INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)” , If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will And a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB R O AD , A N N A R B O R , Ml 48106 18 BE D FO R D ROW, LO N D O N WC1R 4EJ, E N G L A N D 8013821 Y ockers , D enn is H a r o l d SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS ABOUT FACTORS INFLUENCING UTILIZATION OF OUTDOOR SITES AND RESOURCES FOR OUTDOOR/ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION Michigan State University University Microfilms International P h.D . 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 1979 18 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4EJ, England Copyright 1979 by Yockers, Dennis Harold All Rights Reserved PLEASE NOTE: In a ll cases th is material has been filmed 1n the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been Identified here with a check mark v' . 1. Glossy photographs ________ 2. Colored illu s tra tio n s _ _ _ _ _ 3. Photographs with dark background________ 4. Illu stra tio n s are poor copy ________ 5. ° r in t shows through as there 1s text on both 6. In d istin ct, broken or small p rin t onseveral sides of page ___ pages ^ Tightly bound copy with p rin t lo st in spine _______ 8. Computer printout pages with in d istin c t p rin t _______ 9. Page(s) lacking when material received, and not available from school or author _______ 10. Page(s) _______ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows _______ _ 7. 11. Poor carbon copy ________ 12. Not original copy, several pageswithblurred type __________ 13. Appendix pages are poor copy ________ 14. Original copy with lig h t type ________ 15. Curling and wrinkled pages ________ 16. Other University M icrdnlms international 300 .\ ZEES RD. ANN A R 9 0 B Ml J 8 1 0 6 '3 1 3 ) 761 -4700 throughout SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS ABOUT FACTORS INFLUENCING UTILIZATION OF OUTDOOR SITES AND RESOURCES FOR OUTDOOR/ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION By Dennis Harold Yockers A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 1979 ABSTRACT SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS1 PERCEPTIONS ABOUT FACTORS INFLUENCING UTILIZATION OF OUTDOOR SITES AND RESOURCES FOR OUTDOOR/ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION by Dennis Harold Yockers PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to identify the factors which teachers perceived as influencing the utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental educa­ tion. Specifically, the objectives of the study were: (1) to develop a list of factors which may influence teachers in the utilization of outdoor sites and resources, and (2) to evaluate the factors by having teachers from two Michigan public school districts rate each factor as to the extent it discouraged or encouraged utilization of outdoor sites and resources. PROCEDURES Data were collected with the use of a survey question­ naire. Validation of the instrument was provided by a jury of outdoor and environmental educators. provided two types of data: The questionnaire (1) demographic description of teacher respondents, and (2) teachers' ratings regarding the influences of 55 factors on utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Respondents were provided with a five-point Likert-type scale for rating the 55 factors which were identified. Frequency tables were generated for the two Dennis Harold Yockers types of data for each of the two districts. The analysis of data involved the interpretation and evaluation of the frequency tables. The results of the study were obtained from the responses of 55 teachers from the Bellevue Community Schools and of 288 teachers from the Bloomfield Hills Schools. RESULTS OF STUDY In summary, the assessment that was performed in this study indicated that the majority of teachers from both school districts were not engaging their students in outdoor/ environmental education activities which utilized outdoor sites and resources. High percentages of the teachers from both districts also indicated that they had not been involved in undergraduate and graduate coursework and teacher train­ ing which focused on the content and methods of outdoor/ environmental education. The Bellevue teachers and Bloomfield Hills teachers identified factors which encouraged or discouraged their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Many of the factors that were identified by this study appeared to be interrelated. The combination and interaction of a number of these factors may have influenced the degree to which the teachers were involved in the utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education. The following factors were among those perceived by the teachers from both school districts as discouraging their utilization of outdoor sites and resources: Dennis Harold Yockers (1) time needed to plan for and to engage in outdoor/environ­ mental education activities; (2) amount of school district financial support for the costs of outdoor/environmental education activities; and (3) size of their classes. The following factors were among those perceived by the teachers from both school districts as encouraging their utilization of outdoor sites and resources: (1) adequacy of their school's, school district's, and community's outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education; (2) educational value of outdoor/environmental education activities for students; and (3) personal interests and feelings in spending time outdoors and in outdoor/environmental education. The following factors were among those perceived by the teachers from both school districts as not being factors which influenced their utilization of outdoor sites and resources: Department of Education; (1) Michigan (2) professional organizations; and (3) institutions of higher education. Those factors that discouraged the teachers can be viewed as deterrents to the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Identification and removal of these deterrents could lead to a situation where teachers would be encouraged to utilize outdoor sites and resources. The findings of the study indicate that without some future form of positive intervention from the local school district and other educational institutions and agencies; there is little reason to expect the assessed samples of Dennis Harold Yockers teachers will utilize outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/ environmental education. Dedicated with love to two very special people my parents Jacob and Mary Ann Yockers ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to extend sincere appreciation to all individuals who have contributed to this study. A major debt is to Dr. Robert George, who as an advisor, chairman of my committee, and teacher, had given me his con­ tinuous support and guidance. One person who deserves special credit in many ways is Dr. Harrison Gardner. His help, concern and friendship dur­ ing my three years at Michigan State University as his graduate assistant was the most rewarding aspect of my doctoral experience. Sincere thanks are also expressed to the other members of my committee--Dr. Martin Hetheringtion and Dr. Harold Prince-for their guidance of my studies at Michigan State University. To Dr. John Kirk, Mr. Jerry Schierloh, and all the other members of the staff, past and present, at the New Jersey School of Conservation, I owe special thanks. Their thoughtfulness and help over the past eight years will always be remembered. Dr. Suzanne Van Wagner was especially helpful and encouraging, but most of all, she was a true friend. I am grateful to M s . Patti Truax and M r s . Donna Palmer for their time and effort that they spent in typing this dissertation. iii Many others, both friends and family gave me encourage­ ment and assistance. To all these people I would like to express my thanks. The final and most important acknowledgement goes to a special friend, Marcia. Her continued support, encouragement, and love, helped to make this dissertation a reality. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES.............................................viii Chapter 1. 2. 3. INTRODUCTION................................... 1 Statement of the Problem................. 5 Significance of the Problem.............. 6 Objectives of the Study.................. 9 Methodology............................... 10 Research Questions....................... 11 Assumptions............................... 11 Limitations............................... 12 Definition of Terms...................... 13 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.................. 14 Identifying and Defining Outdoor/ Environmental Education.................. 14 Establishing the Need for the Utiliza­ tion of Outdoor Sites and Resources as a Desired Component of Outdoor/Environ­ mental Education......................... 18 Assessing the Factors Which Influence Teacher Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources for Outdoor/Environmental Education................................. 22 Summary................................... 31 RESEARCH DESIGN................................ 34 Introduction.............................. 34 Population................................ 34 v Instrument Design........................ A. Part I of the Instrument............. 37 Part II of the Instrument............ 38 Data Collection Procedures............... 39 Selection of Respondents................. 41 Data Processing Procedures............... 41 Treatment of the Data.................... 42 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA........................... 45 Introduction............................. 45 Cross Tabulation Analysis of Demographic Variables for the School Districts...... 46. Bellevue Community Schools........ 48 Background and Demographic Descrip­ tion of Bellevue Teacher Respondents 48 Bellevue School District Teacher Ratings Regarding the Factors In­ fluencing Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources................. 56 Bloomfield Hills Schools 5. 36 ............. 73 Background and Demographic Descrip­ tion of Bloomfield Hills Teacher Respondents......................... 73 Bloomfield Hills School District Teacher Ratings Regarding the Factors Influencing Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources........ 81 SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................ 101 Summary................................... 101 Findings.................................. 105 Bellevue Community Schools......... 105 Bloomfield Hills Schools............ 109 vi Conclusions............................. 113 Recommendations......................... 121 Recommendations for Further Research........................... 125 APPENDIX A: Outdoor/Environmental EducationSurvey.... 127 APPENDIX B: Outdoor/Environmental Education Survey Instructions............................... 133 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................... vii 134 LIST OF TABLES Page Summary of Factor Categories..................... 44 Summary of Cross Tabulation Analysis of Demo­ graphic Variable Data for the Bellevue Community ...... Schools and Bloomfield Hills Schools 47 Bellevue Respondent Age Distribution............ 49 Bellevue Respondent Sex Distribution............. 49 Bellevue Respondent Distribution for Level of Education Completed.................. ............ 50 Bellevue Respondent Distribution for the Number of Undergraduate Courses Dealing with Outdoor/ Environmental Education.......................... 51 Bellevue Respondent Distribution for the Number of Graduate Courses Dealing with Outdoor/Environ­ mental Education........... ;..................... 51 Bellevue Respondent Distribution for Number of Years: Teaching, Present School District, Present School.................................... 52 Bellevue Respondent Distribution for Residence Within and Outside School District Boundaries.... 53 Distribution of Bellevue Respondent Home Residence Distance From Present School Teaching In................................................. 53 Bellevue Respondent Distribution for Grade Level of Teaching Responsibility....................... 54 Bellevue Respondent Distribution for Subject Area Teaching Focus.............................. 55 Bellevue Respondent Distribution for Time Spent Per Week in the Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources......................................... 56 Bellevue School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of Teacher Knowledge Factors on the Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources 57 Bellevue School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of Teacher Attitude Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources...... 59 • • * viia. 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 Bellevue School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of School Factors on Utiliza­ tion of Outdoor Sites and Resources............. 62 Bellevue School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of School-District Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources 64 Bellevue School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of Administrative Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources 66 Bellevue School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of Parent and Community Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources........................................ 69 Bellevue School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of Professional and Insti­ tutional Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources........ •.......................... 71 4.20 Bloomfield Hills Respondent Age Distribution.... 74 4.21 Bloomfield Hills Respondent Sex Distribution.... 74 4.22 Bloomfield Hills Respondent Distribution for Level of Education Completed.................... 75 Bloomfield Hills Respondent Distribution for the Number of Undergraduate Courses Dealing With Out door/Environmental Education........... 76 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 Bloomfield Hills Respondent Distribution for the Number of Graduate Courses Dealing with Outdoor/ Environmental Education......................... 76 Bloomfield Hills Respondent Distribution for Number of Years: Teaching, Present School District, Present School........................ 77 Bloomfield Hills Respondent Distribution for Residence Within and Outside School District Boundaries....................................... 78 Distribution of Bloomfield Hills Respondent Home Residence Distances from Present School Teaching In................................................ 79 Bloomfield Hills Respondent Distribution for Grade Level of Teaching Responsibility......... 79 Bloomfield Hills Respondent Distribution for Subject Area Teaching Focus..................... 80 ix 4.30 4.31 Bloomfield Hills Respondent Distribution for Times Spent Per Week in the Utilization of Out­ door Sites and Resources......................... 81 Bloomfield Hills School District Ratings Regard­ ing the Relative Influence of Teacher foiowledge Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources......................................... 82 4.32 Bloomfield Hills School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of Teacher Attitude Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites andResources.... 85 4.33 Bloomfield Hills School District Ratings Regard­ ing the Relative Influence of School Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources........ 88 Bloomfield Hills School District Ratings Regard­ ing the Relative Influence of School-District Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources.. :...................................... 90 Bloomfield Hills School District Ratings Regard­ ing the Relative Influence of Administrative Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources......................................... 93 Bloomfield Hills School District Ratings Regard­ ing the Relative Influence of Parent-and Com­ munity Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources..................................... 96 Bloomfield Hills School District Ratings Regard­ ing the Relative Influence of Professional and Institutional Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources............................... 98 4.34 4.35 4.36 4.37 x Chapter One INTRODUCTION A broad response to this nation's environmental problems and concerns has involved the mobilization of educational forces which are striving to shape the knowledge, skills and values of present and future citizens. This environmental education is being taught today in a diversity of ways and places by a mixture of agencies, groups, insti­ tutions and people. Although the basic premises and concepts of environ­ mental education have been evolving over many years, it was about a decade ago that this movement gained an identity and began establishing itself as a major educational concern. The first Earth Day, observed on April 22, 1970, was actually the capping of an expanding environmental movement which had been gathering strength for some time. Growing out of work in the past in such areas as conservation education, outdoor education, and nature study, environmental education is con­ cerned with the total environment, natural and man-made, and the relationship of people to it. The rise in concern for the nation's environment during the late 1960's prompted the Federal government to pass the Environmental Education Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-516). 1 This major piece of legislation resulted in the establishment of an Office of Environmental Education within the United State Office of Education. The Act stressed the need for an integrated educational process which would hopefully promote among citizens an awareness and understanding of the environment and their rela­ tionship to it, as well as, the concern and responsible action necessary to assure survival and improve the quality of life. (United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1971, pp. 9-10.) Since the early 1970's the environmental education move­ ment has gained momentum in this country as well as on a global scale. In October of 1977, the United Nations Inter­ governmental Conference on Environmental Education was held in Tbilisi, Russia. A declaration was chartered at the con­ ference stressing the importance and crucial role of environ­ mental education within and between societies of this planet. The Subcommittee on Environmental Education within the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare developed a report on the Tbilisi conference summarizing its key recommendations. The report pointed out that: ...A major goal of environmental education should be the preparation of the individual for life on this earth... A comprehensive, lifelong process should be aimed at creating an awareness and understanding of the bio­ sphere, as well as, developing the personal concern, skills, and behavioral values directed toward preserving, improving and safegarding the cultural and natural attributes of the environment... (United States Department of Health, Educa­ tion and Welfare, 1978, pp. 14-17.) Environmental education has emerged as a viable, inter­ disciplinary and all-level field of study and action within most of this nation's educational institutions. The ulti­ mate objective of this environmental education involves the improvement of the overall quality of life by bringing the individual's concept of "good life" in line with sound environmental principles which are consistent with the con­ straints of the earth's resources. Therefore, it would seem that environmental education should be made relevant by applying outdoor learning situations in the day-to-day lives of students. However, many public school teachers are not utilizing outdoor learning experiences in these environ­ mental education programs. VanTill (1976) reported two crucial educational questions identified by the National Society for Education which were essentially related environmental education and its outdoor component. (1) How can education best equip students with vision, knowledge, and competencies needed to cope with the social realities that threaten survival and vitiate the quality of life for mankind in this nation and on this planet in the present and emerging future? (p. 101) (2) How can education best draw upon present and prospective school facilities and the life and insituations of communities and thus maxi­ mally use the total environment and setting for the learning experiences by students? (p. 102) However, a major problematic situation which exists in regard to this outdoor aspect of environmental education was pointed by the Royal Bank of Canada in its Monthly Letter (July, 1978). 4 People today are flocking to the out­ doors in greater numbers than ever. Yet, having sought out nature, many people seem to be somewhat at a loss when they find it. Their education has not equipped them to appreciate the world of interest that is all around them outdoors. This is because, generally speaking, the educational system of North America is squeezed indoors to a degree which stifles young minds. Few schools take advan­ tage of the vast classroom of the outdoors to teach the things that really matter - the basics of life on a threatened planet. (pp. 2-3) Teachers have been reluctant when it comes to furnish­ ing students with opportunities to learn through personal experiences which utilize outdoor sites and resources. The outdoor sites and resources of schools and communities should be included among the instructional resources to which stu­ dents are exposed. However, a situation does exist where many teachers are not complementing the classroom or "theoretical" segment of environmental education with thoroughly practical outdoor learning experiences on school and community sites. This outdoor/environmental education is necessary because such experiences provide the teacher and students with relevant, hands-on teaching and learning opportunities. These outdoor experiences should involve the individual in active learning and problem-solving processes which relate and integrate classroom studies within the context of speci­ fic realities. The desired outcome of outdoor/environmental encounters would be the creation of new patterns of indi­ vidual and group behavior which demonstrate initiative, a 5 sense of responsibility, and a commitment to make construc­ tive changes in the environment. Achievement of this desired outcome would seem to greatly depend on whether school teachers utilize, to a greater degree, outdoor sites and resources in their educational programs. Statement of the Problem This study involved the examination of teachers' per­ ceptions from two Michigan public school districts regarding the factors which influenced their utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education. The two districts utilized in this study were the Bellevue Com­ munity Schools located in a rural setting and the Bloomfield Hills Schools located in a suburban setting. For approxi­ mately a three year period, the researcher worked with these two districts, as well as, other Michigan school districts which demonstrated an interest and the need to utilize and develop outdoor sites and resources. Each school district reflected a general concern for utilizing outdoor sites and resources to assist them in ful­ filling the educational needs of students in the community(s) which they served. However, these school districts exper­ ienced difficulty in designing educational strategies for establishing instructional programs which would: (1) include present and future environmental problems and needs; (2) encourage greater utilization of outdoor school and com­ munity sites and respective resources; (3) serve to exemplify and promote an environmental ethic for teachers and students; 6 and (4) provide an improved outdoor teaching and learning environment. There has been considerable confusion, frustration, and objection among teachers regarding the utilization of outdoor sites ’and resources as a necessary facet of outdoor/environ­ mental education programs. The purpose of this study was to identify the conditions and factors which were influencing teachers in their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Once these factors are identified, strategies can then be designed and implemented which would remove the factors dis­ couraging teachers from utilizing outdoor sites and resources. Significance of the Problem There is an ever increasing need within our educational institutions for programs which provide both teachers and stu­ dents with opportunities to experience the outdoor sites and resources of schools and communities. These experiences will hopefully aid in the development of a greater understanding and a personal relationship with the total environment. The ultimate outcome of such experiences would be teachers and students who have taken their places in the community as environmentally responsible and active citizens. Lynton Caldwell, in the book, Environment: A Challenge to Modern Society (1970), emphasized this need for schools to be concerned with education about the environment. Purposeful shaping of the environment involves the purposeful shaping of outlooks on life. The quality of the future environment depends upon the shaping of attitudes, beliefs, and values through present education, (p. 130) However, Caldwell also pointed out that a situation exists where the formal structure of education has been slow in responding to the need for outdoor/environmental education. Mark Terry, in the book, Teaching for Survival (1971), also stressed the important role schools should play in regard to outdoor/environmental education. Our society is badly in need of exemplary action toward lessening severe environ­ mental strain, and such action to be noticeable, must be taken by a sizeable collection of individuals. The school is as good as any other institution for tak­ ing such action, and it is far better, in fact, than most. For one thing, rational environmental action contributes to the school's stated purpose, to education about the real world. (1971, p. 102) Terry further emphasized that the outdoor school environment should be a model laboratory for the study of environmental principles by both students and teachers. However, a situation exists where many schools and com­ munities have associated outdoor sites and resources that are sadly mismanaged and abused as well as neglected in the educa­ tion process. Although the public school systems are one of the largest landowners, too little consideration has been given to the impact which the conditions of school sites have on environmental quality. Many of these outdoor sites do not reflect environmental concern. Throughout the literature on outdoor/environmental educa­ tion reviewed by the researcher, there appeared to be wide agreement that outdoor/environmental education should be inte­ grated into the existing curriculum of schools. Yet, only a small percentage of school districts have even approached such an ambitious program. Before the implementation of outdoor/environmental education programs within a school district can take place, it is of great importance to first determine how the teachers perceive their current program situation. Once the conditions and the factors which are operating have been identified, implementation strategies for outdoor/environmental education programs can then be effectively organized by the school dis­ trict along with their respective community(s). Today's teachers in elementary and secondary schools are the key to the successful implementation of outdoor/environ­ mental education programs. Such programs would require teachers assisting students in the development of an under­ standing, an appreciation and an awareness of the total environment. The desired outcome of these educational programs would be exemplified by students who demonstrate an active concern for the environment. Teachers should, therefore, incorporate outdoor learning experiences into their instructional programs which would help students in achieving the desired goals of outdoor/environmental education. Many teachers, however, are not providing students with outdoor experiences which utilize school and community sites and resources. A need exists to determine what factors are influencing teacher utilization of these resources for out­ door/environmental education. 9 Objectives of the Study The primary purpose of this study was to identify the factors which influence teachers in the utilization of out­ door sites and resources for outdoor/environmental educa­ tion. A second purpose was to determine and assess the degree to which these factors encouraged or discouraged utilization of outdoor sites and resources by teachers in two Michigan public school districts. The major objectives of the study were as follows: 1. To develop a list of factors which may influence teachers in the utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education. 2. To evaluate the factors by having teachers from two selected Michigan public school districts rate each factor as it applied to their actual teaching situation. 3. To analyze the data to determine which factors are encouraging or discouraging teacher utiliza­ tion of outdoor sites and resources in two Michigan public school districts. As a result of the investigation of the areas identified in the preceding objectives, this study should: 1. Reveal empirically based information to Michigan public school districts, the Michigan Department of Education, institutions of higher education, and the general public regarding outdoor/environmental educa­ tion and teacher utilization of outdoor sites and resources. 10 2. Provide empirically based information which local school districts, state educational agencies, as well as, institutions of higher education may use to plan for the modification of preservice and inservice teacher education delivery systems in out­ door/environmental education. 3. Provide empirically based information which has implications for outdoor/environmental education curriculum development within local school districts. Methodology The study was carried out in three stages: 1. A general review of the literature concerning the utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education. 2. The construction and distribution of a survey instrument designed to provide data relating to teachers perceptions regarding the factors and the extent to which such factors influence utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education. This instru­ ment was administered to teachers in two Michigan public school districts. 3. The analysis of data collected from teachers who responded to the instrument. 11 Research Questions This study was exploratory in nature; it was not designed to test hypotheses. Instead, the purpose of the study was to answer the following questions: 1. To what factors do the teachers from two selected Michigan public school districts perceive as in­ fluencing their utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education in their teaching situation? 2. To what extent do such factors, as perceived by teachers in each school district encourage or discourage the utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education? 3. To what extent, in terms of time, are the teachers currently utilizing outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education in their present instructional program? Assumptions The following assumptions were made for the purposes of this study: 1. Teacher utilization of outdoor sites and resources is an essential component of outdoor/environmental education programs. 2. An assessment of the factors which teachers per­ ceive as influencing the utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental educa­ tion is necessary if preservice and inservice 12 teacher education programs are to be effectively organized. 3. The survey instrument designed and utilized in this study was an appropriate tool to measure teachers' perceptions toward the factors, and the extent to which those factors influence their utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education. Limitations The author recognized the following factors to be limita­ tions of the study: 1. The population of the study was limited to teachers employed during the academic year 1978-1979 in two Michigan public school districts, Bloomfield Hills Schools and Bellevue Community Schools. 2. The two Michigan public school districtsutilized in the study were not randomly selected. 3. The study is incomplete to the extent that some factors influencing teacher utilization of outdoor sites and resources may have been excluded. The survey instrument was composed of factors extracted from an extensive review of the literature. Although efforts were made to evaluate as many factors and their components as possible, not all the factors may have been evaluated. 13 4. The findings of this study focused only on teachers' perceptions about factors influencing the utiliza­ tion of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/ environmental education. Definition of Terms These terms were defined as follows for the purpose of this study: 1. Outdoor Education -- process of educational cur­ riculum enrichment through direct learning experi­ ences in, about, and for the outdoors. (Smith, e t . a l ., 1972, p. 12) 2. Environmental Education -- integrated educational process which deals with man's interrelationships between his natural and man-made surroundings, intending to promote among citizens the awareness and understanding of the environment, our relation­ ships to it, and the concern and responsible action necessary to assure our survival and improve the quality of life. (Griffith, Landin, and Jostad, 1971, p. 9) 3. Outdoor Sites and Resources -- defined in a generic sense, any outdoor cultural, economic, govern­ mental, historical, man-made, or natural area, along with associated components, which are utilized by a school district in its educational program. Chapter Two REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The literature relating to the utilization of outdoor sites and resources has been reported in the following sec­ tions : (1) Identifying and Defining Outdoor/Environmental Education; (2) Establishing the Need for the Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources as a Desired Component of Out­ door/Environmental Education; and (3) Assessing the Factors Which Influence Teacher Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources for Outdoor/Environmental Education. Identifying and Defining Outdoor/Environmental Education Education concerning the environment is not a new topic in the schools. Its historical development has passed through several stages including nature study, camping education, science education, conservation education, community educa­ tion, outdoor education, and environmental education. The American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation (1975), in the introduction to Outdoor Educa­ tion for American Youth, referred to a statement by L. B. Sharp which summarized the philosophy underlying outdoor education: That which can be best learned inside the classroom should be learned there, and that which can best be learned in the out-ofdoors through direct experiences should there be learned. (p. 2) 14 15 Hammerman and Hammerman (1964) defined outdoor educa­ tion as "the effective utilization of the out-of-doors to facilitate and enrich learning related to the school cur­ riculum." (p. 8) Simply stated, it is an interaction between subject matter and location. Outdoor education is not restricted to any specific body of subject matter but rather is concerned with both where the subject matter is learned and what methods are appropriate to each area of learning. Fitzpatrick (1968) described outdoor education as a method of extending the learning environment beyond the classroom. "Through the utilization of outdoor resources as a stimulus for learning, theoretical knowledge from the class­ room is enriched by practical knowledge gained through first­ hand experiences with people, places, and things," Cp, 20) In the fullest sense, outdoor education is education that is concerned with the outdoors whether it involves class­ room or outside activities. However, outdoor education emphasizes the importance of direct outdoor experience and problem-solving methods in learning. Outdoor education is not considered an entity in and of itself. Its effectiveness is dependent on being correlated with on-going classroom activities and objectives of education. In outdoor education, teacher and pupil have a chance to reorient themselves by direct experiences interrelating the natural and man-made environments. Each person can 'find himself1 and realize his own value and place in the scheme of things. This gaining of personal identity can lead to one's adapting to his changing environment in a more productive and humanistic manner. The pooling of school and community resources 16 unifies and adds purpose to educational programs, a 'weakness' that many schools are losing. (Marsh, 1971, p. 29) Chronologically, outdoor education immediately pro­ ceded environmental education, thus outdoor education has been a mainstay of environmental educatiom programs. It was no accident that outdoor education provided the basis for environmental education, as Smith, et. al., (1972) explained: Outdoor education, taking place as it does in the environment and using outdoor resources for educational purposes, is in a unique position to influence both under­ standing of and feelings about the environ­ ment. Indeed, outdoor educators were among the earliest practitioners of what has come to be called environmental education be­ cause their outdoor education programs have usually stressed the need to understand, to appreciate, and to protect the environment. (p. 12) Environmental education, as it is envisioned, is an interdisciplinary field of learning which encompasses the education programs previously mentioned. From nature study, environmental education draws an emphasis on an understanding of our ecological system - man, culture, natural environment. From conservation education, environmental education draws a concern for the husbandly of the system. From outdoor education, environmental education borrows the concept that such issues should cut across the entire curriculum. (Schoenfeld, 1971, p. 41) Besides encompassing all these programs, environmental education also has a frame of reference which is greater than the total combination of these programs. cerned with natural resources, but also: Not only is it con­ 17 With all aspects of the social environraent of man, with man-made environments and their effects both on man and all the ’natural environments'. The focus is on man and his relationship t o , and use and control of all environments. (Vivian, 1973, p. 15) Presently, many definitions of environmental education exist because education concerning the environment has passed through many phases and elements of these phases have sur­ vived. Authors, therefore, have used slightly different definitions for environmental education. Environmental education is aimed at pro­ ducing a citizenry that is knowledgeable concerning the biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware of how to help solve these problems, and moti­ vated to work toward their solution. (Stapp, et. al., 1969, pp. 30-31) In environmental education, an attempt is made to focus on real life situations and relate cognitive material to the lifestyle and needs of individual students at every grade level for the purpose of motivating them to work toward the solutions of environmental problems which threaten life on this planet. (Kirk, 1977, p. 34) Regardless of the prefix distinction that specifies where, how or with what attitude or perspective education concerning the environment is taught, the interest should be in good education. An important facet of this educational process concerned with the environment would be the involve­ ment of both teachers and students in relevant outdoor learn­ ing experiences. 18 Establishing the Need for the Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources as a Desired Component of Outdoor/Environmental Education Outdoor/environmental education is a process as well as being content-oriented. It is not only concerned with just talking about the environment, but more importantly, with interacting in the environment. Because of this concern with the outdoor environment and man-nature interaction, out­ door/environmental education lends itself to the direct utilization of the environment. Roller (1972) pointed out the importance of exposing students to relevant education experiences. The first step is school site use. In education today, we are not only pre­ paring a student for future life but we are helping the individual in what is his/her life now. Certainly the pro­ blems of the environment as well as the understanding of its complex nature can not wait for a person to grow up. Each person, no matter what his/her age, must join now to create a better world. The school site and the school community takes us a great deal of the individual's life. (p. 5) Vivian (1973) emphasized that the utilization of out­ door sites and resources was fundamental to environmental education. Environmental education is a unique venture. It seems inescapable that schools must reach out to participate in present-day society's environmental decisions. This implies that students will frequently leave the classroom to study various environments first-hand, the school and community will learn to communicate with each other about environmental problems and decisions, and the school and community will 19 interact by planning for the improve­ ment of environmental quality. Stu­ dents who are well-informed about ecological relationships in general and local environmental conditions in particular and who are disposed to take social action through available means and agencies represent the epitome of environmental education. (p. 192) Over the past forty years there has been a continuous emphasis placed on the necessity for outdoor/environmental education within the instructional programs of this nation's schools. One aspect seems to be covered or implicit in each of the approaches, and that aspect calls for the utiliza­ tion of outdoor sites and resources. Dewey (1938) advanced the methodologies espoused in out­ door/environmental education with his concept of inquiry. He urged teachers to get students out of their classrooms, to learn the community firsthand, just as children are given to doing naturally. Recognizing the essential character of direct experience for all learning, Collings (1950) noted: School curricula are most effective when they are closely related to the com­ munities they serve. Boys and girls learn best when they are dealing with direct experience. Isolation from direct experience is a real danger facing our schools. Talking about things is in­ creasingly taking the place of real experience with things. (p. 225) Olsen (1954) equated direct, first-hand learning exper­ iences with community experiences and placed it in a paradigm on learning as the highest on a continuum toward reality and concretion. 20 The Royal Bank of Canada, in its Monthly Letter (May, 1959), discussed the need for exposure to and utilization of the outdoors as important educational endeavors. Everyone has a life interest in conserva­ tion. .. Conservation is not merely a sub­ ject for the school curriculum, it is a way of life for all people... If we con­ fine ourselves to our buildings, we are losing more than we know... Some knowledge of the world outdoors should be a part of every child's education.,. Knowledge of acquaintance... (pp. 1-4) One of the desirable goals of outdoor/environmental education is a dynamic curriculum where learning is by direct experience. By building on these experiences the student will hopefully be able to make relevant applica­ tions to environmental situations. Vivian and Rillo (1970) suggested that a behavioral outcome in environmental educa­ tion should be a demonstrated commitment by educators to utilize and develop situations where active learning flourishes. Bennett and Willink (1972) stressed the need for outdoor experiences in the program organization and operation of the Maine Environmental Education Project. Environmental education's inclusion in the educational curriculum is a response to both a need for educational improvement and a need for citizens who can identify, present and resolve problems in the process of maintaining and creating a quality environment. Responsible citizenship is a goal of the school delegated to it by society. Environmental education can con­ tribute in a major way to the achievement of this goal by focusing the existing curriculum upon the immediate surroundings of the student and related human processes. (p. 1) 21 The Indiana State Department of Public Instruction (1973) emphasized that environmental education programs should possess curriculums that relate to situations which the student can see and understand. Learning experiences should be supported by a series of outdoor sites at the school and in the community which can be used as learning environments and examples of environmental management. Gardner, Schierloh and Yockers (1978) viewed outdoor sites and resources as having potential values in three major areas. (1) Their use by student and teacher groups could: help expand environmental perceptivity; (2) help promote a natural-world "psyche"; and (3) help develop community cognizance. "To improve an individual’s environmental per­ ceptivity, natural world psyche, and community cognizance is to better prepare him/her to cope with realities that he/she will surely experience as an adult citizen." (p. 42) Similar positions concerning the importance of the utilization of outdoor sites and resources as a desired com­ ponent of outdoor/environmental programs are abundant in the literature (Ban, 1977; Gardella, 1975; Hawkins and Vinton, 1973; Hungerford and Peyton, 1976; Rillo, 1974; Stapp and Cox, 1974; Vivian and Rillo, 1970; and Werling, 1973). In the book, Experience, Environment and Human Poten­ tials , (1978) Herbert Leff, an environmental psychologist, pointed out the key role that outdoor learning experiences play in environmental education. 22 Environmental education should aim to increase not only environmental knowledge and awareness but also ecological systems thinking, ecological consciousness, and other aspects of a pro-life system, and the motivation and ability to take action in accord with all of this. Procedures for effectively accomplishing those aims should include making use of the whole community in helping students relate environmental studies to acutal local environmental, political and social issues; and involving students and tea­ chers in action projects that include striving for pro-life changes both in the school and in the broader community. (1978, p. 308) Accessing the Factors Which Influence Teacher Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources for Outdoor/Environmental Education A number of factors may be logically identified which influence teacher utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education. One such variable which most definitely exerts an influence is a teacher's educational training in outdoor/environmental education. If teachers are to deal effectively with the utilization of outdoor sites and resources, it is necessary that they be trained in the content and methods of outdoor/environmental education. Gabrielson and Holtzer (1968) pointed out an absence of programs of outdoor education in most teacher education insti­ tutions . Such a situation has led t o : An absence of enthusiasm for outdoor educa­ tion programs by many teachers, most of whom are untrained for participation and, therefore, feel uncomfortable about their ability to teach, perform in, and make use of the outdoors environment for the enrichment of curriculums. (p. 18) 23 Conrad (1947), Sharp (1952), and Smith (1955) have emphasized the need for teacher training in the outdoors. The utilization of outdoor sites and resources is largely a matter of teacher training. Preservice and inservice training should provide teachers with actual and direct experiences in the outdoors along with methods/techniques adapted to teaching in these situations. A 1969-70 National Education Association survey of 700 school systems throughout the nation showed that educators perceive a strong need for increased teacher-training in outdoor/environmental education at the preservice and inservice levels, (N.E.A., 1970). Stapp and Swan (1974) have identified a "severe short­ age of classroom teachers prepared to effectively integrate environmental education into instruction programs." (p. 52) Gallagher (1975) stated that "few teachers have the background needed to effectively implement a curriculum which deals with environmental issues from a multidisciplinary point of view." (p. 1) He suggested that much work needs to be done to re-educate teachers if environmental education is to become a part of the school curriculum. DuShane (1974) reported on the inservice programs for teachers at the Environmental Studies Center of Bowling Green University from 1970-73. From the programs she con­ cluded that teachers are usually left to their own devices as they attempt to establish and implement environmental education programs. The teachers, themselves, indicated a further need for training. 24 Mirka (1973) researched the variables which impinge on the use of outdoor school facilities by elementary teachers. Among those factors given which inhibit elementary teachers from using outdoor areas was the lack of training in identi­ fying, developing and utilizing such outdoor facilities. Mirka recommended an increase in preservice and inservice training programs which promote more effective use of outdoor facilities. Supportive findings were also reported by Gardella (1975) concerning teacher use of community resources. Gardella's study indicated that teachers trained to utilize their own community as a resource for environmental education programs, were more likely to use community resources than those who were merely given a community resource guide. Similar statements identifying the importance of teacher training in the successful implementation of outdoor/environ­ mental education programs have been made by Ames (1971), Childress and Wert (1976), and Sherman (1950). Given that the utilization of outdoor sites and resources is a desired component of outdoor/environmental education programs and that teacher training in outdoor/ environmental education is necessary, it follows that planning for these training programs should be preceded by an analysis of teachers' needs and perceptions. The literature reviewed indicated a number of educators and researchers who have made statements regarding the factors which influence teachers in the incorporation of out­ door/environmental education into their curriculums. 25 Schoenfeld (1971) reported that the major circum­ stances confronting teachers are a lack of opportunity to experience the outdoors and a lack of incentive to do so. He pointed out: The needs of teachers vary, across cul­ tures, regionally, between urban, subur­ ban and rural areas, and even from school to school. However, we tend to develop standardized approaches for teaching about the environment. We must determine the needs of teachers in different insti­ tutional and geographical settings. (pp. 14-15) Sale and Lee (1972) stated that "the immediate problem is the teacher's ignorance of ecological concepts and pro­ cesses, insensitivity to the environment and a failure to act positively in relation to it." (p. 10) This situation is manifested by teachers who lack a thorough knowledge of their school setting and surrounding environments. Jacobs (1977) suggested that the solution to this situation can only come about "so long as the teacher maintains an inter­ ested, open, and accepting attitude toward the students' environment along with its stimulating and varied exper­ iences." (p. 162) Constraints affecting the development and implementa­ tion of environmental education programs have been identified by Stapp (1974). prepared teachers; Such constraints were: (1) inadequately (2) inflexible scheduling within schools; (3) resistance and apathy on the part of teachers, adminis­ trators, or students; (4) funding constraints for transporta­ tion; and (5) lack of information on the learner's school and 26 community environments. (p. 3) Similar references concern­ ing the factors which affect the incorporation of outdoor/ environmental education programs were made by Menesini (1971), Schafer and Dissinger (1975) , and Sedgwick and Watkins (1976). Coon and Bowman (1976) stressed the point that teachers were the real key to successful implementation of environ­ mental education. Possibly the most serious block in try­ ing to maintain an environmental educa­ tion program in a wide variety of schools found in any school district is inadequate instructional leadership. Environmental education in schools will only improve as a result of changing attitudes and be­ haviors of teachers who work in these schools. (pp. 35-36) Various factors have been used to explain the reluc­ tance of teachers to use resources outside their classrooms. Norberg (1952) emphasized the concern for student safety as a deterrent to outdoor resource use by teachers. McMillan (1956) noted that an additonal financial cost may be incurred in the utilization of community resources which may there­ fore provide a source of discouragement. Freeburg and Taylor (1963) pointed out five factors which could influence teachers in their use of outdoor school and community resources. pline concerns; knowledge; These factors were: (2) public relations; (1) disci­ (3) a lack of content (4) administrative difficulty in scheduling for trips; and (5) fear of inconvenience. (p. 60) Werling (1973) attributed the lack of environmental education on school and community sites as being partially related with the following situations: 27 (1) Due to the mobility and heated pace of our society, teachers do not venture out onto the sites. (2) Often teachers are not provided with resource support and flexibility necessary to make full instructional use of school and community sites. (3) Most school systems do not have an established rationale with guidelines for environmental education which involves the utilization of outdoor sites. (4) Teachers are not involved in the process of pro­ gram development for the instructional use of sites. (5) Teachers have not had the formal training or background to draw upon in the utilization of outdoor sites. (pp. 52-55) In An Environmental Education Guide for Teachers (1976), Gail suggested some major concerns of teachers in regard to the utilization of outdoor sites and resources: (1) Not enough time to teach students what is already required. (2) No way to evaluate what students are learning from outdoor activities. (3) Student safety and teacher liability during out­ door activities. (4) Whether such activities will reach all types and levels of students. (5) A lack of curriculum plans for utilizing outdoor sites and resources, (pp. 65-66) Factors, such as, financial costs, transportation pro­ blems, and scheduling difficulties were identified by Coon and Bowman (1976), as making it difficult for any sizeable number of students to study environmental education matters in some distance settings from the school. 28 The literature reviewed revealed a small number of studies that specifically involved the determination of factors which influence teacher utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education. Hibbs (1956) analyzed the development and utilization of outdoor laboratories in teaching conservation in public schools. From his analysis, Hibbs concluded that there were several underlying factors which influenced the utilization of outdoor laboratories. Such factors w e r e : (1) A lack of trained personnel and inadequate teaching facilities often prevents the use of school and community sites. (2) Not enough opportunity for teachers to become acquainted with resources and problems of outdoor sites. (3) A lack of information about the community(s) the school serves which leads to a reluctance to use facilities which are familiar. (4) The use of outdoor sites lends itself elementary grades with self-contained rooms but not so in junior and senior where there are scheduling problems. to class­ high (pp. 125-129) Other areas of concern, such as, the continuity of the existing educational program, transportation, safety, and additional financial considerations were mentioned by Hibbs as affecting the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Hug (1964) attempted to determine what factors influence elementary teachers in the use of out-of-class resources for accomplishing curricular goals. The study compared teachers who did and did not utilize the out-of-doors. 29 Some of the findings of this study were: (1) Teachers who have had more education, had their education more recently, and have taken outdoor education courses are more inclined to use outdoor resources. (2) Where the teaching situation involves a small class, sufficient reference materials, adequate teaching aids and equipment, and numerous outside resource people to assist the teacher; teachers will tend to use outdoor sites and resources in their teaching. (3) Satisfactory results of previous outdoor in­ structional activities and an understanding of the values of utilizing outdoor resources tend to encourage teachers to use the out-of doors. (4) Personal interest in the outdoors, interest in trying new things, and personal participa­ tion in leisure and environmental action activities tend to result in teacher utiliza­ tion of outdoor resources. (5) The notion that textbook and basic materials must be covered and a lack of curricular materials focusing on the utilization of outdoor resources tends to discourage teachers from utilizing outdoor resources. (pp. 182-184) The main factor influencing teachers who did not utilize outdoor resources that Hug noted was the lack of teacher training and experience in outdoor resource use with a result­ ing insecurity outside the classroom. Wood's (1973) study of a Massachusetts school district community resource-use education program pointed out that teachers would more likely use community resources if they were younger, taught social studies, art, or English, believed in field trips, or were recently involved in post-graduate education courses. 30 The variables which influenced the utilization of out­ door facilities by elementary teachers in the Parma Public Schools, a large suburban school system in the greater Cleveland area, were studied by Mirka (1973). The study was intended as a step in an actual identification of factors that caused elementary teachers to use or not to use the outof-doors in their teaching. The responses of those teachers who indicated they had not used outdoor instructional activities were rated as follows, as being very important for not doing so: (1) Available outdoor areas. (2) Knowledge of outdoor instructional activities that can be carried on out-of-doors. (3) Availability of curriculum guides and curriculum planning materials. (4) Availability of resource people to help with outdoor instructional activities. (5) Understanding of the application of classroom subject matter to outdoor instructional activities. (6) Knowledge of the natural sciences. (7) Class size. (8) Value of such experiences to children. Those teachers who (p. 32) indicated that they had used outdoor instructional activities found the following to be of high influence in doing s o : (1) Value of such experiences to children. (2) Available outdoor areas. (3) Understanding of the application of classroom subject matter to outdoor instructional activities. 31 (4) Knowledge of outdoor instructional activities. (5) Personal feelings about the out-of-doors. (6) Influence of such activities on daily routine. (7) Results of previous outdoor activities. (8) Class size. (p. 33) Gardella (1975) reported findings concerning elementary teacher use of community resources in a southern New Jersey county. The major deterrents to community resource use, in­ frequency of rank order, as indicated by the teachers, were: (1) hindering administrative policy; tion; (2) cost of transporta­ (3) problems arranging transportation; safety; (5) lack of teacher planning time; (4) student (6) teacher liability; and (7) administrative bias against community resource use. (p. 73) The study also pointed out evidence that both the use of a community resource guide and a com­ munity resource workshop were effective strategies for signi­ ficantly increasing both teacher knowledge of resource use techniques and utilization of community resources. Summary Outdoor/environmental education is not a recent innova­ tion in our schools. Many educators and researchers have recognized the importance and need for education concerning the environment. The literature reviewed supports an assumption of this study that the utilization of outdoor sites and resources is a desired component of outdoor/environmental education. 32 A review of research studies and related literature indi­ cated a number of factors have been used to explain why teachers do or do not utilize outdoor sites and resources. One important factor involves teacher training in outdoor/ environmental education. Most teachers are inadequately trained in the utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education. Further, the need for increasing the amount and types of teacher training in this area is recognized by many educators. Based on this review of the literature, it appeared that there were other numerous factors which influence teachers to various degrees in the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Such factors included those dealing with: (1) financial concerns, (2) safety and liability concerns, (3) time and scheduling concerns, riculum resource concerns, (4) instructional and cur­ (5) transportation concerns, (6) administration concerns, and (7) outdoor school and com­ munity site concerns. The factors which are listed above and others which were cited in the described studies are representative of the factors used in this research study. The factors which were incorporated and examined in the present study are located in Part II of the survey instrument utilized in this study (See Appendix A ) . The literature reviewed substantiated the "need" for further investigation of the factors which influence teacher utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Besides 33 identifying such factors, this present study attempted to determine teachers' perceptions regarding the extent to which various factors encourage or discourage their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Chapter Three RESEARCH DESIGN Introduction The purpose of this research was to provide information concerning: (1) the factors which influenced teachers in the utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/ environmental education and (2) the extent to which these factors encouraged or discouraged teacher utilization of out­ door sites and resources. Obtaining data to answer these questions involved the development of a survey instrument to be used in sampling the populations of teachers in two Michigan public school districts. A detailed description of the populations as well as the procedures used in developing and administering the instrument, and analyzing the data are provided in this chapter. Population The population for this study consisted of teachers employed in two Michigan public school districts, Bellevue Community Schools and Bloomfield Hills Schools, during the academic year 1978-1979. These two districts were selected by the researcher because of work with them over the previous three years in the area of outdoor/environmental education. 34 35 The researcher had hoped that such a relationship would encourage greater teacher participation in the study. These two districts were also chosen since they represented two different community settings. The Bellevue Community School District served a geogra­ phical area of approximately 90 square miles which included portions of Southwestern Eaton County and Southeastern Barry County. This rural area was situated approximately 35 miles southwest of the City of Lansing and 15 miles north of the City of Battle Creek. The Bellevue district operated three schools— one elemen­ tary, one middle school, and one high school. All three school buildings were located on one common site. population of the district was 1,270. The student The teacher popula­ tion employed was 65. The Bellevue district did not utilize any type of compre­ hensive K-12 curriculum program which dealt with outdoor/ environmental education. Sixth grade students did partici­ pate in an outdoor camping program. The Bloomfield Hills School District, located in South­ eastern Oakland County, served a geographical area of approxi­ mately 37 square miles. This suburban area was situated 23 miles northwest of the City of Detroit. This district contained 15 schools--ten elementary, three junior high, and two senior high. Each of these schools was located on a separate site in the district. student population of the district was 8,100. population employed was 420. The The teacher 36 The Bloomfield Hills district did not utilize any type of comprehensive K-12 curriculum program which dealt with outdoor/environmental education. Individual courses which focused on these areas were offered at the senior high level. The district maintained and operated both a nature center and a school farm, with each offering grade level programs concerned with outdoor/environmental education. Instrument Design The instrument utilized to collect the data for this study was a questionnaire. The design of the questionnaire was in large part based on information extracted from a review of related literature. Previous research studies were specifically used as guidelines in designing and pre­ paring the list of factors incorporated in the instrument. In addition to the review of literature, the researcher drew upon seven years of experience in the field of outdoor/ environmental education. From these two sources, a list of potential factors influencing teacher utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education was compiled. Further consolidation and reduction of the list eliminated overlap and duplication of potential factors. The list of factors, compiled by the researcher, was sent to and reviewed by a panel of educators who were recognized professionals in the area of outdoor/environmental education. This panel included educators from Michigan State University and the New Jersey School of Conservation, associated with Montclair State College. 37 The panel critiqued and reduced the list of factors. In addition to reducing the list of factors, panelists also made suggestions which resulted in greater clarity of items. The factors were then written in question form and reviewed by the panelists and research consultants at Michigan State University. The final survey instrument incorporated the various suggestions of the panel and the research consultants. The survey instrument consisted of two parts, Part I involved a participant profile survey, while Part II con­ tained the list of 55 potential factors influencing teacher utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/ environmental education. A copy of the "Outdoor/Environ­ mental Education Survey" which was utilized in the study is located in Appendix A. Part I of the Instrument Part I of the instrument was designed to collect descriptive data pertaining to the teacher respondent. This data was used to describe major characteristics of the sample from each of the school districts. The demographic and back­ ground information concerning the teacher respondents was collected with the use of multiple-choice questions. The questions dealt with the following areas: (1) Age (2) Sex (3) Highest level of education completed. (4) Number of undergraduate courses focusing on con­ tent/methods of outdoor/environmental education. 38 (5) Number of graduate courses focusing on content/ methods of outdoor/environmental education. (6) Number of years in teaching. (7) Number of years in present school district. (8) Number of years in present school. (9) Residence within school district. (10) Home distance from school presently teaching in. (11) Grade level of teaching responsibility. (12) Time spent per week in utilizing outdoor sites and resources. (13), (14), (15) Subject area focus of teaching responsi­ bility . The directions used in Part I of the instrument, items 1-15, were as follows: (a) Blacken out completely the space on the computer mark sense form which indicates your response to each item. (b) Erase completely an incorrect choice. (c) Select only one (1) response for each item. (d) Items Number 13-14-15 which are concerned with your subject area focus of teaching responsibility should be treated together and only one (1) response should be recorded. Part II of the Instrument Part II of the instrument gathered information pertain­ ing to the factors which teacher respondents from the two districts perceived as influencing the utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education. In order to determine both the factors and the extent which these factors influenced teacher utilization of outdoor sites and resources, a Likert-type scale was provided. The teachers were asked to respond to each of the 55 factors listed by selecting one of the following items: discouragement, ment, (2) some discouragement, (1) strong (3) some encourage­ (4) strong encouragement, or (5) not a factor. The directions used for Part II of the instrument, items 16-17, were as follows: This part of the survey utilizes a rating scale. Merely rate each item on a 1-4 scale. If you perceive the item as not being a factor in­ fluencing the utilization of outdoor sites and resources please mark the response labeled 5 Not A Factor. In your perception, to what extent do each of the following encourage or discourage your utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education? The scale to the immediate right of each factor included (1) Strong Discouragement (2) Some Discouragement (3) Some Encouragement (4) Strong Encouragement (5) Not A Factor Data Collection Procedures The central administrations from both school districts were contacted and informed about the purpose of the study. Once the school districts granted permission to perform the study, a schedule was set up to meet with the teachers in each of the schools within both districts to administer the 40 the survey instruments. The instruments were administered in the schools during the months of March and April, 1979. The survey was administered either by the researcher or by school district personnel who were trained in the adminis­ tration procedure. The procedure for administering the instrument involved the following steps: (1) introductory comments which were read to motivate teacher participants and provide instructions for responding to the survey, (2) distribution of surveys and computer .mark sense forms, and (3) collection of all instruments when the group of teachers had finished. Teacher participants were informed of the purpose of the survey as a means of obtaining base line data to be used in preservice and inservice teacher education and curriculum development regarding outdoor/environmental education. The participants were assured of anonymity and encouraged to answer items candidly. Comments emphasizing the importance of outdoor/environmental education were followed by a final appeal to their educational professionalism for complete cooperation. A copy of the instructions which were read to the teacher participants during data collection are included in Appendix B. The instructions reiterated the purpose of the survey and outlined the organization and design of the in­ strument. Participants were assured of sufficient time to complete the instrument. The participants completed the in­ strument in a time span of twenty to thirty minutes. 41 Selection of Respondents A total of 343 teachers from the two school districts were assessed in the study. A sample of 55 participants was obtained from the Bellevue Community Schools and 288 parti­ cipants from Bloomfield Hills Schools. The teachers were selected on the basis of availability. No attempts were made to randomize the selection. Principals in the schools within both districts were asked to involve their teachers in the study. Participation of the individual teachers was on a voluntary basis. Data Processing Procedures The procedure for collecting data included participants replying to the survey instrument by recording their responses on a computer mark sense form. Each mark sense form was provided with an identification number. Upon completion of the data collection phase, the mark sense forms were scanned by the scoring office at Michigan State University. data was then placed on magnetic tape. This The data on the tape was then transferred to data cards produced for use at the computer facilities. Subsequent data processing was done with the Michigan State University CDC 6500 computer system. This processing utilized the statistical programs provided in the Statis­ tical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for the analysis of data. 42 Treatment of the Data The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze the data provided by the teachers from the Bellevue Community Schools and Bloomfield Hills Schools who participated in the study. The specific subprogram CROSSTABS was used to analyze the demographic data gathered from Part I of the survey in­ strument. Contingency tables along with the appropriate chi square statistics were generated to compare the demographic data from the two school districts. This analysis determined whether the population of teachers from each school district could be combined on the demographic variables listed in Part I of the instrument. The data provided by teacher respondents on Parts I and II of the instrument were analyzed with the specific subpro­ gram FREQUENCIES. This analysis technique provided descrip­ tive information which included the tabulation and summariza­ tion of data into tabular frequencies. The treatment of the data is divided into two sections. The first section contains data from the teacher partici­ pants of the Bellevue School District. The second section contains data from the teacher participants of the Bloomfield Hills School District. The treatment of the data for both school districts included interpretation and evaluation of item responses from Parts I and II of the instrument. For each survey item, the response frequencies and percentages were obtained. The subprogram FREQUENCIES calculated the absolute frequency, relative frequency, adjusted frequency, 43 and the cumulative frequency for each item included in the instrument. Frequency tables were generated for each of the school districts regarding: (1) demographic and background data of the teacher participants and (2) data concerning the teacher population’s perceptions about the factors influenc­ ing utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Part II of the survey instrument listed the 55 influencing factors. selected The 55 factors were grouped into seven major categories for analysis. (1) teacher knowledge, (4) school district, These factor categories were: (2) teacher attitude, (3) school, (5) administrative, (6) parent munity, and (7) professional and institutional. and com­ Table 3.1 provides a summary of the factor categories along with the survey items belonging to each. Teacher respondents from both school districts were asked to reply to each factor, by indicating, to what extent each factor encouraged or discouraged utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education. With all the factors, a Likert-Type scale was utilized. The points on the scale were given "verbal identifiers": (1) strong encouragement, encouragement, (2) some discouragement, (3) some (4) strong encouragement, and (5) not a factor. For the population of teachers from each of the two school districts, the relative frequency (percent) for each response code for each factor were tabulated. 44 TABLE 3.1 -- Summary of Factor Categories Factors Category Labels Survey Question Numbers Teacher Knowledge 16, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29 Teacher Attitude 17, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 School 32, 38, 39, 40, 41. 53, 69 School District 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 49 Administrative 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 Parent and Community 43, 51, 63, 64, 66, 70 Professional and Institutional 18, 19, 20, 21, 50, 65, 67, 68 Chapter Four ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction This chapter focuses on an analysis of the data collected from teachers from two Michigan public school districts, Bellevue Community Schools and Bloomfield Hills Schools who participated in the study. The analysis is divided into three sections. The first section contains an analysis of the demographic data from the two districts. This analysis determined whether the two teacher populations could be combined on the demo­ graphic variables which were listed in Part I of the survey instrument. The second section contains data concerning the teacher population from the Bellevue School District. The third sec­ tion contains the data from the teacher population of the Bloomfield Hills School District. three, include: Both sections, two and (1) background and demographic data from Part I of the survey instrument and (2) data collected from Part II of the survey which concerned the population of teachers' perceptions regarding the 55 possible factors influencing the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. 45 46 Cross Tabulation Analysis of Demographic Variables for the School Districts' The analysis of demographic data from the two districts involved the utilization of the subprogram CROSSTABS of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). This analysis determined whether the teacher populations from Bellevue and Bloomfield Hills who participated in the study could be equated on the demographic variables listed in Part I of the survey. Ten of the demographic variables were compared by generating cross tabulation tables from the data provided by the teachers. The ten tables which were generated involved the cross tabulation of data from each school district by the demographic variables concerned with: (1) age; (3) highest level of education completed; (2) sex; (4) undergraduate courses which focused on outdoor/environmental education; (5) graduate courses which focused on outdoor/environmental education; (6) number of years in teaching; years teaching in present school district; teaching in present school; (7) number of (8) number of years (9) residence with physical boundaries of school district; and (10) distance from school presently teaching in. For each of the cross tabulation tables, the appropriate chi square statistic and level of significance were determined. Table 4.1 provides a summary of the ten cross tabulation tables. 47 TABLE 4.1 -- Summary of Cross Tabulation Analysis of Demographic Variable Data for the Bellevue Community Schools and Bloomfield Hills Schools Cross Tabulation of School District by Demographic Variables Raw Chi Square Degrees of Freedom Significance Level Age 13.417 4 .0094* Sex 2.506 3 .4743 25.922 3 .0000* Level of Education Undergraduate Courses on Outdoor/Environ­ mental Education 4.08i .3951 Graduate Courses on Outdoor/Environmental Education 7.079 .1318 Years in Teaching 15.172 4 .0044* Years in Present School District 24.525 4 .0001* Years in Present School 9.057 4 .0501* Residence Within School District 7.781 1 .0204* Home Distance from School 20.975 .0005* *Significant Relationship (P ^ .05) A significance level of .05 or lower was selected as the probability level which represented a significant relation­ ship between the demographic variable and school district. The data in Table 4.1 show that for 7 of the 10 variables compared, there was a significance level of .05 or lower. Based on this analysis of demographic data, it was decided that the populations of teachers from the Bellevue School 48 District and the Bloomfield Hills School District who par­ ticipated in the study were significantly different. Further analysis of the data obtained in the study was done separately for each of the districts. Bellevue Community Schools The data summarized in this section were compiled from the responses of 55 teachers from the Bellevue School Dis­ trict who participated in the study. This sample of 55 respondents amounted to approximately 85 percent of the school district's teacher population. Background and Demographic Description of Bellevue Teacher Respondents The demographics for the 55 Bellevue teachers are sum­ marized in Table 4.2 through 4.12. The data in these tables are reported in terns of frequencies (percentages). Table 4.2 indicates the age distribution of the respon­ dents, Approximately one-third (32.7%) were in the 26-30 age group, and nearly seventy percent (69.1%) of the teachers were 35 years of age or younger. 49 TABLE 4.2 -- Bellevue Respondent Age Distribution (N=55) Age Group Percent 21-25 years 9.1 26-30 years 32.7 31-35 years 27.3 36-40 years 14.5 41 + years 16.4 Table 4.3 shows the sex distribution for the respondents Slightly over seventy percent of the teachers were female, and approximately thirty percent were male. TABLE 4.3 -- Bellevue Respondent Sex Distribution (N-55) Sex Percent Female 70.9 Male 29.1 The respondent distribution for the highest level of education completed is presented in Table 4.4. The data indicated that only one-fourth (25.4%) of the teachers had reached the Masters' degree level. 50 TABLE 4.4 — Bellevue Respondent Distribution for Level of Education Completed (N-55) Level of Education Completed Percent Bachelors 74.6 Masters 23.6 Specialist 1.8 Doctorate -- Table 4.5 shows the distribution for the number of undergraduate courses focusing on the content/methods of out­ door/environmental completed by the teachers. An examination of the data reveal that slightly over sixty-three percent (63.6%) of the Bellevue teachers had not taken any under­ graduate courses which focused on outdoor/environmental education. Only 18.2 percent of the teachers had one under­ graduate course which dealt with outdoor/environmental education. Approximately three-fourths (74.5%) of the Bellevue teachers had not taken a graduate level course which focused on the content/methods of outdoor/environmental education. Only 18.2 percent had taken one graduate course in this area, while 7.3 percent have had three or more courses. The distri­ bution for the number of graduate courses on outdoor/ environmental education is presented in Table 4.6. 51 TABLE 4.5 -- Bellevue Respondent Distribution for the Number of Undergraduate Courses Dealing With Outdoor/Environmental Education (N-55) Number of Courses Percent No Courses 63.6 1 Course 18.2 2 Courses 9.1 3 Courses 5.5 4 or More Courses 3.6 TABLE 4.6 — Bellevue Respondent Distribution for the Number of Graduate Courses Dealing With Outdoor/Environmental Education (N=55) Number of Courses Percent No Courses 74.5 1 Course 18.2 2 Courses 3 Courses 1.8 4 or More Courses 5.5 Table 4.7 shows the distributions of the number of years in teaching, in the present school district, and in present school for the Bellevue teachers. n um be r The data in the category of years teaching, show approximately one-half (47.3%) of the teachers had been in the profession for 6-10 years, while about thirty percent (29.1%) had been teaching 52 for eleven years or more. In the category, number of years teaching in the present school district, forty percent (.40%) of the teachers had been in the district for five years or less, while about one-half (.497,) had taught in Bellevue for a period of from 6-10 years. The data in the category, number of years teaching in the present school, show that a little over forty percent (41.8%) of the Bellevue teachers had been in their present school for a period of five years or less. Approximately one-half (45,5%) of the teachers had spent 6-10 years teaching in their present school. TABLE 4.7 -- Bellevue Respondent Distribution for Number of Years: Teaching, Present School District, Present School Number of Years Years Teaching (Percent) (N=55) Years Teaching in Present School District (Percent) Years Teaching in Present School (Percent) 1-2 10.9 25.5 27.3 3-5 12.7 14.5 14.5 VO o i—i i 47.3 49.0 45.5 11-15 20.0 5.5 7.2 9.1 5.5 5.5 16 + Table 4.8 indicates the respondent distribution for residence within and outside the school district boundaries. The data shows that only thirty-five percent of the teachers resided within Bellevue School District boundaries, 53 while sixty-five percent of the teachers lived outside the district. TABLE 4.8 -- Bellevue Respondent Distribution for Residence Within and Outside School District Boundaries (N-55) Residence Within School District Boundaries Percent Yes 34.5 No 65.5 Approximately thirty percent (29.1%) of the Bellevue teachers resided less than five miles from the school they worked in. Slightly less than one-fourth (23.6%) of the teachers lived 21 miles or more from their school. Table 4.9 contains the distribution for the home residence distances from the school in which the respondents were teaching. TABLE 4.9 — Distribution of Bellevue Respondent Home Residence Distances From Present School Teaching in (N=55) Home Residence Distance From School Percent 0-5 Miles 29.1 6-10 Miles 14.5 11-15 Miles 18.2 16-20 Miles 14.5 21 + Miles 23.6 54 Table 4.10 shows the distribution of the grade level categories for the Bellevue teachers. The data indicates that the teachers who participated in the study were about equally divided among the four grade level categories. TABLE 4.10 -- Bellevue Respondent Distribution for Grade Level of Teaching Responsibility (N=55) Grade Level Categories Percent K-3 (n=14) 25.5 4-6 (n=ll) 20.0 7-9 (n=13) 23.6 10-12 (n=17) 30.9 Table 4.11 summarizes the distribution of subject area teaching responsibilities for the Bellevue teachers. Table 4.12 reports the distribution for the amount of time per week which the Bellevue teachers spent in the utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/ environmental education. Slightly over sixty-five percent (65.5%) of the Bellevue teachers indicated that they did not spend any time in the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Twenty-seven percent of the teachers spent less than one hour per week, while only seven percent spent one or more hours utilizing outdoor sites and resources for out­ door environmental education. 55 TABLE 4.11 -- Bellevue Respondent Distribution for Subject Area Teaching Focus (N=55) Subject Areas Percent General (Self Contained)* 25.5 Math 10.9 Science Language Arts (reading) General Business Social Studies 7.3 12.7 1.8 14.5 Foreign Languages Industrial Arts 3.6 Home Economics 1.8 Physical Education/Health 5.5 Fine Arts (music, arts, drama) 7.3 Special/Gifted Education 3.6 Vocational Education 5.5 ^Primarily responded to by teachers in grades K-6 56 TABLE 4.12 -- Bellevue Respondent Distribution for Time Spent Per Week in the Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources (N-55) Amount of Time Spent Per Week Percent No Time 65.5 Less than 1 hour 27.3 1 - 2 hours 2 - 3 hours 5.5 Greater than 3 hours 1.8 a Bellevue School District Teacher Ratings Regarding the Factors Influencing Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources The data for the Bellevue teacher population regarding the 55 selected influencing variables are summarized in Tables 4.13 through 4.19. The data in these tables are reported in terms of frequencies (percentages). Teacher Knowledge Factors The data in Table 4.13 concern the teacher ratings regarding the influence of six "teacher knowledge" factors on the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The ratings indicated that the majority of teachers were encouraged in their utilization of outdoor sites and resources by the following factors: (1) their general knowledge of out­ door/environmental education; (2) their knowledge of outdoor/ environmental education activities appropriate to their sub­ ject teaching area(s) and grade level; (3) their experience and TABLE 4.13 — Bellevue School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of Teacher Knowledge Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources 11 mss u i to m y u u I u> *0 ss u o u Cl « In U tna is mu Strong Encouri Teacher Knowledge Factors :rong Lscouragement (It*55) 9.1 16.4 41.8 16.4 16.4 ina u ZJ (16) Your general knowledge of outdoor/environmental education. (22) Your knowledge of outdoor/environmental education activities appropriate to the subject area and grade level which you teach. 10.9 23.6 34.5 18.2 12.7 (23) Your experience and skills in conducting outdoor/environ­ mental education activities. 16.4 16.4 36.4 14.5 16.4 (24) Your knowledge of evaluation techniques (methods) for such activities. 9.1 23.6 25.5 16.4 25.5 (27) Extent to which you have analyzed/inventoried your outdoor Bchool/community sites and resources. 9.1 18.2 29.1 29.1 14.5 (29) Relationship between the subject area(s) you teach and outdoor/envlroiuaental education. 10.9 16.4 27.3 27.3 18.2 (percentages) 58 skills in conducting outdoor/environmental education activi­ ties; (4) the relationship between outdoor/environmental education and the subject areas they were teaching; and (5) the extent which they analyzed and inventoried their outdoor school/community sites and resources. The most fre­ quent teacher response to these five factors was in the "some encouragement" category. The ratings regarding the teachers' knowledge of evalua­ tion techniques for outdoor/environmental education activi­ ties revealed that the percentage of teachers who were encouraged (41.9%) by this factor was slightly greater than those who were discouraged (32.7%). One-fourth of the teachers felt this variable was "not a factor" influencing their use of outdoor sites and resources. Teacher Attitude Factors Table 4.14 presents the data for the teacher ratings regarding the influence of 11 "teacher attitude" factors on the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The ratings indicated that the majority of the teachers were encouraged to utilize outdoor sites and resources by the following factors: (1) the relationship between their philosophy of education and outdoor/environmental education; (2) their educational concern for exposing students to the community's environment and associated problems; and (3) the educational value of outdoor/environmental education activi­ ties for students. The most frequent teacher response to these three factors was "some encouragement". Approximately TABLE 4.14 — Bellevue School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of Teacher Attitude Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources (N-55) u § 60 01 • m ►vM Teacher Attitude Factors « 60 3 co £1 cn ? i i 60 1 c 2 S M §1 U C • 60 m 3 M M i * COQ mo Mb! fff M O MM u a o m u. < u 2 (17) Relationship between your philosophy of education and outdoor/environswntal education. 5.5 16.4 36.4 20.0 21.8 (25) Your personal feelings and interests in outdoor/ environmental education. 7.3 5.5 29.1 45.5 12.7 (26) Your personal interest in spending tine outdoors. 3.6 10.9 23.6 50.9 10.9 (28) Your educational concern for exposing your students to the community's environment and associated problems. -- 10.9 41.8 18.2 29.1 (30) Extent to which your present instructional program focuses on outdoor/environmental education. 16.4 20.0 34.5 14.5 14.5 (31) The educational value of such outdoor/environmental educa­ tion activities for students. 5.5 10.9 40.0 29.1 14.5 (33) Time needed to engage in these activities. 36.4 27.3 7.3 3.6 25.5 (34) Time needed to plan for such activities. 43.6 27.3 9.1 -- 20.0 (35) Teacher liability during such activities. 21.8 36.4 10.9 5.5 25.5 (36) Student safety during such activities. 18.2 36.4 10.9 5.5 29.1 (37) The weather's effect on conducting such activities. 9.1 40.0 12.7 3.6 34.5 (percentages) 60 thirty percent (29.1%) of the teachers felt that their educa­ tional concern for exposing students to the community's environment and associated problems was "not a factor" which influenced utilization. The majority of the teachers also responded that they were encouraged both by their personal feelings and interests in outdoor/environmental education and by their personal interest in spending time outdoors. The majority of these encouraging responses were "strong.encouragement". The ratings regarding the extent to which the teachers' present instructional programs focused on outdoor/environmental education showed that slightly less than one-half (49.0%) of the teachers were encouraged while thirty-six per­ cent (36%) were discouraged. Between sixty-three percent (637.) and seventy-one per­ cent (71%) of the Bellevue teachers were discouraged both the time to plan for and engage in activities involving the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The majority of these discouraging responses were in the category labeled "strong discouragement". The majority of the teachers gave a discouraging rating when they considered the factors concerning: (1) teacher liability during outdoor/environmental education activities; (2) student safety during outdoor/environmental education activities; and (3) the weather's effect on being able to conduct outdoor/environmental education activities. However, there was an increased percentage of teachers who felt these 61 three variables were not factors influencing utilization of outdoor sites and resources. School Factors The data in Table 4.15 show the teacher ratings regard­ ing the influence of seven "school" factors on the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The ratings show that between forty percent (40%) and fifty percent (507o) of the teachers felt that the grade level and ability level of their classes were not factors influenc­ ing utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The size of the teachers' classes was rated a discourag­ ing factor by fifty-seven percent (56.97o) of the teachers. A slightly higher percentage of responses were in the "strong discouragement" category. Slightly less than one-half (47.370) of the teachers rated available classroom space for preparation and follow-up of outdoor activities as discourag­ ing. The ratings were most frequently in the "some dis­ couragement" category. However, slightly over one-third (34.5%) of the teachers rated this variable as not being a factor influencing utilization. Fifty-one percent (51%) of the teachers were strongly encouraged by the adequacy of their school's outdoor site and resources for outdoor/environmental education activi­ ties. Over fifty percent (50%) of the teachers were also encouraged by their school's current educational priority in regards to outdoor/environmental education and the current involvement of teachers from their school in outdoor/ TABLE 4.IS — Bellevue School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influences of School Factors on Utilisation of Outdoor Sites and Resources (N-55) u Survey Numbers Strong Discouri School Factors s 1 M • S 5 M g e i i 4J SJ O s s J Strong Encouraj p a 1*4 < u o 55 (32) Available classroom space for preparation and follow up of outdoor/environmental education activities. 16.4 30.9 9.1 9.1 34.5 (38) Size of your classes. 29.1 27.3 18.2 1.8 23.6 (39) Grade level of your classes. 7.3 18.2 27.3 1.8 45.5 (40) Ability level of your classes. 7,3 20.0 25.5 5.5 41.8 (41) Adequacy of vour school's outdoor site and resources for outdoor/environmental education activities. 1.8 3.6 29.1 50.9 14.5 (53) Your school's current educational priority in regards to outdoor/environmental education. 12.7 18.2 30.9 23.6 14.5 (69) Current involvement by teachers in your school in outdoor/ environmental education activities. 7.3 5.5 49.1 10.9 27.3 (percentages) 63 environmental education activities. The most frequent response to these two factors was "some encouragement". School District Factors The data in Table 4.16 concern the teacher ratings regarding the influence of seven "school district" factors on the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The ratings indicated that the majority of the teachers were encouraged by the adequacy of other school district owned outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental educa­ tion (56.4%) and by the present availability of resource guides on local school and community outdoor sites and resources (49.1%). The most frequent encouraging responses were "some encouragement". The majority of the teachers also indicated that they were encouraged by the availability of pro­ fessional/technical resource persons who could assist with outdoor/environmental education activities (63.67o). The most frequent encouraging response to this factor was "strong encouragement." The majority of the teachers rated both the present availability of curriculum guides and planning materials on outdoor/environmental education (45,570) and the present availability of instructional materials and equipment for out­ door/environmental education activities (51.07o) as discouraging their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The most frequent discouraging responses were "some discouragement". TABLE 4.16 — Bellevue School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of School District Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources (N-55) School District Factors i/i Q is §c/3!w 1.8 12.7 30.9 25.5 29.1 to 4 «3 O v>£ u 4 In i 4 P-.M <1 «l u Strong Encouragement U |4 * U Q i • to 4 S3 o 6 • w to 4 n uoo < u §. (42) Adequacy of other outdoor sites and resources owned by the school district for outdoor/environmental education activities. (44) Availability of curriculum guides and/or planning materials on outdoor/envlronsiental education. 16.4 29.1 14.5 20.0 20.0 (45) Availability of instructional equipment and materials needed for outdoor/environmental education activities. 16.5 34.5 14.5 14.5 20.0 (46) Availability of resource guides on your local school and community sites outlining suggested outdoor/environmental education activities. 7.3 29.1 25.5 23.6 14.5 (47) Availability of professional/technical resource persons to assist with such outdoor/environmental education activities. 5.5 10.9 23.6 40.0 20.0 (48) Inservlce education on outdoor/environmental education pro­ vided by local school district personnel. 9.1 21.8 23.6 25.5 20.0 (49) Inservice education on outdoor/environmental education pro­ vided by colleges and universities. 9.1 18.2 23.6 23.6 2S.5 t (percentages) 65 Slightly less than one-half of the Bellevue teachers indicated that they were enouraged in their utilization of outdoor sites and resources by present inservice education on outdoor/environmental education which was provided by local school district personnel (49.1%) and by colleges and univer­ sities (47.2%). Between twenty and twenty-five percent of the Bellevue teachers felt that present inservice education on outdoor/environmental education provided by school district personnel and by colleges and universities were not factors which influenced their utilization. Administrative Factors The data in Table 4.17 show the teacher ratings regard­ ing the influence of 10 "administrative" factors on the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Of the 10 "administrative" factors, those concerned with: (1) policies regarding distance limitations for trans­ portation; (2) number of permissable trips per year involving transportation; (3) amount of financial support for transpor­ tation; and (4) amount of financial support for any additional costs of outdoor/environmental education activities, were rated by the majority of the teachers as discouraging their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The most frequent discouraging response was "some discouragement". One-fourth to one-third of the teachers felt that these four factors did not influence their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The majority (45.5%) of the teachers were also dis­ couraged by the procedure for obtaining transportation. The TABLE A.17 — Bellevue School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of Administrative Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources (N-55) o >*u (52) The central office'a present educational philosophy and objectives In regard to outdoor/environmental education. (54) e § 60 t$ 3 i 60 g sM n 0 m M a h §s ina in i5 u 2 16.4 38.2 M?S oo ul (55) I s.tf Strong Encouri Administrative Factors w 5.5 10.9 29.1 Written school-distrlct policies regarding subject material and skills to be taught/covered during school year. 14.5 25.5 23.6 Written Michigan State Department of Education objectives regarding subject material and skills to be taught/ covered during school year. 10.9 20.0 18.2 12.7 38.2 9-1 . 27.3 (56) Procedure for obtaining administrative permission for such activities. 7.3 21.8 27.3 10.9 32.7 (57) Procedure for obtaining parental permission for student participation in such activities. 9.1 20.0 20.0 1.8 49.1 (58) Procedure for obtaining transportation (when necessary) 18.2 27.3 14.5 1.8 38.2 (59) School-distrlct policies regarding distance limitations for transportation. 30.9 16.4 14.5 7.3 30.9 (60) Number of permlsaable trips per year (involving transportation). 43.6 12.7 9.1 5.5 29.1 (61) Amount of school-dlatrict financial Bupport for transportation. 40.0 23.6 1.8 1.8 32.7 (62) Amount of school-distrlct financial support of other additional costs for such activities. 32.7 25.5 12.7 3.6 25.5 (percentages) 67 most frequent response was "some discouragement". Approxi­ mately forty percent (38.2%) of the teachers felt that this factor did not influence their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The ratings indicated that the majority (45.5%) of the teachers were encouraged by the central administration's present educational philosophy and objectives in regard to outdoor/environmental education. The most frequent encourag­ ing response was "some encouragement". Howeve r t h i r t y - e i g h t percent (38.2%) stated that this variable was not a factor influencing utilization. The teachers1 ratings concerning the written policies regarding subject material and skills to be taught during the school year indicated that the percentage of teachers who were discouraged (40.0%) by these policies was slightly greater than those who were encouraged (32.7%). The majority of the discouraging responses were in the "some discouragement" category. Thirty-eight percent (38.2%) of the teachers stated that written Michigan Department of Education objectives regarding subject material and skills which were to be taught to be did not influence their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The remaining teachers were evenly divided between the discouragement and encouragement categories. The ratings concerning the procedure for obtaining ad­ ministrative permission to engage in outdoor/environmental education activities indicated that the percentage of teachers 68 who were encouraged (38.2%) by this factor was slightly greater than those who were discouraged (29,1%). One-third of the teachers felt this variable was not a factor influenc­ ing utilization. One-half (49. r %) of the teachers rated the procedure for obtaining parental permission for student participation in outdoor/environmental education as not being a factor which influenced their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Of the remaining teachers, the percentage of those who were discouraged (29.1%) by this factor was slightly greater than those who were encouraged (21.8%). Parent and Community Factors Table 4.18 lists the teachers' ratings regarding the influence of six "parent and community" factors on the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Examination of the data indicated that fifty-six percent (56.4%) of the teachers were encouraged by the community's general attitude toward outdoor/environmental education. The most frequent encouraging response was "some encouragement". Approximately one-third (32.77.) of the teachers felt that this variable was not a factor which influenced their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Seventy-six percent (76.4%) of the teachers indicated that they were also encouraged in their utilization of outdoor sites and resources by the adequacy of the community's outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education. The TABLE U .18 — Bellevue School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of Parent and Community Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources (N-55) u C Parent and Community Factors >*u 0 a0 c \ opo S O as COO MO co oo um U o ao a is U o u o a » ua §§ 00 (u C o ss 03 W u (43) Adeauacy of the comunity*s outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/envlronsnntal education activities. 3.6 1.8 29.1 47,3 18.2 (51) The Board of Education's oreaent educational nhlloaonhv and objectives in regard to outdoor/environmental education. 7.3 10.9 29.1 14.5 38.2 (63) Attitude of parents toward the educational value of such activities. 14.5 9.1 32.7 9.1 34.5 (64) Attitude of parents toward student safety during such activities. 7.3 12.7 27.3 7.3 45.5 (66) Your school's parent-teacher organization (PTO). 1.8 5.5 18.2 14.5 60.0 (70) Community's (general) attitude toward outdoor/environmental education. 3.6 7.3 36.4 20.0 32.7 (percentages) O* vO 70 majority of these encouraging responses were in the "strong encouragement" category. Forty-three percent (43.6%) of the teachers stated that they were encouraged by the Board of Education's present philosophy and objectives regarding outdoor/environmental education. The greater percentage of encouraging responses were in the "some encouragement" category. However, thirty- eight percent (38.2%) of the teachers indicated that the Board of Education's philosophy was not a factor which influenced utilization. In regard to the influence of their school's parentteacher organization (PTO), sixty percent (60%) of the Bellevue teachers responded that this variable was not a factor influencing utilization. Forty-one percent (41.8%) of the teachers stated that they were encouraged by parents' attitudes toward the educational value of outdoor/environmental education activities. How­ ever, approximately thirty-five percent (34.57») rated this variable as not being a factor which influenced utilization. The variable concerning parents’ attitudes about student safety during outdoor/environmental education activities was rated by forty-five percent (45%) of the Bellevue teachers as not a factor which influenced utilization. Professional and Institutional Factors Table 4.19 shows the teacher ratings regarding the influence of eight "professional and institutional" factors on the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. TABLE 4.19 — Bellevue School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of Professional and Institutional Factors on Utilisation of Outdoor Sites and Resources (N-55) ti e § u Professional and Institutional Factors 1 m | § as « 60 01 b O u wo m s> o §2 o*t ina 33 a 33 Your undergraduate teacher education program and the extent to which they dealt with outdoor/environmental education. 12.7 20.0 25.5 7,3 34.5 (19) Your graduate courses and the extent to which they dealt with outdoor/environmental education. 21.8 12.7 12,7 10.9 41.8 (20) Professional organizations of which you are a member. 1.8 5.5 23.6 9.1 60.0 (21) Professional nugazlnes or newsletters which you read. — 1.8 29.1 30.9 38.2 (50) Training programs, workshops, awinter institutes, etc. on outdoor/environmental education provided outside your school district. 1.8 16.4 30.9 18.2 32.7 (65) Your local education association (L.E.A.). 1.8 3.6 25.5 3.6 65.5 (67) Michigan State Department of Education. — — 32.7 5.5 61.8 (68) Institutions of higher education (colleges and universities). 3.6 1.8 30.9 9.1 54.5 Ui Po 0o U *H (AQ m (18) §8 IS (percentages) < o ss 72 The data revealed that between fifty-five percent and sixty-five percent of the teachers rated each of the follow­ ing variables as not being factors which influenced their utilization of outdoor sites and resources: organizations to which they belonged; tion association (L.E.A.); (1) professional (2) their local educa­ (3) the Michigan Department of Education; and (4) institutions of higher education. Of the remaining teachers, the percentage who were encouraged by these four factors was greater than the percentage who were discouraged. The majority (607o) of the teachers stated that they were encouraged by the professional magazines and newsletters which they read to utilize outdoor sites and resources. How­ ever, almost forty percent (38.2%) stated that this variable was not a factor which influenced utilization. The ratings also indicated that forty-nine percent (49.17.) of the teachers were encouraged by training programs, workshops, and summer institutes on outdoor/environmental education provided outside their school district. Most of the encouraging responses were in the "some encouragement" category. Approximately one-third (32.7%) of the teachers felt that this variable was not a factor which influenced their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The percentage of teachers who were encouraged (32.870) by their undergraduate teacher education program and the extent it dealt with outdoor/environmental education, was slightly higher than the percentage who were discouraged 73 (22.7%). Slightly over one-third (34.5%) of the teachers felt that their undergraduate teacher education program was not a factor which influenced their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The percentage of teachers who were discouraged (34.5%) by graduate courses which they had taken and the extent they dealt with outdoor/environmental education, was slightly greater than those who were encouraged (23.6%). Forty-one percent (41.8%) of the teachers felt that their graduate courses had not been a factor which influenced their utili­ zation of outdoor sites and resources. Bloomfield Hills Schools The data summarized in this section were compiled from the responses of 288 teachers from the Bloomfield Hills School District who participated in the study. This sample of 288 respondents amounted to 68.57, of the school district's teacher population. Background and Demographic Description of Bloomfield Hills Teacher Respondents The demographics for the 288 Bloomfield Hills teachers are summarized in Tables 4.20 through 4.30. The data in these tables are reported in terms of frequencies (percent­ ages) . Table 4.20 indicates the age distribution for the respondents. Slightly less than one-half (46.8%) of the respondents were between the ages of twenty-one and thirty- 74 five years old. Slightly crver one-third (35.8%) of the teachers were in the age group of 41 or more years. TABLE 4.20 -- Bloomfield Hills Respondent Age Distribution (N*288) Age Group Percent 21-25 years 11.0 26-30 years 16.7 31-35 years 19.1 36-40 years 17.4 41 + years 35.8 Table 4.21 shows the sex distribution for the respon­ dents. Slightly over sixty- one percent (61.57,) of the teachers were females while slightly under forty percent (38.5%) were male. TABLE 4.21 -- Bloomfield Hills Respondent Sex Distribution (N=288) Sex Percent Female 61.5 Male 38.5 The distribution for the highest level of education is presented in Table 4.22. The data indicate slightly less than forty percent (37.6%) of the teachers have not achieved 75 the Masters1 level while over sixty percent (62.4%) have achieved this educational level. TABLE 4.22 — Bloomfield Hills Respondent Distribution for Level of Education Completed (N=288) Level of Education Completed Percent Bachelors 37.6 Masters 57.6 Specialist 3.8 Doctorate 1.0 Table 4.23 shows the number of undergraduate courses focusing on the content/methods of outdoor/environmental education which were completed by the teachers. An examina­ tion of the data reveal approximately seventy percent (69.8%) of the Bloomfield Hills teachers had not taken undergraduate courses which focused on outdoor/environmental education. Only 17.4 percent of the teachers had one undergraduate course in this area, while 12.8 percent had two or more courses. The data concerning the number of graduate level courses which focused on the content/methods of outdoor/environmental education taken by the Bloomfield Hills teachers is presented in Table 4.24. This data indicates that the overwhelming majority (83.6%) of the teachers had not taken a graduate level course which focused on outdoor/environmental education. 76 TABLE 4.23 -- Bloomfield Hills Respondent Distribution for the Number of Undergraduate Courses Dealing With Outdoor/Environmental Education (N=288) Number of Courses Percent No Courses 69.8 1 Course 17.4 2 Courses 8.3 3 Courses 1.4 4 or More Courses 3.1 TABLE 4.24 — Bloomfield Hills Respondent Distribution for the Number of Graduate Courses Deal­ ing With Outdoor/Environmental Education (N=288) Number of Courses Percent No Courses 83.6 1 Course 10.5 2 Courses 2.8 3 Courses .3 4 or More Courses 2.8 Table 4.25 shows the distributions of the number of years in teaching, in the present school district, and in the present school for the Bloomfield Hills' teachers. 77 The data in the category, number of years teaching, show that fifty-four percent (54.2%) of the Bloomfield Hills respondents had been in the teaching profession for eleven or more years. One-fourth (25.3%) of the teachers had been in th the profession from six to ten years. Approximately seventy percent (68.07o) of the Bloomfield Hills teachers had been working in the district for more than five years. The majority (55.2%) of the Bloomfield Hills teachers had been working in their present school for more than five years. One-fourth (25.7%) of the teachers had been in their present school for less than two years. TABLE 4.25 -- Bloomfield Hills Respondent Distribu­ tion for Number of Years: Teaching, Present School District, Present School (N=288) Number of Years Years Teaching (Percent) Years Teaching in Present School District (Percent) Years Teaching in Present School (Percent) 1-2 10.4 16.7 25.7 3-5 10.1 15.3 19.1 6-10 25.3 25.0 28.5 11-15 26.7 32.6 19.8 16 + 27.4 10.4 6.9 Table 4.26 indicates the resident distribution within and outside the school district boundaries for the Bloomfield Hills teachers. The data shows that the overwhelming majority 78 (81.9%) of the Bloomfield Hills teachers live outside the physical boundaries of the school district. TABLE 4.26 -- Bloomfield Hills Respondent Distribu­ tion for Residence Within and Outside School District Boundaries (N=288) Residence With School District Boundaries Percent Yes 18.1 No 81.9 Slightly less than sixty-five percent (64.6%) of the Bloomfield Hills teachers' home residences were located 10 miles or less from the schools in which they were teaching. Nine percent of the teachers resided twenty-one or more miles from their schools. Table 4.27 summarizes the data concerning the distribution of the Bloomfield Hills' teachers home residence distances from schools in which they worked. Table 4.28 shows the distribution of the Bloomfield Hills teachers within the four grade level categories. The data indicates that the teachers who participated in the study were about equally divided among the categories. 79 TABLE 4.27 -- Distribution of Bloomfield Hills Respondent Home Residence Distances From Present School Teaching In (N=288) Home Residence Distance From School Percent 0-5 Miles 24.3 6-10 Miles 40.3 11-15 Miles 18.8 16-20 Miles 7.6 21 + Miles 9.0 TABLE 4.28 -- Bloomfield Hills Respondent Distribution for Grade Level of Teaching Responsibility (N=288) Grade Level Categories Percent K-3 (n=66) 22.9 4-6 (n=72) 25.3 7-9 (n=66) 22.9 10-12 (n=84) 28.8 Table 4.29 summarizes the distribution of the subject area teaching responsibilities for the Bloomfield Hills teachers. 80 TABLE 4.29 -- Bloomfield Hills Respondent Distribu­ tion for Subject Area Teaching Focus (N=288) Subject Areas Percent General (Self Contained)* 36.5 Math 7.6 Science 8.0 Language Arts (reading) 11.5 General Business 1.7 Social Studies 7.6 Foreign Languages 3.5 .7 Industrial Arts Home Economics 1.0 Physical Education/Health 4.5 Fine Arts (music, arts, drama) 6.9 Special/Gifted Education Vocational Education 10.2 .3 *Primarily responded to by teachers in grades K-6 Table 4.30 reports the distribution for the amount of time per week which the Bloomfield Hills' teachers spent in the utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/ environmental education. Sixty percent (60.2%) of the Bloomfield Hills teachers indicated that they did not spend any time in the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. 81 One-third of the teachers spent less than one hour per week, while only 6.5 percent spent one or more hours per week in the utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/ environmental education. TABLE 4.30 — Bloomfield Hills Respondent Distribution for Time Spent Per Week in the Utiliza­ tion of Outdoor Sites and Resources (N=288) Amount of Time Spent Per Week Percent No Time 60.2 Less than 1 hour 33.3 1-2 hours 4.5 2-3 hours 1.0 Greater than 3 hours 1.0 Bloomfield Hills School District Teacher Ratings Regarding the Factors Influencing Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources The data for the Bloomfield Hills teacher population regarding the 55 selected influencing variables are presented in Tables 4.31 through 4.37. The data in these tables are reported in terms of frequencies (percentages). Teacher Knowledge Factors The data in Table 4.31 concern the teacher ratings regarding the influence of six "teacher knowledge" factors on the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. TABLE 4.31 -- Bloomfield Hills School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of Teacher Knowledge Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources (N=288) u G 01 T e a c h e r K nowledge F a c t o r s C 9 & 9 e V bf) to <0 (0 u v ai to d C o o o M IA U -r4 V) O 3. Ulz <16) U Your g e n e r a l k n o w le d g e o f o u t d o o r / e n v i r o n m e n t a l e d u c a t i o n . 7 .6 V 0 O CO d 0 o M *H Q 13 .6 fi 0 O CO G 01 0 01 U) 4 M 0 ° U C la) 3 1.6 U C 0) 0 01 to id to N q d o o o u G CO U4 2 0 .5 M O u Ci 10 h -c M O K 2 4 .7 00 (2 2 ) Your Knowledge o f o u t d o o r / e n v i r o n m e n t a l e d u c a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e s u b j e c t a r e a and g r a d e l e v e l w h ic h yo u teac h . 7 .3 1 4 .2 3 7 .5 1 5 .3 2 5 .7 (2 3 ) Your e x p e r i e n c e a n d s k i l l s i n c o n d u c t i n g o u t d o o r / e n v i r o n m e n t a l ed u c a tio n a c t i v i t i e s . 1 1 .1 1 9 .1 3 1 .9 1 4 ,9 2 2 .9 (2 4 ) Your k n o w le d g e o f e v a l u a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s (m e th o d s ) f o r s u c h a c tiv itie s . 1 3 .2 2 0 .1 2 2 .2 9 .0 3 5 .4 (2 7 ) E x t e n t t o w h ic h you h a v e a n a l y z e d / i n v e n t o r i e d y o u r o u t d o o r sch o o l/co m m u n ity s i t e s and r e s o u r c e s . 8 .3 2 0 .1 30 .9 1 1 .5 2 9 .2 (2 9 ) R e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e s u b j e c t a r e a ( s ) you t e a c h an d o u t ­ d o o r/en v iro n m en tal e d u c a tio n . 9 .A 1 3 .9 3 5 .8 1 7 .7 23.3 (p ercen tag es) 83 The figures indicate that over fifty percent (50%) of the teachers were encouraged in their utilization of outdoor sites and resources by the following factors: (1) their general knowledge of outdoor/environmental education; (2) their knowledge of outdoor/environmental education activi­ ties appropriate to their subject areas and grade level; and (3) the relationship between the subject areas they taught and outdoor/environmental education. The largest percentage of teachers responded to these three variables in the "some encouragement" category. Approximately one-fourth of the teachers felt that these three variables were not factors which influenced utilization. The data regarding the extent to which the teachers had analyzed their outdoor school/community sites and resources showed that twenty-eight percent (28.4%) of the teachers were discouraged by this factor, while twenty-nine percent (29.2%) felt this variable was not a factor which influenced utiliza­ tion of outdoor sites and resources. Slightly over forty per­ cent (42.4%) of the teachers were encouraged by this factor with the largest response in the category "some encourage­ ment" . In regard to the teachers' experience and skills in con­ ducting outdoor/environmental education activities, approxi­ mately forty-seven percent (46.8%) were encouraged. Thirty percent (30.27,) of the teachers were discouraged by their experience and skills in this area. 84 The ratings regarding the teachers' knowledge of evalua­ tion techniques for outdoor/environmental education activi­ ties revealed that the percentage of teachers who were dis­ couraged (33.37») was slightly greater than those who were encouraged (31.27o). Slightly over thirty-five percent (.35,47.) of the teachers felt that this variable was not a factor influencing their use of outdoor sites and resources. Teacher Attitude Factors Table 4.32 presents the data for the teacher ratings regarding the influence of 11 "teacher attitude" factors on the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. From the data, it can be seen that between sixty-three percent and seventy-three percent of the Bloomfield Hills teachers were encouraged to utilize outdoor sites and resources by the following factors: (1) the relationship between their philosophy of education and outdoor/environ­ mental education; (2) their educational concern for exposing students to the community's environment and associated problems; and (3) the educational value of outdoor/environ­ mental education activities for students. The most frequent teacher response to these three factors was in the "some encouragement" category. The majority of the teachers also responded that they were encouraged both by their personal feelings and interests in outdoor/environmental education and by their personal interest in spending time outdoors. The most frequent teacher TABLE 4.32 -- Bloomfield Hills School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of Teacher Attitude Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources (N-288) u 8 Teacher Attitude Factors s e ! c g 6® 66U u o u 4 Some Disc* § a Strong Siscoui n u fi §8 nl (17) Relationship between your philosophy of education and outdoor/environnental education. 2.8 2.8 36.8 27.1 30.6 (25) Your personal feelings and interests in outdoor/environ­ mental education. 3.8 6.3 33.3 39.2 17.4 (26) Your personal interest in spending time outdoors. 2.4 4.5 29.9 47.6 15.6 (28) Your educational concern for exposing your students to the cousunlty's environment and associated problems. 3.1 11.1 41.7 24.7 19.4 (30) Extent to which your present instructional program focuses on outdoor/environmental education. 14.9 18.4 32.6 6.9 27.1 (31) The educational value of such outdoor/environmental education activities for students. 4.2 7.6 39.2 33.7 15.3 (33) Time needed to engage in these activities. 25.3 29.2 18.1 6.6 20.8 (34) Time needed to plan for such activities. 21.2 31.3 19.4 5.2 22.9 (35) Teacher liability during such activities. 17.4 30.6 12.5 4.2 35.4 (36) Student safety during such activities. 9.7 38.5 14.2 7.3 30.2 (37) The weather's effect on conducting such activities. 9.0 37.2 17.4 5.9 30.6 ’i wss b (percentages) MO && o o 2 86 response to these two factors was in the "strong encourage­ ment” category. When the factor concerning the extent to which the teachers' present instructional program focused on outdoor/ environmental education was rated, the percentages of teachers who responded that they were encouraged (39.5%) was slightly greater than those who were discouraged (33.3%). Twenty-seven percent of the teachers felt that their present instructional program was not a factor which influenced their utilization of outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/ environmental education. The ratings indicated that the majority of the teachers were discouraged by both the time needed to plan for and to engage in outdoor/environmental education activities. The percentage of "some discouragement" responses was slightly higher than that of the "strong discouragement" responses for these two factors. The majority of the teachers gave a discouraging rating when they considered the factors concerning: (1) teacher liability during outdoor/environmental education activities; (2) student safety during outdoor/environmental education activities; and (3) the weather's effect on being able to conduct outdoor/environmental education activities. The most frequent discouraging response was "some discouragement". Between thirty percent and thirty-five percent of the teachers stated that these three variables were not factors influencing the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. 87 School Factors Table 4.33 lists the Bloomfield Hills teachers responses regarding the influence of seven "school" factors on utiliza­ tion of outdoor sites and resources. The ratings show that between forty percent and fortyfive percent of the teachers stated that the grade level and ability level of their classes were not factors influencing utilization. Forty percent of the teachers indicated they were encouraged by these two factors. The most frequent encouraging response was "some encouragement". The majority of the teachers (63.9%) responded that they were encouraged by the adequacy of their school's outdoor site and resources for outdoor/environmental education. The most frequent response to this factor was "some encouragement". Thirty percent of the teachers felt that classroom space for preparation and follow-up of outdoor/environmental educa­ tion activities was not a factor influencing their utiliza­ tion of outdoor sites and resources. The percentages of those teachers who were encouraged and those who were discouraged by this factor were equal (357») . The majority (47.37o) of the teachers stated that the size of their classes were a factor which discouraged their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The most frequent discouraging response was "some discouragement". Approxi­ mately thirty percent (28.7%) of the teachers felt that class size was not a factor influencing utilization of outdoor sites and resources. TABLE 4.33 — Bloomfield Hills School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influences of School Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources Not A Factor (32) Available classroom space for preparation and follow up of outdoor/environmental education activities. 12.5 23.3 23.6 11.5 29.2 (38) Size of your classes. 18.1 29.2 15.3 8.7 28.8 (39) Grade level of your classes. 5.2 11.8 27.2 12.9 42.9 (40) Ability level of your classes. 4.5 11.8 29.2 10.1 44.4 (41) Adeauacv of your school's outdoor site and resources for outdoor/environmental education activities. 5.6 16,0 35.1 28.8 14.6 (53) Your school's current educational priority in reeards to outdoor/environmental education. 9.0 24.0 34,7 13.2 19.1 (69) Current involvement by teachers in your school in outdoor/ environmental education activities. 5.2 22.0 34.1 9.8 28.9 Survey Numbers Strong Encouragement u c Some Encouragement Strong Discouragement (N-288) School Factors i to * O 8 2 O'H • UlO (percentages) 89 One-third (33%) of the teachers were discouraged with their schools’ current educational priority in regards to outdoor/environmental education. Slightly less than one- half (47.97«) were encouraged by this factor with the majority of the responses in the "some encouragement" category. Forty-four percent of the teachers were encouraged by the current involvement of teachers in their school in outdoor/ environmental education. The majority of the teachers responses were "some encouragement". Slightly less than thirty percent (28.97*) felt that current involvement by other teachers was not a factor. School District Factors The data in Table 4.34 concern the teacher ratings regarding the influence of seven "school district" factors on the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The ratings indicated that the majority of the teachers (72.27*) were encouraged by the adequacy of other school dis­ trict owned outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environ­ mental education. The most frequent response to this factor was "strong encouragement". The majority of the teachers indicated that they were also encouraged by the avilability of resource guides on their local school and community sites and by the availability of professional/technical resources persons who could assist with outdoor/environmental education activities. The most frequent encouraging response was "some encouragement". One- third of the teachers stated that they were discouraged by TABLE 4.34 -- Bloomfield Hills School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of School District Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources if (42) Adequacy of other outdoor sites and resources owned by the school district for outdoor/environmental education activities. u g 60 iM 3 m m £ u u f 1 60 0 u o (0 55 00 h Strong Discoui School District Factors u g Strong Encoun (N-28B) mo H laIS 3.5 7.6 27.1 45.1 16.7 O (44) Availability of curriculum guides and/or planning materials on outdoor/environmental education. 14.9 25.0 27.8 16.3 16.0 (45) Availability of Instructional equipment and materials needed for outdoor/environmental education activities. 14.6 28.5 26.4 14.9 15.6 (46) Availability of resource guides on your local school and cosmunity sites outlining suggested outdoor/environmental education activities. 12.5 22.9 28.5 18.4 17.7 Availability of professional/technical resource persons to assist with such outdoor/environmental education activities. 10.4 22.9 27.4 22.6 16.7 (48) Inservice education on outdoor/environmental education pro­ vided by local school district personnel. 14.6 28.5 23.6 13.2 20.1 (49) Inservice education on outdoor/environmental education pro­ vided by colleges and universities. 13.5 19.1 25.3 10.8 31.3 (47) (percentages) 91 each of these factors. The most frequent discouraging response was "some discouragement". The teacher ratings, regarding the availability of cur­ riculum guides and planning materials on outdoor/environmental education, revealed that the percentage of teachers who were encouraged (44.17o) by this factor was slightly greater than those who were discouraged (39,9%). In regard to the avail­ ability of instructional equipment and materials needed for outdoor/environmental education activities, the percentage of teachers who were discouraged (43,1%) by this factor was slightly greater than those who were encouraged (41.3%), The percentage of teachers who rated inservice education on outdoor/environmental education by local school district personnel as discouraging (43.1%) was slightly greater than those teachers who stated they were encouraged (36.8%). The majority of both the discouraging and encouraging responses were in the "some" category. The teachers ratings regarding inservice education on outdoor/environmental education provided by colleges and universities indicated that the teachers were slightly more encouraged (36.1%) than discouraged (32.6%) by inservice education provided by colleges and universities. The most frequent discouraging response and the most frequent encourag­ ing response were both in the "some" category. Thirty-one percent (31.3%) of the teachers felt that inservice training on outdoor/environmental education provided by higher 92 education institutions was not a factor which influenced their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Administrative Factors The data in Table 4.35 show the teacher ratings regard­ ing the influence of 10 "administrative” factors on the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Of the 10 "administrative" factors, those concerned with: (1) the procedure for obtaining transportation; (2) policies regarding distance limitations for transportation; (3) the number of permissable trips per year involving transportation; (4) the amount of financial support for transportation; and (5) the amount of financial support for any additional costs of outdoor/environment education, were rated by the majority of the teachers as discouraging their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Between twenty percent and thirty-four percent of the teachers felt that these five variables were not factors which influenced their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The teachers' ratings concerning the written policies regarding subject material and skills to be taught during the school year, indicated that the percentage of teachers who were encouraged (39.6%) was only slightly greater than those who were discouraged (35.47o). One-fourth of the teachers' responses were in the "not a factor" category. Forty-three percent (43.1%) of the teachers stated that written Michigan Department of Education objectives regard­ ing subject material and skills which were to be taught were TABLE 4.35 -- Bloomfield Hills School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of Administrative Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources (N-288) u to • g S >4 O P o tu i* la 16.0 32.6 14.9 28.5 12.8 22.6 29.2 10.4 25.0 to9 Co cn to I u Strong Encourat ID u Some Discouri Administrative Factors o O Cl ii*rl VI Q 8.0 m < o St (52) The central office's present educational philosophy and objectives in regard to outdoor/environmental education. (54) Written school-distrlct policies regarding subject material and skilla to be taught/covered during school year. (55) Written Michigan State Department of Education objectives regarding subject material and skills to be taught/ covered during school year. 9.0 20.5 22.7 5.2 43.1 (56) Procedure for obtaining administrative permission for such activities. 9.0 18,4 27.4 11.8 33.3 (57) Procedure for obtaining parental permission for student participation in such activities. 5.6 14.6 31.3 12.5 36.1 (58) Procedure for obtaining transportation (when necessary) 25.7 22.9 19.1 9.4 22.9 (59) School-district policies regarding distance limitations for transportation. 19.4 23.3 18.1 8.3 30.9 (60) Number of permlssable trips per year (involving transportation). 16.3 27.8 17.0 5.2 33.7 (61) Amount of school-distrlct financial support for transportation. 27.8 26.7 18.4 8.3 18.8 (62) Amount of Bchool-distrlct financial support of other additional costs for such activities. 24.0 25.7 18.8 8.0 23.6 (percentages) 94 not factors which influenced their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The percentage of teachers who stated they were discouraged (29.5%) by this factor was slightly greater than those who were encouraged (27.4%). The ratings concerning the procedure for obtaining ad­ ministrative permission to engage in outdoor/environmental education activities indicated that the percentage of teachers who were encouraged (39.2%) by this factor was greater than those who were discouraged (27.4%). However, one-third of the teachers felt that this variable was not a factor influencing utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Thirty-six percent (36.1%) of the teachers rated the procedure for obtaining parental permission for student participation in outdoor/environmental education as not being a factor which influenced their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The percentage of teachers who responded that they were encouraged (43.87») by this factor was greater than those who were discouraged (20.2%). The data indicated that slightly less than one-half (47.5%) of the Bloomfield Hills teachers were encouraged by the central administration's educational philosophy and objectives regarding outdoor/environmental education. The majority of those responses (32.6%) were "some encouragement". Approximately thirty percent (28.5%.) of the teachers felt that the central administration's philosophy was not a factor which influenced utilization of outdoor sites and resources. 95 Parent and Community Factors The data in Table 4.36 concern teachers ratings regard­ ing the influence of eight "parent and community" factors on the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Sixty percent (60.8%) of the Bloomfield Hills teachers were encouraged by the adequacy of the community's outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education. The most frequent encouraging response was "some encouragement". Less than one-half of the teachers were encouraged by both the Board of Education's education philosophy and objectives in regard to outdoor/environmental education (48.37o) and the attitude of parents toward the educational value of outdoor/environmental education activities (40.7%). One-fourth of the teachers felt these two variables were not factors influencing the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The data regarding the teachers' perceptions about the attitude of parents toward student safety during outdoor/ environmental education activities indicated that the per­ centage of teachers who were encouraged (40.7%) was greater than the percentage who were discouraged (24.8%). Slightly over one-third of the teachers felt that parents' attitudes about student safety were not a factor influencing their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Approximately one-half (49.0%*) of teachers stated that their parent-teacher organization (P.T.O.) was not a factor which influenced their utilization of outdoor sites and TABLE A.36 — Bloomfield Hills School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of Parent and Community Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources (N-288) (ft ► « u e 1 Si u £ I to S • 00 u I u c a V JOSi §8 n« <0 n too M U §§ Strong Encoura; Parent and Community Factors u o as m u n 0 u u < u i (A3) Adequacy of the comunltv's outdoor sites and resources for outdoor/environmental education activities. 3.5 1A.2 33.0 27.8 21.5 (51) The Board of Education's present educational philosophy and objectives in regard to outdoor/environmental education. 8.3 16.7 31.6 16.7 26.7 (63) Attitude of parents toward the educational value of such activities. 7.3 18.A 32.6 15.3 26.A (6A) Attitude of parents toward student safety during such activities. A.2 20.6 26.1 1A.6 3A.5 (66) Your school's parent-teacher organization (PTO). 2.8 13.3 2A.8 10.1 A9.0 (70) Community's (general) attitude toward outdoor/environmental education. 3.1 17.5 39.2 11.5 28.5 (percentages) 97 resources. The percentage of teachers who rated their parent-teacher organization as encouraging (35.9%) was greater than the percentage who were discouraged (16.1%). The most frequent encouraging response was in the "some encouragement" category. The community's general attitude toward outdoor/environ­ mental education was perceived by one-half (50.7%) of the teachers as encouraging their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. The most frequent encouraging response was "some encouragement". Slightly less than thirty percent (28.7%,) of the teachers felt that the community's attitude was not a factor which influenced their utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Professional and Institutional Factors Table 4.37 presents the data for the Bloomfield Hills teacher ratings regarding the influence of eight "professional and institutional" factors on the utilization of outdoor sites and resources. Eight "professional and institutional" factors were rated by the teachers. Between fifty-five percent and sixty- five percent rated each of the following variables as not being factors which influenced their utilization of outdoor sites and resources: which they belonged; (L.E.A.); (1) professional organizations to (2) their local education association (3) the Michigan Department of Education; and (4) institutions of higher education. Of the remaining teachers, the percentage who were encouraged by these four TABLE A.37 — Bloomfield Hills School District Ratings Regarding the Relative Influence of Professional and Institutional Factors on Utilization of Outdoor Sites and Resources (N-288) u u i to £<5 Your undergraduate teacher education program and the extent to which they dealt with outdoor/environmental education. 12.5 18.1 21.3 5.6 42.5 (19) Your graduate courses and the extent to which they dealt with outdoor/environmental education. 11.8 14.2 12.2 7.6 54.2 (20) Professional organizations of which you are a member. 4.9 7.7 18.1 6.6 62.7 (21) Professional magazines or newsletters which you read. 2.8 7.7 35.2 15.3 39.0 (50) Training programs, workshops, sunnier institutes, etc, on outdoor/environmental education provided outside your school district. 11.8 19.8 26.4 12.2 29.2 *1 VIZ (18) VO m m sso VO 3 e o o u u • u m g 83 Not A Factor c/1 0 Strong Encouragement 9