teach required
curricula as well as integrate new curricula regularly. Where environmental education is
not mandatory, curriculum change efforts should focus on the teacher as the individual
change agent. Research shows that teachers are interested in teaching environmental
education and believe their students would beneﬁt from it (Charnpeau et al., 1980;
Johnson, 1980; Lane et al., 1994) but face very serious time and resource constraints.
Research also indicates that teachers are the gatekeepers for environmental education and
as such, ultimately decide whether or not to integrate environmental education into the
curricula. By using reason and inﬂuence strategies with teachers, it may be possible to
affect positive change toward the increased integration of environmental education in K-

12 schools.

K-12 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY LITERATURE

In February 1996, President Clinton announced “America’s Technology Literacy

Challenge,” the goal of which is to make every young person technologically literate

28

(Clinton, 1996). He challenges Americans to meet this goal by addressing: (1) the need
for teacher training and technical support, (2) the need for developing engaging software
and online learning experiences that can be integrated into the school curriculum, (3) the
need for access to modern computers for all teachers and students, and (4) the need to
connect every school and classroom in the US. to the Internet. The President dedicated
more than $2 billion in funding over the course of ﬁve years to achieve these goals.
Clearly, the integration of new telecommunications technologies and other educational

technologies is a priority for America’s schools.

The Promise of Educational Technologies

There are many potential beneﬁts to using technologies in education.

Negroponte, Resnick and Cassell (1997) suggest that digital technologies will radically
change how children learn, what they learn and whom they learn with. The authors
propose digital technologies will encourage children to become more active, independent
learners. Students will be able to tackle more complex tasks than previous generations of
students in the “pre-digital” era. Finally, due to the “global connectedness” of digital
technologies, students will become part of global knowledge communities collaborating
with others around the world (Negroponte et al., 1997).

Jonassen (1996) believes that the computer can enhance students’ thinking and
learning. He suggests that computers should be used as “unintelligent” tools in the
classroom with students providing the intelligence. Although computers can take
massive amounts of data and display patterns or can make thousands of calculations per
second, ultimately, learners must be able to describe and interpret the resulting output. In

this way, computers can enhance students’ critical thinking and analytical abilities by

29

freeing them from lower-order thinking skills like calculations or graphing, to focus on
higher-order thinking skills like interpretation and synthesis.

Other beneﬁts from using technology in schools include improving student
motivation and learning, addressing students’ different learning style needs, and exposing
students to a wider world of information and experts (US. Congress, 1995). However,
very little mention is made of teachers in the discussion of the beneﬁts of technology.
Potential beneﬁts to teachers include encouraging them to use new teaching methods,
increasing their sense of professionalism, and stimulating them to present more complex
tasks to students (Means & Olson, 1994; US. Congress, 1995).

Although there are many compelling reasons to consider using technology in K-
12 classrooms, there are signiﬁcant barriers that must be overcome if technology is to

become an effective educational resource for teachers and learners.

Barriers to Integrating Educational Technologies

There are many signiﬁcant barriers to classroom integration of technologies
identiﬁed in the literature. Among those cited most frequently and as most important are
barriers relating to teachers. Speciﬁcally, teachers lack time to experiment with
technologies, to attend inservice workshops and to develop curricula integrating
technologies (Means & Olson, 1994; US. Congress, 1995; US. Department of
Education, 1998).

Teachers must feel comfortable using technologies before they will use them as
resources in the classroom. However, the investment in time to learn hardware and
software is signiﬁcant and training opportunities for teachers have been scant (Coley,

Cradler & Engel, 1997). Research indicates that teachers dislike the current approach to

30

inservice education which is often short, “menu-driven” workshops or “injections of
training” (Dufﬁeld, 1997; US. Congress, 1995). Often, teachers must learn to teach
themselves to use technology if it is to be used at all.

Additionally, teachers need time to develop strategies to integrate technologies
meaningfully into the curricula. They need time to determine how to use new
technologies to help them meet instructional and educational goals. Curricular
integration of technologies is essential if they are to be used effectively as classroom
learning resources (Coley et al., 1997; Software Publishers Association [SPA], 1994).
However, the US. Congress Ofﬁce of Technology Assessment (OTA) found that
curricular integration is a resource-intensive and time-consuming task (US. Congress,
1995). Other researchers suggest that, instead, short inservice workshops, teacher
professional development opportunities should include authentic tasks like curriculum
development (Barron & Goldman, 1994; David, 1994). This would give teachers the
time needed to design ways to use and integrate technology meaningfully.

Other barriers include the lack of access to technologies, the high cost of
technologies, the lack of on-site technical support, inconvenient scheduling of equipment,
attitudinal barriers, and issues related to technology like copyright and access to
objectionable materials (US. Congress, 1995).

It is evident that many of the barriers to integrating technologies into the
classroom are similar to those for environmental education integration. As was the case
for environmental education, the teacher has a critical role as the gatekeeper of

technology (Cuban, 1986).

31

The Unique Role of the Teacher

The literature indicates that teachers are “essential” in realizing the full potential
of technology (Clements, 1995; Solomon, 1986). Their attitudes inﬂuence students’
attitudes toward technology (US. Congress, 1995). Furthermore, the ways that they
choose to use technology determines overall instructional effectiveness (SPA, 1994). For
example, a creative teacher can use even the most pre-programmed “drill and skill”
software with students in effective ways. As the OTA reports, the challenge of
integrating technology into classrooms is much more human than it is technological:

...it is about helping people, primarily teachers, integrate these

technologies into their teaching as tools of a profession that is being
redeﬁned through the process (US. Congress, 1995).

History of Technology in Schools

Cuban’s book Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since
1920 clearly illustrates that the classroom has hosted a succession of technologies
including the textbook, chalkboard, radio, ﬁlm, television and computers (Cuban, 1986).
Often new technologies were conceived, planned and adopted for use in schools by non-
teachers. In other words, the impetus for change came from the “top-down.” Teachers
were often singled out as inﬂexible and resistant to change and thus, blamed as the cause
technologies were not used as widely—or as successfully—as they could have been.
That is still the case today. Coley et a1. recently reported, “Teachers are seen as part of
the problem and are burdened with solving it” (Coley et al., 1997, p. 7)

Cuban’s historical review illustrates that, in some areas, little has changed in the
educational technology ﬁeld. Ironically, the obstacles to integrating ﬁlm in schools in the

19505 were much the same as those for integrating computers and telecommunications

32

technologies are in the 19905. For example, barriers to ﬁlm included teachers’ lack of
skills in using ﬁlms and equipment, the cost of materials and equipment, the
inaccessibility and difﬁculty scheduling equipment, and ﬁnally, difﬁculty ﬁnding the
right ﬁlm to ﬁt the class or curricula (Cuban, 1986, p. 18). Similar cases can be made for
obstacles to integrating instructional television, videos, and interactive video disks.

Cuban identiﬁes the problem as non-teaching reformers and policy makers
pushing technological innovations based on two ﬂawed assumptions. The ﬁrst
assumption is that schools are like military organizations where orders are given from the
top and executed faithfully in the ranks. The second assumption relates to adopting
technologies to improve classroom “efﬁciency.” This implies that teaching is a
mechanical process of applying knowledge and skills to students. Both neglect the
importance of the political and cultural forces present within the school.

Hodas’ critical essay “Technology Refusal the Organizational Culture of Schools”
(1993) suggests that schools are institutions designed to transmit information and
authority and to inculcate certain values and practices while minimizing others. Only
technologies that reinforce the existing power structures within schools will be ad0pted—
and these may or may not be implemented at the classroom level. He argues that no
technology is neutral:

...its values and practices must always either support or subvert those of

the organization into which it is placed; and that the failures of technology

to alter the look-and-feel of schools frequently result from a mismatch

between the values of school organization and those values that are
embedded within the contested technology itself. (Hodas, 1993)

33

While society may be rapidly adopting and using new technologies, schools are not
necessarily “failing.” Rather, they are doing the job they were created to do and have
reﬁned over generations—transmitting knowledge and values to America’s youth.

However, some teaching practices have changed as a result of the introduction of
new technologies. According to Cuban, only those technologies that solved problems
deﬁned by teachers as important have been adopted. Teachers ask very different
questions of technology than policy makers, non-teaching reformers and scholars.

A recent study by Lowther and Sullivan (1996) supports this. They examined the
perceptions of two groups—K-12 teachers and education technology faculty and
graduates—and discovered a large number of signiﬁcant differences between the teachers
and technology groups. They found,

1 Educational technologists clearly believe that they can produce more

effective instructional programs than teachers, probably because of their

training and their use of a systematic design and development approach.

Teachers, in contrast, believe that they can produce better instructional

programs than instructional designers, most ‘likely because of their greater

familiarity with the students and the schools (p. 17).

Their study underscores the need to involve teachers in educational technology planning
and decision making.

The literature indicates that teachers’ attitudes about technology must be taken
into account if innovations are to be successful (Coley et al., 1997). Technological
innovations are more effective when teachers feel ownership (Means & Olson, 1994), and
school programs are likely to have greater credibility among teachers if it is clear that one
or more teachers played a role in their development (Lowther & Sullivan, 1996). The

success of technology integration depends on the active involvement of teachers (US.

Congress, 1995).

34

In summary, the literature review for educational technology indicates that
teachers are ultimately responsible for using technologies in the classroom. Teachers’
attitudes strongly affect how students’ perceive technology. Similarly, teachers’
technology use determines what and how students learn with technology. Teachers are
the most important change agents in implementing technology but also face signiﬁcant
time constraints and barriers to integrating technology effectively. Teachers’ perceptions
and attitudes about using technologies in the classroom should be examined when

devising curricular technology innovations.

THE WEB AND ONLINE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

In the past few years, the Internet and Web have grown phenomenally. The
Internet is often referred to as the global network of computers. Although the precursor
of the Internet, Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANet), had been in
development by the US. Department of Defense since the 19605, it is relatively recently
that Internet use has become widespread. The Internet allows users to connect to a vast
array of global information resources. Some computers act as hosts that “serve”
information to others, while other computers act as terminals that can only access, not
serve, information on the Internet. In 1995, the estimated number of Internet hosts was
5.85 million. As of January 1998, that ﬁgure jumped to 26.1 million (Network Wizards,
1998)

Similarly, the Web has grown exponentially in the 19903. According to Gray
(1996), in 1993 the Web had a doubling period of less than 3 months; by 1996 the
doubling period had slowed somewhat but was still less than 6 months. The Web, ﬁrst

conceived in 1989 by Tim Berners—Lee and made popular by the advent of the Mosaic

35

browser in 1993, can be thought of as a way of organizing the information available on
the Internet (Cailliau, 1995; Hahn & Stout, 1994) or as,

A system of Internet servers that support specially formatted documents.

The documents are formatted in a language called HTML (HyperText

Markup Language) that supports links to other documents, as well as

graphics, audio, and video ﬁles. This means you can jump from one

document to another simply by clicking on hot spots. Not all Internet

servers are part of the Web (AdSmart Corporation, 1997).
Special software called Web browsers allow users to graphically view and interact with
information. The Web enables publishers to hyper-link information across other Web
sites. In addition, the Web programming language (hypertext markup language—HTML)
is relatively easy to learn and allows virtually anyone to become a Web publisher. These

are a few of the advantages to using the Web that have contributed to its explosive

growth and popularity.

The Web: A New Digital Medium

The Web is a new digital medium and as such it is worth noting the its
affordances and limitations as identiﬁed in the literature. Norman (1993) deﬁnes
“affordances” as the possible functions of a technology; what people perceive it can do.
Some of the affordances of the Web include providing users with (1) a volume of diverse
information, (2) current information, (3) data sets, and (4) a wealth of visual information
(Windschitl, 1998). Its simple programming language (HTML) allows virtually anyone
to become an information provider. As such, the Web allows users to retrieve, publish
and interact with information provided on the Internet. Lightner, Bose and Salvendy

(1996) predict,

36

As more users join the Web one realizes that its future diffusion is beyond

our imagination—undoubtedly the World Wide Web promises to become

a part of our everyday existence (p. 996).

However, using the Web can be challenging as well. Searching for information
online is difﬁcult and time consuming (Lightner et al., 1996). Bandwidth issues are also
of concern. Bandwidth refers to the amount of information that can be transferred from
one computer to another. Users are connecting to the Web at a variety of speeds and
information providers are sending information that require increasing bandwidth
capabilities (Levi & Conrad, 1996). The end result is that some users will have to wait
longer than others to download information or to view a Web page. A 1997 study of
Internet delays found that users prefer multimedia sites over text-only sites, but they are
unwilling to tolerate the substantial network delays associated with delivering multimedia
(Sears, J acko & Borella, 1997). Pitkow and Kehoe have been conducting online surveys
about the Web since 1994. Their ﬁndings from a 1996 survey indicate that the most
important problem with the Web identiﬁed by respondents was the time it took to
download pages and information (Pitkow & Kehoe, 1996). This was followed by users’
inability (1) to ﬁnd pages they knew were available, (2) to organize information gathered
and (3) to return to a page once found.

Another problem with the Web is the lack of representative users or a deﬁnable
Web population. Pitkow and Kehoe (1996) studied emerging trends of the Web and
found that “substantial shifts in the characteristics of Web users have occurr ” (p. 3).
Speciﬁcally, more users responded to their survey representing diverse segments of the
population (i.e., more women and more older and younger respondents than in previous

surveys). Levi and Conrad (1996) studied Web usability and concluded that it is difﬁcult

37

to predict or measure the highly diverse Web user population. This has important
implications for the design of Web sites. It means that users visiting Web sites have
many and varied expectations for design, content and interactivity, and are connecting to
the site with a wide range of computers, monitors and connection speeds.

Web site usability and marketing research indicates that Web site design is critical
to the success of any site. According to Sano (1997), Web site publishing is a design
process and the technical constraints and limitations of the Web must be taken into
consideration. Eighmey (1997) studied users browsing different commercial web sites.
He concluded that users are assisted by information placed in an enjoyable context, by
clearly identiﬁed strategic purposes of the site, and by efﬁciently executed designs.
Other ﬁndings from research indicate that

I people make a direct connection between the perceived ﬁnish of Web pages

and the perceived reliability of the information provided (Levine, 1995).

I most people do not read on the Web; they scan words and links (Nielsen,

1997b).

I people tend to value content over clever format and design (Levine, 1995)

I Web writing should be short, succinct and easily scanned (Levine, 1995;

Nielsen, 1997a).

Given the need for careﬁrl design and an understanding of Web limitations, it is
unrealistic to expect K-12 teachers to design and maintain educational Web sites as a
means of integrating technology into the curriculum. Instead, teams of developers
including educators, designers, programmers and the like should plan and design sites

appropriate for education (Norman, 1993; Sugrue & Kobus, 1997).

38

Using the Web in K-12 Schools

The number of schools accessing the Web and publishing Web sites is growing
exponentially. Beginning with a few sites in 1994, by March 1998 there were
approximately 7,685 school Web sites (Carlson, 1998). It is estimated that nearly 82
percent of all K-12 public schools in the United States are online (Editor & Publisher
Interactive, 1998; Hamilton, 1998); and 98% of all schools own computers (Coley et al.,
1997). Internet access does not necessarily mean classroom access. Making the Internet
accessible to all students in all instructional rooms will require much effort (US.
Department of Education, 1998) and is the next national goal for increasing accessibility.
Those schools furthest behind in both Internet access and computer access tend to be
schools with the highest proportion of economically disadvantaged and minority students
(Coley et al., 1997; Editor & Publisher Interactive, 1998).

Since the Web is relatively new, educational uses and applications are continually
in development. As with all innovations, there are challenges and opportunities. With
the Web, teachers have the potential to engage students in unprecedented learning
opportunities. For example, the Web can be used to simulate hands-on activities that
would otherwise be too costly, dangerous or unpleasant (Ellsworth, 1997) such as online
frog dissections or viewing “virtual ﬂy-throughs” of the human body. Students can
participate in virtual ﬁeld trips to explore underwater shipwrecks, past civilizations,
wildlife and ecosystems, and the like (DeWall, 1989; Holzberg, 1996). Finally, students
and teachers can connect with others around the globe to explore particular topics of

interest collaboratively. The International Education and Resource Network (1*EARN)

39

uses the Internet to widen students’ awareness of global social problems and encourages
them to contribute efforts in solving these problems (Copen, 1995).

In more general terms, the Web can bring the world to the school by connecting
students and teachers to a wealth of online resources. At the same time, though online
publishing, the Web can bring the school to the world. The Web can be used to support
multi-site collaborative learning. It can also be used to prepare learners for tasks and
activities they will complete in class, and can provide follow-up to those activities as well
(Ellsworth, 1997).

The Web and Internet can be integrated into classrooms in more speciﬁc, practical
ways as well. Teachers can integrate the Internet or Web by creating a Web page for the
class guiding students to relevant sites, by “bookmarking” relevant sites on the browser,
or by downloading and printing out Web-based information for students (Braun, 1997).
Students can email questions to other students or experts, teachers can subscribe to
multiple listservs to learn more about Web-based curricular opportunities, or teachers can
post questions to online newsgroups. All of these actions assume a certain level of skill
on the part of both students and teachers—skills that many may not yet possess.

There are also limitations to using the Web in schools. First, there is a lack of
hi gh-quality educational material on the Web and ﬁnding appropriate curricular materials
is time-consuming (Mendels, 1997). Second, there is such a vast amount of information
available—and so many information publishers online—that determining the accuracy and
value of information can be challenging for teachers and students (Braun, 1997). Finally,
as with other educational technologies, many teachers lack the technical skills to use the

Web effectively in their classrooms (Carlson, 1998; Hamilton, 1998; Mendels, 1997).

40

The remainder of this chapter will review the status of computer-aided

environmental education and online environmental education Web sites.

Computer-Aided Environmental Education

Computer-aided environmental education is the “utilization of computer
technology to promote the goals and objectives of environmental education”
(Rohwedder, 1990). It is an emerging ﬁeld in environmental education and research is
needed to fully understand the promises and challenges associated with it.

Four potential problems include inequality of access to technology, environmental
substitution, unfounded euphoria, and environmental impact (Rohwedder, 1990). To be
effective, computer-aided environmental education must be affordable and accessible to
all. Computer-based experiences should not substitute for “real world” environmental
experiences. Instead, they should be used as catalysts for ﬁeld instruction and outdoor
exploration. “Unfounded euphoria” refers to the need to critically examine and evaluate
computer-based environmental education software and projects. Although the
“promises” of technology may be enticing, the realistic effects of any technology
application in environmental education should be carefully analyzed. Finally, computer-
aided environmental education should be held to the same environmental impact
assessment that would be conducted on any other technology. As more people use
computers, it is important to examine the costs to the environment that result.

Rohwedder’s book (1990) Computer-aided Environmental Education highlights
several examples of the varied ways computers have been used in environmental
education. Computers have been used in environmental simulation and modeling

projects as well as in telecommunications and collaborative learning projects. Interactive

41

software programs (i.e., hypermedia) were also described as a valuable way educators
were using computers in environmental education. These projects and programs
represented state-of-the-art technology and applications at the time. However, in the
eight years since the book was published, much has changed in terms of technology and
applications—including the advent of the Web and reduced costs for other new
technological applications such as Virtual Reality.

Taylor and Disinger (1997) studied the application of Virtual Reality (VR)
software programs to environmental education. They surveyed 400 environmental
educators by mail and 40 VR developers by electronic mail to determine the acceptability
and potential role of VR in the ﬁeld of environmental education. Both groups selected
the same VR applications as “most beneﬁcial” to environmental education. They were:
(I) explore existing places and things to which students would not otherwise have access,
and (2) explore real objects that without alterations of scale in size and/or time could not
otherwise be effectively examined (p. 40). The two groups disagreed on applications
thought to be least useful, however. The authors conclude that if VR is to become an
effective educational tool, educators must become actively involved in its development
while it is still in its infancy.

Other than this recent VR study and Rohwedder’s book, there have been very few
computer-aided environmental education research studies published in the literature.
Clearly, more published studies in this ﬁeld are needed to advance the knowledge base on

this important and emerging topic.

42

Online Environmental Education

At the time this dissertation was written, virtually no published research studies
on Web-based environmental education projects were found in reviewing the
environmental education literature. There are scattered online projects highlighted in
educational technology journals such as the GLOBE Project and the JASON Project that
apply to environmental education but do not necessarily focus on deve10ping the
knowledge, skills and attitudes of learners that are the goals of environmental education.

The GLOBE Project (Global Learning and Observations to Beneﬁt the
Environment) was launched Earth Day 1995 by Vice President Al Gore. The purpose is
to encourage students to make scientiﬁcally sound measurements and observations about
their environment and to share that data with others via state-of-the-art communication
systems (Pyke, 1995).

Similarly, the JASON Project began in 1989 and also uses state-of-the art
technology including satellites, robotics, ﬁber optics and computers to broadcast live
explorations of various unique environments (DeWall, 1989). The ﬁrst event in 1989
featured an exploration of the Titanic. Currently, on its tenth exploration, the 1998
JASON Project features an exploration of the rainforests of the Peruvian Amazon
(JASON Foundation, 1998). Both projects provide curricula for teachers to use with
students in the classroom however, it is not clear whether or not educators were involved
in the development and design of curricula.

A cursory keyword search of the Web for “environmental education” will elicit
literally tens of thousands of documents related to the topic. Although there are certain to

be many sites that focus on formal environmental education in schools, ﬁnding them is

43

difﬁcult and time consuming. There are very few comprehensive environmental
education sites—and of those that exist, almost none focus on providing information for
K-12 teachers speciﬁcally. Many environmental education sites focus on a particular
topic such as sea turtle migrations or weather patterns, for example. Teachers can ﬁnd
curricula at sites of national environmental organizations such as The National Wildlife
Federation (http://www.nwf.org/), The Rainforest Action Network (http://wwwrancrgn
and The National Audubon Society (ht_tp://www.audubon.org[) as well as at the
Environmental Protection Agency (http://wwwepa.gov/gpahome/studentshtm). But,
again, ﬁnding the resources and determining how to integrate them into existing curricula
is time-intensive.

EE-Link (http://eelinknev) was one of the earliest environmental education sites
and continues to be one of the most comprehensive on the Web. The new, reorganized -
site is tailored to the needs of three groups—teachers, students and environmental
education professionals. Teachers can ﬁnd general information about environmental
education goals as well as searchable databases for curricula. Another early and
comprehensive site is Envirolink (http://www.envirolink._org). It maintains a library of
environmental education resources categorized from A to Z, but is not focused on the
needs of K-12 teachers.

While this review of Web sites is by no means comprehensive or even
representative, it highlights the difﬁculty of ﬁnding environmental education resources
on the Web at present. As indicated previously in this chapter, most schools are
connected to the Internet and Web and access is expected to increase within the next few

years. However, most teachers simply do not have the time to invest looking for

resources even if they believe environmental education is important and would beneﬁt
their students. It is clear that a gap exists between the environmental education resources
available on the Web and the needs of teachers to ﬁnd and access those resources in a
timely and organized manner. Research is needed to explore teachers’ attitudes toward
using the Web to access environmental education resources, to learn how teachers
envision future environmental education sites and to identify their expectations for sites

offering environmental education curricular resources.

SUMMARY

The literature in both environmental education and educational technology
highlights the essential role of teachers. Teachers are ultimately responsible for what is
taught in the classroom and as such, teachers are the key to curriculum change.

The challenges to integrating environmental education are signiﬁcant—even for
teachers with a strong desire to teach about the environment. The literature reveals that
involving teachers in the environmental education curriculum development process and
improving access to environmental education resources is critical. If teachers can
connect with like-minded teachers, ﬁnd sample activities and lesson plans, and learn
about environmental education goals and objectives, they may be more likely to integrate
environmental education into their curricula.

The Web promises to be an essential educational resource for teachers now and in
the future. It is possible that this medium could enable some teachers to connect to
environmental education resources they desire. However, at present, very few

comprehensive environmental education sites exist that are tailored speciﬁcally to the

45

needs of K-12 teachers. Further research is necessary to determine if teachers desire
Web-based environmental education resources.

Published research in Web-based environmental education is virtually non-
existent at present and is urgently needed. This literature review provides a rationale for
the further exploration of the use of the Web as a means to connect teachers to

environmental education resources.

46

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

OVERVIEW

This study was conducted in three phases. The ﬁrst phase consisted of a self-
adnrinistered mail survey of teachers to conﬁrm that ﬁrrther research of educators’ use of ,
the Web in environmental education was warranted and to verify that teachers had access
to Internet and Web technologies in their schools. The second phase of research
consisted of designing and developing a pilot Web site that highlighted two teachers’
environmental education lesson plans and curricula. This was followed by the third
phase of research—an online, Web-based survey—which asked respondents to indicate
their level of access to various environmental education resources, their attitudes toward

environmental education and their attitudes toward using the Web in education.

PHASE 1: THE SELF-ADMINISTERED MAIL SURVEY

Purpose

The purpose of the mail survey was twofold. First, the survey would determine
whether or not teachers had the technological capacity (i.e., hardware, software and
Internet access) to engage in this research. Second, the survey would establish whether
or not teachers’ level of interest in environmental education warranted further research on

this topic.

47

Research Questions Addressed

The research questions addressed by this methodology are:

1. Is there sufﬁcient evidence to suggest that Michigan teachers are interested in
environmental education?

2. Is there sufﬁcient evidence to suggest that the proposed research is technically
possible (i.e., do Michigan schools have the necessary hardware, software and
Internet access)?

The results will be discussed in detail in Chapter 4, however, the data indicated

that teachers were interested in environmental education and had the hardware, software

and Intemet/Web access necessary for the proposed research study.

Rationale

There are several advantages to the self-administered mail survey method.
Surveys are excellent data gathering techniques (Singleton, Straits & Straits, 1993). They
are useﬁrl in describing the characteristics of large populations and can make sampling
large populations feasible (Babbie, 1995). They are ﬂexible in that many questions can
be asked about a particular topic to elicit a range of attitudes and beliefs. Mail surveys in
particular tend to be less expensive than other types of survey methods and are relatively
quick and easy to administer.

Some disadvantages to this method include lower response rates than with other
survey methods and susceptibility to “reactivity” (i.e., respondents may give socially
desirable answers). In addition, surveys can not measure behavior; “they can only collect

self-reports of recalled past action or hypothetical action” (Babbie, 1995, p. 274). In

48

exploratory studies such as this one, surveys can indicate associations between variables

but cannot easily establish cause-and-effect relationships (Singleton et al., 1993).
Because the purpose the ﬁrst phase was to quickly and easily establish whether or

not the proposed research was technically possible and of interest to teachers, the self-

administered mail survey was selected as the most appropriate method.

Sampling Procedure

Sample Selection Criteria

Fourth grade teachers in Michigan were selected as the target population for the
ﬁrst two phases of this research because all share a common state-mandated curriculum
that includes academic standards relevant to environmental education. For example, the
Michigan social studies content standards include “strands” such as Human/Environment
Interaction, Global Issues and Events, and Individual and Household Choices (US.
Department of Education, 1998) that are directly related to environmental education.
Because all fourth grade teachers prepare their students for required exams that test
content standards, it was assumed that these teachers might have a particular knowledge
of and interest in environmental education that teachers of other grade levels might not

share.

Sample Selection Process

All fourth grade teachers in ten local school districts in Ingham County,
Michigan, were surveyed between February and May 1997. Based on the 1997 Directory
of Ingham County Schools, each school was contacted, the survey was described to a
secretary or administrator, and the names of fourth grade teachers were requested for

direct mailing purposes.

49

Data Collection Methods

The mail survey requested respondents’ views on such matters as:

Teaching environmental education;

Developing curricula for environmental education;

environmental education inservice education experiences;

Access to computers and Internet in schools and classrooms;
Types of software programs available to teachers and students; and

Computer inservice education experiences.

Direct questioning was used in the survey. It was organized as follows:

1.

Section 1: Environmental Education — consisted of seven questions about
teaching environmental education, ﬁnding resources, receiving inservice
education and developing curricula.

Section 2: Computers in Education — consisted of six questions about access
to computers, the Internet and the World Wide Web, availability of different
types of software programs, respondents’ method of learning software, and
ways computers are used in instruction.

Section 3: General Information —- consisted of eight questions about
respondents’ teaching experience, educational background, ethnicity, gender,

age and school community.

Pre-test/Evaluation

The Ingham County School District’s technology coordinator, a statistics

professor and the doctoral research committee reviewed the survey. Revisions were

made based on comments received and subsequently mailed to teachers.

50

Permission

After receiving approval for the survey from the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects in February 1997, schools were contacted to request
permission to mail surveys to fourth grade teachers. In some cases, school administrators
required a faxed version of the survey be sent to them for approval prior to mailing
surveys directly to teachers. Each of the following ten school districts granted
permission: Dannsville, East Lansing, Haslett, Holt, Leslie, Okemos, Stockbridge,
Waverly, Webberville and Williamston.

Each fourth grade teacher was mailed a cover letter, consent form, survey and

postage-paid return envelope (See Appendix A).

Recording of Data

Data from the mail surveys were entered into SPSS for Windows Version 7.5.
The frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations were computed to
determine whether or not the majority of respondents had (1) an interest in environmental
education, and (2) access to the hardware and software necessary for the proposed Web-

based research project.

PHASE 2: TWO DESCRIPT IVE CASES

Purpose

The purpose of this phase of the research was to (1) examine the environmental
education curriculum process of two practicing fourth grade teachers and (2) to generate
teacher-developed environmental education content to place on the Web for others to

review and comment on in Phase 3.

51

Research Questions Addressed

The research questions addressed by this methodology are:
1. How does each teacher approach (i.e., begin) the environmental education
curriculum development process?
a) Do teachers begin with curriculum standards, selected activities or students’
suggestions?
2. Which environmental topics does each teacher select as central to the
curriculum development process?
a) What can be learned about teachers’ conceptions of environmental
education based on the topics they choose to teach?
3. Into which subject areas are environmental concepts infused?
a) Do teachers select science only, or other subject areas?
4. What types of resources do teachers use to help them develop environmental
education curricula?

a) Do teachers use textbooks, colleagues, the World Wide Web, et cetera?

Rationale for Qualitative Methods

Participant observation and in-depth interviewing were used during this phase of
the research. Qualitative methods were chosen as most appropriate because the goal of
the research for Phase 2 was to understand the complex process of environmental
education curriculum development by teachers. Samuel (1993) found that “very little
research has been done to explore how environmental education has actually been
implemented” (p. 26). This may be due, in part, to a dearth of environmental education

research that has employed qualitative methods.

52

Researchers have indicated that qualitative methods are most appropriate when
trying to understand naturally occurring phenomena in naturally occurring settings
(Marshall & Rossman, 1989; Patton, 1990). In particular, if the focus of research is on a
process such that how something occurs is more important than the end result, direct
participation in and observation of that process may be the best methods for
understanding it (Patton, 1990). With qualitative methods, the context and meaning
created by researchers and participants is paramount to understanding the phenomena.

There is also an advantage to striking a balance between the use of qualitative and
quantitative methods in a study. Triangulation of methods allows the researcher to
corroborate information and further reﬁne conclusions and recommendations (Cantrell,
1993; Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). Thus, qualitative methodologies employed in this phase

should complement survey methodologies used in phases 1 and 3.

Selection of Teachers

Researchers recommend selecting a sample that represents the widest range of
variation in the phenomena, settings or people to maximize what can be learned
(Marshall & Rossman, 1989; Stake, 1995). Two Michigan fourth grade teachers were
invited to participate in this research project. Both were members of a statewide
consortium of school districts participating in an innovative ﬁve-year Technology
Challenge Grant sponsored by the US. government. The researcher worked for the
project for several months and developed a relationship with the teachers there.

One teacher was from a large, urban center and had a class of approximately 16
students. The school served approximately 1,600 students—many of them economically

disadvantaged. She taught language arts and computers. The other teacher taught in a

53

relatively afﬂuent suburban school. The school was only ﬁve years old and served
approximately 350 students total. Teachers team-taught 54 students; classrooms were
multi-age consisting of students from three consecutive grade levels. The school was
founded upon Dr. William Glasser’s ideas for “Total Quality Schools.”

Because teachers represented vastly different school cultures and settings, they

were selected for participation in the study.

Data Collection Methods

Interviews

Prior to the beginning of the environmental education curriculum development
project, the researcher met with each teacher for an “Entry” interview. Interviews
generally lasted a few hours. The goal was to clearly explain the purpose of the project,
generate possible projects and establish a mutually agreeable timeline for completing
environmental education curriculum development and infusion.

At the close of the project, “Exit” interviews were scheduled with teachers to gain
their insights and reﬂections about the curriculum development process and the role the

Web might play in elementary and/or formal environmental education.

Participant-Observation

During the Entry interviews, plans were made for the researcher to teach one or
more classes to students. In one case, the teacher was most interested in having class
sessions on Web page development for students; the other teacher wanted students to
participate in a hands-on paper recycling activity. The researcher role was clearly
deﬁned at the outset and both teachers wanted active participation by the researcher

rather than observation alone.

54

Developing the Prototype Web Site

The ﬁnal task to be completed for this phase of the research was the production of
a prototype Web site to highlight the curriculum and lesson plans developed by teachers,
to provide examples of students’ work, and to provide teachers’ comments about
activities. Once teachers had developed environmental education curriculum, it was
placed on the Web by the researcher. The pilot site was to serve as a unique

demonstration site for other teachers to review and comment on in Phase 3.

PHASE 3: THE WEB-BASED SURVEY .

Purpose

The purpose of the Web-based survey was to recruit a diverse sample of educators
who regularly used the Web or, at least, had some minimal knowledge and experience
using the medium. Because survey questions asked respondents to indicate attitudes
about using the Web in K-12 classrooms and to indicate interest in and ideas for future
online environmental education sites, it was necessary to recruit Web-savvy respondents.
It was assumed that teachers with no Web experience would be least able to present ideas

and insights about ways to integrate the Web in their classrooms.

Research Questions Addressed

The research questions addressed by this methodology are:

1. Do K-12 teachers who complete the online survey exhibit positive attitudes
toward environmental education?

2. Do K-12 teachers who complete the online survey exhibit positive attitudes

toward using the World Wide Web in education?

55

3. What is the relationship between teachers’ access to environmental education
resources and their attitudes toward environmental education?

4. What is the relationship between teachers’ attitudes toward environmental
education and their attitudes toward using the World Wide Web in education?

5. Using only electronic methods to advertise the online survey, how many K-12
teachers will complete and submit the online survey in a one-month period?

In association with these research questions, the following hypotheses were

tested:

H1: Teachers who have greater access to environmental education resources
will exhibit a more positive attitude toward environmental education than
teachers who have access to fewer resources.

H2: Teachers who exhibit a more positive attitude toward environmental
education will also exhibit a more positive attitude toward using the Web
in education.

Rationale

There was almost no discussion of Web-based surveys in the formal research
methodology literature. Recker and Greenwood (1998) conclude, “Electronic,
‘asynchronous’ surveying is uncharted territory and research is needed to identify
potential biases that may arise.”

Researchers at Georgia Tech’s Graphics, Visualization and Usability Center have
been using this methodology regularly since 1994 to survey Web users. They found that

this survey method suffers from two problems: self-selection and sampling (Graphics

56

Visualization and Usability Center, 1997; Pitkow & Kehoe, 1996). People who choose to
participate in the survey self-select themselves. This is true of all surveys, however.

The second issue is sampling:

The surveys use a form of non-probabilistic sampling which relies on

users’ awareness of the surveys for participation. As a result, all portions

of the user population may not be represented in the sample. This reduces

the ability of the gathered data to generalize to the entire Web user

population (Pitkow & Kehoe, 1996).

Similarly, responses generated by teachers completing the Web-based survey for this
research must be interpreted cautiously and, most likely, do not accurately represent the
population of Web-using teachers.

However, there are advantages to using this methodology. First, online collection
of data improves efﬁciency and reduces the possibility of data-entry error (Recker &
Greenwood, 1998) since respondents’ answers are automatically stored in a database.
Second, because this exploratory research focuses on the use of a new technology, it is
essential that teachers who participate are experienced users of the technology.
Therefore, the bias exhibited by respondents is desired. Finally, the ease of
communication combined with the vast number of individuals that can be quickly and

inexpensively contacted via e-mail and the Web makes this survey method most

appropriate for the task.

Sampling Procedure

Sample Selection Criteria
K-12 teachers were selected as the target population for this survey. All K-12
teachers were selected for two reasons. First, expected response rates are difﬁcult to

determine in advance of the survey and by limiting the kinds of teachers eligible to

57

respond, it would necessarily reduce the response rate. Second, because the goal of the
survey was to enlist a diversity of respondents with experience teaching and using the
Web there was no reason to exclude any teachers {tom the survey as it was expected that

all would have insights and opinions that would be valuable.

Sample Selection Process

The survey was announced to educators and other interested individuals via the
Internet using e-mail, listservs (i.e., e-mail based discussion lists focused on particular
topics), and Internet news groups (i.e., Intemet-based bulletin boards). In addition, the
research pilot Web site URL (Uniform Resource Locator; Internet address) was
registered with a number of Web “search engines.” Table 1 lists the Internet contacts and

where possible, identiﬁes the number of individuals contacted.

58

Table 1: Internet and Web-Based Contacts for Survey Recruitment

 

Internet/Web-Based Contact

Number of Individuals Contacted

 

Listservs
ENVST-L (Environmental Studies)
WWWEDU (W in Education)
ED-TECH (Education Technology)
K-12 OPPS (Opportunities in K-12 Education)

TOTAL

Newsgroups

Environment
sci.environment
talk.environment

Education
alt.education.research
alt.education.alternative
rnisc.education
misc.education.science
UK.education.teachers
alt.teachers.lesson-planning
K12.chat.elementary
K12.chat.teacher
K12.ed.comp.literacy
K12.ed.science
K12.ed.soc-studies
K12.ed.tech

Web Search Engines
AOL Netﬁnd (h_t_tp://www.aol.com/netﬁn¢)
Excite (http://www.excite.com)
Hot Bot (htrpz/l’wwwhotbotcom)
Infoseek (http://www.infoseek.com)
Lycos (http://www.lvcos.com)
WebCrawler (http://www.webcrawler.com)

Yahoo (hng/wwwyahoocom)

59

572
1,657
3,884
2,662

8,775

Unknown

Unknown

Data Collection Methods

The Web-based survey was to be completed within 45 days and requested

respondents’ views on such matters as:

Teaching environmental education;

The need for environmental education in K-12 schools;
Access to environmental education resources;

Using the Web to ﬁnd classroom resources;

The future of the Web in education;

The effect of the Web on teaching methods.

Two versions of the survey were developed—one for teachers and one for non-

teachers. It was anticipated that individuals other than teachers might visit the Web site

and want to ﬁll out a survey. For this reason, a much shorter survey was developed as a

means to prevent non-teachers from completing the teaching survey and possibly

skewing results. For the purposes of this research, however, only teacher surveys will be

discussed here.

The entire teacher survey comprised a single Web page (see Appendix B). Each

of the four sections of the survey was clearly marked. The layout of the survey was as

follows:

1.

Section 1: Environmental Education — consisted of eight questions about

teaching environmental education, integrating environmental education into

the curricula and the need for environmental education in K-12 schools.

60

2. Section 2: Using the Web in Environmental Education — consisted of eleven
questions about predicting future Web use, using the Web to ﬁnd classroom
resources and the impact of the Web on teaching practices.

3. Section 3: Access to Environmental Education Resources — consisted of 16
questions about respondents’ access to a variety of national, state and local
environmental education resources.

4. Section 4: Tell Us About Yourself - consisted of eight closed-ended
questions about teaching experience, gender, geographic location, Internet
access and e-mail/Web browsing habits, and included four open-ended
questions about concerns for using the Web in school and teaching

environmental education.

Scoring

Sections 1 and 2 consisted of eight and 13 statements respectively that were
measured on a Likert scale. Statements were worded in a positive direction and were
scored as follows: Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4), Not Sure (3), Disagree (2), and Strongly
Disagree (1). The scoring for statements written in a negative manner were reversed in
order to provide a total score that reﬂects a positive attitude toward the item in question.
In this way a person favoring environmental education or the Web will agree with
positive items and disagree with negative ones and vice versa. Scores in Section 1 could
range from 40 to 8. The higher the score, the more favorable the respondent’s attitude
toward environmental education. Scores in Section 2 could range from 55 to 11. The
higher the score, the more favorable the respondent’s attitude toward using the Web in

education.

61

Section 3 asked respondents to indicate whether or not they had access to
particular environmental education resources. Answers were scored as follows: Yes (2),
Not Sure and No (0). Access scores could range from 32 to 0. The higher the score, the

greater the respondent’s access to resources.

Pre-test/Evaluation

Two environmental education professors, a statistics professor, an education
professor and graduate student (who specialize in educational technology), two
elementary school teachers and the doctoral research committee reviewed the survey.
Revisions were made based on comments received by all parties. The newly-revised
version of the survey was placed on the Web; all reviewers were notiﬁed and invited to
review and submit ﬁnal comments for changes. Based on ﬁnal comments, minor changes

were made and the survey was considered complete.

Permission

After receiving approval for the survey from the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects in March 1998, the survey was linked to the
prototype Web site created in Phase 2. Before respondents could take the survey, they
had to view a “consent form,” press a button to indicate their consent and this would link
them to the survey. It was virtually impossible for any respondent to get to the survey

without ﬁrst reading the consent form page.

Recording of Data
Data generated by the Web-based surveys were stored directly on the server in
Microsoft Access ’97; results were captured and imported into SPSS for Windows '

Version 7.5. The frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations and correlational

62

measures were computed to evaluate relationships between access to environmental
education resources, attitudes toward environmental education and attitudes toward the

Web.

63

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

OVERVIEW

This chapter consists of three sections. The ﬁrst section is an analysis and
describes the results of the mail survey sent to a sample of fourth grade teachers in
Ingham County, Michigan. The data presented includes the response rate and sampling
distribution, frequencies, and a description of the research questions addressed. The
second section describes the results of the environmental education curriculum
development process by two Michigan fourth grade teachers. Their descriptive cases are
compared and contrasted to gain insight into the process, obstacles and opportunities of
environmental education curriculum development. Sample content from the Web site is
provided. The third section presents an analysis and the results of the Web-based survey.
The data presented include the sampling distribution, frequencies, hypotheses tested,

research questions addressed, and results from additional statistical analyses.

THE MAIL SURVEY

Response Rate

Ninety-three surveys were mailed to fourth grade teachers in Ingham County,
Michigan, between February and May 1997. The total number of surveys returned was
45 resulting in a response rate of 48 percent. Of the surveys returned, eight respondents

indicated their wish to not participate. These surveys constitute “missing data” and were

64

removed ﬁom the analysis. Therefore, the results that follow are derived from the 37
completed, returned surveys. Although the sample size is somewhat small, according to
Kachigan (1986),

...based on various empirical sampling studies, it has been found

somewhat surprisingly that a sample size as small as n=30 will often result

in a sampling distribution that is very nearly normal in form, even when
the original population deviates quite markedly from a normal distribution

(p.111).

Given the formula for the sample standard error

6 = M
where n represents the sample size (e. g. 37), p represents the probability of one of the
outcomes of a binary variable (e.g. 0.5) and q=1-p(e.g. 0.5). Thus, the margin of error

for a sample of size 37 is i18.5%.

Sampling Distribution

Table 2 compares the population distribution to the sample distribution of
respondents. The data indicate that the distribution of surveys received was fairly
representative of the school districts in Ingham County, Michigan.

According to Kachigan (1986), a normal distribution can be estimated using the
sample size n and the proportion p:

As a rule, the sampling distribution for a proportion can be considered to

be very nearly normal in form as long as the product of up exceeds a value

of 5 (p. 126).

For the mail survey the product of np (37 x 0.5) is 18.5 and the sampling distribution

does appear to be normal in form.

65

Table 2: Mail Survey Distribution By School District

 

 

School Number of Percent of Number of Percent of
District Teachers All Teachers Surveys Surveys
Returned Returned

Dannsville 3 3% 2 4%
East Lansing 17 18% 5 11%
Haslett 9 10% 5 11%
Holt 18 19% 10 22%
Leslie 5 5% 2 4%
Okemos 14 15% 5 l 1%
Stockbridgc 7 8% 3 7%
Waverly 10 l 1% 6 13%
Webberville 3 3% 1 2%
Williamston 7 8% 6 1 3%
TOTALS 93 100% 45 48%

 

Presentation of Frequencies

General Characteristics of Respondents

Of the 37 teachers who completed and returned their questionnaires, 31 were
female (83.8%) and 6 were male (16.2%). Most of the respondents (83.8%, n=31) were
41 to 60 years old while only 16.2% (n=6) were 40 years or younger. All respondents
were Caucasian. The majority of respondents (83.8%, n=31) had a Master's degree;
13.5% (n=5) had credits beyond a BA/BS and 2.7% (n=1) had completed post-doctoral
study. Approximately 70% of all respondents (70.3%, n=28) reported 10 years or more
of teaching experience. No respondents represented urban schools: 78.4% (n=29)
represented suburban schools and 21.6% (n=8) represented rural schools. When asked
about the type of community their schools server, 64.9% (n=24) of teachers reported

“middle class”, 13.5% (n=5) reported “economically disadvantaged” and “afﬂuent” and

66

the remaining 8.1% (n=3) reported serving all categories. Table 3 presents the data

gathered on respondents

Table 3: Summary of General Characteristics of Respondents

 

 

Variable Category Frequency Percent
Gender Male 16.2%
Female 31 83.8%

Age Range 21-30 yrs 4 10.8%
31-40 yrs 2 5.4%

41-50 yrs 20 54.1%

51-60 yrs 11 - 29.7%

Emma” Caucasian 37 100%
Editziiolbcbbl Of1e m d Credits beyond BA/BS 5 13.5%
mp MA/MS 31 83.8%
Post-doctoral study 1 2.7%

Years Teaching K-6 1-5 yrs 6 16.2%
6-10 yrs 3 8.1%

11-15 yrs 4 10.8%

16-20 yrs 8 21.6%

21 yrs or more 16 43.2%

2gb“ °f smdems m 25 or less 33 89.2%
26-50 4 10.8%

Eypzoqfngpmmumty: Econ. Disadvantaged 5 13.5%
Middle-Class 24 64.9%

Affluent 5 13.5%

All Above 3 8.1%

a? «$2,111,133, Rural 8 21.6%
g“? g Suburban 29 78.4%
Urban 0 0

 

Environmental Education Responses

Teaching Environmental Education (EB). Respondents were asked if they teach

environmental concepts in the classroom. Most respondents indicated that they did

(7 8.4%, n=29), while 21 .6% (n=8) did not (See Table 4). When the eight respondents

67

who do not teach environmental concepts were asked to identify barriers to teaching
environmental education, the most common responses included “Do not have class time
to teach environmental education” (n=5), “Do not have time to prepare” (n=4), “Other
reasons” (n=3) and “Concepts unrelated to subjects taught” (n=2).

Curriculum Guides and Inservice Education. With regard to environmental
education curricula and inservice education opportunities, 37.8% (n=14) of respondents
reported that they own or have access to environmental education curriculum guides, and
45.9% (n=l7) have received some environmental education inservice education.
Conversely, the majority of respondents (62.2%, n=23) reported they do not own or have
access to environmental education curriculum guides, and 54.1% (n=20) have not

received any environmental education inservice education.

Table 4: Respondents’ Experience Teaching EE

 

 

Variable Category Frequency Percent
Teach envrronmental concepts Yes 29 7 8.4%
No 8 21 .6%
Access to EE Curriculum Guides
Yes 14 37.8%
No 23 62.2%
Past EE inservice education
Yes 17 45.9%
No 20 54.1%

 

To determine whether or not the relationship between access to guides and in-
service education was independent, a cross-tabulation analysis with Pearson Chi-Square
was performed. The results were signiﬁcant at the .001 level and indicate that the two
variables are dependent: those who have had inservice education experiences are more

likely to have access to environmental education curriculum guides and vice versa.

68

Developing EE Curricula. Teachers were presented with eight possible
curriculum development resource options and asked to select all that they use when
developing environmental education curricula. They reported the following (see Table 5):
“I develop my own unique curriculum and activities” (62.2%, n=23); “I get my ideas for
environmental curricula from my colleagues” (40.5%, n=15); “I use special
environmental education curriculum guides” (29.7%, n=1 1); “Other” (19.4%, n=7); “1 do
not teach about environmental concepts” (13.5%, n=5); “1 use the World-Wide Web and
the Internet to develop environmental curricula” (10.8%, n=4); and, “I use the

state/county required curriculum guides.” (8.1%, n=3).

Table 5: Resources Used to Develop EE Curricula

 

 

Variable Category Frequency Percent
Resources used I d v 1 23 62 20/
to develop EE e e op my own ' °
. unrque currrcula
curricula
I get ideas from 15 40.5%
colleagues
EE curriculum guides 11 29.7%
Other
0
Do not teach EE 7 19'4 /°
0
lntemet/WWW 5 13.5 /°
0
State/County 4 10'8 /°
curriculum guides 3 8.1%

 

Environmental Education in K-12 Schools. When asked if environmental
education should be taught in school one respondent (2.7%) was “Not sure.” A majority
of teachers (67.6%, n=25) responded “Deﬁnitely, Yes” and an additional 29.7% (n=11)
responded “Yes.” No respondents disagreed with the statement. (See Table 6.)

Comfort Level Teaching EE. When asked how comfortable they would feel

teaching their students about environmental concepts, 43.2% (n=16) responded “Very

69

comfortable”, 40.5% (n=15) reported that they were “Comfortable” and 16.2% (n=6)
indicated “Neutral” feelings.

IQChIIELEE More Oﬁen. Finally, respondents were asked to identify as many
situations as apply that would be most likely to inﬂuence them to infuse enviromnental
education into their curricula in the future. The responses, in descending order, were as
follows: more preparation time (73%, n=27), better access to curricula (56.8%, n=21),
more environmental education in-service classes (56.8%, n=21), more funding (40.5%,

n=15), more administrative support (24.3%, n=9), and “Other” (18.9%, n=7).

Table 6: Respondents’ Beliefs About Teaching EE

 

 

Variable Category Frequency Percent
EE should be .
. Deﬁnitely Yes 25 67.6%
taught In schools Yes 11 29.7%
Not Sure I 2.7%
$223: gel Very Comfortable 16 43.2%
Comfortable 15 40.5%
Neutral 6 16.2%
intpgstézilgrc-Engmg More prep time 27 73.0%
ymore often Better access to EB 21 56.8%
resources, curricula
More EE inservice 21 56.8%
More frmding 15 40.5%
More school support 9 24.3%
Other 7 18.9%

 

Teaching with Computers

Computer Access. Teachers were asked about computer access in their
classrooms and schools (see Table 7). Most of the respondents (86.5%, n=32) indicated
that they have at least one computer in the classroom. However, of that total number
(n=32), almost half had a single computer in the classroom (46.9%, n=15), 9.4% (n=3)

had two computers, and 43.7% (n=14) had three or more computers. Most respondents

70

(68.8%, n=22) indicated that the computer(s) they have are at least two years old or more;
only 10 respondents (31.2%) reported having computers less than two years old.
Teachers reported using Macintosh (53.1%, n=l7), IBM (34.4%, n=1 1) and both
platforms (12.5%, n=4) in their classrooms. Additionally, of those who have one or more
computers in the classroom, 71.9% (n=23) also have Internet access from their
classrooms. When asked if their school has a computer lab, more than half of all teachers

(67.6%, n=25) reported that they did. Of those schools with computer labs (n=25), only

28% (n=7) have Internet access from the school computer lab.

Table 7: Respondents’ Access to Computers and Internet

 

 

Variable Category Frequency Percent

No 5 13.5%
ggmﬁggg‘gfmm 1 15 46.9%
2 3 9.4%
3 9 28.1%
4 3 9.4%
more than 4 2 6.2%

Age of newest
__ Less than 1 year 1 3.1%
computer(s) (n—32) 1_2 years 9 28.1%
2-4 years 20 62.5%
More than 4 years 2 6.3%
(€215?th ”mm" IBM 1 1 34.4%
“ Mac 17 53.1%
Multiple platforms 4 12.5%
Sggggfxgg’fm Yes 23 71.9%
No/Not sure 9 28.1%
(Sign; has a computer lab Yes 25 67. 6%
No 12 32.4%
Lab has lntemet access Yes 7 28 0%
(“=25) No/Not sure 18 72.0%

 

71

Software Available in Classrooms or Computer Labs. Next, teachers were asked

 

to select all of the kinds of software available in their classrooms and school computer
labs. Table 8 illustrates the results.

Table 8: Software Available to Respondents

 

 

Software Frequency Percent
Word-processing 34 91 .9%
Drawing 33 89.2%
Games 3 1 83 . 8%
Spreadsheet 26 70.3%
Educational Soﬁware 25 67.6%
Database 25 67.6%
E-mail 28 62.2%
WWW-browser 20 54. 1%
Hypermedia l 1 29.7%
Presentation 1 1 29.7%
Other/Not sure 3 8. 1%

 

Almost all teachers (91.9%, n=34) had access to word processing software, drawing
programs (89.2%, n=33) and computer games (83.8%, n=31). The least common
software programs available were those for presentation (i.e., MS Powerpoint) and
Hypermedia (i.e., Hyperstudio, Macromedia Director); only 29.7% of respondents (n=1 1)
indicated access to each of these programs. More than half of all teachers reported the
availability of email (62.2%, n=28) and Web browsing (54.1%, n=20) software.

Computer Inservice Education. When asked whether or not they have received
inservice education to learn software programs, 55.6% (n=25) responded that they had
received inservice education, while 26.7% (n=l2) had not (see Table 9).

Ways of Learning Computers/Software. Next, teachers were asked to indicate the
ways they learned to use computers and software programs; they selected as many

options as applied. The majority of teachers reported that they were self-taught (81.1%,

72

n=30), 67.6% (n=25) indicated that they learned from their colleagues and 51.4% (n=19)
cited inservice education programs as an educational resource. (See Table 9)

Using Computers in Instruction. When asked whether or not they use computers
in instruction, 78.4% of respondents (n=29) reported that they did use computers while
21.6% (n=8) reported that they did not. Those who reported that they did not use
computers (n=9) were asked to indicate situation(s) that would be most likely to inﬂuence
them to use computers in instruction in the ﬁrture. The frequencies of responses, in
descending order, are as follows: more computers in the classroom (n=7), more computer
inservice education (n=6), access to better hardware/software (n=6), more preparation
time (n=4), other (n=1).

The respondents who indicated that they did use computers in instruction (78.4%,
n=29) were asked to answer four additional questions. First, they were asked to indicate
the primary way(s) they use computers in instruction. The most frequently cited response
was “Educational Software” reported by 62.1% of teachers (n=18). Nearly 35% of
respondents indicated “Other” ways of using computers in instruction (34.5%, n=10) and
these included writing and word processing, hypermedia, publishing documents and
testing students. Internet research (24.1%, n=7), email (13.8%, n=4) and Internet

publishing (6.9%, n=2) were among the uses least frequently reported by respondents.

73

Table 9: Respondents’ Experience with Computers

 

 

Variable Category Frequency Percent
Com uter inservice
educgtion (n=37) Yes 25 55 .6%
No 12 26.7%
xgguﬁiggﬁm Self-taught 3o 81.12/11
(n=37) Colleagues 25 67.6 /o
In-servrce ed. programs 19 51.4%
Students 15 40.5%
My children; family members 12 32.4%
Courses outside of my school 5 13.5%
Other 3 8.1%
51:21:?)wrth computers Yes 29 7 8.4%
No 8 21.6%
Factors that would More computers in classroom 7 87.5%
Inﬂuence you to use . . . 0
computers more in More mservrce educatron 6 75.0 /o
the future (n=8) Better hardware/software 6 75.0%
More prep trme 4 50.0%
Other 1 2.2%
Ways computers are Educational software 18 62.1%
used for mstructron o
(n=29) Other . . . 10 34.5 /o
Computer-arded mstructron 9 31.0%
Presenting information 8 27.6%
Internet research 7 24.1%
E-mail 4 13.8%
Internet publishing 2 6.9%
Data analysis 1 3.4%

 

Web and Computer-based EE. Next, the teachers who reported using computers
in instruction (n=29) were asked to indicate whether or not they had ever found lesson
plans or activities on the World-Wide Web and incorporated them into classroom
teaching. More than one-quarter of respondents (27 .6%, n=8) reported that they had
found lessons on the Web while 72.4% (n=21) had not. Only two respondents (6.9%)
had contributed their own lesson plans to a Web site. Six respondents (20.7%) indicated
that they had used computers to teach their students about the environment and the

remaining 23 teachers (79.3%) had not. (See Table 10)

74

Table 10: Computer-Using Teachers’ Responses

 

Variable Category Frequency Percent

 

Found lesson plans on Web

. = Yes 8 27.6%
and used In classroom (11 29) No 21 72.4%
Put own activities on Web
= Yes 2 6.9%
for others to use (11 29) No 27 93.1%
Used computers to teach
. _ Yes 6 20.7%
about envrronment (n 29) No 23 79.3%

 

Research Questions Answered

1. Is there sufﬁcient evidence to suggest that Michigan respondents are

interested in environmental education?

The data provide evidence that the majority of respondents are interested in
environmental education despite the barriers that exist. Nearly 80% of teachers surveyed
reported teaching environmental education to their students. Over 97% agreed that
environmental education should be taught in K-12 schools and nearly 84% reported
feeling comfortable teaching environmental education. According to one respondent,

I feel that environmental education is being totally neglected and feel we
must get it into the curriculum. Kids love it and are sponges about
absorbing it because no one teaches it to them. My class has adopted a
manatee for the third year in a row and we are actively recycling and
trying to get other kids and parents (teachers, too) more involved in
recycling. It is a constant battle as the kids are ﬁnding out. — A teacher of
32 years

Another teacher writes,

What is needed most is time for planning, and just as important,
collaboration. I see environmental education as an excellent way to link
all subject areas. As a theme it ﬁts very well with my science and
geography focus. The possibility of using novels I have or could use and
potential art projects seem logical as well. — A teacher of 12 years

75

2. Is there sufﬁcient evidence to suggest that the proposed research is technically
possible (i.e., do Michigan schools have the necessary hardware, software and
Internet access)?

The data provide evidence that supports the technical feasibility of engaging in
the next phase of research. Survey results indicate that nearly 87% of teachers surveyed
reported having computers in their classrooms. Of those teachers, approximately 72%
reported having Internet access as well. Nearly 68% of all teachers have access to a
computer lab in their school and of those teachers, 28% reported having Internet access
from the labs. The majority of teachers have the hardware necessary to access the
Internet from their schools and/or classrooms.

In addition, more than half of the teachers surveyed indicated that they have email
(62.2%) and Web (54.1%) software available to them. Almost 80% of teachers reported-
using computers in instruction, and of those using computers, some are using them for
email (13.8%), Internet research (24.1%) and Internet publishing (6.9%). Finally, more
than one-quarter of those using computers in instruction (27.6%) reported ﬁnding lesson
plans and using them in their classrooms and 20.7% of them indicated that they had used
computers to teach their students about the environment. Thus, more than half of teachers
have the software necessary for the research and approximately 20% have used the
Internet in instruction or have used computers to teach environmental education. As
access to computers and the Internet increases in schools and classrooms, these numbers

are likely to rise. One teacher writes,

76

My student intern has involved my students to some extent in an email

activity designed for fourth graders in our county but she has to rely on her

computer at home. I am hoping to get involved and become more

knowledgeable next year when email will be available in my classroom.

— A teacher of 31 years
Another submitted these comments,

I would like to do more with environmental education and the Internet but

we are so overwhelmed with all of the curriculum we’re supposed to

cover, it’s almost impossible to do much more. I am starting to use one

period a week to teach some new computer software or use of the Internet.

—— A teacher of 3 1 years

In summary, the mail survey provides evidence that the majority of respondents
(l) are interested in environmental education, and (2) have access to computers, the
Internet and Web-browsing software in their classrooms or schools. The data show that
teachers tend to “develop their own unique environmental education curricula” or rely on
colleagues for activities and ideas rather than using printed curriculum guides. In
addition, more than half of the respondents indicated that they would “teach
environmental education more often” if they had better access to environmental
education resources and curricula. Therefore, the mail survey results provide evidence for

the feasibility of the next phase of the research: designing a Web site to share practicing

teachers’ environmental education curricula with other teachers.

RESULTS FROM TWO DESCRIPTIVE CASES

This next phase of the research involved collaborating with two practicing fourth
grade teachers to develop environmental education cuniculum and place the content on
the World-Wide Web. Because very few (if any) environmental education Web sites
exist that are designed speciﬁcally for the purpose of sharing lesson plans and activities

with other teachers, it was necessary to develop a pilot Web site. During the period of

77

August 1997 through January 1998, curricula was developed and implemented in two
different fourth grade classrooms in Michigan. Between the months of February 1998
and April 1998, the pilot Web site was developed.

The purpose of this phase of research was to gain insights into the process of
curriculum development as experienced by teachers and to identify the challenges and
opportunities for creating a curriculum Web site for teachers. Qualitative methods
including in-depth interviewing and participant observation were used to gather data on

these processes. The results are provided in the brief description of teachers that follow.

Brief Description of the Teachers

Following is a brief description of each teacher. All names have been changed to

protect conﬁdentiality. (See Appendix C for a summary of the information.)

Karen: Urban School

Karen teaches at Williams Elementary located in an urban center in Michigan.
The school serves approximately 1,160 students, primarily Aﬁican-American, and the
theme for the school is “Technology.” She is in her early thirties and has been teaching
for eight years—seven of them at Williams. This is her ﬁrst year teaching fourth grade
and she is responsible for teaching Language Arts and Computers to her 16 students.

Educational backgrgound. Karen has a Bachelor’s degree in Film and
Communications and a Master’s degree in Education with an emphasis in Social Science
and Reading. At present, she is exploring opportunities to pursue her Ph.D. in
Educational Administration.

Computer experience. She has had a variety of jobs and experiences that have

required her to learn and use computer including working at General' Motors, the

78

Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at a university, and for a local business
backing up their computer server.

She has been the computer lab teacher at Williams Elementary for the past three
years and is currently continuing her professional education to become a Computer
Network Administrator.

Teaching experience. Her ﬁrst teaching experience began in December 1989—at
another elementary school. After completing her term, she was offered a job at Williams
Elementary and has been teaching there since 1990. At Williams she taught third grade
for two years and then became the computer lab teacher. In 1997, she was offered and
accepted a position as a fourth grade “homeroom” (i.e., language arts) teacher in addition
to teaching computers.

Computers in the school. She has two older 486 IBM-compatible computers in
her classroom that students use for keyboarding assignments. The computers are not
networked and not connected to the Internet. Her classroom is across from the school
computer lab. The lab houses 25 networked Pentium computers all connected to the
district server as well as the Internet. Students and teachers have access to a scanner,
color printer and digital camera. In addition, all faculty and students are assigned email
accounts. However, at the time of the project, these accounts were not working reliably
due to network problems.

Experience teaching EE. During Karen’s ﬁrst year of teaching, she decided to
begin a large-scale, year-long recycling unit. She sought out a variety of resources to

develop the curricula and planned that each day, in class, students would collect and

79

separate waste paper, newspaper and aluminum cans. They would discuss issues related
to recycling in class and or would write about recycling in Language Arts.

Although the project was a success, she soon discovered there were no recyclers
interested in coming to the school to pick up the materials. She was willing to bring
recyclables to a drop off center but the only one in her area closed. After only three
months, she cancelled the project.

Since that experience, she has not taught any other environmental education units.

Developing EE curricula. At our ﬁrst meeting, Karen emphasized the need to
build curriculum around “hands-on” projects. We decided to create three small projects
or activities as part of the environmental unit.

Her ﬁrst suggestion was to begin with the topic of recycling, “Recycling is very
important and there’s a lot of information out there about it. That’s a good one to do
right now.” We brainstormed ideas for projects and deterrrrined that a paper-making
activity would teach students important concepts related to paper recycling, would be
hands-on and would also be enjoyable. We selected that as our ﬁrst project.

Next, she mentioned a vacant lot across from the school and a park a few blocks
away that was in need of cleaning and maintenance. She suggested,

The second project could be the children writing letters to the Mayor about

that vacant lot and asking that it be cleaned. It could be a writing

assignment involving environmental issues. Or, there’s a park about six

blocks from the school that is not well-kept and could be a project for the

students in the Fall and in the Spring they spend a day cleaning the park

and getting it back into shape.

We brainstormed possible assignments and activities. She suggested putting

students in small teams; each team would interview “stakeholders” about the vacant lot

across from the school. Stakeholders might include the homeowner next to the lot, a

80

community service activist, a teacher at the school, a student at the school, and a
representative from the City Parks and Recreation Department. After interviewing
stakeholders, each team would prepare a report that would be put on the Web. Students
could use the scanner or digital camera to include pictures in their Web pages. After all
the reports were online, students would present their ﬁndings to the whole class. She
decided this should be a culminating project at the end of the unit and would be subject to
change.

We talked more about ways to use the computer lab and Web to study
environmental issues. Karen liked the idea of having students do research via the Web,

Oh, that’s good! See they can travel the Web and they’re learning about

the environment. In the computer class I could set it up after I introduce

them to the Internet. They would have to demonstrate that they are able to

locate particular sites. And then I can see if they actually get into them

and perform tasks. Ok, that’s another project.
She decided that was something students could do during each scheduled computer class
to help them reﬁne their computer skills. However, this would not be a “project.”

Finally, we brainstormed possible creative writing activities. She liked the idea of
an email writing assignment where one student writes a paragraph, sends it to another
student who adds on to it and so forth until the story is complete. Karen would provide
the topic sentence to start the story; it would connect paper recycling to litter on the
vacant lot and serve to bridge those two projects. Students would gain keyboarding and
email experience as well as work on creative writing and environmental issues.

We decided to start with these three projects. It was important to both of us to

maintain openness to new ideas and projects should the need arise. When asked if she

felt comfortable with the proposed projects Karen responded, “Oh, these are excellent!

81

And once we get started we may decide to scratch one and go with another new one. So
this is good.”

The operational EE curriculum. Karen began introducing students to
environmental issues, concepts and vocabulary through non-ﬁction literature. She
gathered several books from the school library including The Great Kapok Tree and Just
a Dream. She read aloud to students and students read aloud to each other. As part of
their writing curriculum, she assigned them the task of rewriting one of the stories they
had read together and creating a new ending of their choice. She integrated art into the
assignment by giving students time and supplies to draw illustrations to support their
written text. This was the ﬁrst project.

For the second project, she had students work in pairs to research and print out
recycling information from the Web. It was successful. Later in the term students wrote
short reports about recycling and used the Web-based references they had found.

The ﬁnal project for the environmental unit was the hands-on paper recycling
activity. I was responsible for teaching this class; Karen documented the process taking
pictures and maintained order in the classroom.

It was a great success and the students were eager to talk about the process of
recycling as well as the other environmental projects they had worked on during the
semester. Karen said that once the papers dried, students drew pictures about the
environment on them and took them home. She also integrated another writing
assignment and had students describe the process of paper recycling. She said she would

deﬁnitely do the activity again.

82

Resources used. Karen used three resources to develop and teach the
environmental unit. The core resource was her “reader”—a required textbook from her
school district. She gathered library books for use in class, and also used the Web. She
said,

I compared what we wanted to do to the reader that we have. And, I didn't

have to do a lot of research because a lot of information was on the

Internet in science. The Internet played a big part.

Time spent on EE. She began the unit in late September 1997 and completed it
by late October 1997. She estimates spending approximately two to three classes per
week on the environment at the start of the unit to help students learn vocabulary and
work on reading skills. She estimates that each class she spent teaching about the
environment was 45 to 60 minutes long.

Obstacles. There were several obstacles to the project that resulted in altering the
initial curriculum plans. First, a potential teachers’ strike early in the school year
required much of her and delayed the start of the unit. Second, email worked
sporadically and rarely in the building and there was no technical support to resolve the
problem. This made the email project we had planned impossible, and also signiﬁcantly
reduced. our ability to communicate with each other. Third, Karen discovered that her
students lacked fundamental reading skills and she decided to end further plans to
integrate environmental issues into their classes and instead, focus on “the basics.”

ngn’s reﬂections on using the Web. When asked what would inﬂuence other

teachers in her school to use the Web more in their teaching or in the curriculum

development process, Karen responded, “If it was mandatory (laughs). And only, if it was

83

mandatory because they have so many other things to do. When they think about the
Web, they think ‘I'm not going to bother with that.’”

Qren’s reﬂectiogns on EE. Karen is very passionate about the need for
environmental education despite the obstacles she has faced trying to teach it. In her
entry interview she said,

I think it is so important to have some type of guidelines or something you
can reference. At the time I was doing that [ﬁrst recycling] project, I
didn’t have access to the Internet or computers like I do now. Now it’s
much easier. But I still feel that even on the Web, if there was a page that
presented a curriculum that you could use in the classroom... Now,
naturally, anything that you use or borrow, you’re going to structure it into
something that is your own to suit your purposes. But I think there is a
great need for it to be there.

I think environmental education should be an early part of children’s

education because so many children are brought up in poverty and all they

see is poverty. And they don’t get an opportunity to see the beauty of a lot

of things and so, therefore, they’re very neglectful. They don’t take care

of things the way they should because they don’t feel it’ll last or it’s

important. So I think from pre-K all the way through, environmental

education needs to be an integral part of the curriculum.

Karen considers the unit a partial success and wishes she could have spent more
time focusing on environmental issues. She was surprised to learn that the one of the
most important outcomes of the unit had very little to do with environmental knowledge
at all and instead, was the development of interpersonal skills in her students. After
reading, writing about and discussing environmental issues in class, students found they
shared common ideas and concerns and were able to collaborate and work together in
ways that they had been unable to previously:

[Students] had just gotten to a point where they could work cooperatively

and so working on an environmental issue helped me with that. It was

something that brought them together and didn't pull them apart. They all
had strong opinions about the environment and they knew it was important

84

to keep it clean. They were more apt to help each other on that particular
topic.
For Karen, this was a major accomplishment. She is hopeful that later in the semester she

and her students will explore more environmental issues.

Anne: Suburban School

Anne teaches at Greenview Elementary located in a suburban area in Michigan.
The school was built ﬁve years ago and serves approximately 370 students. She has been
teaching for nine years—ﬁve of them at Greenview. She co-teaches a mixed-age
classroom of 54 third, fourth and ﬁfth grade students with her partner, Bill. She and Bill
have worked together for two years.

The School and classroom. The school is unique in the country. It was founded
upon Dr. William Glasser’s Choice and Reality Theories. Both teachers and students are
committed to quality education. Some of the school values include a warm, friendly
environment, free of coercion; useful, meaningful learning; and self-evaluation.

The class routine is structured to give students choice in what and how they learn.
Students are presented with a variety of tasks and projects to complete for the week and
they are responsible ensuring projects are completed on time. Students are also included
in the curriculum development process and their suggestions on how they would like to
be assessed for particular assignments are integrated into formal assessments.

Educational backggound. Anne has a Bachelor’s degree in Elementary Education,
with a minor in English and Science and a Master’s degree in Curriculum Development
and Classroom Instruction. Upon receiving a position at Greenview, she was certiﬁed as

a “Quality School Teacher” in May of 1995 along with the rest of the staff. Each year

85

she attends multiple conferences and workshops to continue her education and
certiﬁcation as a quality school teacher.

Computer experience. Anne has her own personal computer and she uses email
regularly. She admits to ﬁnding lesson plans on the Web once or twice but considers
herself an “advanced beginner” when it comes to computers.

Computers in the school. Greenview has a Media Center/Computer Lab that
houses 30 IBM-compatible 486 multimedia computers. At the time of our collaboration,
the computers were running Windows 3.1 and were networked together and to the
district’s Web server but not to the Internet. In the school, there was only one computer
(a Macintosh) that could connect to the Internet. It was stored on a portable cart and
moved to classrooms as needed. There was one Media Specialist who had previously
been a Special Education teacher. She appeared overwhelmed by the position and was
often unable to resolve the technical problems that arose. However, the district also
provided technical support to schools—“Computer Services”-—but it was often not
available when needed. Consequently, repairs were made later rather than sooner.

In Anne’s room, there were ﬁve older 486 IBM-compatible computers that were
used for keyboarding written assignments. In addition, the school had recently purchased
30 laptop computers to use for special classroom projects. Teachers would request them
from the principal. Students could take the computers home to complete classroom
assignments. Anne was given the laptops for use on this project.

Experience teaching EE. At ﬁrst Anne could not recall designing and teaching an
environmental unit. However, she later remembered,

When I taught in the lower elementary, we (all of the teachers) did a unit
on recycling and made mini-landﬁlls in class. What a smell! The students

86

were also responsible for a campaign that led to the recycling program at
school which we are still using today.

Developing EE curricula. Anne began by looking at the three-year report card
standards and objectives they are required to teach. Since they have students for three
years, there are many objectives they must meet over that period of time. Some are

especially relevant to environmental education (See Table 11).

Table 11: District Standards Selected for Greenview EE Unit

 

Standard 3.5:

Earth and Space The learner will analyze the domestic and public uses of selected water
resources by humans and design a written plan for personal water preservation
and conservation.

Standard 3.10:

Science in Society The learner will examine technological and other human activities affecting the
environment and develop a plan showing how natural resources can be used
responsibly.

Standard 5.4: Earth
and Space The learner will investigate how human activity affects the environment and
how waste products create pollution.

 

They decided to begin building their unit around water. In recounting what they did,
Anne said,

I looked at the district standards—because we have three grade levels we
look at the 3rd, 4’“, and 5”' grade standards to see which ones will go along
with whatever rurit we’re doing. Since this one’s environment we went
through the 3”, 4’h and 5’’1 grade standards.

Then we started with a science theme. We looked at, what they call
“analysis sheets.” Those are just the different steps [the district] would
like us to go through, the vocabulary, and it’ll even give a sample lesson
plan. We can or we don’t have to follow it. It will give us a sample
assessment but a lot of times we like our kids to come up with their own
projects and we put the rubrics with it. And so sometimes the kids
develop their own projects which I think is more meaningful for them.

Once that’s done, then we go through the language arts standards and see

which ones go for 3rd, 4’h and 5’". In this particular [unit], they each had to
write a report. They had a choice of topic—and we did pull the topic list

87

from this analysis sheet where we combined the 3rd, 4’h and 5’“. We told

them that they were samples of questions they could take. If they could

come up with other environmental issues they just had to check it out with

us ﬁrst before they could continue. And a lot of kids chose endangered

animals, which was ﬁne, because they talked about pollution—that was

part of it.

After our initial meeting together, Anne created the unit and wrote detailed lesson
plans that she shared with Bill and faxed to me for the Web site. She had collected
approximately, 20-25 hands-on activities, compiled a list of resources for use in the
classroom and scheduled two ﬁeld trips for students. In her mind, these would structure
the unit, but she also wanted the students to be involved with the development of the unit.
As she was brainstorming plans for the unit, Anne said,

I guess for part of our lesson plans for the next few weeks we can just plan

to ask the kids to help us design this unit on water. Maybe we can have

them brainstorm in a group what kinds of activities they would like to do.

The operational EE curriculum. At the close of the project, the operational
curriculum was nearly identical to the curriculum she and Bill had planned before the
semester began. This may be due, in part, because Anne is a curriculum designer and
because in their classroom, they regularly teach “themes” for an extended period of time.
Rather than try to integrate a few environmental education activities into other subjects,
they developed an entire science theme around environmental topics.

Resources used. Anne used a variety of resources to create the unit. She used the
district curriculum guide that provided suggested activities and resources available within
the school. Resources included “science boxes” which are located in the Media Centers
of schools in the district. They contain many kinds of hands-on resources such as

microscopes, curriculum guides and lesson plans, puzzles, water and soil testing kits,

videos and the like. She found some environmental posters and hung them around the

88

room. She researched children’s literature and requested books from the school librarian
and also gathered resources from the public library to share with students. She planned
two ﬁeld trips—one to the local water treatment plant and one to a local park that the
school had adopted a few years prior. She used activities from two curriculum guides in
addition to the district’s guide: Water, Precious Water published AIMS Education
FoundationTM and another guide published by Teacher Created Materials”.

Time 513% on EE. Anne estimates spending approximately six weeks on the unit.
She said they usually worked on the activities for three to four days per week and each
session lasted from 45 minutes to an hour.

Obstacles. The main obstacles faced were technical ones. Initially, we had
planned to install Netscape Gold (a free Web editing and browsing software program) on
to the 486 computers in the school computer lab. Even though the district computer
network support person was there for assistance, we were unsuccessful.

Next, we tried to install Netscape Gold on the single, portable Internet computer.
However, because Internet access was unreliable and unpredictable during the early
weeks of the project, we were unable to download the program.

Fortunately, one teacher at a school approximately 15 minutes away, came to
Greenview to help us diagnose the problem. He offered to give us Claris Works
Homepage to use with students. The following is an excerpt ﬁom my journal on that day,

... it is important to note that this man is a full-time teacher. Because he

has a Macintosh computer and likes them, he is now, unofﬁcially, the

district contact person for any Mac problems. He does not get paid for

doing this. He’s just helpful. The Media Center Coordinator said that since

the district decided to go with IBM-compatibles, they essentially have told

schools with Macs to ﬁnd someone else to help maintain them. There is no

one at Computer Services that knows anything about Macs. It’s more than
a little frustrating since Greenview has a Mac with an intemet connection,

89

a scanner connected to it, and several educational software and CD

toms—and they have no one to help support them when they run into

problems.

Once Claris Homepage was installed, the only remaining difﬁculty was getting all
54 kids online in a timely manner.

Anne’s reﬂections on using the Web. When asked if she ever considered using
the Web while pulling together resources for this unit, Anne quickly responded, “No.”
When asked if there was anything she could think of that would inﬂuence her to do that,
she said,

Yes, you know when the Mars Rover was going on—I started messing

around with some of that because we were doing stuff with the solar

system. And I did one unit last year that I pulled something off when we

were doing solutions and mixtures and I don’t remember how 1 got there

now but I did ﬁnd lesson plans and downloaded them and used them.

That was my ﬁrst. I’m pretty new at the Web.

She concluded that for current events information, she would “probably” use the Web.

Annis Reﬂections on EE. Anne really enjoyed the unit and she said the kids
liked all of the activities. She said the only thing she would do differently next time is to
separate “endangered species” from the group of issues they covered in class. Even
though the students suggested endangered species and were very excited about the topic,
she would probably include it in a unit on animals rather than one on environmental

problems. She had a positive experience teaching environmental education and would do

it again.

Research Questions Answered

1. How does each teacher approach (i.e. begin) the environmental education

curriculum development process?

90

Karen began with a topic that interested her and subsequently developed activities
around that topic which could be integrated into her required cuniculum. Anne began
with standards and objectives as required by the district. She then selected a variety of
activities to develop a six-week unit.

2. Which environmental topics does each teacher select as central to the

curriculum development process?
a) What can be learned about teachers’ conceptions of environmental
education based on the topics they choose to teach?

Karen selected littering and recycling. She had a strong personal interest in
recycling and believed that all of her students would beneﬁt by learning more about the
topic. It seemed as if, to her, environmental education was synonymous with recycling.
She was unable to identify other topics or concepts that she would teach in an
environmental unit. Her personal deﬁnition of environmental education seemed to be
somewhat limited and narrow. However, she was extremely committed and interested in
the topics she selected.

Anne chose “water and other environmental problems” as a result of the topics
and concepts identiﬁed in the standards she was trying to meet. Her conception of
environmental education appeared to be much broader than Karen’s conception. While
she did bring up recycling almost immediately as a possible topic, she also discussed
concepts of erosion, industrialization, endangered species, water and soil testing and
geology. However, it is not clear if these were her personal ideas about environmental
education or if they were suggestions made based on the objectives identiﬁed by the

district.

91

3. Into which subject areas are environmental concepts infused?
a) Do teachers select science only, or other subject areas?

Karen infused environmental education activities and concepts into her Writing,
Language Arts and Computer classes. These are the classes that she is responsible for
teaching; her students have other teachers who work with them on art, math, music,
science, and social studies. Anne infused environmental education into science,
primarily, but also integrated environmental concepts into Language Arts, Listening, and
Public Speaking.

4. What types of resources do teachers use to help them develop environmental

education curricula?
a) Do teachers use textbooks, colleagues, the World Wide Web, et cetera?

Neither teacher used colleagues as a resource for developing her unit. Karen used
the students’ required textbook, library books and the Internet/Web as primary resources.
Anne used multiple curriculum guides, ﬁeld trips, posters, library books, videos, posters

and students’ suggestions to develop her curriculum.

Brief Description of Materials Developed for the Web

After teachers concluded their environmental education units, a Web site was
created to publish teachers’ work and to provide samples of students’ work that resulted
from the curriculum. In total, the site consisted of more than 200 Web pages and
approximately 100 images. An interactive survey was added to elicit teachers’ views
about environmental education, about using computers in education, and to identify their
degree of access to various enviromnental education resources. (The results of that

survey are presented in the following section.)

92

In summary, during this phase of research, two teachers developed curricula and
activities to teach environmental education. One teacher focused on recycling and
another developed a theme around water and other environmental issues. A pilot Web
site was developed by the researcher to publish teachers’ curricula, show examples of
students’ work, and provide teachers’ comments and suggestions for the different
activities. Prior to the development of this pilot Web site, very few environmental
education Web sites were found that were designed speciﬁcally for teachers; even fewer
contained curricula and lesson plans created by practicing teachers. Therefore, there was
a need to create the pilot Web site to demonstrate new possibilities for using the Web in
environmental education.

The development of the Web site was also necessary for the ﬁnal phase of the
research: asking other K-12 teachers to visit the Web site and complete a brief online

survey about environmental education and the Web.

WEB-BASED SURVEY

For the ﬁnal phase of research, K-12 teachers ﬁom around the world were invited
via electronic means (i.e., listservs, email and newsgroups) to participate in an online
survey about environmental education, using the Web in education, and using the Web in
environmental education. The survey was featured on the pilot Web site developed in the

second phase of research. The results from the survey are provided below.

Sampling Distribution
Eighty-one K-12 teachers completed and submitted the Web-based survey

between April 5, 1998 and May 15, 1998. Because the online survey was available to an

93

unknown population of teachers, calculating a response rate is not possible. Instead, a
calculation of the standard error of the sample was made. The standard error of the
sample was calculated based on the formula:

6 = M
where n represents the sample size (e. g. 81), p represents the probability of one of the
outcomes of a binary variable (e. g. 0.5) and q=1-p (e.g. 0.5). Thus, for the Web-based
survey with a sample of size 81, the standard error is $11.2 percent. As cited earlier in
the chapter,

As a rule, the sampling distribution for a proportion can be considered to

be very nearly normal in form as long as the product of np exceeds a value

of 5 (Kachigan, 1986, p. 126).
For the web based survey the product of np (81 x 0.5) is 40.5 and the sampling

distribution does appear to be normal in form.

Presentation of Frequencies

General Characteristics of Respondents

Of the 81 teachers completing the survey, the majority of respondents were
female (82.7%, n=67). The age range of respondents was relatively evenly distributed
across categories (see Table 12) with the greatest number of respondents representing the
age range between 26 and 30 years (21%, n=l7). Most respondents were practicing
teachers (86.4%, n=70) with only 11 (13.6%) preservice teachers completing the survey.
All (96.3%, n=78) but three respondents were from the United States; two were from
Australia and one was from Canada The following 19 states were represented by
respondents: AZ, CT, FL, HI, IA, IL, KS, KY, MA, MI, MS, NC, NY, OH, OR, PA, TX,

and VA.

94

Respondents were asked about their email and web-browsing habits as well as
their means for accessing the Internet. Table 12 presents the information gathered. Most
respondents check email “almost every day” or “several times a day” (64.2%, n=51) but
only 39.5% (n=32) browse the Web as often. Conversely, 16% (n=1 1) of respondents
“never” check email and 9.9% “never” browse the Web. Most respondents indicated that
they had access to the Internet at home and at school (64.2%, n=52) while 19.8% (n=16)
had access at school only and 16% (n=13) had access at home only.

Finally, when asked how they learned about the online survey, the majority of
respondents indicated that “a friend” had told them about it (49.4%, n=40). Other
responses included “email” (25.9%, =21), a “listserv” (18.5%, n=15) and “by chance”

(6.2%, n=5).

9S

Table 12: Summary of General Characteristics of Respondents

 

 

Variable Category Frequency Percent
Gender Male 14 17.3%
Female 67 82.7%
Age Range (years) 21_25 7 8.6%
26-30 17 21.0%
31-35 1 1 13.6%
36-40 12 14.8%
41-45 9 11.1%
46-50 11 13.6%
51-55 9 11.1%
56-60 3 3.7%
61-65 2 2.5%
Type Of Teacher Pre-service l 1 13.6%
Practicing 70 86.4%
3:21:25?! checking emarl Never 13 16.0%
lx/mo. 2 2.5%
lx/wk. 2 2.5%
2-3x/wk. 12 14.8%
Almost everyday 31 38.3%
Several x/day 21 25.9%
3:21:23 browsrng Web Never 8 9.9%
lx/mo. 18 22.2%
lx/wk. 6 7.4%
2-3x/wk. 17 21.0%
Almost everyday 28 34.6%
Several x/day 4 4.9%
Internet Access Home 13 1 6.0%
School 16 19.8%
Both 52 64.2%
Learn About Survey By chance 5 6.2%
By a friend 40 49.4%
By email 21 25.9%
By listserv 15 18.5%

 

96

Attitudes Toward Environmental Education

To measure respondents’ attitudes toward environmental education, a scale was
created based on eight questions in the Environmental Education section of the survey.
The reliability score for all eight items was 0.78 indicating an acceptable level of internal
validity. As explained in Chapter 3, the scoring of statements was conducted such that
higher scores reﬂect a more positive attitude toward environmental education. Scores for
each statement range from 1 to 5 and the mean indicates respondents’ attitude toward it.
The data for all statements are presented in Table 13 below.

Environmental edu_cation should beta_ug1;1t in K-12 schools. All but one
respondent (1.2%) “Agreed” or “Strongly agreed” that environmental education should
be taught in K-12 schools (97.5%, n=80). The mean for this statement (x=4.56, sd=0.65)
was higher than all other means in this section indicating a strongly positive attitude
toward this statement.

There are not enoum in the §chool day to teach environmental education.
The mean for this statement was lower than all other means (x=2.64, sd=1.26) indicating
that time is an important constraint for many respondents, even for those who think
environmental education should be taught in public schools. Sixty-three percent of
teachers (n=51) “Strongly agreed,” “Agreed” or were “Not sure” about this statement;
37% (n=30) “Strongly disagreed” or “Disagreed.”

Environmental education is another curricularid. The majority of teachers
“Disagreed” or “Strongly disagreed” with this statement (88.9%, n=72); 11.1% (n=9)

“Agreed” or were “Not sure.” The mean was 4.15 with a standard deviation of 0.67.

97

Environmental education should be integgated into subject areas wherever

possible. Approximately 93% of respondents “Strongly agreed” or “Agreed” with this
statement (92.6%, n=75); ﬁve respondents were “Not sure” (6.2%) and one respondent
(1.2%) “Disagreed.” The mean for this item was 4.38 with a standard deviation of 0.66.

As a K-12 geher it is my respon_sibilitv to teach my students to care for the

 

gain This statement had a mean of 4.46 and standard deviation of 0.65. The majority
of teachers “Strongly agreed” or “Agreed” (96.3%, n=78); two individuals “Disagreed”
(2.5%) and one was “Not sure” (1.2%).

It is worth the extra time it takes me to teach environmental education. No
respondents disagreed with this statement. Ten individuals were “Not sure” (12.3%); the
remaining 71 respondents “Agreed” or “Strongly agreed” (96.3%) with the statement.
The mean for this item was 4.23 with a standard deviation or 0.66.

It doesn’t 1% sense to try to integgte environmeml education into some
m. Although responses to an earlier question regarding environmental education
infusion “into subjects wherever possible” were relatively favorable, responses to this
statement were less positive. The mean was 3.64 with a standard deviation of 1.10.
Twenty-one percent of teachers (n=17) “Strongly agreed” or “Agreed” with this
statement indicating a less positive attitude toward environmental education; 69.2%
(n=56) “Disagreed” or “Strongly disagreed” and 9.9% (n=8) were “Not sure.”

Environmerﬂ education ahould be Impatorv in K-12 public schoola. Almost
half of the respondents “Agreed” with this statement (46.9%, n=38) and an additional
18.5% (n=15) “Strongly agreed.” Twenty individuals (24.7%) were “Not sure,” 8

individuals (9.8%) “Disagreed” or “Strongly disagreed” with the statement. The mean

98

for this item was 3.73 with a standard deviation of 0.91. Figure 1 presents a comparison

of means for all statements.

 

5
4
3
2
1 -
C
(I
Q!
5 0
EE should be EE should be EE is not just 3 EE doesn't make
taught in K-12 infused into all curricular fad sense for some
subiects sum
K-12 teacher _
responsible to teach It's worth extra EE should be Not enough time
stewardship time to teach EE mandatory In K-12 to teach EE

Figure 1: Comparison by means for statements measuring environmental attitude.
A score was calculated for each respondent based on his or her responses to each
of the statements presented on the survey. The scores could range from a high of 40
indicating a very positive attitude toward environmental education and a low of 8
indicating a less positive attitude. The actual scores for respondents ranged from a low of
21 to a high of 40 with a mean of 31.79 and a standard deviation of 3.89. These scores

will be used to test hypotheses discussed in a later section of this chapter.

99

Table 13: Summary Statistics for Environmental Education

 

 

Variable Category Frequency Percent Mean Std.
Dev.
$1621?” be ’augh’ ”’ K12 Str. Agree 49 60.5% 4.56 0.65
Agree 30 37.0%
Not sure 1 1.2%
Disagree 0 0
Str. disagree 1 1.2%
zgég’gg” hm" m s°h°°l day ’° Str. Agree 16 19.8% 2.64 1.26
Agree 31 38.3%
Not sure 4 4.9%
Disagree 26 32.1%
Sn. disagree 4 4.9%
EE is another curricular fad S tr Agree 0 00/ 4'15 0'67
. 0
Agree 2 2.5%
Not sure 7 8.6%
Disagree 49 60.5%
Str. disagree 23 28.4%
5128;221:231??? 22"?“ Str. Agree 38 46.9% 4.38 0.66
J r p 5‘ 6 Agree 37 45.7%
Not sure 5 6.2%
Disagree 1 l .2%
Str. disagree 0 0
As a K-12 teacher, it is my 0
responsibility to teach my students :1;th ee :2 31302 4'46 0'65
to care for the Earth Not sure 1 1.2%
Disagree 2 2.5%
Str. disagree 0 0
It is worth the extra time it takes Str A ee 29 35 8°/ 4 23 O 66
me to teach BE A ' gr ' 0° ' '
gree 42 5 1.9 /0
Not sure 10 12.3%
Disagree 0 0
Str. disagree 0 0
It doesn’t make sense to try to
. . . . .7° . .
Integrate EE Into some subjects :22” 1: 1; 3,2 3 64 l 10
Not sure 8 9.9%
Disagree 40 49.4%
Str. disagree 16 19.8%
EB 5.1m” b‘ ”mm” in K‘12 Str. Agree 15 18.5% 3.73 0.91
public schools Agree 38 46.9%
Not sure 20 24.7%
Disagree 7 8.6%
Str. disagree 1 1.2%

 

100

Attitudes Toward Using the Web

To measure respondents’ attitudes toward the Web, a scale was created based on
11 questions in the section of the survey titled, “Using the Web for Environmental
Education.” The reliability score for all 11 items was 0.77 indicating an acceptable level
of internal validity. As described in the previous section, the scoring of statements was
conducted such that higher scores reﬂect a more positive attitude toward using the Web.
Scores for each statement range from 1 to 5 and the mean indicates respondents’ attitude
toward it. The data for all statements are presented in Table 14.

Respondents were asked to imagine a Web site where hundreds of K-12 teachers
had submitted their environmental education lesson plans and activities. The site could
be searched by topic, keyword and grade level. They were then asked to respond to the
following statements.

I would deﬁnitely visit the Web site. The mean for this statement was 4.35 with a
standard deviation of 0.74. Only one respondent (1 .2%) “Disagreed”, 10 individuals
(12.3%) were “Not sure” and the remaining 70 (86.4%) “Agreed” or “Strongly agreed”
that they would visit an environmental education web site similar to the one described if
it existed.

If I found something intaresting, I would print out lessons. No respondents
disagreed with this statement. Only one respondent (1 .2%) was “Not sure” and the
remaining 80 respondents (98.8%) “Agreed” or “Strongly agreed” with the statement.

The mean for this item was 4.56 with a standard deviation of 0.52.

101

If it seemed appropriate, I would use in my classroom. As above, only one
respondent was “Not sure” while the remaining 80 (98.8%) “Agreed” or “Strongly
agreed.” The mean for this statement was 4.52 with a standard deviation of 0.53.

1 would tell another teacher about the site. The mean was highest for this
statement (x=4.58, sd=0.50) although only slightly higher than the previous two
statements. All respondents either “Agreed” (42%, n=34) or “Strongly agreed” (58%,
n=47).

I would submit my own lesson plans and contribute to the Web site. This
statement elicited the lowest scores from respondents and had a mean of 3.64 with a
standard deviation of 0.88. Although 49.4% (n=40) of respondents “Strongly agreed” or
“Agreed” that they would submit their lesson plans, 44.4% (n=36) were “Not sure” and

an additional 6.2% (n=5) “Disagreed.” (See Figure 2)

 

Would tell Would print Would use Would vlslt Would submit
colleague lessons in class my own plans

Figure 2: Comparison by means for hypothetical EE Web site.

102

Table 14: Summary Statistics for Hypothetical EE Web Site

 

 

Variable Category Frequency Percent Mean Std.
Dev.
iii/23:65:11 [if 2:? S””' Str. Agree 40 49.4% 4.35 0.74
Agree 30 37.0%
Not sure 10 12.3%
Disagree 1 1.2%
Str. disagree 0 0
f’mﬁegglt £2?qu 3"" Str. Agree 46 56.8% 4.56 0.52
Agree 34 42.0%
Not sure 1 1.2%
Disagree 0 0
Str. disagree 0 0
f1£3$635°ca§nEinss§$m Str. Agree 43 53.1% 4.52 0.53
Agree 37 45.7%
Not sure 1 1.2%
Disagree 0 0
Str. disagree 0 0
Hypothetical EE Web Site:
I would tell another teacher about Str. Agree 47 58'02/0 4'58 0'50
the site Agree 34 42.0 /6
Not sure 0 0
Disagree 0 0
Str. disagree 0 0
i’YW’he’ma’ 1.35 web 3m" Str. Agree 17 21.0% 3.64 0.88
would submit my own lesson A 23 28 40/
plans gr ee ' 0
Not sure 36 44.4%
Disagree 5 6.2%
Str. disagree 0 0

 

Teachers scored the hypothetical environmental education Web site questions
relatively highly. It is not surprising that they would be less likely to submit their own
lesson plans to the contribute to the site because this requires computer skills and/or time
that many teachers may not possess. However, it is encouraging that teachers would visit
such a site, print out lessons, use in class and tell others about it.

The remaining questions in this section asked teachers to respond to statements
about using the Web in education in general and are not speciﬁc to environmental

education.

103

The existence of the World-Wide Web has not changed my teaching methods

sigpiﬁcantly. The mean score for this statement was 3.36 with a standard deviation of
1.14. Nearly a third of teachers (33.3%, n=27) “Agreed” or “Strongly agreed” with this
statement, 13.6% were “Not sure” (n=11) and the remaining 53.1% (n=43) “Strongly
disagreed” or “Disagreed.”

I would take advantage of them if there were more teacher-developed lessons and
activities on the World-Wide Web. Three respondents (3.7%) “Strongly disagreed” with
this statement, 14 (17.3%) were “Not sure” and the remaining 64 teachers (79%)
“Agreed” or “Strongly agreed.” The mean for this item was 4.02 with a standard
deviation of 0.91.

The quality or usefulness of classroom resources I ﬁnd on the World-Wide Web
is not worth the time I invest looking for them. This statement elicited the lowest scores
from teachers and had a mean of 3.21 with a standard deviation of 0.90. Twenty-one
percent of respondents (n=17) “Agreed” or “Strongly agreed,” 37% (n=30) were “Not
sure” and the remaining 42% (n=34) “Disagreed” or “Strongly disagreed” with the
statement.

I regplarly look for information or activities on the World-Wide Web to use in my
classroom. There was a wide range of responses for this statement (x=3.26, sd=1.20).
Fifty-three percent (n=43) of respondents “Agreed” or “Strongly agreed,” 6.2% (n=5)
were “Not sure” and 40.8% (n=33) “Disagreed” or “Strongly disagreed” with the

statement.

Five years from now the World-Wide Web will be extremely important in K-12

education as a means for sharing and ﬁnding curricular resources. This statement elicited

104

the highest scores from respondents; the mean was 4.25 with a standard deviation of 0.72.
Only 1 respondent (1.2%) “Disagreed.” Ten respondents (12.3%) were “Not sure” while

the remaining 70 teachers (86.4%) “Agreed” or “Strongly agreed.”

Five years from new teachers in K-12 public schools will teach veg much in the

 

same way as they are teaching today. Given the previous statement, the results for this
statement were somewhat surprising. Slightly more than half of the respondents (50.6%,
n=41) reported that they “Strongly agreed,” “Agreed” or were “Not sure” indicating that
they anticipate only minimal impact of the Web on teaching practices even though many
reported agreeing that the Web would be extremely important in K-12 for sharing
resources. Conversely, 49.3% (n=40) “Strongly disagreed” or “Disagreed” with the
statement. The mean was 3.33 with a standard deviation of 1.06.

However, given that approximately half of respondents reported that the Web had
changed their teaching methods or that they use the Web regularly to ﬁnd classroom
resources, the results for this statement are not as surprising as they ﬁrst appeared.

Figure 3 presents a graphical comparison by mean; Table 15 presents all of the

data for each statement.

105

     

4
3.5 ' y _.
3 ' : ‘ .
2.5
1 .5 l‘ . i
5 0.5 f' " .
a , ,
In 5 yrs. Web will My tching methods In 5 yrs. tchrs will
be very important have changed teach the same
in K12 edumtion because of Web as today
lwoulduseothertchrs' llookfor
activitesllessons resources on W9", resources
web MUIMV area I W011“ the
time to ﬁnd them

Figure 3: Comparison by means for statements measuring attitude toward Web.

106

Table 15: Summary Statistics for Using the Web in Education

 

 

Variable Category Frequency Percent Mean Std.
Dev.
The existence of the World-Wide Web
has not changed my teaching methods it;.r2gree 2; 3;?30 3'36 1'14
. . . 0
S’gn’ﬁ’an’1y Not sure 1 1 13.6%
Disagree 29 35.8%
Str. disagree 14 17.3%
I would take advantage of them if there
were more teacher-developed lessons in Agree 3:3 33%;? 4'02 0'91
and activities on the World-Wide Web Ngiiirre 14 ”'30;
. 0
Disagree 0 0
Str. disagree 3 3.7%
The quality or usefulness of classroom
resources I ﬁnd on the World-Wide im Agree 13 133:? 3'21 0'90
Web is not worth the time I invest gre ' 0°
1 kin for them Not sure 30 370/11
°° g Disagree 31 38.3%
Str. disagree 3 3.7%
I regularly look for information or 0
activities on the World-Wide Web to in" agree :3 :33; 3'26 1'20
use in my classroom NE: sure 5 62°;
. 0
Disagree 31 38.3%
Str. disagree 2 2.5%
Five years from now the World-Wide ‘ 0
Web will be extremely important in K- inﬂame g: 3230? 4'25 0'72
12 education as a means for sharing and N6 t sure 10 ”'30;
ﬁnding curricular resources Disagree 1 1'20;
. 0
Str. disagree 0 0
Five years from now teachers in K—12 0
public schools will teach very much in itr' agree 17 21:30?” 3'33 1'06
the same way as they are teaching N6: sure 21 25'90/:
Pd" Disagree 30 37.0%
Str. disagree 10 12.3%

 

A score was calculated for each respondent based on his or her responses to each
of the statements presented on the survey. The scores could range from a high of 65
indicating a very positive attitude toward using the Web and a low of 13 indicating a less

positive attitude. The actual scores for respondents ranged from a low of 31 to a high of

107

52 with a mean of 42.99 and a standard deviation of 5.23. These scores will be used to

test hypotheses discussed in a later section of this chapter.

Access to Environmental Education Resources

To measure respondents’ access to environmental education resources, a scale
was created based on 16 items. The reliability score for the 16 items was 0.77 indicating
an acceptable level of internal validity. Scores for each item ranged from O (i.e., “No” or
“Not sure”) to l (i.e., “Yes”). The data for all items are presented in descending order by
mean in Table 16.

Almost all respondents (95.1%, n=77) have access to books about the
environment. More than half of the respondents has access to:

I environmental magazines (84%, n=68);

local parks and nature centers (82.7%, n=67);

I environmental videos and movies (79%, n=64);

environmental posters (75.3%, n=61);

local environmental professionals or specialists (63%, n=51);

background information about environmental topics on the Web
(59.3%, n=48); and
I environmental education curricula on the Web (55.6%, n=45).
However, less than half of the respondents have access to:
I other teachers in their schools or districts who teach environmental
education (49.4%, n=40);
I local environmental educators or environmental education organizations

(45.7%, n=37);

108

 

I locally-produced environmental education curriculum guides; text books
that contain environmental education material (40.7%, n=33);

I text books that contain environmental education material (39.5%, n=32);

I national environmental education curriculum guides (37%, n=30);

I computer-based environmental education software programs (34.6%;
n=28x

And less than one-quarter of respondents have access to:

I State Department of Education curriculum guides that contain
environmental education material (23.5%, n=19); and

I local school district curriculmn guides that contain environmental
education material
(23.5%, n=l9).

A score was calculated for each respondent based on his or her responses to each
of the items presented on the survey. The scores could range from a high of 16 indicating
access to all of the listed environmental education resources and a low of 0 indicating a
no access. The actual scores for respondents ranged from a low of O to a high of 15 with
a mean of 8.88 and a standard deviation of 3.39. These scores will be used to test

hypotheses discussed in the next section of this chapter.

109

Table 16: Summary Statistics for Access to EE Resources

 

 

Variable Category Frequency Percent Mean Std.
Dev.

Books about the environment Yes 77 95.1% 0.95 0.22
No/Not sure 4 4.9%

Envmnmema' magazines Yes 68 84.0% 0.84 0.37
No/Not sure 13 16.0%

Local parks and nature centers Yes 67 82.7% 0.83 0.38
No/Not sure 14 17.3%

Environmental videotapes, movies, Yes 64 79.0% 0.79 0.41

ﬁlmmps No/Not sure 17 21 .0%

Environmental posters Yes 61 75.3% 0.75 o_43
No/Not sure 20 24.7%

Local environmental specialists and Yes 51 63.0% 0.63 0.49

professronals No/Not sure 30 370%

Background information about Yes 48 59.3% 0.59 0.49

envuonmental topics on the Web No/Not sure 33 40.7%

3353:33333WM‘ 333...... 33 33:32:

Other teachers in my school or district Yes 40 49.4% 0.49 0. 50

who teach about the envu'onment No/Not sure 41 50.6%

Local'environmental educators, EE Yes 37 45.7% 0.46 050

organizations No/Not sure 44 54.3%

Locally produced EE curriculum guides Yes 33 40.7% 0.41 049
No/Not sure 48 59.3%

Text books that contain EE material Yes 32 39.5% 0.40 0.49
No/Not sure 49 605%

National 513 curriculum guides Yes 30 370% 037 049
No/Not sure 51 63.0%

Computer-based EE software programs Yes 28 34.6% 0. 3 5 0.48
No/Not sure 53 65.4%

......mm 33...... :3

Local school district curriculum guide Yes 19 23.5% 0. 2 3 0.4 3

that contains BE material N o /N ot sure 62 76.5%

 

110

 

Hypotheses Tested

In association with several research questions, the following hypotheses were
tested after data had been collected and analyzed from the Web-based survey. It is
important to note that these are hypotheses are exploratory in nature.

H1: Teachers who have greater access to environmental education resources

will exhibit a more positive attitude toward environmental education than

teachers who have access to fewer resources.

H2: Teachers who exhibit a more positive attitude toward environmental
education will also exhibit a more positive attitude toward using the Web
in education.

To test the ﬁrst hypothesis, a correlation analysis was performed using two of the
scales created—the sum of respondents’ environmental education resources access scores
and the sum of respondents’ environmental education attitude scores—to determine
whether or not a signiﬁcant relationship exists between the two variables. The Pearson
Correlation score was 0.148 with a l-tailed signiﬁcance value of 0.094. Because p>0.05,
we can assume that there is no statistically signiﬁcant relationship between the two sets
of scores and must reject H1. Based on this data, attitude toward environmental education
does not appear to be related to one’s level of access to different environmental education
resources.

A similar procedure was followed to test the second hypothesis. In this case, it
was hypothesized that respondents’ who exhibited a positive attitude toward

environmental education would also exhibit a positive attitude toward using the Web in

111

education. A correlation analysis was conducted using the sum of respondents’
environmental education attitude scores and the sum of respondents’ Web attitude scores.
The Pearson Correlation score was 0.172 with a 1-tailed signiﬁcance of 0.062. Although
the value of p is only slightly greater than 0.05, we still assume that there is no
statistically signiﬁcant relationship between the two variables and reject H2. Based on
this data, attitude toward the Web does not appear to be related to attitude toward
environmental education and vice versa.

Please note that the ﬁndings and conclusions drawn here are preliminary and
should be interpreted with caution. In order to draw conclusions with conﬁdence, larger
survey sample sizes would be necessary. In addition, more rigorous development and

testing of scales is advised.

Additional Analyses

Additional statistics were conducted to further interpret the data. First, correlation
analyses were conducted on individual variables to determine whether or not signiﬁcant
relationships exist. Second, a Compare Means analysis with ANOVA was performed to
determine whether or not individuals’ level of Internet access was related to their
responses in the sections measuring environmental attitude and attitude toward using the
Web.

Correlation a_naiysis. Each of the eight questions measuring environmental
education attitudes were correlated with the 11 questions measuring attitudes toward the

Web. Several signiﬁcant relationships came to light.

112

The question that asked respondents about the hypothetical environmental
education Web site was signiﬁcantly correlated to ﬁve of the eight statements in the
section measuring environmental education attitudes.

Thus, on these speciﬁc individual items, there appears to be a positive linear
relationship: individuals’ environmental education attitudes are signiﬁcantly correlated to
their attitudes toward visiting and using a hypothetical environmental education Web site.
Teachers who exhibit positive attitudes toward environmental education also exhibit
positive attitudes toward using an environmental education Web site as described in the
survey. These ﬁndings lend some support to the research hypothesis, H2.

Compare Means with AN OVA. A second analysis was conducted to determine
whether or not individuals’ level of Internet access (i.e., access at home only, school
only, or both) was related to their responses on questions measuring environmental
education attitudes and attitudes toward using the Web in education. Respondents were
split into three groups by Internet access: home access only (n=13), school access only
(n=16) and both (home and school; n=52). Next, the procedure Compare Means with
AN OVA was used to compare responses to the 11 questions measuring attitude toward
the Web. The results indicate a signiﬁcant difference exists between groups. In each
case below, the group with access at “both home and school” scored signiﬁcantly higher
than those with Internet access at “home only” or at “school only.” In response to the
statement:

I “I regularly look for information on the web to use in my classroom,” the

means for home, school, and both were 2.85, 2.25, and 3.67 respectively.

These differences were signiﬁcant at the level of 0.000 (2-tailed).

113

I “The Web hasn’t changed my teaching methods signiﬁcantly,” the means for
home, school, and both were 2.92, 2.56, and 3.71 respectively. These
differences were signiﬁcant at the level of 0.000 (2-tailed).

Therefore, teachers who have a higher level of Internet access (i.e., at home and
school) are more likely to browse the Web regularly for information to use in their
classrooms than those teachers with Internet access at only one location. Similarly,
teachers with greater Internet access are more likely to perceive that the Web has
inﬂuenced their teaching methods than those have with limited Internet access.

Next, a Compare Means analysis was performed for the questions measuring
environmental education attitudes. Again, signiﬁcant differences between groups were
found. However, in this case, those with home access only scored higher than teachers
with access at school only or those with access at both home and school. In response to
the statement:

I “There are not enough hours in the school day to teach environmental
education,” the means for home, school, and both were 3.38, 2.31, and 2.56
respectively. These differences were signiﬁcant at the level of 0.051 (2-
tailed).

I “Environmental education should be mandatory in K-12 public schools,” the
means for home, school, and both were 4.38, 3.06, and 3.77 respectively.
These differences were signiﬁcant at the level of 0.000 (2-tailed).

Therefore, teachers who have Internet access at home only are more likely to
agree that environmental education should be mandatory in K-12 schools than those

teachers with Internet access at school only or at both home and school. Similarly,

114

teachers with home access only are more likely to perceive that there are enough hours in
the day to teach environmental education than those with Internet access at school only or

both home and school.

Research Questions Answered

1. Do K-12 teachers who complete the online survey exhibit positive attitudes

toward environmental education?

Overall, the data indicate that teachers who completed the Web-based survey
exhibit positive attitudes toward environmental education. The means for questions
measuring environmental education attitudes ranged from a low of 2.64 to a high of 4.56.
The overall mean of these scores is 4.0 out of a possible high score of 5.0.

2. Do K-12 teachers who complete the online survey exhibit positive attitudes

toward using the World Wide Web in education?

The data indicate that teachers who completed the Web-based survey exhibit
positive attitudes toward using the Web in education. The means for questions measuring
Web attitudes ranged from a low of 3.21 to a high of 4.58. The overall mean of these
scores is 3.9 out of a possible high score of 5.0.

3. What is the relationship between teachers’ access to environmental education

resources and their attitudes toward environmental education?

Based on the data collected by the survey instrument, there appears to be no
signiﬁcant relationship between teachers access to environmental education resources
and their attitudes toward environmental education. Teachers’ attitudes toward
environmental education appear to be independent of their access to environmental

education resources.

115

4. What is the relationship between teachers’ attitudes toward environmental

education and their attitudes toward using the World Wide Web in education?

In general, ﬁndings from the data indicate that there is no signiﬁcant relationship
between teachers’ attitudes toward environmental education and their attitudes toward the
Web. However, additional analyses found teachers’ attitudes toward environmental
education on speciﬁc items were signiﬁcantly related to teachers’ attitudes toward the
Web on speciﬁc items. Several items measuring environmental education attitudes were
found to be signiﬁcantly, positively correlated to items measuring teachers’ attitudes
toward visiting and using a hypothetical environmental education Web site designed for
teachers.

5. Using only electronic methods to advertise the online survey, how many K-12

teachers will complete and submit the online survey in a 45-day time period?

Within two weeks of placing the survey online, approximately 50 K-12 teachers
had responded and completed the survey. After 45 days, 81 K-12 teachers had completed
and submitted the online survey.

In summary, the Web-based survey results indicate that (1) respondents’
environmental attitudes appear to be unrelated to the number of environmental education
resources available to them; and (2) respondents’ environmental attitudes appear to be
unrelated to their attitudes toward using the Web in education. However, ﬁndings also
suggest that respondents’ environmental attitudes on certain statements (i.e.,
Environmental education should be taught in schools, Environmental education should be
mandatory, Teaching environmental education is worth the extra time required, etc.) do

appear to be related to respondents’ attitudes toward visiting and using a hypothetical

116

 

environmental education Web site. Respondents who exhibit more positive
environmental attitudes on particular statements identiﬁed above exhibit more positive
attitudes toward visiting an environmental education Web site, ﬁnding and using lesson
plans, telling colleagues about the site and submitting their own lesson plans.

In addition, those respondents with greater access to the Internet and Web tend to
exhibit more positive attitudes toward using the Web in education than those with less
access.

A discussion of the highlights from the research ﬁndings, implications and

conclusions will be presented in the following chapter.

117

CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The overarching goal of this research was to investigate the feasibility of using
the World-Wide Web as a means for sharing environmental education curricular
resources among K-12 teachers and thus, reduce a signiﬁcant barrier to environmental
education identiﬁed in the literature. This chapter reviews the steps taken to achieve this
goal, identify key ﬁndings from the analysis of results, discuss the implications of results,
and present recommendations for ﬁiture directions for Web-based environmental

education.

THE MAIL SURVEY

In order to investigate the feasibility of using the Web to share environmental
education curricula, it was ﬁrst necessary to determine whether or not a sample of
teachers: (1) were interested in environmental education, and (2) had the hardware,
software and Internet access necessary for Web-based research. If ﬁndings suggested
that teachers were not interested in environmental education, or if the majority of teachers
did not have the technical capability for participating in a Web-based study, the research

questions would have been reevaluated.
Key Findings
Results from the mail survey indicated that respondents were interested in

environmental education and had the technical capability for participating in Web-based

projects. Key ﬁndings from the survey include the following.

118

The overwhelming majority of teachers (97.3%) indicated that environmental
education should be taught in K-12 public schools, most teachers (87.3%)
reported feeling comfortable teaching environmental education and 78.1% of
respondents indicated that they regularly teach environmental concepts in
their in classrooms.

Teachers reported using the following resources most often in developing
environmental education curricula: develop own “unique” environmental
education curricula (62.2%), get ideas from colleagues (40.5%), and use
environmental education curriculum guides (29.7%).

More than half of respondents (62.2%) reported having no access to
environmental education curriculum guides and 54.1% never received
environmental education inservice education.

Respondents indicated they would teach environmental education more oﬁen
in their classrooms if they had more preparation time (73.0%), better access to
resources and curricula (56.8%) and more environmental education inservice
education opportunities (5 6.8%).

Most teachers (86.5%) indicated they have one or more computers in the
classroom; of those, 71 .9% have Internet access available.

More than half of respondents (62.2%) reported having access to email and
Web-browsing software (54.1%).

A small percentage of teachers have found lesson plans on the Web (27.6%),
contributed their own lessons to a Web site (6.9%), and/or have used

computers to teach about the environment (20.7%).

119

 

In summary, the ﬁndings from the mail survey support earlier studies citing that
teachers are interested in environmental education and believe it is a valuable subject in
K-12 education (Champeau et al., 1980; Johnson, 1980; Lane et al., 1994). In addition,
evidence from this survey indicates that the primary barriers to teaching enviromnental
education include lack of time to prepare for classes, lack of access to resources and
curricula and lack of inservice education opportunities. This also supports earlier
ﬁndings in the environmental education literature (Childress, 1978; Ham & Sewing,
1988; Volk et al., 1986). Other ﬁndings from this research have implications for use of

the Web in environmental education.

Implications for Using the Web in Environmental Education

The majority of respondents (62.2%) indicated that they develop their own
environmental education curricula—and the same amount (62.2%) reported no access to,
and thus, do not use environmental education curriculum guides. In addition, a large
percentage of teachers reported relying on colleagues for environmental education
activities and curricula. Findings suggest it is worth exploring environmental education
resources that facilitate teacher-to-teacher communication and searchable “idea banks” or
databases of curriculum information that can be used to help teachers develop their own
“unique” curricula. The Web can facilitate these kinds of activities on demand.

In addition, a small percentage of teachers are already using the Web to ﬁnd
lesson plans and are using computers to teach about the environment. As Internet access
improves in schools and classrooms, it is likely that more teachers will use this medium

as a curricular resource.

120

In summary, the mail survey provided evidence for the feasibility of the next
stage of research: studying the process of environmental education curriculum
development with two practicing teachers and developing a prototype Web site to share

curricula with others.

TWO DESCRIPTIVE CASES

The next step in investigating the feasibility of using the web to share
environmental education resources involved engaging in the curriculum development
process with two practicing teachers. While the “infusion” approach to environmental
education is regularly discussed and recommended in the environmental education
literature (Disinger, 1993; Ramsey et al., 1992; Volk, 1993), there is very little research
documenting how environmental education has been implemented (Samuel, 1993).

The purpose of this phase of the research was to (1) gain insights about the
curriculiun development process, and (2) to generate curricula to place online to share
with others. As a result of this phase of research, a prototype Web site was created to
share the curricula developed with other teachers. Although some environmental
education Web sites were already available online at the time of this research, very few
were speciﬁcally focused on the needs of teachers or provided teacher-developed

curricula.

Key Findings
Results from the collaborative curriculum development process with teachers

suggest that the experience can vary widely from one teacher to the next. For example,

key ﬁndings include the following:

121

 

I Beginning the curriculum development process. One teacher began with

district-required standards and objectives to be met; the other began with a
particular environmental topic, developed activities around the topic and then
determined ways to meet district standards.

I Selecting topics. One teacher selected recycling as the environmental topic
because she was passionate about the subject. The other teacher selected
water and other environmental problems because speciﬁc district objectives
outlined these topics for study.

I Subjects environmental education infused into. One teacher developed a
science “theme” around water and other environmental problems and
integrated language arts, public speaking and listening skills into the theme.
The other teacher integrated recycling into the two primary subjects she
taught: language arts and computers.

I Resources used to develop curricula. One teacher gathered a variety of
resources from her school, home, public library and community organizations
to develop curricula. The other teacher used books from the library and the
Web as her primary resources.

In summary, each teacher approached the process from different perspectives,
selected very different environmental topics for study, integrated environmental
education into a variety of subjects and used vastly different resources to create the
curricula. These ﬁndings have important implications for the use of the Web in

environmental education.

122

 

 

Implications for Using the Web in Environmental Education

Teachers have very different curricular needs and those needs can change
dramatically over time. It is virtually impossible to anticipate the varied and dynamic
needs of teachers and develop environmental education curriculum guides or other
printed resources that meet those needs effectively in a cost-efﬁcient manner.
Furthermore, evidence from the survey in Phase 1 of this research as well as the
environmental education literature suggests that many teachers lack access to
environmental education guides and are disconnected from the wealth of environmental
education resources that already exist.

The Web could be used to minimize these problems. The Web is rapidly
becoming available in schools across America and is, as yet, an under-utilized resource.
One of the teachers developing curricula mentioned that she expected to ﬁnd more
information about environmental education on the Web such as ideas for environmental
activities and guidelines for teaching environmental education. It is very likely that more
teachers will turn to the Web for environmental education information.

One of the advantages of the medium is the ability to create “links” between
information. This could be a very simple and powerful way of connecting teachers to the
resources they seek. The Web can also be used to provide “information on demand.”
Large, searchable databases are currently available online; users can search through a sea
of information using keywords and phrases. Hypothetically, if an environmental
education Web site housed a database cataloging K-12 teachers’ environmental education

lesson plans or activities, at any point in time, teachers could search and ﬁnd the curricula

123

 

 

they need in a timely manner. However, such a site should be centrally located, easy to

ﬁnd, and well-designed enabling teachers to use it efﬁciently.

Lessons from Web Design

For the prototype Web site, Web design and curriculum development was
concurrent. Ideally, content is completed before site design begins. This enables the
designer to focus on structuring the information available to facilitate navigation of the
site. Because the prototype Web site was being developed as teachers created curricula,
navigation was less than optimal. Furthermore, teachers’ curricula emerged in very
different forms and creating a standard look was challenging.

Several lessons were learned about environmental education design during this

phase of the research:

I Creating templates for presenting curricula would help maintain consistency
of the site. However, such design constraints could unnecessarily constrain
content.

I Prototype Web site visitors reacted positively to viewing samples of students’
work online that resulted from the curricula taught.

I Prototype Web site visitors reacted positively to reading teachers’ comments
about speciﬁc activities.

I Providing links to additional environmental education resources on the Web
dramatically increases the cost of maintaining the site. Even during the short
period the prototype Web site was available online (approximately 4 months),
several external links to other environmental education Web sites became

outdated and several new, relevant sites came online.

124

 

 

In summary, the ﬁndings from teachers’ environmental education curriculum
development experiences suggest that teachers’ needs for environmental education
resources vary widely and are dynamic in nature. It would be extremely difﬁcult to
develop printed environmental education cuniculum guides ﬂexible enough to meet those
needs. Because the Web can facilitate “linking” between resources and can provide
“information on demand,” it is an educational resource that should be investigated
ﬁirther.

For the next phase of the research, a Web-based survey was placed on the
prototype Web site to elicit teachers’ perceptions about environmental education and
using the Web in education, and to identify teachers’ access to various environmental

education resources.

THE WEB-BASED SURVEY

The ﬁrst phase of research provided evidence that teachers were interested in
environmental education and had the hardware and software necessary to participate in
Web-based research. The second phase of research resulted in the generation of
environmental education curricula designed by practicing teachers and the creation of
pilot demonstration Web site. The last phase of the research necessary to investigate the
feasibility of using the Web to share environmental education resources was the
implementation of a Web-based survey. The purpose of the survey was to elicit teachers’
perceptions about environmental education and using the Web in education, and to
identify the kinds of environmental education resources available to teachers. If the Web

is to be a means for reducing barriers to environmental education for teachers, it is

125

 

 

 

 

essential that teachers’ perceptions, attitudes and beliefs about environmental education

and the Web be explored.

Key Findings

Results from the Web-based survey indicated that teachers exhibited positive
attitudes toward environmental education. This supports survey results from Phase 1 as
well as earlier studies cited in the environmental education literature (Champeau et al.,
1980; Johnson, 1980; Lane et al., 1994). Teachers also exhibited positive attitudes
toward using the Web in education. Although many teachers reported having access to a
wide variety of environmental education resources, more than half of the respondents

lacked access to any kind of environmental education-related curriculum guides.

Attitudes Toward Environmental Education

I Almost all respondents (97.5%) agreed that environmental education should
be taught in K-12 schools although fewer (65.4%) agreed that it should be
mandatory.

I Many teachers agreed that “it is worth the extra time it takes to teach
environmental education” (87.7%), but a majority of teachers indicated there
“are not enough hours in the day to teach everything that is required plus
environmental education” (58.1%). This supports earlier research studies
citing lack of time as an important barrier to environmental education (Ham &

Sewing, 1988; Ham et al., 1988).

126

 

 

Attitudes Toward Using the Web in Education

I Respondents exhibited very positive attitudes toward visiting and using a
hypothetical environmental education Web site designed for teachers to share
environmental education curricula.

I Most teachers (86.4%) agreed that in “ﬁve years from now the Web will be
extremely important in K-12 education as a means for ﬁnding and sharing
curricular resources.” Respondents exhibited the most positive attitude
toward this statement.

I Respondents indicated that ﬁnding quality resources on the Web for

 

classroom use is difﬁcult; they exhibited the least positive attitude toward this i

statement.

Respondents ’ Access to Environmental Education Resources

I More than half of respondents reported access to environmental magazines,
parks and nature centers, environmental videos and movies, posters, local
environmental professionals, and Web-based “background” information and
curricula.

I Fewer than half of the respondents indicated access to other teachers who
teach environmental education, local enviromnental education organizations
and educators, locally- or nationally produced environmental education
curriculum guides, textbooks that contain environmental education material
and computer-based environmental education software programs.

I Less than one-quarter of respondents reported access to state or local school

district curriculum guides that contain environmental education material.

127

 

It was hypothesized that teachers who reported access to a greater number of
environmental education resources would exhibit a more positive attitude toward
environmental education than teachers reporting access to fewer resources. In addition, it
was hypothesized that teachers exhibiting more positive attitudes toward environmental

education would also exhibit more positive attitudes toward using the Web in education.

Hypotheses Tested

I An analysis of the Web-based survey data indicated that teachers’ access to
environmental education resources does not appear to be signiﬁcantly related
to teachers’ environmental attitudes. Some teachers who reported access to
very few resources exhibited very positive attitudes toward environmental
education and vice versa. Findings suggest attitude toward environmental
education appears to be independent of one’s access to environmental
education resources.

I An analysis of the Web-based survey data indicated that teachers’ attitude
toward environmental education does not appear to be signiﬁcantly related to
teachers’ attitude toward using the Web in education. Although additional
analyses (see below) suggested that attitude toward environmental education
is related to attitude toward using the Web in environmental education, in
general, environmental education attitude appears to be independent of one’s

attitude toward using the Web in education.

Additional Analyses
I Five (of eight) items measuring attitude toward environmental education were

signiﬁcantly related to statements about visiting and using a hypothetical

128

‘3‘
' 1.
LL

 

environmental education Web site designed for teachers. Speciﬁcally,
statements about teaching environmental education in schools, making
environmental education mandatory, teaching environmental education being
worth the extra time, environmental education not being a fad, and K—12
teachers being responsible for teaching environmental education were
positively correlated with the environmental education Web site questions.
Teachers who scored highly on the above statements also scored highly on
statements about visiting a hypothetical environmental education Web site,
using lesson plans found there, submit their own lesson plans and tell a
colleague about the site.

Respondents with greater Internet access (i.e., at home and at school) scored
higher on two items measuring attitude toward using the Web in education
than those with access at home or at school only. Not surprisingly, those with
greater access appear to be more likely to use the Web to look for classroom
resources and to report that the Web has inﬂuenced their teaching methods.
Respondents with less Internet access—at “home only”—-scored higher on
two items measuring environmental education attitude than those with access
at “school only” and those with access at “both home and school”. Those
with Internet access at “home only” tended to score more highly on two
statements: (1) “Environmental education should be mandatory in K-12 public
schools,” and (2) “There are enough hours in the day to teach environmental
education.” This ﬁnding is somewhat unexpected and difﬁcult to explain.

Perhaps those who had home access only felt strongly enough about

129

environmental education to ﬁnd and complete the survey during their personal
time at home. Results could also represent “outliers” and data are not
representative of users with home access only. Additional research is

necessary to explain these unexpected ﬁndings.

Limitations to the Study

Initially, one hypothesis of the Web-based survey was to explore whether or not
teachers who exhibited positive attitudes toward environmental education would also
exhibit positive attitudes toward using the Web in environmental education. However,
because few environmental education Web sites designed speciﬁcally for teachers existed
at the time of the survey, only one multi-part question about a hypothetical Web site was
included. More questions targeted to measure attitudes toward using the Web in
environmental education would be necessary to create a scale and test the hypothesis.

Similarly, general questions measuring attitudes toward using the Web in
education should have been included in a separate scale. In the case of the Web-based
survey, two different variables (i.e., attitude toward using the Web in environmental
education and attitude using the Web in education) were measured using one scale and it
is likely that this affected the results.

Finally, all of the statistics presented should be interpreted cautiously. The
purpose of both surveys was to explore teachers’ perceptions and attitudes. In order to
draw conclusions and seek cause-effect relationships among variables it would be
necessary to survey a larger sample of respondents and to modify and reﬁne the scales

used here.

130

Implications for Using the Web in Environmental Education

The most important result from this survey is that respondents who exhibited
positive attitudes toward environmental education also exhibited positive attitudes toward
using a hypothetical environmental education Web site that is designed for teachers.
Additionally, more respondents reported access to Web-based environmental education
information than to any kind of environmental education-related curriculum guides.
Furthermore, those teachers with greater Internet access (i.e., access at home and at
school) reported using the Web more often to ﬁnd resources to use in the classroom. The
following implications are based on these ﬁndings.

As access to the Internet and Web increases in US. schools, it is likely that
teachers will rely on this medium more often for curricular resources and information.
The results from the mail and Web-based surveys indicate that a small percentage of
teachers are already using the Web for these purposes. If current trends continue, we can
anticipate that this number will grow substantially over the next decade.

Evidence from the Web-based survey suggests that the target population for an
environmental education Web site should be teachers who exhibit positive attitudes
toward environmental education. These are the teachers most interested in ﬁnding
additional resources and using the Web for these purposes. The literature review of
change processes in schools indicated that when a curriculum change is not mandated—
and environmental education is mandatory in only a few states—strategies that focus on
the teacher as an individual change agent are often most effective and can be source of

“profound change.”

131

 

Because the Web is accessible to so many educators, and because the medium
affords unique features such as facilitating communication, linking information sources
and providing information on demand, it can be an invaluable resource for environmental
education. Further research, discussion and debate within the environmental education
community about the value and use of the Web is essential. Environmental educators
should be active in all aspects of Web-based environmental education to guide the
development of thoughtful, creative Web sites that provide the kind of environmental

education resources that foster environmentally-literate, concerned and active individuals.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Web is a vastly underutilized resource in environmental education. There
is a need for ﬁrrther research to explore using the Web (1) to connect teachers
to environmental education resources, (2) to facilitate teacher-to-teacher
communication about environmental education topics and activities, and (3) to

provide online inservice educational opportunities.

2. There is a need to create a central clearinghouse of environmental education

 

information on the Web targeted to K-12 educators. Many environmental
education Web sites exist and more are created every day. However, ﬁnding
quality sites and determining how to integrate environmental education
content into curricula is time-consuming for teachers. If the Web is to be used
by teachers, it must be simple to ﬁnd and quick to use. A single organization
like the Environmental Protection Agency or environmental education-Link
should take responsibility for the design and maintenance of a K-12

environmental education clearinghouse. In order to create an effective

132

—

   

environmental education clearinghouse Web site, additional research is
recommended to:
I Identify current barriers to using the Web experienced by K-12
teachers;
I Explore K-12 teachers’ expectations for environmental education Web
sites and the types of curricular resources they desire;
I Discover the expectations and identify the concerns of both Web
designers and environmental educators for an environmental education
Web site.

3. The environmental education community mu_st become more actively
involved in Web-based environmental education opportunities. Creative
discussion, debate and development of prototype Web-sites is urgently needed
if the environmental education community is to drive the creation of Web-
based environmental education rather than react to online environmental
education information already in existence. While environmental educators
are often loath to advocate the use of computers and other technologies for
teaching about the natural world, there can be many valuable ways to use
technologies in environmentally appropriate ways. It is the responsibility of
environmental educators and activists to engage in this debate to determine

the best possible uses of the Web in environmental education.

133

APPENDIX A

MAIL SURVEY

134

 

 

 

Survey of Ingham County 4th Grade Teachers

1997

 

Please indicate your answer to each question by placing an X in the box beside the
appropriate answer, or by writing in your answer when requested to do so.

 

Section I. Environmental Education

In this section, we would like to know what you think about teaching environmental education.

1. Do you teach environmental concepts in your classroom?

 

DYes DNo
I If “No”, why not?

5* (Please select all that apply.)
[:1 Concepts unrelated to subjects taught

 

C1 Do not have environmental ed. background

D Do not have class time

Cl Not enough prep time

D Not appropriate for grade level

D Other (Please specify: )

 

 

 

 

J

[1‘ “Yes”, are environmental concepts:

 

Cl Taught as a separate subject (i.e., environmental studies, env. science)
0 Integrated into other subject areas

Please specify the subject area in which you most often teach
environmental concepts:

 

 

 

 

2. Do you personally own or have access to Environmental Education curriculum guides?

DYes DNo

 

If “Yes”, please specify up to three guides:
,3 1.
2.

3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

135

 

 

I 997 Survey of Ingham Countv 4'” Grade Teachers

 

3. Have you ever received in-service education for environmental education?
DYes DNo
If “Yes”, please specify up to 2
_ organization(s) that provided it:
1.
2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. If you teach your students about environmental concepts, what source(s)
you use to develop curriculum? (Please select all that apply.)

I use special environmental education curriculum guides

I develop my own unique curriculum and activities

I get my ideas for environmental curricula from my colleagues

I use the state/county required curriculum guides

I use the World-Wide Web and the Internet to develop environmental curricula
Other (Please specify: )

I do not teach about environmental concepts

131300000

5. Do you believe environmental education should be taught in elementary schools?

El Deﬁnitely Yes D Yes Cl Not Sure Cl No Cl Deﬁnitely No

6. Please rate how comfortable you would feel teaching your students about
environmental concepts:

Cl Very comfortable 0 Comfortable Cl Neutral 0 Uncomfortable Cl Very uncomfortable

7. Which of the following situations would be most likely to inﬂuence you to infuse
environmental education into your regular curriculum in the future?
(Please select all that apply.)

More in-service classes on environmental education
Better access to resources and curricula

More preparation time

More funding

More support from the school administration

Other (Please specify: )
None

013001300

136

—i

 

l 997 Survey of Ingham County 4'” Grade Teachers

 

Section II. Computers in Education

In this section, we would like to know what you think about the use of computers in teaching.

1. Do you have one (or more) computers in your classroom?

CIYes CINo

I i a.) If “Yes”, how many computers are in your classroom?

b.) How many years have you had the newest computer
in your classroom?

 

Cl Less than one year
C] l-2 years
Cl 24 years
Cl More than 4 years

c.) Please tell us what kind(s) of computer(s) you have in your class
room (i.e., Macintosh, Windows, System 7, Pentium, etc.).
Please be as specific as possible.

 

 

 

 

 

c.) Do you have internet access from your classroom?
D Yes Cl No D Not sure

 

 

 

2. Does your school have a computer lab?

 

 

 

 

DYes CINo
L———-)' If “Yes”, can students access the Internet from lab computers?
Cl Yes D No 0 Not sure
1 3 7

 

11'.
1 ','_'
‘ —— 'II

I 997 Survey of Ingham County 4“ Grade Teachers

 

3. What kinds of software are available on the computers you have access to (i.e., in your classroom
and/or computer labs)? (Please select all that apply.)

 

 

Cl Word processing 0 E-mail C1 Games

Cl Spreadsheet Cl WWW browser Cl Educational software

0 Database (i.e., Netscape) (Please specify: J

Cl Presentation 0 HYPCHl'media d D Other .

Q Draw/paint (Lew .vperrar ) (Please specrfy. )
Cl Not sure

4. Have you ever received in-service education on using software programs?

Cl Yes CI No

L...

 

a.) If “Yes”, what organization(s) provided the in-service?
Please specify up to two organizations.

1.
2.

 

 

b.) Do you receive in-service educational programs on a regular basis?
DYes 0N0

 

 

 

5. Think about the ways in which you have learned how to use various software applications.
Which of the following sources best represents the way(s) you learned how to use
software? (Please select all that apply.)

Cl In-service educational programs

Cl Self-tauglu; experimentation

C1 Courses outside of my school (i.e., Community college, Evening college, etc.)
Cl Colleagues

El Students

D My children; younger family members

Cl Other (Please specify: )

138

 

1997 Survey oflngham County 4'” Grade Teachers

 

 

6. Do you use computers in instruction?

D Yes CI No

l i If “No”, which o_n_g of the following situations would be most likely

to inﬂuence you to use computers in instruction in the future?

 

C] More computer training

C] More computers in the classroom

Cl Access to better computer hardware/ software

Cl More preparation time

D Other (Please specify: )

 

 

 

 

 

1.

a.) If “Yes”, please specify the primary way you use computers in instruction:

 

Cl Internet research

0 Internet publishing (i.e., creating class/student web pages)

Cl Data analysis (i.e., using spreadsheet, graphs, database software)

Cl Presenting information (i.e., using presentation/drawing software)

D E-mail (i.e., gathering and sharing information with others)

D Educational software (i.e., digital encyclopedias, specialized ed. software)
Cl Computer-aided instruction programs

Cl Other (Please specify: )

b.) Have you ever found lesson plans/activities on the World-Wide Web
and incorporated them in your classroom teaching?

0 Yes D No

c.) Have you ever placed your own activities and/or lesson plans on the
World-Wide Web for others to use?

DYes DNo

(1.) Have you ever used computers to teach students about environmental concepts?

D Yes Cl No

 

 

 

139

 

l 997 Survey oflngham County 4‘” Grade Teachers

 

Section III. General Information

In this section, we would like to learn a little more about you and your school community.

1. How many years have you been employed as an elementary school teacher (K-6)?

2. What is your elementary school subject specialization?

 

3. Educational background. (Please indicate the highest level of education completed.)

Cl High school
Cl Teaching certiﬁcate

C] C ollege/university
(B.A./B.S. degree)

4. How many students are in your class?

Cl Credits beyond
Bachelor’s degree D Other

Cl Master '5 degree
D Ph.D. degree

Cl Post-doctoral study

(Please specify:

 

5. Which of the following terms best describes the community your school serves?
Please select one response from Column A and Column B.

Social Class

Cl Middle-class
D Aﬂluent
C1 Economically-disadvantaged

6. What is your ethnicity?
D African/African-American
D Asian/Asian-American
Cl Caucasian

7. What is your gender?

Cl Male
D Female

8. What is your age range?
Cl under 21 years old
[3 21 to 30 years old
C] 31 to 40 years old

Geographic Area

0 Suburban
Cl Rural
Cl Urban

Cl Latin/Latin-American
Cl Native American

CJ Multi-racial

D Other

C) 41-50 years old
Cl 51 to 60 years old
Cl 61 years and older

140

l 997 Survey oflngham County 4‘” Grade Teachers

 

 

Thank you very much for your participation in this survey. If you would like to add any
additional comments about environmental education, educational technology, or your school, please
include them in the space provided below.

A summary of the results of this survey will be made publicly available to you, the respondents,
via the World-Wide Web as soon as the data has been collected and analyzed. If you would like the
web address, or, if you would like to receive the summary via e-mail, please send a message to
yorkkimb@pilot.msu.edu indicating your preference. If you would like to receive a hard-copy of
the survey results, please send a self-addressed stamped envelope to:

 

Kimberly York
323 Natural Resources Building
Resource Development Department
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824

E-mail: yorkkimb@pilot.msu.edu
Phone: 517/353-6811

 

 

 

Additional Comments:

141

 

   

APPENDIX B

WEB-BASED SURVEY

142

 

 

Environmental Education Printed Survey, April-Alloy I998

K-12 Environmental Education Survey

This survey is for K- 12 teachers and pre-service teachers. You will be asked about your teach-
ing experiences. Pre-service teachers, if you are not currently teaching in a classroom, please
respond to questions based on how you anticipate you would teach in the ﬁrture.

By completing the survey, you inicate your voluntary participation and consent. This survey is
also available online: httpzl/rdservl.rd.msu.edu/enved/survey.html

I)
The results of the survey will be published online by May 30, 1998:
http ://rdservl .rd.msu. edu/enved/results/
Thank you for your participation.
Section 1: Environmental Educatlon L

 

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Str. agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Str. Disagree

1. Environmental education should be taught in K-12 D D D C] E]
schools.

2. There are not enough hours in the school day to D D E] D D
teach everything that is required plus environmental
education.

3. Environmental education is another curricular fad.

4. Environmental education should be integrated into
subject areas wherever possible.

5. As a K-12 teacher, it is my responsibility to teach
my students to care for the Earth.

6. It is worth the extra time it takes me to teach
environmental education.

7. It doesn’t make sense to try to integrate
environmental education into some subjects.

E] Cl El E1 DE]
El El E1 Cl CID
El CI El E1 CID
El El El Cl CID

DECIDED

8. Environmental education should be mandatory in
K-12 public schools.

143

 

, _ In; inmate‘s-um; -5“ 3E“

 

Environmental Education Printed Survey. .-lpril-.~1[a_v I 998

Section 2: Using the World-Wide Web in Environmental Education

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

9. Imagine a web site where hundreds of K-12
teachers have put their environmental education
activities and lessons online. A friend tells you that
you can search the information by grade level,

subject area, or keywords. St): agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Str. Disagree

0 I would deﬁnitely visit the site.

- If I found something interesting, I would print
out lessons.

- If it seemed appropriate, I would use in my
classroom.

- I would tell another teacher about the site.

 

- I would submit my own lesson plans and
contribute to the web site.

10. The existence of the World-“Tide Web has not
changed my teaching methods.

D D DD D DD
D D DD D DD
D D DD D DD
D D DD D DD
D D DD D DD

11. I would take advantage of them if there were
more teacher-developed lessons and activities on
the World-Wide Web.

12. The quality or usefulness of classroom resources
I ﬁnd on the World-“ride Web is not worth the
time I invest looking for them.

D
D
D
D
D

13. I regularly look for information or activities on
the World-Wide Web to use in my classroom.

14. Five years from now, the World-Wide Web will D D D D D
be extremely important in K-12 education as a
means for sharing and ﬁnding curricular resources.

15. Five years from now, teachers in K-12 public D D U [:1 D
schools will teach very much in the same way as
they are teaching today.

D
D
D
D
D

144

 

Environmental Education Printed Survey, April-May I 998

Section 3: Access to Environmental Education Resources

Please indicate whether or not you have access to each of the following environmental education
resources below.

16. National Resources & Cum'cula Yes No Not Sure

- Printed national env. education curriculum guides
(i.e., Project Learning Tree, Project Wild)

- Books about the environment

Text books that contain env. education material

Environmental magazines (i.e., Ranger Rick, World)
- Environmental videotapes, movies, ﬁlmstrips

- Computer-based env. education software programs

DDD DD 0
DUB DD D
DDD DD

0 Envrironmental posters

17. State & Local Resources

- Locally produced, printed env. education curriculum
guides (i.e., local environmental organization’s

D
D
D

cunicula)

- State Dept. of Education curriculum guide that D D D
contains environmental content

- Local school district curriculum guide that D D G
contains environmental content

- Local parks and nature centers [:1 D D

- Local environmental specialists & professionals D E] D
(i.e., scientists, advocates, resource managers)

. Local environmental educators; env. ed. E] D D
organizations

- Other teachers in my school or district who teach D [3 D
environmental education

18. Web-Based Information

- Env. education curricula and activities on the D D D
World-Wide Web

. Background information about environmental topics [:1 D D

on the World-“Me Web

145

 

Environmental Education Printed Survey. April-May 1998

Section 4: Tell Us About Yourself

19. Ifyou are a:
0 Teacher: How many years have you been teaching?

- Pre-service teacher: What is your current year of study? Fr | So. | Jr | Sr 1 Grad.

20. Please select your age range:

[317-20 D46-50
[3 21-25 [351.55
D 26-30 [356-60
[3 31-35 [361.65
C] 36-40 D66-70
[341-45 [371+

21. Please select your gender: B Male B Female

22. I have intemet access: (Please select all that apply)

D At home

D At school/work

D Other (Please specify:)
D No intemet access

 

23. How oﬁen do you: (Please circle)

- Check e-mail? (x=times)
.Vever | lx/month | [Jr/week | 2-3x/week lAlmost every day | Several x/day

- Browse the web? (x=times)
Never | [Jo/month | lx/week | 2-3x/week lAlrnost every day | Several x/day

24. Geographic information: Which state do you live in?

25. Opportunity for comments: What would encourage you to use the World-Wide Web more in your
teaching and/or integrate environmental education into your teaching more often? Other comments?

146

 

 

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY OF TEACHER CASES

 

147

 

Table 17: Summary of Teacher Cases

 

Karen

Anne

 

School Community
Students in School
Students in Class

Type of classes taught

Years Teaching

Education

Computer Experience

Computers in School

Experience Teaching EE

Urban
1,160
16

4Lh grade
Language Arts (“Homeroom"),
Computers

8

BA in Film & Communications

MA in Education—emphasis in
Social Science and Reading

Signiﬁcant experience in work
before becoming a teacher
Is school computer teacher

School lab has 25 Pentium
computers, Internet access,
networked to district, scanner,
printer and digital camera.

Has two older 486 computers in
classroom suitable for
keyboarding

First year of teaching Karen
started an ambitious recycling
project only to discover 2
months later that no one would
take all of the recyclables they
had collected.

Suburban

370
54

Multi-age: 3", 4'“, and 5'h gr.
All subjects taught

9

BA in Elementary Education—
emphasis in English and Science

MA in Curriculum Development
and Classroom Instruction

Certified Quality School
Instructor

Very little other than personal,
home use; word processing and
email

School computer lab has 30
IBM-compatible 486 multimedia
computers networked to district
server. No Internet access

1 intemet computer (Macintosh)
on a portable cart

School shares 30 portable laptop
computers

In early years of teaching Anne
did a unit on recycling. As a
result, the students led a
campaign that began the
recycling program at school still
in use today

 

148

 

 

   

 

Karen

Anne

 

Obstacles to Project

My Role

Teacher’s Approach to
EE Curriculum
Development

Topics Selected for BB

Subject Areas EE
Curriculum Infused
Into

Types of Resources
Used

Time spent per class on
EE

Students’ favorite part
ofunﬁ

What would encourage
you to use the Web
more often?

Email rarely worked
Threat of teacher strike

Difﬁculties connecting with
teacher because she moved and
was without phone, email, etc.

Overestimated students’ skills in
reading and writing; had to
abandon project plans

Create web pages describing
projects Karen was doing with
students

Teach class how to make
recycled paper

Began with topic of interest to
teacher and then developed
activities around it

Recycling/Litter
Language Arts,
Computers/Technology

Required textbook, library books
(ﬁctional environmental stories),

Internet/Web

45-60 minutes; 2-3 times per
week for 4 weeks
Making recycled paper

“If using the Web was
mandatory.”

Unable to install Web page
soﬁware in computer lab

Internet access was sporadic
Difﬁculty installing Web page
software on portable computer

Had to get all 54 kids online
using only 1 computer

Create Web pages highlighting
Anne’s curricula and lesson
plans

Teach class how to make their
own web pages; get all reports
online.

Began with standards and
objectives (report card)
Asked students for input

Water and Other Environmental
Problems

Science, Language Arts,
Listening, Public Speaking

District curriculum guide, library
books, posters, videos, ﬁeld
trips, local park, “science
boxes,” other curriculum books
with hands-on activities

45-60 minutes; 3-4 times per
week for 6 weeks

All of the hands-on activities and
ﬁeld trips

“Nothing.”

Possibly for current events

 

149

 

   

REFERENCES

Adler, J. H. (1993). Child's garden of misinformation. Consumer's Research 11-16.

 

ADSmart Corporation. (1997). ADSmart.net glossy [On-line]. Available:
http://www.adsmart.net/l4_sc_glossary.html#w

Arcury, T. A. (1990). Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge. Human
Organization, 49(4), 300-304.

Babbie, E. (1995). Practice of social research. Detroit, MI: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.

Barron, L. C. & Goldman, E. S. (1994). Integrating technology with teacher preparation.

In B. Means (Ed.), Technology and Education Reform: The reality behind the
promise (pp. 81-110). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Beiswenger, R., Sturges, E. L. & Jones, R. (1991). Water education in Wyoming:
Assessing educators' knowledge of water topics and their use in the elementary
curriculum. Journal of Environmental Education 23(1), 24-29.

 

Braun, J ., Jr. (1997). Past, possibilities, and potholes on the information superhighway.
Social Education 61(3), 149-153.

 

Browner, C. (1998) Why environmental education? It is critical to maintaining our
quality of life [On-line]. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/regionS/enved/html/03_txt.htrn

Buethe, C. & Smallwood, J. (1987). Teachers' environmental literacy: Check and
recheck, 197 S and 1985. Journal of Environmental Education, 18(3), 39-42.

Cailliau, R. (1995). A little histog of the World Wide Web [On-line]. Available:
http://www.w3.org/History.htrnl

Cantrell, D. C. (1993). Alternative paradigms in environmental education research: The
interpretive perspective. In R. Mrazek (Ed), Alternative Paradigms in
Environmental Education Research (pp. 81-105). Troy, OH: National Association
for Environmental Education.

Carlson, C. E. (1998). What's on the menu? School Web sites in the United States 1998
[On-line]. Available:
http://www.teacherzone.com/specialreports/onmenu/onmenuinto.html

 

Champeau, R., Gross, M, and Wilke, R. (1980). An assessment of teachers'
understanding and use of 'Goals for curriculum development in environmental

150

 

education.‘ 9th Annual Conference of the National Association for Environmental
Education, ERIC.

C hildress, R. & Wert, J. (1976). Challenges for environmental education planners.
Journal of Environmental Education 7(4), 2-6.

 

Childress, R. B. (1978). Public school environmental education curricula: A national
proﬁle. Jourrgl of Environmental Education, 9(3), 2-11.

Clark, E. (1975). Good education is environmental. Journal of Environmental Education,
§(4)9 1'5

Clark, N. (1995). Being consoled? Virtual nature and ecological consciousness. Futures
21(7), 735-747.

 

Clements, D. H. (1995). Teaching creativity with computers. Educational Psychology
Review 7(2), 141-161.

 

Clinton, W. (1996). America‘s technology literacy challenge [On-line]. Available:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WHfNew/edtech/ZpagerhtmI

Coley, R., Cradler, J ., & Engel, P. (1997). Computers and classroom; The status of
technology in US. schoola [On-line]. Available:
http://www.ets.org/research/pic/compclass.html

Copen, P. (1995). Connecting classrooms through telecommunications. (How technology
Is transforming teaching). Educational Leadership, 53(2), 44-48.

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Culen, G. (1998). The status of environmental education with respect to the goal of
responsible citizenship behavior. In H. Hungerford, W. Bluhn, T. Volk, & J.
Ramsey (Eds), Essential readings in EE (pp. 37-45). Charnpaign, IL: Stipes
Publishing L.L.C.

C zajkowski, T. & Patterson, L. (1980). Curriculum change and the school. In ASCD
1980 Yearbook Committee (Eds), 1980 ASCD yearbook: Considered action for
curriculum improvement (pp. 158-175). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

David, J. L. (1994). Realizing the promise of technology: A policy perspective. In B.

Means (Ed.), Technology and Education Reform: The realig behind the promise
(pp. 169-189). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

DeWall, M. (1989). The JASON project. The Science Teacher 56(3), 48-52.

 

151

 

Disinger, J. F. (1998a). Environmental education's deﬁnitional problem. In H.

Hungerford, W. Bluhn, T. Volk, & J. Ramsey (Eds), Essential readings in EE
(pp. 17-31). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing L.L.C.

Disinger, J. F. (1993). Environment in the K-12 curriculum: An overview. In R. Wilke
(Ed), Environmengtl education: Teacher resource handbook (pp. 23-43).
Millwood, NJ: Kraus International Publications.

Disinger, J. F. (1998b). Tensions in environmental education: yesterday, today, and
tomorrow. In H. Hungerford, W. Bluhn, T. Volk, & J. Ramsey (Eds), Essential
readings in EE (pp. 4-11). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing L.L.C.

 

Dufﬁeld, J. (1997). Trials, tribulations, and minor successes. Techtrends 42(4), 22-26.

 

Dyrli, O. E. &. Kinnaman, D. E. (1996). Connecting with the world through successful
telecommunications projects. Technology and Learning, 16(6), 57-63.

Eighmey, J. (1997). Proﬁling user responses to commercial web sites. Journal of
Advertising Research, 37(3), 59-66.

Editor & Publisher Interactive (1998). Web trends watch: moat school§ connected to net.
[On-line]. Available:
http ://www.mediainfo.com/epheme/news/newshtm/webnews/wtO501 98 .htm

Eisner, E. W. (1985). The Educational imagipation: On the desigp and evaluation of
school progpams. New York: Macrnillian.

Ellsworth, J. (1997). Curricular integration of the World Wide Web. Techtrends 42(2),
24-30.

 

F riere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Fullan, M. (1993). Innovation, reform, and restructuring strategies. In G. Caweth (Ed),

1993 ASCD yearbook: Challenges and achievements of American education (pp.
116-133). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Gambro, J. S. & Switzky, H. N. (1996). National survey of high school students'
environmental knowledge. Jouraal of Environmental Education 27(3), 28-33.

 

Gay, G. (1980). Conceptual models of the curriculum-planning process. In ASCD 1980
Yearbook Committee (Eds), 1980 ASCD earbook: onsidered action for
curriculum improvement (pp. 120-143). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Graphics Visualization and Usability Center, Georgia Tech (1997). GVU‘s WWW user
surveys [On-line]. Available: http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/user_surveys/survey-
1997-10/

152

 

 

Gray, M. K. (1996). Web gpowth summg [On-line]. Available:
http://www.mit.edu/people/mkgray/net/web-growth-summary.htrnl

Groves, D., Cauley, V. Jr., & Smith, D. (1978). Some important variables related to
teachers' natural resource knowledge and opinion and some of their strategies for
teaching a forestry unit. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 4(4), 32-39.

Hahn, H. & Stout, R. (1994). Internet complete reference. New York: Osborne McGraw-
Hill.

Hall, G. & Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY:
State University Press of New York.

Ham, 8., Rellergert-Taylor, M. & Krumpe, E. (1988). Reducing barriers to environmental
education. Journal of Environmental Education 19(2), 25-33.

 

Ham, 8. H. & Sewing, D. R. (1988). Barriers to environmental education. Journal of
Environmental Education 19(2), 17-24.

 

Hamilton, A. (1998). How the web was won [On-line]. Available:
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/story/story_2082.htrnl

Hart, P. (1993). Alternative perspectives in environmental education research: Paradigm
of critically reﬂective inquiry. In R. Mrazek (Ed), Alternative paradigms in
environmental education research (pp. 107-130). Troy,OH: The North American
Association for Environmental Education.

Hodas, S. (1993). Technology refusal and the organizational culture of schools [On-line].
Available: http://homepage.seas.upenn.edu/~cpage/techref.html

Holzberg, C. S. (1996). Class trips in cyberspace: No passports required. Technology &
Learning, 17(3), 58-63.

Hooper, J. (1988). Teacher cognitions of wildlife management concepts. Journal of
Environmental Education 19(3), 15-18.

 

Hungerford, H. R. (1975). Myths of environmental education. Journal of Environmental
Education 7(2), 21-26.

 

Hungerford, H. R. & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through
environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education 21(3), 8-21.

 

Hurting, B., Palmer, C. & DiSilvestro, R. (1990). The mystery of the disappearing ducks:
An interactive multimedia design example. In W. J. Rohwedder (Ed), Computer-
Aided Environmental Education (pp. 26-41). Troy, OH: National Association for
Environmental Education.

153

 

Jason Foundation (1998). JASON Foundation for Education [On-line]. Available:
http://www.jason.org/jason.html

Johnson, W. (1980). Teachers' percaptions and circumstances that inﬂuence willingpess
to teach environmental studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

J onassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kachigan, S. (1986). Statistical analysis: An interdiscipling introduction to univariate
and multivariate methods. New York: Radius Press.

Kauchak, D., Krall, F. & Heimsath, K. (1978). The need for education, not
indoctrination. Journal of Environmental Education 10(1), 19-22.

 

Knapp, C. E. (1972). Attitudes and values in environmental education. Journal of
Environmental Educating, 3(4), 26-29.

Lane, J ., Wilke, R., Champeau, R. & Sivek, D. (1994). Environmental education in
Wisconsin: A teacher survey. Journal of Environmental Education 25(4), 9-17.

 

Lapp, D. (1994). Private gain, public loss. Environmental Action 26(1), 14-17.

 

Levi, M. & Conrad, F. (1996). Usability tesing of WorﬂWide Web sites [On-line].
Available: http://stats.bls.gov/ore/htm_papers/st960150.htm

Levine, R. (1995). Sun on the net: Guide to Web style [On-line]. Available:
http://www.sun.com/styleguide/tables/Printing_Version.htrnl

Lightner, K., Bose, 1., & Salvendy, G. (1996). What is wrong with the World-Wide Web?
A diagnosis of some problems and prescription of some remedies. Ergonomics,
3(8), 995-1004.

Lowther, D. L., & Sullivan, H. J. (1996). Perceptions of educational technology among
K-12 teachers and educational technologists. In D. P. Ely, and BB. Minor (Eds),

Educational media and technolpgy yearbook: Vol. 21 (pp. 14-21). Englewood,
CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Lynch, P. J. (1990). Hypermedia for environmental education and the life sciences. In
W.J. Rohwedder (Ed), om uter-Aided Environmental Education (pp. 11-25).
Troy, OH: National Association for Environmental Education.

Manilov, M. & Schwartz, T. (1997). The assault on eco-education. Earth Island Journal
12(1), 36-37.

 

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. (1989). Desigping Qualitative research. Newbury Park, NJ:
Sage Publications.

154

 

Means, B. & Olson, K. (1994). Tomorrow's schools: Technology and reform in

partnership. In B. Means (Ed), Technology and Education Reform: the reality
behind the promise (pp. 191-22). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Mendels, P. (1997). Study faults net training for teachers [On-line]. Available:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/071 797benton.htrnl

Michigan Department of Education (1998). Overview of sml studies content sum
[On-line]. Available:
http://cdp.mde.state.mi.us/MCF/ContentStandards/SocialStudies/default.html

Munson, B. H. (1994). Ecological misconceptions. Journal of Environmental Education
QM), 30-34.

 

National Environmental Education Advisory Council. (1996). Rpport assessing
environmental education in the United States and the implementation of the
Natiognal Environmeatal Education Act of 1990. Washington, DC: US
Environmental Protection Agency.

Negroponte, N., Resnick, M., & Cassell, J. (1997). Creating a learning revolution [On-
line]. Available:
http://www.education.unesco.org/unesco/educprog/lwf/doc/portfolio/
opinion8.htm

Network Wizards (1998). Internet domain survey, J anug 1998 [On-line]. Available:
http://www.nw.com/zone/WWW/report.html

Nielsen, J. (1997a). Be succinct! (Writing for the Web) [On-line]. Available:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9703b.html

Nielsen, J. (1997b). How users read on the Web [On-line]. Available:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html

Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart: defending human attributes in the age
of the machine. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London: Sage

Publications.

Pitkow, J. E. & Kehoe, C. M. (1996). Emerging trends in the WWW user population.
Communications of the ACM. 39(6), 1-8.

Pyke, T. J. (1995). GLOBE partnership launched [On-line]. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/regSoopa/enved/html/O7_txt.htm

Ramsey, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1992). Environmental education in the
K-12 curriculum: Finding a niche. Journal of Environmental Education 23(2), 35-
45.

 

155

 

Recker, M. & Greenwood, J. (1998). An interactive student evaluation system [On-line].
Available: http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~mimi/papers/wwww.html

Ritz, W. C. (1977). Involving teachers in environmental education. Journal of
Environmental Education 8(3), 40-47.

 

Robottom, I. (1993). Beyond behaviourism: Making EE research educational. In R.
Mrazek (Ed), Alternative Paradigms in EnvironmeLal Edﬂtion Resgapcp (pp.
133-143). Troy, OH: The North American Association for Environmental
Education.

Robottom, I. and Hart, P. (1995). Behaviorist EE research: Environmentalism as
individualism. Journal of Environmental Education 26(2), 5-9.

 

Rogers, E. M. & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-
cultural approach. New York: The Free Press.

Rohwedder, W. J. (Ed). (1990). Compaterjided environmental education. Troy, OH:
North American Association for Environmental Education.

Samuel, H. R. (1993). Irnpediments to implementing environmental education. Journal of
Environmental Education 25(1), 26-29.

 

Sanera, M. & Shaw, J. S. (1996). Facts not fear: A parent's gpide to teaching children
about the environment. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc.

 

Sano, D. (1997). Web desigp technical limitations [On-line]. Available:
http://developer.netscape.com/news/viewsource/sano_webdesignhtml

Sears, A., J acko, J. & Borella, M. (1997). Internet delay effects: How users perceive

gualig, organization, and ease of use of information [On-line]. Available:
http://condor.depaul.edu/~asears/publications/FullPapers/UserPerceptions1 .html

Simmons, D. A. (1998). Education reform, setting standards, and environmental
education. In H. Hungerford, W. Bluhn, T. Volk, & J. Ramsey (Eds), Essential
readings in EE (pp. 67-74). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing L.L.C.

 

Simmons, D. A. (1989). More infusion confusion: A look at environmental education
curriculum materials. Journal of Environmental Education 20(1), 15-18.

 

Singleton, R., Straits, B. C., & Straits, M. M. (1993). Approaches to social research. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Software Publishers Association. (1994). Rgport on the effectiveness of technology in
schoolal 990-1994. New York: Software Publishers Association.

Solomon, C. (1986). Computer environments for children: A reﬂection on theories of
learning and education. Cambridge: MIT Press.

156

 

 

 

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Stapp, W. B. (1969). The concept of environmental education. Journal of Environmental
Education 1(1), 30-31.

 

Stevenson, R. B. (1993). Being compatible: Curriculum and environmental thought.
Journal of Environmental Education 24(2), 4-9.

 

Stone, J. (1989). Preparing teachers to become involved as environmental educators.
Contemporary EducationaLX(3), 159-162.

Sugrue, B. & Kobus, R. (1997). Beyond information: Increasing the range of
instructional resources on the World Wide Web. Techtrends 42(2), 38-42.

 

Taylor, G. & Disinger, J. (1997). The potential role of virtual reality in environmental
education. Journal of Environmental Education 28(3), 38-43.

 

Tway, L. (1995). Multimedia in action! San Diego, CA: AP Professional.

U. S. Congress, Ofﬁce of Technology Assessment (1995). Teachers and technology:
Making the connection [On-line]. Available:
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1995/9541.htrnl

US. Department of Education (1998). Internet access in public schools. [On-line].
Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98031 .htrnl

US. Department of Education (1997). President's and secretary's priorities [On-line].
Available: http://www.ed.gov/inits.html

US. Department of Education (1996). Systemic reform: SummanLreview of the literature
[On-line]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/SER/SysReform/chap1.htrnl

US. Environmental Protection Agency (1998). Environmental education: Region 5 [On-
line]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/regionS/enved/index.htm

Volk, T., Hungerford, H., & Tomera, A. (1986). A national survey of curriculum needs as
perceived by professional environmental educators. Journal of Environmental
Education 17(1), 10-19.

 

Volk, T. and McBeth, W. (1998). Environmental literacy in the United States. In H.
Hungerford, W. Bluhn, T. Volk, & J. Ramsey (Eds), Essential Readings in EE
(pp. 75-88). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing L.L.C.

Volk, T. L. (1993). Integration and curriculum design. In R. J. Wilke (Ed),
Environmental Education: Teacher Resource Handbook. (pp. 45-75). Millwood,
NJ: Kraus International Publications.

 

 

-‘ILI
...1.
” -11
-1..-
.- .

Wade, K. S. (1996). EE teacher inservice education: The need for new perspectives.
JournaLOf Environmental Education 27(2), 11-17.

 

Wilson, R. A. & Smith, J. (1996). Environmental education and the education literature.
J owl of Environmental Educatiop, 27(2), 40-42.

Windschitl, M. (1998). The W and classroom research: What path should we take?
Educational Researcher 27(1), 28-33.

 

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Desigp and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.

 

 

158

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
11111111111111 11111 1111111111 11W Ill 11 111111
31293018017057