m'm, ~ m d . '. K I A W -- - - - - -

\ . + NOTICE b -

t -

*. . If pages ab.missing. 'contajct u n W t y which

granted tt\s degr6e.. a

%me pages may have indistinct print especially if the original pugas were typed with 8 poor typewriter rib& or if the university &nt us a poor *tocopy.

PrWously copyrighted materials (journal articles. published W s , etc.) are not filmed.

Reproductioninfullorinpartoftniirtilmb~rned by the Canadian Copyright Act. R.S.C. 1970, c.'G30. Pleese r e d the authorization forms which accompany this thesis.

I : a

THIS DISSERTATI'ON HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED

La qualit6 de wtte microficb dbpmd do Ir qualit4 de la thbs4 mrnim r u microfilmago. Norw rvonr

- tout fait paw assurer y n qud* au@daum do mpm- duction.

5

S'il manque do8 m. wil* communiquer m m I'univenit6 qui a confW le grd..

La qudit6 d'impre8sion do z w t a i m p.9.r pwt . Wsser b d65jrei. swtout si k s origlnde, orrt drctylo(lraph6bs bl'aide d'un ruban 4 ou d I ' u n w nous a fait p a m i r urn photo- de mruvaim qualit6.

Les c)ocumcmts q u ~ font d6jb I:Obyt d'un drdt d'ru- teur (articles de revue. examens puMi68, etc.) no aont p88 microtilmb.

-- ' La reproduction, rnhe phddk, de w microtiim &st. soumim B &,Loi carmdienne sur k droit d1.utour, sFIC 1970. c. G30. Veuilleu p r d m c o c r ~ ~ ~ d o s for- myles d'6torisation qui aqopp8grmt c8tte t h b .

Degree: , ..

Doctor of Philosophy

RW.rarmanta1 lkhcat&n: 4 Idantiiicatioa of Key Chracteristtcs and a miga for Currtculy Organiutfen

'Dr . U. U r e n Senior Supervisor

'Ya* ciabow* . . ? fessor

- ~ t . n: wide- Asewelate Professor

#. Robert ~orsf611 . Asdistant Profeseot .. '

. - . - Dr. .&hi G, idh i tnq' ~ ~ s i p t r a t prof-- %.culty of ~ducati&, SPll

q rbmla a d i a a r r t & i a (the title d &h ir ebou klr) to r-

r .

behalf or for one o i its werm. I further -tee that prrlrmfol-for \

wlt iple cop a# of t h i r tbmil r; /La .cRprly p u r p o u m r y be m t e d -

Title .. . of I h . a i a / ~ r 8 e r t a t i o a : . . * i . .

e . .applica.tfoo. A ,du i r e to- the mtb8t~kive atructureof +

. . , ,- examination of possible interrelatiocuhlp8 .- the& key c h r a c t a i s t f u . "-- ,' .

An 6x tau i re march of l i t e r k k e accordipg to p r d e t e r m b d cri-

ter i . revealed 8.vrr8l r j o r e l . m t 8 which may be 8 q to c h r l c t r r i r e - emir-tal education. It la proposed that these c ~ c t u i l t i c n m y b

A . iculum deve lopk t +* cognitive paycholow -utd o r ~ 8 t i ~

t .

f rsmeyork bud on cttrrlcultm do-.

colpooaotr of ducat&- curricula appru to rabtrrce tmderst.ndlag P

enviroarantal edrrrtlcm u a 8-6 concept.

* & - . -. . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. 4 '

LlST -OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <

-- iii ... '. a .

. 1. ~ U C T I O U . . . . . . . . . . . . m . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose -of the study

Ratioxule f o r the atudy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Backgroundto thes tudy . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . .

.DeliritatFon of the rtudy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of terps . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eduqgicm . ,. 4. . . . . . . . . .

C u r r i c u l u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hvi-t /. ; : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BPviromrntal educrtidn Signlficrmce of the rtudy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U t a t i o m of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Develomnt of idem 'of conwrn for the envi roarant vhich appear to W e ~nfluen&d e n v l r o ~ r a r t a l education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consolidatiorr of viewpoints aro~g mtecedurts of . . . . . . . . . . d r o t r r m t 8 l e&c&tion

mel0-t of ~ ~ U C ~ ~ I U M I 1 vbicb 8 p p . 4 t o have W l u r n m d ' e n d r al educatina . . . . .

IkV810pment of- ccmCeption8 of % r-tal education: Theory and practice . . . . . . . . . . . P h a a n c e of environlmtal ehca t i im . . . . . . Characterization of eovir-tal education

by concept m r l y s b . . . . . . . . . . . . T e t a l c o r r i c u l u approachem t o emir-tal

t i . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . T b q b u i . f o r tbC daveloprmt, of an or@zatioarl

fr-rk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S u m u y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7 * 3 . PPOCEPUBBS Am DES'IQII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . - . '. D.IL.itatlo. df' the f i e l d of stud7 . . . . :*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ -1dar t i f i a tdon of tba s 4 l e .

C ' . . . . . . . . . . / -tion of the uter.tu.re .- . . . . . . . . . ~ c t e h t t m o f orpnizat- du ignA Rationde for m o r g i n l z a t i d framrorlr ; V

0

t

. . . . . . Lurripi &rrnmt elamnu 114 * . b r u a i t y oriaated . . . . ' . . . . . US

I h l d stu&lu: la urban ..n4 8 - 1 ruturil .nuiroabrrru . . . . ~k . . . . . . . . . . . c d t i w 118

-cati- ne thq&ng . . . . U 8 Coordhatfon md coop.ratiop (in-

t e r n a t i d , national, region- , al and lbcit) . . . .- . . . . lzo

Admlnlstrativa elaexxts . . . . . . . . ' . . 121 ~ ~ ( f i b l e administrative orgmiz.atioa;l' . . . . . . . . . . . . . patterar 122 d&m of .ducat- p rou i s and

sys teu (Change) . . . , . . . . . . 123 . . 4 L . r u c h d dniloplmt el-t. . . . . . 125

C&ricultm developmnt b u e . . . . . . 125 s CPrriculum evalrutioa b u d * . . . . . . 127

BoaesrchbUi.. . . . . . . . . . . . 'UQ Profusloai l davelo-t barn ( t d r

,_/+ducrtio&pruervlce a d - .. . . . . . . . . . . . I ) 130 . . . . . . M~ I -;piscusim and interpretation of fin- 132 " 2

5 . EVALUATION, COl@CLUSIolS, IhPL1&~1ols . . . . . . .;, . ; 137 Evllurtion of the currlculur fr-rk . . . . . . . . . 137

Theoretical evaluation: Analysis of tnvir-tal educarioa charmtaristics . . . . . . . . . . 137

'Ihtoretical e v r l u u h a : -tion &f ubvir- . onrro td education characteridtics d. ~ c ~ l t m e l ~ t o . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Practical svrltutitm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 b e in M o p i n g anvirammrtal education

. pt0gr.y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Use in evaluation of endr0lrrrant.l

ducation p r o m . . . . . . . . . . . U 1 Un in cumicrilum -rch . . . . . . . . . 135 .

COLIc1u.ion. . . . . . . . . . A . . . . . . . . . . . U8 SuggeatloLY for future sutdy .?-V-S-- . . . . . . . , . 160

APPEEDTX A kferemcm Sopportin8 Key Qurac ter l s t ic~ for . . . . . . . . . . lbdrammtal Educatim -. 162

Table

of Occarreaua ef Key ICljnrirorrrrrrt.1 Educatiop Accord$n8 to ~ r i t a r i . for Inclwioll' .

. . #

LXST OF F I m Il " . .

Figure '. .

2.

. r&i r * '

2-1 ~ o o c e p t d S C ~ & for ~~vi?-ta~ mgammt d 1 Education . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

6

2-2 i(t)..-r& in. ~ i & & t a ~ ~ d u c a t i i n s t a t i s t i ~ y 1d.ntifi.d from the 112 Ewironwnt+ B d u a t i ~ u Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

,'cb- 2-3 Balutc-e of Eco.kc.r and &man Sy*t.r--Single * ,

Word Cuncepm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 8 y, - 0

2-4 The Burm &viaoarrdt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : - 46 -'

I

2-6 The Submmutive Structure of ~0virol lwnt. l Education 0

with i t 8 more ~ m i r a l w e n . * . . . . . . : .... 3b ' t

1 C : - - . 2-7, Dirwruio~. of a S a t i n g f&-the Development of - d t i o a r l R o g r e . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . 57 3-1 Educational- Prowam md 'Phiram Support System & . .

ql-t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -74

aim for curriculm Maprnt

e 7 . i . .aUht 5- t.T

e idemif id f r a .0.17sla of theory and practice, exploration of tW . .

it,, revealed that, altbobgh agurptm have been r d e to drrcribe tho f

-genekc structure. of --t4 ducation, *ere u m mip~le m r w

accepted specific structure in term -of el-ta, cumlcult l l deve lomt , *

i

and -1-tat-. oa tht conclruion, several quemtiosu tmra pood 1

, * .hip. .ri.t among potetirl atriroarcltal oducatlom ~ I P U ? how can .

several envlr-tal orlentati+.

p u t of put

t . curriculm coqoearta amaidered for curriculrr d e v e l d p m t , ruurch, .od '

miversa1 g e n e r i t i z a t i ~ in u m a much sr p o u t i d md-e ( b t ~ l l , 1%3), %

or h e arrtiard a m t a r e of ~ r a l di.ciplbma (s, 1964). ZkSm J 4

Und of milpi. h.l bum C O I I C . ~ ~ ulth I.OlaClom of gamralhatiOlU or

iti ion of rtructurm but hu mt amsidered the proc-8 of att-tiq

to interrelite tbe concept* in term of Lsv.1. of the curricular refer-

- ence'frm. .

T'he need for 8 f-rk for about rnriroaratd ed&qatIm

s m of .. our current problem,

- ' r

5 ' I

d u o it i. nt off frat - -

A g r e u d u l of t4k c o m c w curricul*um mtterm. amanah#

- r m ctn. vith appropriate rithodolow, mther proof whether &abject

Y

u u h literature or a .oh wildameesm upefirace rau l t in I t

p u t e r molf-wumum. Such r u d , W a r , q not rettla value .. 0

w did before mad for no other ru#m tbaa tht uo did f t More. '+r

.hatifirr:ion for th pmtictSu wthod of developin# -th pro-

Ttp cur r i cu l r r f i e l d samu t o be an appropriate fr.rrro& u p a ~

which t o grorrad the r j o r conccipta and gener.lizatioru of end-t.1 I

education given bhe papose of the study-that 'fa, t o f a c i l i t a t e curriculum

devaloprart, avrlurticm, and r e au rch in envirorrmtal educaticm. "

- t o codlict in 'g c o l r y p w of curricdum. ~ h w , in a t r u p t - t o concept-

l l r r i te arviroaratal educ~t ion , i t , FI necaiuary t o - ,th pra~JyUcoa md biuea, the confl ict ing conceptions of curkicukn, that h.p. led t o

gelaction of certmtn corrcepts .rd ~ e r . l i z a t i o r u wer httnrs. ,

t -:?

Goodlad (1960, 1969) t r i d t o bridge thoory a d practice in k h

curriculum f i e l d . , 8 . d A cgncepturil achem for rationir c u q l c u h * .

with r b p e c t t o a i x corricultm need. inc1wU.q th. need fo r theoretical .

wnatructa and the n k d fo r conceptr t h a t identify tha r f o r q u u t l w I

in the curriculum f ie ld . Altbu@t the s t ~ t u a of coaceptuil optm f o r ,

identifying r j o r curriculum q u u t i o p . hu not ahoun uach p-ma, tha

Ln thie area. For -la, Kliebard (1974) haa apsculatod tht one J

direction for the curriculum f i e l d i. t o bring to - tb r wid& uparatod

t

rry l i e , not Ln u m u t h h g nmt Lnavledge, but i n j m t w t o w t h r c

of the fin- f r a o t h u d h c i p l l r r u . I% curricultm f i d rl#, .ppurr . L

to o f fe r a powerful o r w i n g fr-rk for r f i a l d of study st@t u #

Dtlfr ihat ian of the study

\ the p u m t u s of the f i e l d of ti*. #For

description of tiym 'te- prorides L d u i p d t o provld.= genorrl orlaat-

* ation. lbre s p e d f i c d e l l r i t a t i o n of for thi. study pp be \ ' _

Envi-tal education exists within the f i e l d of education.

Education is a w r d susceptible t o ,variow dsf ia i t ioru . A c c o r w tg

t b a s t k of tb uer, education ir th pus in* on of a cul-4 ~ m r i t a p ,

the i n i t i a t i o n of thp young in to worthwhile ways of t h i u and doing, or

, the. f o a t d n g of the i n d i v i d d ' a gbvtb. Such varying ' c o n c e p t i ~ of

education an vel l as conflict^ conception8 of the l u m r h m m a de f in i t e

A carorr vim of d u c a t i o n iPwlv8s a jo in t proceor of t u c h e r r

mmaghg a d ahrnglng currlcultn ruourccs and bf children- hcquiring the d I

r a u i b i l i t i u and skllls mcuraq tq explore knd create. Many crucia l . .

4 a d u u t i d p r o b l a cluster uamd the i s m u s of & t a h h g and

i mrthvtdle actipitlu .ad h. acquired a breadth of undrritadla$ o r '. cognitive pekpective so that hi. outlook on life hu bun t m f o r n d by , C - hi. education @em, 1966). In thi. reuse, e d w t i o n b.cawr an d-

acceptable -mrrrr; be assodated vfth other a c t l p i t b . , courma, 0% pro- . ,

- . ducript ive meaaiq of rorr specific u a u of' act iv i ty much.u .aviroa-

mtal educrtion. Thru, elmage for tb. ktter but doam

' Curriculum

An concept related to education i s currlculm. Con-

curriculum rhould'be defined. Uhether currlculu i. the -tin t d - . .

*- \ '

tion of h w l e d g e ( b t b r , 19%; ~ ~ t c h i n m , 1936) ; guidd 1- -r-

lance (Slylor and Alrtmllrr, 1966; vier. 1957) ; a p h for l aud&

(Baruch-, 1972; Tab., 1962); or educational md. or out- (60061.6, . 1963; Johnson, 1967; Pophrr md Baker, 1970) ruWau 8 m t t e r of debit..

of educators am vell aa h @ n g social axuUtiw, c&kuptm

four prevailing coacepthu of

i s . In addition, guidelines for selecting currlcu11~1 method. c o w

Beaus. of the divermitp.,of Lnfomd ophlon .bout "the" &finition , &

of c~rriculam~ it rrorrld seem a r e profitrblh to r r l d n e curriculul F r - v

i d l y u 8 mdam of r c h i e conceptual clrrity. Thi. involves e x m -

ti- of the redatlowhip. .rmg curriculum purpomes, rctivltiea, .ad

structures, or cepts related to curriculur orglaization. 3' CurricGlum orpnlzatior! imolru consideration of the vertical .nd

ho&+ootal relathmhips of lurping opportrmlties (Tyler, 1950b). It

w t a u8.d u the buir for organization include concept., gamral-

md specific 1- opportrmitlu or activiti... D.proding on the

r e l a t e to-phllosophlc or lent8t loq.

Glbbba (1976) hu e w t e d

volve c l u i f l c a t l c m of i n t e n d o rgan iu t lopd l prlnciplea but alw re- .- ' . , '* quire change In the orgmlza t ion v i t h i n vhich the program operates w that

the program and o r p r a i u t i o n form a coherent ry r t a r . ~ t l m of the

support a t ruc turd ~f l program involves consideration of the p l m md

cmdit i - of operation, the eq~romeuts of the program, r o l u ud rela- . tionahips of p ~ r t i c i p u i t s , and-th& p d u t e r l d a of t u c h i n g a d lura-

\

ipg. C o ~ i d e r a t i u n of 111 of the above cur r icu l rn alemaat8 m y help t o

c l a r i f y the =mFng. of curricalrn rod, relevant t o thlm strdy-howLarrir-

oawntal education can l.y understood v i t h l n the curriculum f i e ld .

Ln mrir-rl ducatlon, empbsi. i. p l a u d on the rd+lolul

v i a w of raa a d end-t, on the reciprocal nature of -rir-t

re l a t ions , and the f a c t tbit t h e i r d i f fe rent propertlea u e inrerdeptndmt. 8

Given t h i s rm-envt ror~rar t interde-, conceptual p r o b l m

have, n sve r th l eaa , r d t e d from the u8a of the word mriromrnt in 8 A

vide var ie ty of context;. To n a y g w p a p k r r , anvironrmrt t r d i t i d y

amnte ' the physi* vorld of - 0 .nd climate; t o architects, i t la

Largely the r t r u c t u r u Wt by nn. Socfologirts a r e coaurxt8d r i t 4 an

individurl ' r envir-t u i t coarlsts of 8 o c M group8 lude up of I

other indlvid&ls. Q i ld psychia t r i s t s and counoellors m y uu the wrd

loosely t o mean the bou backgpd of the Child. &@.neera use .the

t e r r t o r e f e r to h a t i n g and .ir conditfooiw.

a n e s t d hierarchy of &ronmak; consisting of the o b j k k i y e g-aphfc+ . .

envirolrlmt (the a t i r e universe external t o the individual) within which - a r e the operati& (the portion of the world tha t -1-a dn u n vbither he is n r u e of i t or not) , the perceptual (tbt put of the oparati0xt81

e n v i r o q m t of which he is n n r e through present soutiom or put u-

perience), .ad the b M o r a l ( tht p.rt of the perceptual enviroapmrt

which e l i c i t s a response) d r & t s .

r q u i r e s co&duation of the cognitive ' Image of the rb.1 m r l d held by

t h e ird

environment introduce8 the concept of the experiencu of the iodividuil

rs a rcrbeb of a family, ethnic group, sec ia l clams, cul tura l , matlmul, a i * .

and l i fe-style groups rPd the i r , a f fec t pn the app~xcep t im of s t t a l i

f r a the ~~ emir-t. The p h m o l . o l l .nrir-t Inc1.d.. all I

external conditioru Impinging on m s n . For convenience, it may k dirid+d . , '

in to tbe tUlYll (seclocultural) environment and th a a t u r a l ( b i o p h y s i d )

arviramaa. . ihen thr ' term envlronnent is used alone it would k taken t o

refer t o the p m envlr-t. By changing the fr-- of n f e r a u

to a rore ecocmtr ic md l e s s egocentric viewpoint, vithout the

manin8 of the constnrcts, environmental educators tend t o cm8id.r th r

persdnrl .gd 'atuturl rnviromrnts as individual c a q l u l t i u &thin

the hllrrn envir-t. This hl.-en or rociocultural euvir-t thua

coo.i.ts of several c-t cowtruct r including personal, aocirl ( I n t e k s

personal), ( lnformtional) , global, md chronologleal droaarsU

(1JcClaren md r , 1974). Thi. org.nizaticm pard lab the t d a n c y t o

consider the natural d - t In t e k of tha concept of Ired of

interactions a d e c o s y s t a Interrelatioruhipa t o conai&ration of the '. - . biosphere. kcordipg t o O&m (1959), the a c t 4 "level." of tha s p c t n m ,

l i k e a r a d i a t i m s p c t n m or l o p r i t h d c scale, theoret ical ly CP be , .

extended in f in i t e ly in both dirdctioru. .r .

\

Exploration of th we of th term "-.nvirommtU p ,

some insight in to the diversi ty of ways in vhich mvironrartal %tim ia cooceptur l i rd . In --, th - .mir-t ap- t o oDcr sidered as d i s t i n c t f m the em&-t. . Ik .mir-t consists of a l l of tbse objects

by man. The natural aroinnarnt

md relatiou8hip. that hve been d.rl.ed

consists of ill of tbou objects and

relati-hlpr tha t .rLt in&pad&t of un. distinction h. igm- '

- k t . f s t a t a Kuvir-tal 'tduc&im kt of 1970 defines . - i. anviroaraptal education u m tegrated process vhich d u l o with rm'r Lk l n t e ~ e l c t i o m h i p vlth hi. mtural rad rm-ruula rurrormding.. It i. iv-

, #'

tended t o d r m t e c i t izens the nr.renesr and' undent.ndlng of the .'

eavfroumnt, our relatiomship t o i t , .nd the concern and m s p u ~ i b l e . .

=ti& ncceirary t o - S a m e our survival .ad t o improve the qual i ty of l i f e .

Within tbe h a t two &cad", emir-tal education hl. rec&ved I

rut often quoted d e f i n i t i c k of enrLr-tal a d u u t i o a vau developed

9J delegates at the Lte-ti& ~ o r k l n g I*.tlng on Mvir-td

$) t ion in the School C u r r t c u l u a t Forest. tit&, 1970: Env i ronmta l d u c a t i o n la th p r o c u r of recogaizi.ng values aud c l a m concepts in order t o M o p skills and a t t i o t d 2 , necuaary t o uaderrtid and .pprr . elate the iPter~el8tednus 1 LI, hi. culture, .Pd hi. biophysical w. Bnvir-tal- education , ent.il. pract ice in d e c i r i m - m U n g and ul f - forrul . t ia of a code of -or about lamu concerning &run- w n t d q u r l i q (Cerwatf, 1971). 1 .

The I n t u n r t i o o r l Belgrade Vorkahop on Kavirollrmtal Educ.lion +

fn 1973 vu tbe -tion of d e f i b t pbue of $4 d l i o r r prbject .

J

has the knowledge., skills, a t t i tudes , mt iva t ipn ,

individually and col lec tivg)y toward ,aolr)tion8 t o -

t h e prevention of nw- ones (Stapp, 1976). Tanner

current problarr .ld .

(1974) hu a further

been stated by MCldran (1978). Environmental education ii the ds8t- - . .

a 1 endeavor ghat dea ls with the m a n - e n v i r o ~ t r e l a t iomhip with a view

t wards maint&lng, conseming, andrhpdrovh tha gual$ty of th. &row

ment, ris 2 vim, l iv ing organi-. TMS &lie. &at the - i o ~ . m i a g

c r i t e r i a may help t o c h r a c t e r i z e the s t ruc ture of mi-tal education.^

Enviroantcntal cducatiaa k n t d l s : knowledge of the s truct&e rod function -

- S t s *-r- of natural rnd h u u n s y s t m , and uaderstandhg of t h e . 8

a l i za t ions . that rrise t h i s above the Level of a col lect ion Olf disjointmi

f a c t s ; those a t t i tudes , be l i e f s , and v d u e s which c r i t i c a l l y exambe the . .

man-enuironmcnt relat ionship and which d m r a c t q i r e a person's way of d

looklng a t things (this wliu that one is transformed by what is hrom o r &lt) ; and individual and orgmizat io lu l behiirlor path - which u e ~

bas& on existing evidatce rs t o what l iving stmduu are coluistent r i t h

% present @ 8 future anvir-tal our l i ty . ?'

S o u d u e a t o r 8 see enviroment.1 educqtion u: an LIEprndd version

of c o w r r a t i o n duca t ion ; a n e ~ v e r s i o n of s c i e m a ducqtiin; .n ex- . I

p d d version of outdoor education; an enlargement of biology in to

ecology; a twdlfication of geography In to s ~ e t h & ~ g b r o d e r and d e e p r ; , C

, an addition t o English coursm so tht they, f o r -le, r i g h t Include

a conpouition -m h w we l e f t the picnic a r e a , u a l i t t u e d ; or the cowttac- . . , .

t i v e use of f i e l d t r i p s t o t ie taether r+ure,'hi.tary, llid hurrn -1- ,d

>

exa&mtioa of -'s rrhtiod to' xmtun, midress ccmtrron-rsia- -1 - iu t 6

t o our political, +CIA&, p h i l o m ~ c r l , religious, .ad u r a l f d t i q . \ n *. ' .?

n e s e concept- of mr-td ducation y be correct i f thmy . %. 8 + * =. -

n k e the. conmctioqp b+nnm ~SQ-UII, un-aociety r e l a t iwhip* and ur %: -r ' 4

-enviro111.nt mlatiohihips. This Uwplies an e x t w i o n d @ral ethics .

'Ijre developlvnt of 8 p08-e envirozmentd 6-c requires con- -_ - . * - b.

siderat im- of three e&s i nc l&ng: *%&&on a# i 'm- ethic;

- A

istence: in ethic, ph~108ophica~y. is d i i f e r e i t i j t i m of moei.1 from I - . I

k 3 anti-osid conduct. ~ 0 t h r e f a to evolved - of ~o-oP.ration, L.pfbit- p . . - * - - I atiota, asxi g-ral . re~t imahips be& i n d i r i d L between in die dual^

I

m x ~ society. mere is as yet no coqrmhamida or dly 8c~xmw.1- a h i c C rc

dealing vith ria's r.lrtionmUp. to_ endronnnt . For le , tbr -l&d . 4' .

relation is sti l l largely ecoeadc, oatriling gri' but 0 6 ~ t i k . . 1

According to Odrr (19W the& are strong s c i ~ t f f i c ruums for B

. ethi& ir oa net- for h-*mz~Ival. ~ c i *

.denc8, CQL d 8 f i P . ra808abl.l.rif. and lidts of 9

so tbt are op- for the ptulin' of htj a t - , put - - +. ethica coupled with th lagal rPd di& fht .

-2 16

That there ought to be through di future t h such ; world f i t for h l l ~ ~ ~ habitation UI rore than a perauuive deairrbil i ty of aepecolative i y g b a t i o n . It d.8 I#)V a mral propositioq,,araly, a practical obligation tq-

7- ward tb pmqieri- of a distant future, a principle of decision in p r # ~ & t action, it is quite different f r a @m prwIoy3l ethic6 of, c o n t r r m e e i t y . . . The new order of btlriP actioo reqairw a cor raoaram ethlca of foresight and rwpopsibility, vhich iS an neu u she imams vlth which it hu to deal (Jorurr, 1974, p. 12).

Eavi-,pal education does not u l t l n t a l y have vrlidXq d u a

i t involves eduut lng to change the m a n - e n d r m t relati-hlp for ;he

the ecological b u i . of all l i f e , *upon Wch judgwntr .bout the q d i a

of the envirorrwrrt cm be h a d , and an understanding of the d i o - '

pol i t ica l inmtittftiw which regulate a c t i v i t i u of people h re la t ion30

DafFniticma d ri those stated u e intended u dellmiterm for

the f ie ld of anvir-tal education. Vher .~ there F. an el-t of 4'

descriptive me8nha in tLlr- thay &&m provide tb& detalld hiota a d . . c l w that wiZl d l e oo t o d r w specific conclruioms u t o borr w u e t o

' A

proceed u educators. That i. tb t u k of ,the r-r of thi. stfdJ. -*, 'I

Significance of the study

P

f i e l FCaor). of t i . Remarch revlmd 4 Kermh and 8tti.m to the .amfngf&est~ of cd4ceptual o r ~ u t i o a

*- o b j k t i v u of et - ta~ education no matter At th. particular slant . -.

h l p to- reveal - c v l i t i e s r r n g current program diversity or a t 8

lsut d e f h the typas'bf program ;pd program support e q h u e s that a me- ful field +mry in d m - 1 3ica t io . wt a t t c q t to a e c d t e .

In turn, orpaization- of mjor caqoarot ybmes m y ' facflitate cormr- I

c u r r i c d u developrrrt-8 f r m of r8femace b a d aa tboie c u r r i d m e

churcter is t ics favored by mviroll3lpt.l educators. Th. f r r r ~ o r l t could

t h i of sbfectim by fdm~tAfylng .od 0rpniti.q a rrnp of pouibflitfem

for 5 a pr0tr.I dwuopanf. l'ha f-rt q 8ctoiUy mg-** - "

'u" Different progr- in .nvhonmntal d u c a t i o n M differmat ~ t a

og, a s s u m p t i ~ ~ . about the nature .Pd scope of eavir0~11(~ltal ducatha. COLT -. sequently, there i a 8 dire t . i ty of progru ac t id t i em, reaowtcu, and

t

learning eddr-ts. By helpsng t o oper8tionalize 8 general defioition

of e n v i r o n u a t d education, a fr-rit n y aid i n tim trau~tiorr of P

generalizations in to -re* concrete concepts. In thi. way, &otu *ti-

m d +s s ib i l i t i a r fo r sbviroprntal program can be c o r u i d e d In l igh t

of interents and strmjths of the instructional s t a f f . The fr-rk - < . #

concepts and g e n e r d i u t i o a s could fac i l i ta ta ' * a t e n t i c rrrrinrtioa of

conceptual bridge la f o r n d between very ganeral piarpoua .pd speci f ic 1

operating- colponmts, curriculu~ vorkerr .Pd prrctiti-bars h.r, mo clear

Integration of envlronlarrtd education cohcepts a ~ d gmmeralis.atiaru, may

provide a pe r spc t t ve for fnformd evaltut~on &ci.hu. I dmtAf i a t i oa

/ > of n j o r concept. and ~ a l l z a t l o m lily pravi4y a a u i o of p r o m

i

gods, objectivm, o r intents. Them godm could be ,..lrinrd''yithIn mpoc-

i f l c pr0gr.r. for coPgnrsPce be- in tents ind oba.rv.tion .nd f o r 9 \.-

either logical or rqlricrl' c o n t i n p h c i u r * m g raeecodoutm, t m t i f t a ? , r(

md out- m 8.- of p r o c & ~ hecriptim ".~tutim &i. , ,

By expos- major coocepts . a d . gewrsl iut iau of droorntal

d U C 8 t h l etbin 8 pro- C a t - , -1 .hirL.tt.to+. rd b

the public can bme j-b &ace- th content m d rthod. of .mi-

envitorrlmtal educatioo program 6y making possible more effective and I I \ ef-ible ar-ts tor puticular .dtacati-1 itram#". At Lt the very

-.

should m e t o up088 buic phllaopbical differences re&rdlng tbe.

school, the educational proham, and the learner. b

.

education i f endr-tal ;ducation f i e l d theory i n s u f f i c i e n t l y -11 .

conceptualized t o prowl& the bas i s f o r research questitme.

The f r g c v o r k u y contr ibute t o organizing the f i e l d thsory i n . envir-tal education which i n tu rn might a i d the r d e w urd reorganiza-

I tin of e d s t ~ n g r u u t c h a&d& .so ~id1.r i e s u l t n i n r d a t d areu can

L

be nore prof i tab ly examined. The framework may a l s o reveal pomilfbilities . ? f o r rese8rch,vhich hrrs been ignored; avoided o r unrecognized. The frorw-

- . work may help t o uncover 8- problem areas ' l h envlgo-?tal education.'

I f the frrrawork l a usad ae a o c m of organizing th. l i t e r a t u r e 6

I

on both research and curriculum Qevelop~wnt I n e sv i rmta l education, i t

nay s t l a u l a t e more un i f ied approaches and l a rge r general izat ioru about 1

euch things an r e l a t i v e pr0gr.r effect iveness .

* . I f envir-tal education i n the public echo01 h u been charactdr-

Fzed by ra ther , loo& organization fClcrtngn, 1974) and i f 'r- f o r t h i r . > ,

loose organization are re l a t ed not t o basic theory and prac t ice but t o a i

parochialism i n form and content & the overa l l lack of a coherarrt f r m -

work in enriro-td education (Perelyn, 1976). an o r g d r b g fr.rark

my: help to i den t i fy and in t eg ra t e emir-kal education c o r o p r l i t i o a

and thus, help t o d levir te p r o b l m of obscurity a d puochirllam. Sys t . r

a t i c exploration of major cnvir-td education concepts .ad m r a l -

i z a t i w v i t h i n the broader curriculum ccmtert urn a rucuauy prore-

q u i s i t e t o rempawible curriculum developwzrt , evaltutian, .od r-ch.

The extent t o trhich mhstan t ive . elsrrats of e b v t r m t r l oducatIoqc . theory and prac t ice were i h t 1 f i . d .ni w - 9 i n t o m h t d u curr-

L

the quuti&: what do environmental educators connider th r j o r curr-

iculum cbarrcter iot ic8 of environmental education t o be? The rruvrr w u

ob&d by s y s t e n t i c d l y e r d n b g the pertinent l i t e r a t u r e r ~ t h e r than

conducting survey r m u c h . Although def in i te " r u h s n guided the

rampling of l i t e r a t u r e aourcer, cer tain weaknesses a re inher'ent i n th la

s t , the s.qling.procedure vaa s t r a t i f i e d in the a t t & t t o

adequately represent the heterogeneity of the He ld . % c ~ & ~ i o ~ -of $

major cbnf;rencu come- euv i ronrd ta l education e h r a c t e r i t t i u m

considered before individual opinions. ~ h & , certain trends ~0118 f a i r l y

localized individual preferences or biases may have gone undetected. Thir

vaa a recognized "trade off" because the thod v+e deemed root

appropriate for t h i s sample.

A second l i r i t i t i o u couceming r thodology obaerver b i u .nd

contamination. The procedure vra designed to avoid tb pr&pporition of ,n '

a par t icular c k e p t of envir-tal education. For -1.. only about

ten percent of l i t e r a t u r e a o u r m sampled could be quoted u a d r o d l q & c!

particul.lt envir-tal education ch.r8cteri. t i c . Thi. occurred bocawe,

especially among a n d r o n m a t a l education program d u c r l p t i o r u , u n y ch.r.cL

t e r l s t i c a -re only -lied. To avoid o ~ r e m r b i u u u c h , e porrible, *. d

\ * to be rcceptqd, u envir-tal education tumpownt., authors bad t o actu- a l l y state t h e i r d v o a c y . T h b procdbre w u inten&d t o . v o i d the me

- . -Is' rrpoa cburrctrr i . t lca in acwrd r i t h oboe-r b i u o r . ~ t . t ~ . rr

*

recognized shortcoring. Although public m a r e n e s s / d a pr6grm were

i n i t i a l l y conaidered, i t became evident t ha t inclusion of t h u - f i o g r m

would s t r e t c h the scope of the study beyond reaponable l i r i t 4 . A8 the C

t i t l e of the study implies, the i n t en t w a s t o e r r l t n e program and sources -

which recognized the ro l e of env i ro l l~en ta l education In the school (I.*.,

curriculum).

It is a l s o possible &at there a r e va r i a t i ons y Individual a

authors ' perceptions of the meaning of pa r t i cu l a r cha rac t e r i s t i c r . This .

introduces a secondary problem i n observet in te rpre ta t ion . Howrver, given

the c r i t e r i a f o r acceptance of pa r t i ch i a r envircmmental education e l m t s ,

the poss ib i l i t y of this type of e r r o r appears grea te r i n fhe a t t a q t t o

describe the c h a r a c t e r ~ t i c . Although environmental e d u c a t ~ r e appeared t o

be reasonably con8istent in t h e i r rue of t e r u , the p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s

t h a t educators m y not with &script ions o f enviro-td education

cha rac t e r i s t i c s presented i n Chapter 4 o r that t h e i r v i m h a . - c h m g ~ d n

point out general

mre aa grir t f o r -

phifo.ophica1 o r t heo re t i ca l foc i h r debate in environ-L *

Thus, category descr ipt ions i n Chapter 4 are intended

discuseion than def in i t ions of cha rac t e r i s t i c s . Such - . ~

is the s t a t e of the art in environmental education theory.

The 4 t o the u s e f u l n u s of t he framework is that-, at , ~1 point

i n the process of i & n t i f i t . t i m and in tegra t ion of mvironwntal education 1

concepts..nd general izat ions , the e s r e n t h l r of org.nization a r e in te r -

na l i z id and can then be c-icated. The enviro-tal education fr--

w r k is l i ad t ed t o an organizat ional rchs8e t h a t is baeed on current under-

standing of curriculum s t ruc tu re . That this pa r t i cu l a r syqtem f o r orgm-

i z inb information s e a a to:'mnke sense'' is a decieion which favors one

pcthod of o r q i z a t i c m over o ther possible nrethods. Only by including

in te r re la t ionehipr aaong categories can such a system begin t o mnke amrue.

Th,e exact phrasing of category descr ipt ions w i l l perhaps be the subjec t of

c o ~ i d e r a b i e debate. Although every e f f o r t m a made t o daacrlbe major

aspects of each 'of the concepts m d gsncralizatioxu &ing frequent refer-

encea t o videly hcognized diverse def ini t ioxu a d viwpoiatr, .rrd \

research r e su l t s , the decisicma may only be defended on p f q p a t i c grormd.;

'-1

c l ea r ly def ining concept. md general izat ions in urvir-tal e d h t i o n . I

Converuly , there is a d.n' th8t the f r r r o r k may contr ibuta t o a T r i g i d i t y of t h h k b g in mvir-tal education by f r ag ra r t i ng -what

enPitonrwntal educators believe t o b. a h o l i s t i c concept. This l i d t a t i o n a

is r ecoa idd but la b d i e v e d to beroutweighed by tb; need f o r Ate i 8

adequrte c o n c e p t u i l i u t i o n of the f i e l d than that which i r provided by

r e p u t a d a t t r q t q a t broad general de$i.nitioru.

-

'. CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A W The purpose of t h i s review of t he l i t e r a t u r e is t o provide back-

. + ground information t h a t w i l l attempt t o c l a r i f y the evolution of ideas

which has led to the current conception of environmental education. It 4 .

w i l l attempt tolprovid;c an ove ra l l p ic ture of the f i e l d , o f 8 t . d ~ which' ,

c ill f acT l i t a t e %dent i f ica t ion of key cha rac t e r i s t i c s .

Theory and prac t ice i n environmental education a r e , a s i n any ad- . uca t iona l endeavor, conditioned by the r e a l i t i ~ s and ideas of society ahd

by choices made by i d i v i d w l s with varied conceptions of wh.t educatiqn '

i s or should be. The l i t e r a t u r e review w i l l errmine the process of concap- - # -

t u a l developupfit t h a t has occurred i n environmental education from three

vantage pointb: development 'of environmental emphases; development of \ *

educational ' emphases ; and development of curriculum c o n c e p t i b ~ i n the

theory and prac t ice of environmental educayitm. The review w i l l a l so

e m n e ways of organizing envirormtnt i l education cha rac t e r i s t i ce t h a t

;odd best f a c i l i t a t ; understanding of t i e spec i f i c substant ive s t N c t u r e

of environmental education. -

Development of ideas of concern f o r the environment which appeat to have Influenced environmental education

The complexity of the emn-environment re la t ionsh ip . h e rerrulted i n *

eevera l Ihpm orientat lone taward the environment.. The r i e e of indus t r ia l -

i sm and i t s philosophical underpinnings in tens i f led two a p p u & 3 y conttad-

i c t o r y approaches t o natur?, each one with deep root; . i n Western history-- *

na tu re versus c i v i l i z a t i o n , and' c i v i l i z a t i o n versus natbre (Santmire, 1970). .$. *

% Thoreau's phllmophy is ' the prototype of the f irst ene which -8M that t h e individual seeks Deity, v i r t u e , and v i t a l i t y nature. This meshage

has been echoed through .the h i t i n & of u n y inf l u m t i r l co6.uv.ti&istm . < 9

f rm John lhir to. Aldo Leopold. It 1. on t h i s forud.t ion that a l a rge . - .

number of environaental education programs have been developed..

- The May f o r the second the=, c i v i l i z a t i o n versam nature, waa p a v a I .r

by a. number of cul t&l and economic for&s . The c d i n a t i m of i n v e t i o n , i d g r a t h , and vaot s to re s of na tu ra l resources set loose economic forces

vhich, com&ixaed with a mechanical view of nature. championed by Descarter . t

and Newton, a machine governed by physical force? which

were m. This v i m of n a h r e , along with what . - \ .

Max Weber abe l led the pro tes tan t e th i c , and u t i l i t ~ a r i a n , v i e v e , i ap l i ed P t h a t maa should s t r i v e t o bui ld a society with an economic l e v e l of prod-

\ u c t i v i t y . \ which would proV.ide the tinderpinning8 f o r p o l i t i c a l ~ t i t u t i o n e .

a t t r i b u t e d t o our Judeo-Chrii t ian her i tage (White, 1967). Greyk philosoph-

i c a l thought (Pira ig , 1974) and the.dichotomy between s c i e n t i f i c knowledge

and values (SkolimavsU, 1975). Uhatever the cause, environmentalir ts

and e n v l r ~ t a l educators bel ieve the grea tes t obstacle t o achieving \ envi ronmnta l qur l i ty is a world v i& held by people who me t h w e l v o m i n

r con t ro l o f , and thus ap.r t from na tu ra l 4st .u ( v a n , 1975; Swan, 1975;

Y ambert, 1975). ~ h . 2 is needed is a comprehanaive perspective afforded by

- - . an org.nized, ye t a l l - e a c ~ s i n g area such u environrantal education . . (Wright and h~nnis , 1975).

* .

Consolidation of v impo in t s

1t' ww d u r i m the period

aaaoqs antecedontr of ~ n v i r o l l r a n u l yiucatioq . b

around the turn of the t van t i e th cent-

* t h a t th; l a ~ g e l y uzmrticulated , dtg. between' .~m a d na ture began t o play

geared t o the preservation and Mnagement of ha tu ra l resourccra, t o the -b

qua l i t y ~ o v e ~ c n t which began i n the ea r ly 1960'g. - I

- - Influenced by transcendental,ist Writings, one ~ ~ h o d o f ' n 8 t u r d i 6 t 0 ,

led by John Mui'r, promoted the e s t h e t i c and e t h i c a l v8lue of wildl*s a d , 4

f

thus , its prq-on ( W h , 1968"). The other coaaervatlon school advocated *

w i s e use and developrcnt of &tural/rcsb;rccs f o r the public '8 economic

i n t e r e s t . Clauhes betveen these

f e s t ed in,emphases and biases i n t

4 . The modern forerunner of

i n the nature education aovcmcnt

conservation viewpoints a r e s t i l l m a d -

current environmantal education prop-. .

elementary school science, is t o be f w d -

I

(Swyl, 1965). I n f l u e n t i a l un ive r i i t y

I educators such aa Vilbur Jackman, i be r ty Byde Bailey, and Anna Botrford Comstock published nature study materials and conducted teacher.education

i

programs which had widespread e f f ec t s . The American Uhue Study Movement I

was formed i n 1908 with t he following purposes t t o help develop apprec ia thm

and u n d e r a t d i n g of nature through first-hand . conservation of na tu ra l areaa a d entourage

t o improve the qua l i t y o nature i n t e rp re t a t i oa i n schools. It w a s irr , i \

p l i e d tha t i f s o m e can becarw intereuted In t he environment then .-.

concern about e n v i r a n v n t a l probl- w i l l follow (Stapp, 1 9 7 k ) . The

in f luence of the philosophy and materiala of the nature study mvement

i s evident i n m y envlrozlyntal education progrm today. - It ~a not u n t i l the ea r ly 1930'6 t h a t a t t an t ion v u paid in the

I

schools t o the concept of comerva t ioo education (Fuoderburk, 1948). The 2

educat ional philosophy of the period hd mled against the colulderat ioa a

L

of current probieaa in the schools u n t l l ' t h e hnrrir-tal c b w w u iof i poor ag r i cu l tu ra l p rac t ices caused a r-nation of thi. philosophy.

During t h i s t h e consemation a d r u o u r c e . a g m c i e a began t o employ public

i d o m t i o n and education speclalist8 t o prepare d d b t r i b u t e mataialo

' J - 2 7

.bout na tura l r-ce colueryation. There was a de.mnd f o r r q & l r atd

teachqr education pro- which i n part rcbolted in creat ion of rmimrr i ty

progr-. Ewevar, the hirenity of opipion c~ncerrring the definigibn and s w p e of coluarvation r d e d u u n y . educaticxul in r t&tu t iom sh i f t ed ,

their or ientat ion to m U mviromsntal education nee&.

Outdoor education i. gene;.llp defined re the w e of r e m u r c u 6

outside the c l u r r o a f o r e d u u t i o n r l purposes (H. W h , 1974). Altbough

an Important u p a q of nature, cgruervation, and w &tvirrnxmntal educa-

;ion, the b i s or ra t iona le f o r outdoor education ir aubatant ial ly d i f f - . erent . It la qore concerned wlth the approach or envlr-t of a l e ~ m h g

ritrutiod--Yith the e d u c a t i d method-thun with rubrtance or content.

The nature rtudy -t, the human resources corponent of c o e r v a t i o n

education, the camping -t md park in ternre ta t ion vare a11 antece-

t dents from which the phi lowply rod pr rc t i& 'o f outdoor education devel- , -

ff

oped ( D o d b o n and k r l n g , 1972). t.

i cu la of Dew- and J[Irkpatrick ad&d rubaturce t o u m t r f o r tb. uae of

d i r ec t experiencu i n s i b and outaide of c l u r r o a r . L. B. Sbup. deval-

direct -rim- i n tb. natural mviroemnt . J u U Sdth r t r u a o d the

acqulsi t ioa of 8Lill. f o r l n t d l i e t rrrre of th o u t b n and f o r proper

use of l e b u r e t-. Sdtb (1970) describu &=a 1960'8 u the p.riod

In which corrc8rw about .nrl-tal quality vere -8 r t u d h d outs ide .

tlasrroor. Ib. g-ral a of such p r o a m wing the outdoora include:

the d e v e l u , t - o f 8 W r tmden- of w l f and rox~omdl~us; rrd

tbh bvel0-t of q m r i m - d+.Qmed t o enrlch .ad ampleant content

a c t i v i t i e s outdoors (Airman q d Aam, 1964). .

The study of ecology h.o probably had 'the g ru tu t 'Lnflrwace on

the developwnt of the conceptual bas i s f o r emir-tal d u c a t i o a . In-

creased knowledge of the st ure and functioning of ,natural s y s t m and -=! of man's e f f e c t on the de l ica balance of the biosphere baa l e d t o r qua.- f i t ioning of S Q ~ fundamental human value 'assumptions including r e - t e n a h i o n '

of edrccational p r for2 t ies . v- 7 -

A number 'of antcce&nts and iokt-raries of awir-t+l eduu- C

t i o n which have thr ree lves a l so been concerned u i t b t h e snoironnnt in 4

varioua ways have influenced present day educational Thim in-

flucgce is most v i s i b l e i n Cooeeroation, outdoor, und nature education &.

programs, and In ecological resarsch;. It is a l s o present in b r r i c phil-

. osophical pos i t l oo . which underl ie the ; t t i t u d u and t u c h i n g -tho& of a great many educators. Program eqhaaes including f$eld experiences;

f i r s thand obeetrvatiops, a d d i r e c t learning a c t i v i t i e s outdoor. bv'. re-

su l ted from enviroluental concerns ae w e l l aa from educat ioar l concern#.

- Dnvelopm=nt of educational i d e u vhich appear t o tuve Influenced envir-tal education

v

L Conflicting conceptions of the aim, content, and* wtbod. of educa-

t i on have influenced theory and practice in e n v l r o n u n t a l ed'ktioa. . PL-.

t o r i d l y shere la always a l a g be- t he propomftfm and ~ l r m t a t i o n . . . , oi innovarim. m r- . for 9- a p m n . . t o f d in p ~ ~ o w p h i d

- * dif ferencer -8 educators. For w l e , -in cq1ooi.l Mrth t - r r i c a , *re .-

t r ad i t i ona l e d u u t i c m 4 practice embraced theories of. row bilcip- - . - - * - -

thoroyghncns and hmirl*'of subject n t t e r , thore vcri &tiooil,

reforma d m p i t e the m w c e of n w

were re-d iDd form

education ' s legacy.

Idsu much u a e a m l q by fimt-hand srperience, dbcwaed by

Peatalotzi' (1894) , 1- discoverg-inquiry Ter* 1894)* h-- i s t i c l e w (Rmaell, 1831) and *.rue & i s m (bums&, 19i1) continue ..: ,--

@ 1 2

t o be rediscwered in rodrrn education's thought.

of the rather i.ol&ed iadividud attempta a t educational re-

form were consolidated in the progreuaive educatioh rwcrrat. 'Ihi. --. r . -. ,.

mt v u , i r r i t l ~ t e d by R8ncI.a Parker (1894), wbome IUeu fo r curriculrro

rpobsua for the -t h a JdhLI D.pw (1916), vtw forgad the l ink be- I .

t

tween education and soclaty with the concept, f r h i l i i r to envirorrwntal

eduu tors , . t b t d u u t i o n had i diati.nctively socia l aa v e i l aa ' individpl: - -- r . ? * . , purpore. Cnvirollvntal ducatoru have merely extarided. t h i s social function

id- 8- to be quite a i r i l u . /' * , a,,' :

After the ?hat Yorld i&r thre vu 8 change of. foctu In e d a . .

w W ' s U091) a r k supplied a ac i&t f f i c bui. fo r child-

centered ac t iv i ty approach rrhich &orloped d l f f i c u l t i u due t o 1- of

rcope _- usd sequence. Al-gh -st forgotten i n the d u c a t i d liter- 4

ature, the project rthod tlnue8 t o Influence m c l e n c e m d endroonatal

ednc8tbn u well am f n h t r i a l and v o c a t i o d aduc8tioqprogr.r . . I

Ibe evfdence i. that, alibough progresmivac education a l l r p w d u e

m orgadzed -t , idem f ror the progremsive' roosrnt hve f o r v d the

# the chuacter lmtics of eaoir-tal education appear t o b.v. -1-d -'

through extension m d elaboration of these idem. The r e n d e r of thf.

rection of the l i t e r a t u r e n o i e u explores mom of th inf lusr r t i r l idnr.

l tm idea of learning u ibquiry or discovery, ofton u m o c i r t d with

eqirical-l .nductive wtbobr, hu long d t e d in the educ8tl.oua.l litera-

ture. Object teach- vu OM nineteenth c e n t u q educational r ~ f o r r b u d

on thL; i d u . Ihr ioqtriry concept i. deeply rooted in the Deveyau i d u l

of act ive inquiry throogh units, activlti- and projects. Field tripa,

arcurslonr, ob-memthn, and dhctmmion ware rbrorbrd i n t o the school.

Th @ v u oru of 1- t o solve mocirl p r o b l r . In recent y o u r

rntd educators, ln teachh# iPterdi .clpl lnary p r o b l a ml-, are # . t

ccmcemed with the rppl icat ioo of kwuledgje, not the conceptual mIrhr---

A corollary of the idea of 1- u ihqttiry L. the 1- that.

neu theoretical basem t o support these ideas. The vork of Pi et .ad , Y Inhelder (1969) Micatem tht the child pl.ays.ur ac t ive ro le in .hla own

i n t e l l e c t u a l devel-t and that d i rec t exper iqce i. . u r n t M f o r th - developwnt of Intelligence. B l o o r , Butingq, and rrulrtm (1971) have

def inad higher level c e t i v e objectives as thome involving the 4 t u y -

of t w process- rather t h n simple reca l l . Th- t h m r e t i c a l id-

have focuud attaatiop on tbe developvnt of t s r c w strat- f a r f .- t a r ing .kills of ru towaxm thinldng (Tab., 1962).

5 B u i c t o the idea that learning should be self-directed is the

theory of interest Fa ducation. The Dewey- concept th t the l u m u

rust be

herents

selects

intereated in the h u n h g task if he is t o lean bu found ad-

in & .cboolh. Hhther t b b Lplies tb.t chi ld or I I

the lsrroing experiatcea' ?lrnr a utf @ of debate.

1 Contaporary mtudiea oa intellectual developrant support tb * /

p rogres8ivir t

lmrner's pas t experience. For c+lale, B l o a ( 1 9 6 4 ~ t r e s ~ the ir \ porturce of cognitive md affect ive functioning of tnrironulrtal aram- , . 'I t e r m in the u r l y year.. Piagetian (1952) theory concurs with cognitive . d '

f i e l d theorirt. who defina 1eamh.g u a process by which t+e lurna

c oncepti- of t b ,currfo1tn legacy (Trmrrt and p e r , 1975). I

Amtber f m d . t d prLpCiple la the educatiomd 4 a c y i s t ius \ d .

i

tk cllrricultm mmt be g u r a t ;* tb of indi-. la ~ L L . t

L \ ruing (Bloom, 19711, through proviaion of a variety of d& of lurn-

b

Lag (Taba, 1962) o; b t e ru of readiness (Piaget and Inhel&r, 1969). ..

Individuellzrtion,rcrvins a a central i e i w i n education and in .nrirorr-

vntal education.

/ lac concept df in terd lsc ip l lnarf ty aunrlGed the di.cipUne#

sis of the 1960's urd be- the hi. fo r 8 *r of approachu t o

- curriculum synthesis ~ n k l u d f n ~ correlation, fusion, broad f i e ld . , .od the

-- core curricului. 7@e idea behind t h e 8ppro.chs v u \Introduce stu-

\

f i e lds rather thrp single discipl ines.

I n the face of .xplodlq socie ta l p r o b l m of the l a t e 1960's 7

--', i

axmq sdcftists, e b u u t o l r , 8ad the gmenl public, there

r e d i z a t ~ x m that th q-0 of ~ ? e on earth vu aot so r t c h

r *

coping v i t h 8 -ledge e x p h i o r , 88 on mm's capacity to &d vith 8 . explosion. A nar arrreaus of our f i n i t e rwourcea led t o T-

of p rob len of arvfr-tal deterioration, over-populationb 4 b 0 s

energy uti l frat iorr , and so oa, v i t h the l i lul ihood of m c and .dcirl 1 - s t . g ~ . t i o n unless turned hi. intel l igence t o the vi.e humban- of

t ion fo r tat Actv-t of Science proposed that .o&ty -lop mlti- - .

p l e d 0 of tod.j'r problam (AAAS, 1974). Expr-2.q th d c t l o a that

% c

. . 33

lore rqtumla on proceases of inquiry, values, and valve conflict - Re- '

urd Rlolnger, 1971). Although a legi t imate case can be made f o r tEe dls- ,

so&-, tbe d h c i p l i n u , vhan taken by t t i m r l v e o , a n inrdequate t o the

b u k of d u l i u g with ouch p r o b l e m u eavirorrrantrl po&lution, p o p u b t l m -_ \ . growth, food reeourcu . Interdlocipl inary problewf octued a p p r o a h

5 appear necessary (Tamer and ~ k r , 19 75).

With the advocation of alceraat iva organizational schrvr fo r

e d w t l p a d p r o g r a cor \1~.ny di f ferent p r o g r u support -idea# r e , 0

shlpa , aad so on. For -1. , t e u terchlni, lborat 'ory and f l e l d exper- -

1 , values .ducatfun, c o r e e u r r l c u h , c t i r r l c u l ~ f o r relevance, a d .-

"real worldn otudy, w t y studies, cooperative pupil-teacher plllmtng

and mmy bthu .goc.&d n ~ d e a o n have been detn1op.d o r k l t r l l z e d f o r r:' .

atw fn the form of t h open c l u a r o o i 0-w c~uProo;l. D r i g i d 7 I

- A - $ ,.

. T b e e o l g i d c h i s of the 1970's Lua l l l u t r a t e d d r u t l u l l y ,

'a

. . 34 P 1

work , ' s c i ence , i n d u s t r y , h e a l t h , government, and s o on. The grew divlsiod. ,

and c o n f l i c s r in d e r n s o c i d t y hav i n g c l l e d educa to r s once aga in t o P s e e k ways of educat ion r e l e v a n t t o l i f e p r d b l m . Environmental

\

educa t ion appears t o have been one edycaUona1 res&mse t o c u r r e n t

I . . . e n v i r o d P m t a l and educa t iona l problems.

,

Its i n a l l U ~ A E of' educ&ion, t h e r e a r e b a s i c d i s a g r e m t s ma . '

e n v l r o n a i n t a l educa to r s c o n a t m i n e t h e sources a d d d - t i n f l u e n c e s in

curriculum development m d implementation. Hwever , c e r t a i n character-

is t ics repea ted ly s e a t o s u r f a c e in' t h e e n v i r o n r n t a l educat ion Utera-

t u r e inc luding: f i r s t -hand experience, 1earnln.g by a c t i v e involuemmt of 4

t h e learn- and t eacher , s e l f - d i r e c t e d a c t i v i t y , knwledge i n t e g r a t i o n , , -

f i e l d t r i p e , inqu i rp , p r o b l c r r o l v i n g , i a d i v i d u a l i u t i o n of i n r t r u c t i o n ,

and i n t k d i s c i p l i r u r i t y . Environrcnta l educators have opted f o r and \ i.

a g a i n s t a m y af t h e ~ e and o t h e r educat ional emphases, msy be seen i n an

t a t i o n of the development of environmental educqtion through i ts .

decade of ex i s t ence .

C/ D e lopmcnt of d o n c t p t i 0 ~ of emir-tal education: T h o r y 8 d p r 8 c t i c e 'a

The rise of d e n ccmcerns both in e n v l r ~ ~ l ~ ~ l t a l d educa t iona l

m a t i e r s h.4 l e d t o a n area of s tudy c a l l e d tnviroaratal educat ian . The v

p r e k i s e o r i g i n of t h e te r r ud incidents l e a d l a g f0 its d o p t i o n are

d f f f i c u l t t o i ~ o h t * (J . S m , 1974.) . Although -7 iadividrrrlr SUCh a8 b

Leopold (1949) umed of t h e cmmequeaces of poor l8.d p r a c t i c e s duri~g

t h e f 9 3 ~ ' s aad 1940's. i t v u not u n t i l 1962 t h t cwuo.tiozr b.ou w e r e

interwoven v i t h issum 'of p u b l i c h c r l r h a d ve l fue in S i l e n t SIX*

s ar public

In

a r t i c l e In

pressure 8g-t a var ie ty of envi ronrmta l i n su l t s .

1968, the term e n v l r o a c n t a l education vu f i r s t .used in an

the Educational Record by University of Wiapxwin p r o f u s o r

Clay S c h d e l d . The followlag year, the concepts a d purposes of emir-

o n v n t a l education were by educatorr a t the University of nich-

ig.n. Envirommntal s defined aa that p u t of tbe environ-

mental qual i ty movement &ch s t r u s e s the i q m r t w ~ of co-ordinateti,

extensive, a d p e r v u i v e edtrcrtianal program I(-LLA a t Woduclng a cit-

it- t h t i.: Lwwledg-e- the to t81 enviroonent .pd its .-

a s s o e i a t d p r o b l m ; mmre and sk i l l ed ln how t o b e a r Fnwlved in \

helping t o solve t h u e problems; iad motivated t o work toward their sol- I

u t i o n (St~pp a t al. , 1969) . The principal fea ture in tk philosophy of environmental education i. that n n i. m i n t eg ra l part of a-system

consis t ing of n n , cul ture , .ad the biophysical mviroorant a d that u n

h u t&e a b i l i t y t o alter the Fnterrelationrhipa of thtr wsta. Thus, *

v e require a b r o d u n d u s t m d ~ of the ro l e of both na tura l rod m e

e d r o n r w n t s .Dd a t t i t d e s of coacun fo r environrrptr l q u a l i t y that

In general, the f i r s t baue of The Joutnrl of Brviroplntrl

ducati ion (Fall, 1969) mde no rin points.rollrntal duutio. m a t ' \ -

be both p a m u i v e or m l t i l e v e l a d in twatd o r h t u d i a d p l ~ ,

Southun U969). Irw t b t if the chrld acquires particular hrod .prir- 0

oment8 l ipda8 t .odhSa bowledge) b. rill develop a, .ah1 a p w i m e e ,

requires knowledge of the soc i a l , ~ l i t i c a l , econoric, andctechnological

processes es w e l l as ~ t i t u t i o n a l arrangaoints and a e s t h e t i c consideta-

t i o m ( s twp e t $1.. 1969). Analysis of the frequency of occurrence of .

key words i n the roo t Important environmental concepts i den t i f i ed by

Bdth (1969) suggested tha t these ear ly a t t e q t s t o ~ h ~ p c t e r i t e envirop- C

rn ta l educakon were accurate and consis tent v i t h usage by scholars i d

educators in te r+s ted i n o r ac t ive i n env i ro rmnta l education (Archbald

and Gundlach, 19 70) . After the initirl f l u r r y of environmmtal education def in i t ions ,

a r rde r of a r t i c l e s and d o c u u r t s provided more concise s l r i u of en-

vir-ntal d-t ion c h u a c t e r l s t i c s . Schoanfeld (1970.) describes en-

vironmental education u education vhich &ah v i t h the envir-t of urr;

that is the t o t a l eavir-t am a f f e c t i d by 'the in t e r ac t ion of u n with

the world i n M c h ha l i ves ; i t doea not d e a l jumt vith cities o r j u s t with

nature, but with our a t t c q t s a t coubtnece of the two. Envirolluntal

education is i n t e r d i . ~ p U n a r y , i t s k b long-tern, c c o l o g l ~ l y - s o u n d

u n t a l e th i c .

Through the E n v f r o ~ r p t d Education A c t of 1970 (PL 91-516). the

U. S. Congress def ines urvir-tal educrtion u 'the ctmbln8tion of tw

~ 0 r k l . q ~ &finit loma that, t a h n togethu, r e f l e c t the COD.QUO. u t a b l i a h e d 7 8

.real mmy educators, eco loght . , enri-trlists, rrrd o t h u c i t lzau,

This A c t states that a w l m t a l - e d u c a t i o n ls the process that f o s t e r s

greater unclentmuiiq of soc i .0 '~ d r o r r u n t a l lem and Il.o the

UU

PI-

t ive

that underl ie problem and by s b d G th aature of possible alterna-

approach8 md r a lu t io lu . That ir, the p r o c e u of d r o a r n t a l

r

education h e l m the learner perceive and unde ra t ad environmental p&ci-

p lea and probl , and enables him t o iden t i fy and e v ~ l u t e the possible

a l t e r n a t i v e so $: ti- t o these problems and assess t h e i r benef i t s and r i s k s . It involves the development of skills and i n r i g h t s needed t o un-

derstand the s t ruc ture , requireo6nt8, and impact of interact lono with and

among v a r i m environmental e n t i t i e s , ~ u b a y s t e m s ~ and systems. b

Onc of t he most important conceEs i n environmental education is - " t h e de f in i t i on of "environment" which was discussed in Chapter 1. Clearly

ewironmrnt cannot be aosumed t o -17 onlypnd.ngered species and w a l k

i n the wilderness; i t includes these but saaething f a r -re encompassing . a o w e l l . Because the environment is so vast and coaplex, e n v i r ~ a l . *.

- education is ouch more coeprehensive than speci.lized approaches t o

environmental sub jec ts , such es t r ad i t i ona l ly defined approaches t o cod-

s e n a t i o n and resource use education, environmental science, nature study,

and outdoar education. These approaches normally do not give consider-

a t i o n t o mutually r e i n f o r c m soc i a l , physical , c u l t u r a l , p o l i t i c a l , econ-

o r i c , technological, ard e t h i c a l implications of t h e i r a rear of focus. ',

I t is generally agreed, hwever , tha t environmental d u c a t i o n pro jec t s

would undoubtedly draw upon some of the iCeas ud mater ia ls of these trad-

i t i tk l mubf ects md c q h a s u , but would do so &!yyn;heiis with ideas &ad 'a

mater ia l s f r o a many other a r m , ouch a s the social sciences , the. app1i.d '.

and t h o r e t i c a l . natural sci.scer, the a r t s , and other areas of the . W t - I

i q s , a11 u appropriate and needed fo r the p . z t i c u l u topic * o i inq& . 4 .\

The U. S . Senate Beport Tor the Envircmmeutal Educati on A c t provider a &re pr-e +fatemeat of anriromqtal education concepte 4 - ' g e k r a l -

. . - i z a t i o n s eont.iahd i n the A c t . M r o i P r t n t a a .education' is: an i n t w a t e d

P D . .I

process vhich d u b &th &'a. i n t e r r e l a t i onsh ip with him na tu ra l a d

man-made surroundings; a study of .the f ac to r s influencing ecosyetap.' p.

mental and physical growth, l i v ing and working conditions, and population ,

pressures; and is a l ife-long process of recognizing responsibilities f o r ,

our a c t i v i t i e s i n our environment . , E n v i r o n m t a l education should enable

us t o make sound ecological decisions and foresee t h e i r consequences, t o

amke value judgmnts, and act , accordingly. It is much more than a rchool-

house approach t o envlr-ntal ~8obl im 'so lv ing; i t i, a r ay of t h i n k i n p

a eynthesis which coSors and a f f d t s ' t h e humanities, languagas, r o c i a l

sciences, h i s tory , economics, and re l ig ion as dramatically se i t does the

W r a l sciences. It will give an ecological perspective t o w e r y cupect

of l i v ing (Vivian, 1973).

A balanced view of content versus =tho& is found i n a document

issues by the U.S. Office of Educatim (Environmental Education BMdbook,

1973). There a r e many ways to impart and acquire the kinds of Information, +

perspe.ctives , and techniques t h a t a r e e s sen t i a l i n developing the environ-

mental awareness and s k i l l s t ha t our society needs. Many of thane ways

involve emphasis 02 l e a n e r d i r e c t e d and discovery-guided iqquiry; @% in- 12

v o b e innovative and in t eg ra t ive learning outaide the claearoom. But i n

ce r t a in cases, environaental education aurt operate through m i t r ad i t i ona l

approaches, such aa l e c tu re s , classroom a c t i v i t i e e , , and. other nonuparieuce-

or iented 'educational mth& i f the le-r is t o a t t a i n sow of the asen-

r i a l s k l l l a , concepts, and f a c t s he nee& . - i

I

Several n j o r environmental education c o d erences Mve helped t o ,

iden t i fy environmental education concept. and ~ ~ e r r l ~ r ~ t i a u rbich a r e

widely agreed upon. Based on an ex i s t i ng atat-t by B. .Ray Hom and .

previous v r i t l n g s of B r b , Brandwine, and others , the f%ro t I n t e m r t i o d e

Working Meeting on- Environamtal Education in the School Curriculum (1970)

. . agreed that enviro-tal eniucation was the' procem of reiognlzing v d u u

19

and clar ifying concepts i n order to develop sikilla.and a t t i t u d m necesrarcg

to understand and appreciate the interrelatedness m n g rrq hia culture, '. ' and h i s biophysical surroundings. Env i romnta l education a lso en ta i l s

practice in d e c i s i o n ~ g and eelf-forpulation of a code of behavior ' , -

about issues concerning enviroawntal quality (Cerovslry, 1971).

Tba National '~onference on Environmentd Education a t the Univer-

s i t y of Wisconsin, Green Bay i n December, 1970, sponsored Ln part 'by the

U.S. Office of Education, vur designed to bring together authoriflea with

succesrful expefience environmental education t o diecues the dimneioru

of environmental l i t e racy lad the materials and s t ra teg ies fo r environ- - rntal education. Dmiclusion groups agreed on tbc f o u o r i n g generd ly

acceptable component8 of the environmental education area: enviroarmtal

education is interdieciplinary, problem-catered, value-oriented, calamity- , .

oriented, concerned with man's eurpival u a species (mau is an in tegra l

part of the enviro-t rather than .P en t i ty separate fror i t ) , hu pre- /

sent and future orientat ion, and l a a procur- involviw man i n developing

are capable of developing urd l iv ing according to the l i f e s tylea that are ,. .. .%

h d y a ~ c u s f u l and ecologically. round (Cook and OIB+un, 1911). Thi. . ,

&fini t ion l.n& i t n l f t o the devehpment of a continuing l ~ l p i n g a+ ,

p e i e n c e f rar childhood ' through adult U f e a d placea proper r t ru r on . 9 value and a t t i t u b d m l o p u n t . Errviroqnt.1 education is an atte-t a t

c h r i f y i n g or changing value j u d p m t o , v3.a kPovle4 . , mt iva t ion , .rPd

amtenem of s~cio-ecologica l in te rd r~endenc iu . ' such a holiati i : concap- . \

t ion of a m l r o ~ l m t ~frmctfcma t o btp .dm a e coqceptrul f r awrork of ecology

40 1 -.

i n to an operative curriculum framework i~ which a l l teachers i n a l l .

disc ip l ines can work. Exadnation of education from this ecological per-

* spective may provide a t ru ly unique opportmity to colpletely unify the

curriculum.

More recent def in i t ions and descriptions of envir-tal educa- ,

t ion appear t o have refined the language somewhat but seem t o r e ly on the '1

sane basic e n v i r o a ~ e n t a l education character is t ics . Por etxaqle, Tanner * *.

(1974), kn describing environmental education as in te rd isc ip l inary , refer4

to 19 a r t i c l e s , books, and other materials which support this claim. Tamer r

also a t empts tb d i f f e r e n t i a t e between environmental education m d non- C environmental,educatio+. Top2cs o r a c t i v i t i e s a r e only par t of environ-

mental education when they include au enviro-tal-ecological e th i c 1

For e x a q l e , the U . S . Office of Education i d e n t i f i e s t rmspor t -

area which can properly be studied i n m environmental educa-

t ion p r o j e c ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ q u i c k l y goes on to point out that i f some aspect of

trarmportati chosen .s, an area f o r an e n v i r o a ~ m t a l education ac t iv i ty ,

the following kinds of question8 m u l d have to be m e d , cu appropriate

t o the ac t tv i ty : vhat ore the impacts of present trnaaportation apdes * -.

on environmenth pollution, land use planning, resource b l o c a t ion, contri-

butions to perception of crwding and actual crwding? In shor t , t r u u p o r

t a t ion is not a concern of the anvir-tal education cur r icu l rn i f w e / - a r e asking only tb re la t ive ly atmple-riaded queatiooa': h w mmy'paople - can we mve? how f a r ? how f a s t ? In these latter q u u t i m the focua is

on traneportation. In the earlier q q s t i o a s , the focus is on envirorr~wnt

though the questi- all a r e relat;d to t rmaportat ion. . -

The Federal Register, of ~ & r ~ 30, 1974' s t a t e s that d t o a u n t a l , .

education is the process that fos t e r s greater uxiderstanding of w c i e t y ' s

environmental probleas and a l s o the process of env i ron rmta l problcr-

so lv ipg a d decisioa-making W G m n a d Kriebel, 1975). C

Horn and Rogers (1975) s t a t e t ha t through environmeptal education

w e l ea rn t o unde r s t ad the behaviordeterminlng aspects ' of human value

systenre, of peraonal md c u l t u r a l a t t - i tudes , and of psychological needs. ?

We 8180 learn the bas ic funct ional requirements of healthy ecosystsar .

With these u n d e r ~ t a n d i n y we can dist ingll ish the range of h u v n behmio(?

that is compatible with the continued heal th of t he ecosystems that sus t a in , <

u s and on the bas i s of such d i s t i nc t ions p r e u c r i k po l i c i e s that w i l l

1 as su re healthy in te rac t ions between human and na tura l enhronments., Recently, Unesco's "Belgrade Cbarter" described environmental

education a s a l ife-long, i n t e rd i r c ip l lna ry approach t o the development of

a world population that is m a r e o f , and concerned about, t he environment

and its associated probl-, a d which has the knowledge, skills, a t t i t u d e s ;

motivations, and c d t m e n t to.work individual ly and co l l . c t i ve ly tgvard J

s ~ l u t i o n s t o current problem and the prevanticm of new ones (connect; 1976). +

I

This de f in i t i on is s i r i lu t o Strpp et a l . ' s (1969) o r i g i n a l d a f l n i t i a n

of-euvir-tel d u c a t i o n . /c ' \ . . 1

S e v u a l remarchers and writers h v e a t t - t d t o c h . r a c t u i z e

environmental education through th iden t i f i ca t ion # . ~ . l y s i . of caocmpt*

conaidered t o be appropriate f o r .nvlrolrrmtal education. Both (1969)

used survey techniques t o iden t i fy fumbmental concepts f o r snviromvlltd

education, K-12. Ee later r e c a b i n e d the sore highly ra ted concepts In to

a wdel or conceptual schem f o r purpooes' of research a d , tuchlng in

Conceptual S c h h fo r ' Enviromental Management Bduca t ion

- 0 .

The "PI' a t the center of the model can eta& f o r people or p r o b l m .

Perception of the people-related p r o b l m woGd center on d e r s t m d u

and dealing with concepts within th sodel. Pot -1.. v i t h l n tk = . a e p -

t-1 scheme "socio-cultural cnviromaents"~appropri.te concept. from Both's

(1969) list of environncntal management concepts vauld include t b m re- \

laced t o po l i t l y , ~ c o n d c s , valuer , a d esthetic.. The irpor-

tance of concepts nterdepcndence and i&er.ction is dideat In this rodel.

Archbald and Guadlach (1970) statistically F d m t i f i d L.y words ,/%

i n environmental educatioa from Rota's. (1969) 1i.t of 112 endr-t.l

% c&xation concepts. These key word. formed the . b u i a of thei;, d e l of > - * +

b + .. '< .euvironmtal education which la preaented'.in Figure 2-2-. ./' ' 1- ,

7 - v , .

\ Figure 2-2 . . Key Words in E n v i r m t a l Education Statist icrl ly ~

Idant%fied f r m the 112 Environnmtrl, Mucation Concepts

*.\ . / /

other widely ~narm concepg rode16 for emir-td, ducation 3l i - /

' .-- Both 'the str& mdal a d the "spaces&Ip -ur thn mdel tam r j o r . I

coacepttul .chrY b the bui. for orgaaiziag K-12 intudSacipUmry

- \ ,education which l a bud on a research study i n which ecologists md bio-

logy teachers were surveyed to determine the n d e r of concept8 ne-ury

t o a basic itnderstmding of the d-cs of h e d t h y ecosystem. Tha sumey I / led him td;develop a logical p rogress ih of reven b u i c ringle w r d concepts.

(From Archbald, 1975) d

Figure 2-3 - -

w a n c a 'of f i o s y s t m rhd ~ u m ~ ~ y s t m - Single w r d Concepts

These basic concepts w a a r l . o fu l ly elaborated fo r l~ t ruc t i tma l 4

purposes through 39 additional one-vord cobcapts. This rodal is not In- ' - r"

tended M a curriculum in i t s e l f , but rather u.8-comcephrrl tool fo r

Although t h i s trend by ~ ~ t a l educators t w u d c0~1ceptua.l- 1

i sa t ion of content represent8 a break from the tradltioarl d a l c ten-

dency t o c o q u t l m t a l l z e subfect ntaer,'McIrmrr. (1975) bel- education ?.

can be "cnviroorart&iudU procdura l ly u wall u c - m y . fir b

p-ts the folloving list of anvir-ml ducatioa CaqJomuts 88

1

procedure: perceptu+l emrene88; conceptual d e r s t 8 n d b . g of r u t u r r l rod

es.thetic diacrrrinrtion'; values udr&lye c l u i - s +

f i ca t ion ; fostering c r m t i v e a b i l i t i e s and a t t i tudes ; hurn1.r ; o r m a -

-tion of def in i t ions and descriptions of mrLr0mept.l k i I -

education not only p o d & a cons i s tmt e a t of n j o r envlror~vntdl d u - \

cat ion concept8 .nd gner.liur2- b u t a l s o prmid& clue8 am t o the \

o r g ~ t i o n of conmpts. Two regularities appear, from the review of th+ ' * , '* .

8 l i t e r a t u r e that m a e a t pays of orgadzing e n v i r o n m t d educatioo COG ,. .

envlro~mental educators t o group concepts r6-w t o natural and t o a * , 3 h u n n envlrolllmts. Ibl. regulari ty rru a l so n o t d Xc~ndy, (1975).

S d , these is 8 t d y i n the QmlronmentU education l i t e r a t u r e t o ?

regard principles of ecology aa the b.sb for a l l s w i r o a r n t a l education. /--'..

T h i s r5gr l r r i ty wu a l so n o t d by ~ j r p c d and*Eylud (1977) a f t e r 4 , ' \

3 . . .

In thi. w d e l t b capoarn t rnvironrotr (perurml. .oci.l, cul- -

ducatioa t o d q 4 i f f a ~ in phlloeophy qbcatora rbo emir- s

(HcCluen '&d Walker, 1974, p. 6)

\ Figure 2-4

The E u n n Enviro~mcnt

open-ended investig.t ion, and talk of a supportive c l u e r o a r ammphore. I

Some a r e cspeclal ly concerned about the faeUngs , a d self-pcreeptiolu of

t h e learners &Innis, 1975); a11 a r e coircerned t h t the chfldren h o m e

ac t ive learnfng psr t ic ipante . Process-orientad enviromrmtal educators

i usual ly contrast t h e i r Lind of learning atmosphere v i t h one in which the

teacher confine8 h i r a l f t o the text book, sxpdkts student@ t o win

i r r e l evan t and outdated i n f o r n t i o n , 4 gaseral lv c rea tes a p u a l v e , du l l ' a

c laseroas a m p h e r e (Tanner, 1974) . The process-cootant Issue is d i r e c t l y rcktd t o e t he r centre-

befbre a t t i t udes can be b u i l t it MLI. ~ o b 8 b l e tht id- wIU t o b.

b

formlated a t the cognitive, o r verbal level. hot ional lam, or a f f e c t i d t y . per se, will not "do the job" i n the prPrent s t a t e of the art. A l l of &r

past experience with f U a r u i n consenration educstioq x l e a r l y support .I

thi. ugr~mt. The only effect ive p r o g r m have been t h e that bayn i n

t k Lcrravldgr area and than proceeded to blend with the m t i o n a l (Both,

T a n n e r (1974) auggeata that mt i l w e lrnov -re, i t s w prudent

t o attempt a judicioru Idx of cognitive and affect ive deuiar a t I11 grade

level.. A number of tot81 approach- t o environmntal education curricula

Total curricular approachqs t o envir-tal edu&ion

~llthougi~ the c o ~ t i n t - ~ ~ a r i r ~ e I.O central t o m i r o a m n t . 1 S

education, the concern of th&prcsent work is with those chr rac ta r i r t i c r 0

vhich are * r a t in t e n of t o t a l curr iculat appro -to rvirrmmn-

trl education. Although demcriptiona of major .nviromrot.C,education el- - r m t a $n w t e r 4 coo- &t.iled referurcea to colplete mvlromwrrtal

edmcation p r o g r m , a number of a-l'es deserve c r t lure.

Baler (1971), with an admitted b l u toward ac lawe, att-ted t o

develop a achea Yhich could k used t o develop adromratal e ~ t i w

objectives that repremeatad c o w t i v e , affect ive, a d p r o a o ~ - - . L i l l r 8r.u.

'Lhr a* %a ouhrl f o r coacr)tmaUrrtion of endrollmtal education be- #

Philosophy t

> <

H Processes

(Stapp, 1974b, p, 76)

Figure 2-5 h4

\

' .. E n v i r o m n t a l FducatMn W e 1

. . ,This modal ap;eara t o be one of the =st c o q h t . t h o f e t i u l

I f or ru l . t ioas concerning &at' . t anoirodrrirtal education, is a b m t ., Various

c key cnviroerrcotal d u c a t % c ~ c s ,are i l l u s t r a t d a up* upon

b "% i n tho text. Thi. model esryed a s the b d f s fo r the dm. pvnt of an

t

in te rd isc ip l inary s e t of ctstriculyrra mater ials f o r use i n schools, K-12

(Stapp and Cox, 1974). 'J

Jinks (1974) rrpalned the of 4 1 - t a t i o n of a propa& -Y3 P t o t a l c u r r i d l a r approach t o , emiromrant81 d u ~ 8 t i o n bud on f i v e

-2

\ , -. 0 *

I - 49.

.\, - c Qmi-td concepts. H e proposed ea t s of learning objectives., t e 8 6 g

s t ra tegies , d b'wic subject utter content fo r each' of the envifommt4

education concepts,vithin d , o f the major subjet% matter d i a c i p l i p u of -,

'the curricultm. Ee concluded that t h i s appeared t o be a m e f u l way t o ,

i q l a r w n t an curri+ar agproach. - 9

Total by tb N a t i o n i f Park Service . . *.

(1975) and the University of Wiscoruin, Green.Bay (1972) a re h a i l lua- %

t r a t i v e of attempts t o o p r r 8 t i d i z e . n v i r o ~ t . l education t h v r y .

Bawcver, m y othc; p i o p h m &B t o be concentrating on c s n t m t or procms

t o such an extent t h a t rrrcrocurricular and program support a p t e m are P \ -

, neglected. These approachea ma^ be too narrw b e m e curriculum workera

a re POY suggesting t h a t fo r ef f act ive educational change to ' &cur , a ..iq'-Q

t o t a l curr icular approach rut go beyond d ~ r o ~ c r r i c u l a r elemeatr t o ., 4 ,.u . .- , i-,

consider the vider curr icular context (Gibbons, 1976). %T.-

s t h a t even sou environmental education' p r o e m vhich

ore described aa t o t a l aurr icular approaches may be,aeglect i ly iqortlnt . u p e c t e of curriculum d.v.1-t . hi. neglect 8ay be due t o *\ fac t

1

that there I& p substantive s t ruc ture f o r euvlr0nnnt.l education a t th.

t i r they -re prop8ed. 8.rrey (1976) recently s p e c i f i d a subaunt ive ( r . s t ruc ture for onvirolrunul d u c a t i o n ,:(ad F i w r e 2-61 .

b

xu thi. figure, educ8tim 88y be a m c a p t o r l i d

d.dicatio9 u i t r '@. For a topic to be coauidared part of + r u r . u ~ l *

Superotilinrte Goal of the Man-Environment d

E e l a t i m h i p (MER) ' ~ c h i e v l n g ~ r o i a t q h i n g a howostur ia , betveen q d t y .of

l i f e and qual i ty of environment i I A I I

- . #

f Speci f ic Substant i tp Structure I Action strategies fo r resolving value c o n f l i c t s i n the HER Man-envir-t re la t iozuhip education--curriculum 1 I 1 I

I Generic Substantive Structure Use of a l 1 , l e v e l s of cognitive, a f f ec t ive , and psycho- I I I m t o r learning -lu t o develop a n r i r n u m t d 1 y :

l i t e r a t e , c e t e n t and dedicated c i t i zen ry Pkecept ( u n - e n r f r o n m t re la t ionship) i n a f y l l y

va lue r -Men context I a I f , Philoeophy-"Spaceship Ear th / l i f eboat "

A I I I , I 1

f Education Baser 1 !fan, environant ' , and rela t ionship k o c u s b .

fi

I ' . . I

* 4 I , . Physical-Psycho-Social Base - 1 The biophysical enviroarept/human organiqm I

(From Harvey, 1976, p. 71)

Figure 2-6

The Substadtive Structur6.of t a l Education v i t h Its more Caner

I

values component u m t a l s o be* presene., a

Given t h i s generic. substant ive s t r u c t u r e aa a f r m of reference

f o r envir6sacnt.l education, it is n w possible (and necessary) to dea l C

with the spec i f i c ~ u b s t ~ t i v e s t ruc tu re i n t h e a rea of curr icdum. The -

a c t i o n s t r a t eg l ee c thpmcnt of t h h - s t ruc ture ha8 &en @mined (Ehnguford

and Peyton, 1977). m e r e remains thh exanination of the cu r r i cu lu r and

~ ~ t r u c t i o n coqmnent of the ove ra l l conceptualization of a i v + m n t a l

0 1

5 1 0

education--which is ,rb.r8 ;he present work leans. , rn

Thio eectlon oaf the l i t e r a t u r e review wan intended to achieve

rhree IL.: t o est;b&lsh tbe h&$orical b a s i s fo r el-ntr uaocia ted

with the t e rn environmental educatibn; to indicate some of the concept@ .. * , I'

, . =&la vBich have been developed f o r cnvironmmtai education; and to . ,

e a d n , existing t o t a l c u r d c u l u 8pproaches tio environmental education.

-The m r r i d i n g purpore van to &n a concept of the t b t a l ~ i r o n n n t a l

. education ecosystem u a b u i ~ . f o r analy& of major c h u a c t e r i s t i u .

educational id-. What rruinr in. t o establinh whet& t h r i d b have . . . .

meaning as a tot.. . c u r r i c u l A mys t-. " . , .t ;,

\ . The basis fo r the developrmt df an organizakionrl frucwork

,* This rect ion of the Utera tu re review o m r i z u an e x t e b i v e i

exploration of l i t e r a t u r e in educational .psychology which is related ,to

'dm rh ich ' learning pylnciplw vere relevant t o develbpment of ,ah orgad- &

zat1OD.I fr-rkt for key emir-tal educatiog . c i y . ~ t e r i . t i u . It - - .

was rumoaed that m orgaaizatioocl ~chem wh&ch d i i p b y e d relat ionrhips I . 1 '. - m v + r o l m t d aiucatioa c ~ u r a c t e r i s t i c s iratld h r e -re r a g

orgadsat ion of 'r+rdrl -I. u p u t a t i d cfiterla for the J

Ins t ruc t iona l t heo r i s t s who focus on curriculum, on learnin@ ' \

environment, and on teaching a c t s and teachers, o f f e r concepts a d prieci-

p l e s f o; i n s t ruc t iona l theory based on what psychologists have been ab le - d

, .

t o e s t ab l i sh about l y m i n g . Several of these genciralizations abouf a 3 '.

; +& l ea rn ing appear t o pror ide a r a t i ona l e fo r an envirommntal e d u ~ a t i o d ~ . ~

&:-

-& i '1 curriculum~organizational fraauwork. They a r e s u k r i z e d as followo': 1. Evidence i a q u i t e ' c lear that h- can dewelop organizifig

\ rt schemes to a id memory (Bousfield, . l953; Jenkins and Russell , 1952;

Katona , 1940 ; Mandler , 1966 ; Miller, 1956) . 2: Personal $ t r u c t w i n g and organizing is involved i n learning

(Tolman , 1959) . L

L 3. A theory ahould specify - how a body of infornut ia? ' is o r b

i z e d so tha t i t may be understood by the learner (Bruner, 1966). d

4. When one has a s t ruc tu re t o which one'can anchor or subsupra

an, mater ia l , l u r n i p O and re tan t ion a r c f a c i l i t a t e d (Ausubel, 1960, 1968;

Ausubel and F i t z ~ e r a l d , 1961; Merrill add Stolurow, 1966; Reynolds, 1966).

5 . A person'a r epe r to i r e of s t tuc tureo l a of primary i lpor tance

i n cognition. S d of these s t ruc tu re s 'are cal led groupings which are,

i n f a c t , s y s t m of -sl.mple or mult iple cl&e inclusion (Piaget arrd In- %: \ "

- 4 - 6. It b widely accepted that!! one's kaouledpe of s t ruc ture8

- ,P , I

a subject matter f i e l d influences a b i l i t y t o learn now utui.1 \

i n the f i e ld - (West and Por te r , 1976).

7 . The cogni t ive stzircture of, the learner-can be influencad aub-

s t a n t i v e l y by the inclusivenear, explanatory power: and in tegra t iva

proper t ies of the pa r t i cu l a r t l p i fyhg concepts a d pr lnciplea p r e m n t d

t o the learner (Ausubel, Novak and Banerim, 1978) .

Given that the curriculum f$eld is t o be explored u an organiza-

t ioP.1 basisc fo r ~ e n v ~ - & a a t a l education charac ter l s i tcs , th r o o r c h . * -

qvidence ci tad obme prwidcs several c r i t e r i a on which to . judge tba

- appropriatenese of curriculum organ la t iona l sch-. F i r s t , the rele-

v m t ,curriculum i d e m , concepts, or component. nut be un&rstood dm a

coaprehutrive a7.t- (mbstantiveneso). Second, the c t ~ ~ i c u l u m coaeapts 4

m u s t be l o g l c d l y r e l a r d t o one mother (logical r u a i t q l f u l ~ ) . Third, \

educators 'oust already hew the relevant curr icul t t i i d u s (nozurbi t~ar i -

dess) . - According t o Ausubal (1968) meaningful learning can occur when

these three c r i t e r i a a re m e t thrar'gh r e c o d i ~ t