UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Barriers to environmental education in British Columbia Lin, Emily S. Y. 1993

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0092.pdf [ 6.22MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054847.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054847-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054847-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054847-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054847-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054847-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054847-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054847-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054847.ris

Full Text

BARRIERS TO ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA by EMILY S.Y. LIN B.Ed., The University of British Columbia, 1988  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Curriculum and Instruction)  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November ©  1993  Emily S.Y. Lin, 1993  In presenting this thesis  in  partial fulfilment  of  the  requirements  for  an advanced  degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department  or  by  his  or  her  representatives.  It  is  understood  that  copying  or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  (Signature)  Department of  jPOA-U^tVuA^  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6 (2/88)  AJU«A  S'cW^.  C4><sJbfcu,  II  ABSTRACT  Based on a modified replication of Ham and Sewing's (1987) investigation, the purpose of this study was to identify and determine the relative importance of barriers which inhibit British Columbian public school teachers at the Grade eight, nine, and ten levels from conducting environmental education. Fifty-one junior secondary teachers from four school districts in the southwestern region of British Columbia were personally interviewed between April 1st and June 30, 1993. The four selected school districts can be classified and distinguished as representing three different kinds of areas: (1) urban-like regions, (2) nonconflict rural-like regions, and (3) regions immersed in environmental disputes and dependent primarily on one resource-based industry. Findings indicate that junior secondary school teachers identified the lack of environmental education instructional materials as the most important barrier. Other important logistical barriers to environmental education implementation included the lack of teaching and preparation time as well as lack of funding. Conceptual barriers consisted of teachers emphasizing only the cognitive elements of environmental education. In addition, despite believing that no special training is necessary for teaching environmental education, teachers still perceived the lack of knowledge about environmental education and natural science to be important barriers. Moreover, although most teachers possessed a positive attitude and believed that environmental education should be integrated throughout the curriculum at all grade levels, actual environmental education implementation in classrooms was limited. Lastly, recommendations for reducing environmental education barriers and enhancing future studies are proposed.  hi  TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract List of Tables List of Figures Acknowledgements Chapter I: Introduction General Problem Educational Significance of the Study Research Questions Theoretical Assumptions Organization of the Thesis Chapter II: Review of Literature Environmental Crisis and Education The Rise and Fall of Environmental Education Environmental Education in Canadian Schools Teachers and Barriers to Environmental Education Significance of Ham and Sewing's Research Purpose of Study  ii v viii ix  1 2 3 4 4  5 6 9 10 15 17  Chapter III: Study Objectives and Research Methods Research Question 19 Research Objectives 19 Population 20 Site for the Study 21 Sampling Method 27 Instrument 29 Pre-Testing the Instrument 35 Procedures 36 Analysis of Data 37 Objective 1: Definition of Environmental Education 38 Objective 2: Environmental Education's Place in the Curriculum 38 Objective 3: Relative Importance of Selected Logistical Barrieres 39 Objective 4: Preparation and Training to Conduct Environmental Education.39 Objective 5: Importance of Environmental Education 39 Triangulation 40 Background Questions 41 Summary of Data and Analyses 41 Limitations 44 Chapter IV: Results Description of the Sample Objective 1: Perceived Definitions of Environmental Education Objective 2: Perceptions of Environmental Education's Place in the Curriculum Objective 3: Logistical Barriers  46 49 52 56  iv  Objective 4: Educational Barriers Objective 5: Attitudinal Barriers Environmental Education Barrier Scales  65 69 72  Chapter V: Discussion of Findings Conceptual Barriers Logistical Barriers Educational Barriers Attitudinal Barriers Environmental Education Barrier Scales Differences Among Non-conflict Rural, Urban, and Environmentally Conflict-ridden areas Present Study Versus Ham and Sewing's Study  77 82 84 86 87 88 92  Chapter VI: Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions General Recommendations Recommendations for Future Research  96 99 100  Footnotes  102  References  103  Appendix A: Interview Questionnaire  113  Appendix B: Pre-Test Questionnaire  123  Appendix C: Supplementary Tables  ,  132  Appendix D: Definitions  150  Appendix E: Formulas  156  V  LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Classification of School Districts into Groups within the Study Population  27  Table 2: Total Number of Teachers in the Schools and Number Chosen for Sample  2&  Table 3: Summary of Questionnaire Content Listed by Objective  29  Table 4: Factors Listed on Cards Used in Question 7 and Corresponding Objectives  32  Table 5: Summary of Belief Statements Used in Question 12 and Corresponding Objectives  34  Table 6: Summary of Statistical Analyses of Questions in Survey Instrument Listed by Objectives  42  Table 7: Distribution of Years of Teaching Experience for Respondents  46  Table 8: Comparison of Years of Experience Means Among Groups of Teachers  47  Table 9: Areas of Specialization Reported by Respondents  48  Table 10: Frequency Distribution Among Categories of Environmental Education  49  Table 11: Frequency Distribution Among Categories of Environmental Education Definitions When Separated into Groups of Schools 51 Table 12: Frequency Distribution Among Categories of Responses Indicating the Area in which Environmental Education should be Taught in the School Curriculum 52 Table 13: Frequency Distribution of Responses Indicating the Curriculum Areas in Which Respondents Include Environmental Education Table 14: Relative Importance of Logistical Barriers to Environmental Education (E.E) Table 15: Comparison Among the Schools in the Three types of Areas of Relative Importance of Logistical Barriers to Environmental Education Table 16: Frequency Distribution of Responses Indicating Time-Consuming Factors in Environmental Education Table 17: Frequency Distribution of Responses Indicating Contributing Expenses to Environmental Education  55 57  60 61  62  Table 18: Frequency Distribution of Responses Indicating Sources to Contact for Environmental Education Information and Materials 64 Table 19: Relative Importance of Educational Barriers to Environmental Education (E.E.)  66  vi  Table 20: Relative Importance of 'Lack of Environmental Education Knowledge' to Respondents with Science and Non-Science Backgrounds 67 Table 21: Relative Importance of "Lack of Natural Science Background' to Respondents with Science and Non-Science Backgounds  67  Table 22: Frequency Distribution Among Response Categories Indicating Desirable Background for Teaching Environmental Education 69 Table 23: Results of ANOVA Among Groups of Schools Comparing Mean Importance Ratings of Environmental Education  70  Table 24: Relative Importance of Non-traditional Education Areas  71  Table C. 1: Frequency Distribution of Respondents Who Have Received Environmental Education Training 132 Table C. 2: Frequency Distribution of Non-conflict Rural, Non-conflict Urban, and Conflictridden Rural Teachers Who Have Received Environmental Education Training 132 Table C. 3: Rank-Order Comparisons Among Non-conflict Rural, Non-conflict Urban, and Conflict-ridden Rural Areas Teachers of Response Categories to Environmental Education's Place in the School Curriculum  133  Table C. 4: Rank-Order and Frequency Distribution of Responses Indicating the Curriculum Areas in which Respondents Include Environmental Education when Separated into Non-conflict Rural, Non-conflict Urban, and Conflict-ridden Rural Areas 134 Table C. 5: Rank-Order Comparisons Among Non-conflict Rural, Non-conflict Urban, and Conflict-ridden Rural Teachers of Responses Indicating Time-Consuming Factors of Environmental Education 135 Table C. 6: Rank-Order Comparisons Among Non-conflict Rural, Non-conflict Urban, and Conflict-ridden Rural Teachers of Responses Indicating Contributing Expenses to Environmental Education 136 Table C. 7: Rank-Order Comparisons Among Non-conflict Rural, Non-conflict Urban, and Conflict-ridden Rural Teachers of Responses Indicating Sources to Contact for Environmental Education  137  Table C. 8: Rank-Order Comparisons Among Non-conflict Rural, Non-conflict Urban, and Conflict-ridden Rural Teachers of Responses Indicating Desirable Background for Teaching Environmental Education 138 Table C. 9: Mean Importance of Non-traditional Education Areas  139  vii  Table C. 10: Results of Kruskal-Wallis Test Among Groups of Schools Comparing Mean Importance Ratings of Non-traditional Education Areas  140  Table C. 11: Rank-Order Comparisons Among Non-conflict Rural, Urban, and Conflict-ridden Teachers of Relative Importance Ratings of Non-traditional Education Areas 141  Table C. 12: Frequency Distribution of How Often Teachers Conduct Environmental Education Activities 142 Table C. 13: ANOVA Summary Table of the Frequency in Which Teachers Conduct Environmental Education Activities 142 Table C. 14: ANOVA Summary of "Lack of Time" Barrier Scale  143  Table C. 15: ANOVA Summary of "Lack of Funding" Barrier Scale  145  Table C. 16: ANOVA Summary of Attitude Barrier Scale  146  Table C. 17: ANOVA Summary of "Lack of Science Background" Barrier Scale  147  Table C. 18: Distribution of Teachers According to the Academic Qualifications Held by Respondents  148  Table C. 19: Distribution of Teachers According to the Academic Qualifications Held by Respondents Among the Three Areas  148  Table C. 20: Distribution of Teachers According to Institutions Attended by Respondents for Teacher Education  149  Table C. 21: Frequency Distribution of Teachers' Perception of Whether There are Barriers Preventing More Environmental Education Implementation 149  viii  LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1: Map of British Columbia School Districts  22  Figure 2: Detailed Map of the Selected School Districts  2A  Figure 3: Frequency Distribution of Respondents' Scores on "Lack of Time" Scale  73  Figure 4: Frequency Distribution of Respondents' Scores on "Lack of Funding" Scale  74  Figure 5: Frequency Distribution of Respondents' Scores on Attitude Scale  75  Figure 6: Frequency Distribution of Respondents' Scores on "Lack of Science Background"  Scale  76  ix  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  I am grateful to the many faculty members, fellow graduate students, and friends who have assisted and provided me with undying support toward the completion of this study. For their encouragement, support, and guidance, I express my sincere thanks to members of my committee, Dr. Ann Anderson, Dr. David Bateson, and Dr. Jolie Mayer-Smith. I would also like to thank Dr. Walter Boldt and Dr. Harold Ratzlaff for their help and encouragement. To my pro tern academic advisor, Dr. David Bateson, I would like to express my deepest appreciation for his expertise, assistance, and support. I am indebted to Dr. Ann Anderson, my committee chairperson and academic advisor, for her patience, advice, and inspiration throughout my endeavour. I would like to express my gratitude to the administrators and fifty-one teachers who participated in this study. Thanks are also due to Jennifer Nip, Ji Ai Cho, and Vong Lovan for their friendship and encouragement. Lastly, for their everlasting love and support, I am deeply grateful to my parents and family: Ting Ying, Li Chiao, Julia, Ben, Luice, Chuck, and Geoffrey. A special thanks, in particular, is given to Luice, my sister and friend, for her continual enthusiasm and love.  1  CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION General  Problem  Humans are presently facing a world that is in environmental turmoil. Evidence of this perilous condition include the depletion of the ozone layer; the global warming trend; and the increases in hazardous wastes, species extinction, acid rain, water pollution, and tropical rain forest destruction.  With the growing concern toward the threat of environmental disaster,  society is looking anxiously to the education system to help curb these human-induced problems (Ham & Sewing, 1987; McClaren, 1989; Rakow, 1985; Ramsey, Hungerford, & Volk, 1992; Tewksbury & Harris, 1982). With the advent of the environmental education movement in the 1960s, environmental programs in Canada and the United States received great fanfare during the 1970s (Disinger, 1985; Ham & Sewing, 1987; Rakow, 1985; Towler & Francis, 1980; Troy & Schwaab, 1982). Environmental education was viewed as an instrument to raise environmental consciousness by "producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable concerning the biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware of how to solve these problems and motivated to work toward their solution" (Stapp, 1969, p. 31). Even today, researchers and educators are still calling for the continued implementation of environmental education programs. For example, the researchers from the recent British Columbia Science Assessment emphasized that environmental issues "must be seen as an important area in the science program" (Bateson, Erickson, Gaskell & Wideen, 1992). However, there is evidence that the progress of environmental education in public schools has slowed considerably (Bateson, Erickson et al„ 1992; Ham, Rellergert-Taylor, & Krumpe, 1988; Ham & Sewing, 1987; Pettus & Teates, 1983; Trent, 1983; Troy & Schwaab, 1982). For instance, British Columbian students reported that they received much of their  2  environmental information from outside sources such as televisions and newspapers rather than from school science courses (Bateson, Anderson, Brigden, Day, Deeter, Eberle, Gurney & McConnell, 1992; Gaskell, Flemming, Fountain, & Ojelel, 1993). With the possibility of impending environmental chaos and the appeal for environmental education, why is environmental education proceeding so slowly in public schools? Ham and Sewing (1987) examined this question and concluded that the primary barrier that inhibited Palouse-region elementary teachers from implementing environmental education was time: (1) lack of actual teaching time and (2) lack of preparation time. Besides the perceived lack of time, the teachers in the study also cited lack of funding, materials, and knowledge as additional hindrances for implementing environmental educational activities (Ham & Sewing, 1987). Although most of the teachers in Ham and Sewing's (1987) study reported that they had positive attitudes toward teaching environmental issues, they lacked actual commitment in the implementation of environmental activities in their classrooms. Besides Ham and Sewing's (1987) investigation, other studies have identified obstacles to implementing environmental education and ecology at the elementary and senior secondary school level (Barber & Tomera, 1985; Booth 1979; Cherif, 1989; Cherif & Pye, 1990; Cherif, 1992; Ham & Sewing, 1987; Ham et al., 1988; Hungerford & Volk, 1984; Morgan, 1983; Moss & Theobald, 1979; Robottom, 1989). However, research is lacking which examines the teachers' perceived barriers to implementing environmental education at the junior secondary school level.1 Educational Significance of the Study Because Ham and Sewing's (1987) study was limited to Palouse-region elementary schools, it restricted the study's external validity. Hence, the researchers recommended that replications of their study in other geographic locations and at other grade levels be performed  3  in order to determine the extent of the bias, and to better understand the slow implementation process of environmental education in elementary and secondary school curricula. This study was a modified replication of Ham and Sewing's (1987) investigation.2 Since this study focussed on junior secondary teachers rather than elementary teachers, the instrument was modified to elicit responses appropriate to junior secondary teachers. In addition, instead of the stratified random selection used in Ham and Sewing's study, random sampling was utilized in this study. Beyond these modifications, the methodology in Ham and Sewing's study was replicated but differed in terms of sample and geographic region. Instead of focusing on schools in the Palouse-region, the study examined schools in British Columbia. Both Ham and Sewing's study and this study focussed on teachers' perceptions since teachers are the source of ultimate responsibility for introducing and implementing environmental education programs in schools. Thus, this study examined the teachers' perceived barriers to environmental education at the grades eight, nine, and ten levels in British Columbia. In this way, the study may contribute to further understanding the reasons for the slow growth in implementing environmental education in public schools. Research Questions Specifically, the focus question of the study was: What are the teachers' perceived barriers to environmental education implementation at the eighth, ninth, and tenth grade level in the Richmond (Greater Vancouver), Chilliwack, Hope (Fraser Valley), and Alberni (Vancouver Island North) districts?  4  Theoretical  Assumptions  For the purposes of this study, environmental education is defined as an educational process aimed at producing citizens who are knowledgeable about their relationship with the environment, are aware of environmental problems, understand how to best solve these problems, and are motivated to work toward solving these problems (Stapp, 1969). To provide a framework for the analyses, the study was conducted under two assumptions. These assumptions include: (1) barriers do exist which prevent teachers from conducting environmental education activities, (2) teachers are able to recognize and articulate environmental education barriers, and (3) reduction or removal of these barriers can result in increased implementation of environmental education activities in public schools. Organization of Thesis The thesis consists of six chapters. Chapter 1 outlined the general research problem, the significance of the study, and the theoretical assumptions of the study. Chapter 2 reviews the current literature on the environmental education movement and the perceived barriers to implementation. The study's objectives, as well as the procedures for collecting and analyzing the data are described in Chapter 3, while Chapter 4 details the descriptive and statistical results. Discussions of the results are presented in Chapter 5, while the implications of the findings and the final recommendations are highlighted in the final chapter.  5  CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE  This review of the applicable literature will be divided into five main parts. The first part will summarize the importance of studying environmental education in public schools. The second section will provide a summary of the major events in the origin and the progress of the environmental education movement in the United States. The third section will highlight the environmental education movement in Canada, while the fourth section will focus on the importance of classroom teachers in environmental education implementation. Finally, the last section will outline the significance of Ham and Sewing's study. Environmental Crisis and Education In the early 1970s, the U.S. became increasingly concerned about the expansiveness of the energy shortage and the degradation of the environment (Karst, 1985). Political activists voiced strong opinions. People became aware of the energy crisis when gasoline shortages created hours of waiting in lines for gasoline that was not available. As well, people were alerted to the impending ecological catastrophe by one of the most venerated and powerful environmental books of the 20th century, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (Duffy, 1989). Also, scientists warned the public of the increasing global warming effect. There can be no doubt today as to the increasing severity of the environmental crisis. Reports concerning degradation of the ozone layer, acid rain, and air and water pollution can be found throughout daily news media and in scientific literature (Wilkinson & Wyman, 1986). Seen as vehicles for education and socialization, public schools are viewed as the primary sources for developing citizens who are environmentally informed and aware (Disinger,1985; Disinger & Bousquet, 1982; Gigliotti, 1990; Ham & Sewing, 1987; McClaren, 1989; Rakow, 1985; Ramsey et al., 1992; Tewksbury & Harris, 1982). In most instances, schools are viewed as the salvation of pending  6  environmental problems (Disinger & Bousquet, 1982; Gigliotti, 1990). The Rise and Fall of Environmental Education Even in the early dawn of human existence, humans have been learning about changes in their environment (Ross, 1979; Troy & Schwaab, 1982). Even Paleolithic and Neolithic humans were environmentally aware of their daily living conditions and the cyclic seasonal changes, since their survival depended on their ability to contend with nature. However, the birth of formal environmental education as an academic discipline was not recognized until the late 1960s when evidence of increasing ecologic malaise appeared (Cook, 1982; Disinger, 1985; Troy & Schwaab, 1982). Escalating environmental concern during the early 1970s as exemplified by the signing of the National Environmental Policy Act into law on January 1, 1970 and Earth Day on April 22, 1970, helped spawn the environmental education movement in the United States (Cook, 1982; Disinger, 1985; Troy & Schwaab, 1982). In the Environmental Education Act of 1970, environmental education was defined as the educational process dealing with man's relationship with his natural and man-made surroundings, and includes the relation of population, pollution, resource allocation and depletion, conservation, transportation, technology, and urban and rural planning to the total human environment (Troy & Schwaab, 1982, p. 210). Although not everyone assents to one definition of environmental education, one of the most widely quoted and accepted definitions of environmental education was formulated by the noted environmental educator, William Stapp and his graduate students (Gigliotti, 1990; Pemberton, 1989; Troy & Schwaab, 1982; Williams, 1989; Stapp, 1969). Stapp and his students defined environmental education as education aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable concerning the biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware of how to help solve these problems, and motivated to work toward their solution (Stapp, 1969, p. 31).  7  Rooted in Stapp's definition is the importance of knowledge, awareness, and motivation when examining environmental education (Troy & Schwaab, 1982; Williams, 1989). In the analysis of Stapp's definition, Lucas (1979) indicates that Stapp's definition emphasizes education about and foe the environment. That is, Lucas (1979) contends that 'environmental education' may be classified as any one of, or any combination of, education "about, for (the preservation of) or in the environment." (p. 65) Education about the environment emphasizes cognitive objectives and refers to producing individuals who are knowledgeable about environmental issues (Lucas, 1979). Education fot the environment stresses affective objectives and refers to producing individuals who have attitudes favourable to enhancing or maintaining environmental quality (Lucas, 1979). Contrary to the other two types of environmental education (which may be categorized by their goals), education In the environment refers to "the use of a particular pedagogic technique." (p.59) In most instances, education in the 'environment' means education 'outside of the classroom.' (p.65) Thus, Lucas (1979) claims that implicit in Stapp's (1969) definition of environmental education are the goals of producing citizens who are knowledgeable about the environment, and who possess attitudes and values that are favourable to enhancing and preserving the environment. Labelled as the combined evolutionary product of outdoor education, ecology, conservation education, issues instruction, and nature study, environmental education programs vary considerably in philosophy, methodology, scope, and content (Lucas, 1979; Pemberton, 1989; Ramsey et al., 1992; Troy & Schwaab, 1982). Because of this, many view environmental education as a multifaceted yet holistic discipline (Pemberton, 1989; Ramsey et al., 1992; Troy & Schwaab, 1982). Environmental education involves the syntheses of fragmented knowledge from the various disciplines into an integrated whole. However, because of this interdisciplinary approach, environmental educators have been criticized for their lack  8  of conceptual frameworks and direction (Childress, 1978; Pemberton, 1989; Ramsey et al., 1992; Troy & Schwaab, 1982). Although variability in the conception of environmental education may exist, the environmental education movement in the 1970s resulted in great interest and enthusiasm in public schools. With the support of the public, interest groups, and state agencies, environmental education funding and programs flourished. In 1972-75, it was estimated that 89% of the states in America had developed environmental education courses, syllabi, or other curriculum materials for use in public school (Trent, 1976). With the present environmental conditions reaching a critical threshold, the importance of implementing environmental education is even more pressing. Public schools are seen as valuable agents in accomplishing environmental education goals (Disinger, 1985; Disinger & Bousquet, 1982; Gigliotti, 1990; Ham et al., 1988; Ham & Sewing, 1987; McClaren, 1989; Rakow, 1985; Ramsey et al., 1992; Tewksbury & Harris 1982). Despite this view of schools as being instrumental in raising environmental awareness and responsibility, implementation of environmental education in public school has been reported to be declining (Ham et al.,1988; Ham & Sewing, 1987; Pettus & Teates, 1983; Trent, 1983; Troy & Schwaab, 1982). Pettus and Teates (1983) assessed the status and progress of environmental education in Virginia's public schools and concluded that environmental education appeared to be static. Similarly, after assessing environmental education at the college and state department levels, Trent (1983) concluded that the progress in environmental education appeared to be slow. This declining trend in environmental education implementation was not only seen in the United States, but was also witnessed in Canada (Bateson, Anderson, et al., 1992; Cherif, 1992; Cherif & Pye,1991).  9  Environmental Education in Canadian Schools Like the United States, Canada demonstrated great enthusiasm for environmental education during the 1970s as evidenced by "new environmental ministries, environmental laws, environmental units in corporations, environmental consulting firms, and environmental courses in colleges and universities" (Towler & Francis, 1980, p. 19). Similarly, during the 70s, the growth of environmental education in Canada also paralleled the awakening of the general public to concerns about human impact on the physical environment and attendant quality-of-life considerations. However, like the United States, Canada's interest for the continued expansion of environmental education implementation may be waning (Bateson, Erickson, et al., 1992; Cherif, 1992; Cherif & Pye, 1991). For example, in a recent provincial-wide assessment of science education, British Columbian students reported that they did not generally study environmental and socioscientific issues in schools. These students revealed that they acquired most of their environmental and socioscientific information from outside sources (Bateson, Erickson, et al., 1992; Gaskell et al., 1993). With the impending environmental chaos and with some educators equating the importance of environmental education to the importance of the 3Rs (reading, writing and arithmetic) (Cherif, 1992; lozzi, 1989; Williams, 1989), it is important to determine what factors are contributing to the slow growth in environmental education. In his general provincial assessment of Canadian teacher training institutions, Towler (1980) claimed that the primary problems inhibiting more environmental education activity were the lack of awareness in the urgency of environmental education, scarcity in funding, nonexistent networks of communication among educators, and few distinctly Canadian teaching resources. In evaluating the status of ecology in schools, Cherif (1992) found that obstacles contributing to the development and teaching of ecology are reported to be the  10  nature of the subject, lack of ecology in the mandated school curriculum, lack and/or insufficient teacher education in teaching ecology, lack of teacher confidence in teaching the subject and dealing with ecological issues, lack of time and facilities needed to teach the subject, lack of appropriate linkage in teaching between practical and theoretical ecology, lack of emphasis on observation in science teaching, lack of flexibility in the present educational system, inappropriate emphasis on the trends of school education, difficulties in teaching the subject, research difficulties in identifying variables that influence environmental behavior, and inappropriate conventional approaches to environmental education research and evaluation, (p. 37) Although Cherif (1992) attempted to generalize his study of barriers to encompass the realm of environmental education, most of his research is limited to the focus on ecology education at the senior secondary school level, as opposed to environmental education in its broader sense. Teachers and Barriers to Environmental Education Among all the cited barriers to the implementation of environmental education, one key element for the success of environmental education is the classroom teacher. Wilke (1985) states "if teachers do not have the knowledge, skills, or commitment to environmentalize their curriculum, it is unlikely that environmentally literate students will be produced by our K-12 schools" (p. 1). Others agree with Wilke's position (Buethe & Smallwood.1987; Childress, 1978;  Gigliotti, 1990; Hooper, 1988; Lucko, Disinger, & Rother, 1982; McClaren, 1989;  Hungerford, Peyton, & Wilke,1980; Schwaab, 1975; Simmons, 1987; Simpson, McLaughlin, Volk, & Hungerford, 1989; Stapp, Caduto, Mann, & Nowak.1980; Worthing, 1983). Since classroom teachers are the ultimate source of environmental education implementation in schools, it is logical to examine the barriers that prevent teachers from implementing environmental education programs. In their study, Ham and Sewing proposed and categorized barriers that teachers faced in implementing environmental education programs into four broad groups: conceptual, logistical, educational, and attitudinal barriers. Each of the groups of barriers will be discussed in  11  relation to other studies in the following section. (1) Conceptual barriers. Conceptual barriers "stem from a lack of consensus about the scope and content of environmental education" (Ham & Sewing, p. 17). That is, one of the major problems encountered by environmental educators is the lack of explicitness in the definition of what "environmental education" includes and precludes (Troy & Schwaab, 1982). In Hirsch's (1992) study, many educators indicated that "a lack of conceptual clarity has continued to plague" (p. 136) the outdoor education field. Because of this, barriers result from teachers believing that environmental education is pertinent only to science education (Clark, 1975; Ham & Sewing, 1987-88; Ham et al., 1988; Hungerford, 1975; Ham, Langseth, & Fazio, 1985; Pettus & Teates, 1983; Ramsey et al., 1992). Thus, as Ham and Sewing noted, the possibilities of environmental education implementation in other subject areas such as English and social studies are de-emphasized. Similarly, environmental education is conceived to be only outdoor education or to necessarily include field trips (Ham, et al. 1985; Ham & Sewing, 1987; Ham et al., 1988; Hungerford, 1975; Troy & Schwaab, 1982). For example, in McCaw's (1979) study of teachers' attitudes toward environmental education, McCaw equated environmental education as education conducted out of the school building.  Furthermore,  because teachers perceive environmental education to be a separate subject rather than a concept that pervades all forms and subjects of study, teachers may view environmental education as contending for limited classroom time (Clark, 1975; Ham et al., 1988; Ham & Sewing, 1987; Troy & Schwaab, 1982). In Ham and Sewing's study which was based on the perceptions of Palouse-region elementary teachers, 62% of the teachers believed that environmental education should be solely taught in science courses. Actual inclusion of environmental education activities were reported to be in the science curriculum rather than in other subject areas by 80% of the  12  Palouse-region teachers (Ham & Sewing). In addition, very few teachers considered environmental education as a separate subject (Ham & Sewing). (2) Logistical barriers. Logistical barriers "are those stemming from a perceived lack of time, funding, resources, suitable class sizes, and so forth" (Ham & Sewing, p. 17). Many studies examining the primary barriers to the development and teaching of ecology and environmental education programs have indicated that the lack of time was an important factor (Adams, Biddle, & Thomas, 1988; Cherif & Pye, 1990; Childress, 1978; Tewksbury & Harris, 1982; Worthing). This claim is supported in Ham and Sewing's study (1987) which revealed that the major impediment to teaching environmental education for elementary teachers in the Palouse-region was time. Specifically, over 80% of the teachers reported that there was a shortage of time in the school day, and a lack of preparation time (Ham & Sewing).  When  Tewksbury and Harris (1982) surveyed northern New York principals, they also cited time as a major barrier. They noted that the fundamental barriers in implementing environmental education were based on the lack of teaching time when attempting to add environmental education to the already overtaxed school curricula, and the lack of adequate preparation time for developing lesson plans and usable curricula (Tewksbury & Harris, 1982). In the examination of the implementation of an environmental education programme, ENCORE, in British Columbian elementary schools, Worthing (1983) also noted that many teachers found time to be a major hindrance when attempting to integrate the programme into all curricular areas. Other significant logistical impediments cited in literature include lack of funding (Adams et al., 1988; Cherif & Pye, 1990; Childress, 1978; Ham & Sewing, 1987; Keown, 1986; McCaw, 1979; Tewksbury & Harris, 1982) and lack of instructional materials (Mirka, 1973; Pettus & Teates, 1983; Towler & Francis, 1980).  McCaw (1979), Mirka  13  (1973), and Adams et al. (1988) also noted class size, attitude of the principal, transportation problems, availability of outside study areas, safety problems and liability worries as additional logistical barriers. (3) Educational barriers. Educational barriers "stem from teachers' misgivings about their own competence to conduct environmental education programs" (Ham & Sewing, p. 18). In her analysis of outdoor education at Canadian universities, Hirsch 1992) asserts that there was a lack of attention given to outdoor education in teacher education programs. Also, most of the elementary teachers in Ham and Sewing's study regarded their training and preparation to teach environmental education as deficient. Over 50% of the teachers viewed their lack of knowledge about environmental education as an important barrier, while about 50% categorized the lack of a natural science background as another obstacle to implementing environmental education activities (Ham & Sewing). In Mirka's (1973) study, most of the elementary teachers' apprehension in conducting outdoor education activities originated from their reported lack of knowledge in the development of outdoor activities. Interviewing 24 high school biology teachers in British Columbia, Cherif (1990) discovered that teachers regarded their lack of knowledge and confidence in teaching ecology as a contributing factor to the prevention of effective ecology teaching. (4) Attitudinal barriers. Attitudinal barriers "are those stemming from teachers' attitudes about environmental education and science instruction" (Ham & Sewing, p. 18). Their assumption was that teachers with positive environmental attitudes will be committed to the implementation of environmental education in their classrooms. In his Canadian survey of preservice teacher training in environmental education, Towler (1980) contends that "teachers who are not prepared or trained to teach environmental education cannot help but have a neutral, if not a negative attitude toward that subject and its importance... [and] if they are  14  required to teach it, they will find themselves somewhat disadvantaged in trying to do so" (p.15). The Palouse-region teachers in Ham and Sewing's study described their attitudes toward environmental education as positive and viewed environmental education as important. However, although the teachers claimed to possess positive attitudes toward environmental education, environmental education activities or discussions were conducted only occasionally by approximately 50% of the teachers. This suggested that the teachers in Palouse-region showed "good attitudes" that did not translate into actual teaching commitment or action (Ham & Sewing). This is contrary to Towler's (1980) assertion that possessing a positive attitude is a significant factor in determining teaching commitment. Other studies have examined teacher attitudes toward environmental education (Bedwell, 1984; Bethel, Ellis, & Barufaldi, 1982; Jaus, 1978; McCaw, 1979; Pettus & Teates, 1983; Simmons, 1987; Towler, 1980). In Bedwell's (1984) study, biology students, teachers, and administrators ranked five basic goals of biology instruction; thus, they implicitly indicated their attitudes toward the environment. Most teachers in Bedwell's study categorized the goal of dealing with social/environmental issues as the fourth most important goal among the five _ offered for biology education. This implies that biology teachers do not support the contention that social/environmental issues must become the central focus of biology courses (Bedwell, 1984). McCaw (1979) surveyed Columbian teachers' attitudes toward environmental education by determining the ranking of environmental education when compared to six other nontraditional subject areas such as, music, art, sports, consumer studies, vocational education, and extracurricular activities. Overall, the teachers in McCaw's (1979) study ranked environmental education as the third most important, after consumer studies and vocational education. However, most teachers viewed environmental education as much less  15  significant when compared to the importance of the traditional academic requirements such as reading and math (McCaw, 1979). Significance of Ham and Sewing's Research Many researchers have recognized the existence of barriers to environmental education in public schools (Adams et al., 1988; Barber & Tomera, 1985; Bedwell, 1984; Booth, 1979; Cherif, 1992; Cherif & Pye, 1990; Childress, 1978; Frischknecht & Brandengurg, 1981; Ham et al., 1988; Ham & Sewing, 1987; Keown, 1986; McCaw, 1979; Mirka, 1973; Morgan,1983; Moss & Theobald, 1979; Pettus & Teates, 1983; Ramsey et al., 1992; Robottom, 1989; Simmons, 1987; Tewksbury & Harris, 1982; Towler, 1980; Towler & Francis, 1980; Troy & Schwaab, 1982; Uma, 1988; Wilke, 1985). However, the perceived barriers to environmental education have usually been reported as an addendum rather than the focus of most studies (Adams et al., 1988; Barber & Tomera, 1985; Bedwell, 1984; Booth, 1979; Childress, 1978; Frischknecht & Brandengurg, 1981; Keown, 1986; Morgan, 1983; Moss & Theobald, 1979; Pettus & Teates, 1983; Ramsey et al., 1992; Robottom, 1989; Simmons, 1987; Tewksbury & Harris, 1982; Towler, 1980; Towler & Francis, 1980; Troy & Schwaab, 1982; Wilke, 1985). That is, for the most part, reference to environmental education barriers were cited only as a result of large scale evaluations of environmental education school programs. For instance, barriers to environmental education were briefly mentioned as part of a larger study that assessed the status of environmental science programs in Texas (Adams et al., 1988) while Towler (1980) cited some environmental education barriers when he assessed teacher pre-service programs in environmental education throughout Canada. Of those studies which focused on environmental education barriers, many of the studies focussed on only one aspect of environmental education (Barber & Tomera, 1985; Bedwell,  16  1984; Booth, 1979; Cherif & Pye, 1990; McCaw, 1979: Moss & Theobald, 1979; Ramsey et al., 1992; Simmons, 1987, Wilke, 1985) or on one of the four categories of barriers as outlined by Ham and Sewing (1987). For example, although Cherif and Pye (1990) focused on barriers in their study, they only interviewed biology teachers and examined barriers to teaching ecology at the senior secondary school level. Many of the other studies focussed only on barriers in ecology or in outdoor education (McCaw, 1979; Simmons, 1987) rather than examining barriers classified under the broader realm of environmental education. Still, other studies examined only one of the four groups of barriers identified by Ham and Sewing . For instance, Wilke (1985) concentrated only on the educational barrier when he reported on the environmental education training of Wisconsin pre-service teachers. Ramsey et al., (1992) focussed on the conceptual barrier in their study by analyzing curriculum barriers while McCaw (1979) and Bedwell (1984) studied teacher attitudes and environmental education. Unlike other studies, the significance of Ham and Sewing's study is that their research introduced and focussed on a classification scheme which included environmental education barriers that classroom teachers regularly encounter. Also, their study implied that environmental education can be broadly defined to include nature study, outdoor education, ecology, and conservation education. Moreover, Ham and Sewing provided a larger study that examined environmental education barriers from the perspectives of 91 teachers. Although Ham and Sewing interviewed a sample of 91 subjects and reported to have a 95 percent confidence interval and 10 percent tolerated error, they recognized some limitations to their study. Ham and Sewing noted that the study's external validity was restricted since the elementary schools sampled were from the Palouse-region only. In addition, because two state universities were in close proximity to the sampled schools, further bias may have resulted (Ham & Sewing). That is, Ham and Sewing speculated that because the study population was in  17  close proximity to two major universities, there may have been a tendency to emphasize environmental education activities to a greater degree in those "university-associated11 schools than in schools elsewhere since "university-associated" schools have advantages in quickly accessing resources and university personnel. Ham and Sewing made several recommendations for future studies. They indicated that by replicating the study in other geographic regions, the extent of any existing bias could be determined. They also emphasized that replication at both the junior secondary and senior secondary levels would be beneficial in determining the barriers to implementation of environmental education throughout the secondary school curricula. Purpose of Study With increasing environmental problems, society is turning to schools to implement environmental education (Disinger, 1985; Disinger & Bousquet, 1982; Gigliotti, 1990; Ham et al., 1985; Ham & Sewing, 1987; McClaren, 1989; Rakow, 1985; Ramsey et al., 1992; Tewksbury & Harris, 1982). Recent studies from the United States and Canada have shown a decline in the implementation of environmental education programs. Little research has specifically focussed on the environmental education barriers encountered by the classroom teacher in public schools. Moreover, a review of the literature did not reveal any research that focussed on the barriers to environmental education implementation faced by classroom teachers at the junior secondary school level. Following the recommendations of Ham and Sewing, this study was designed to determine the barriers to environmental education implementation as perceived by junior secondary school teachers in a geographic region other than Palouse. This modified replication of Ham and Sewing's study should provide evidence as to the generalizabilty of their study, as well as determining the barriers that junior secondary teachers encounter in environmental education.  18  Specifically, the purpose of this study was to identify and determine the relative importance of barriers which inhibit junior secondary school teachers from conducting environmental education activities. This study contributes to an understanding of the barriers to environmental education implementation across the subject areas. Hence, this information may assist educators and administrators in identifying problematic areas in implementing environmental education programs. In addition, possible specific recommendations toward reducing or eliminating these constraints may be considered. Ultimately, solving or diminishing some of these problems may increase implementation of environmental education in junior secondary school curricula.  19  CHAPTER III: STUDY OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH METHODS  Research Question The focus question of the study was: What are the teachers' perceived barriers to environmental education implementation at the eighth, ninth, and tenth grade levels in the Richmond (Greater Vancouver), Hope and Chilliwack (Fraser Valley), and Port Alberni (Vancouver Island North) districts? Research Objectives The major objective was to identify barriers to environmental education and to determine their relative importance as perceived by junior secondary schools teachers in Richmond, Chilliwack, Hope, and Port Alberni schools. Specifically, the study determined: (1) teachers' perceptions of the definition of environmental education; (2) teachers' perceptions of where environmental education belongs in the junior secondary school curriculum; (3) the relative importance of selected logistical barriers (such as lack of time, lack of funding, school scheduling, school structure, and transportation problems) to conducting environmental education programs; (4) teachers' perceptions of their preparation and training for conducting environmental education programs; and (5) teachers' perceptions of the importance of environmental education relative to other parts of the curriculum. To meet these objectives, personal interviews were conducted with junior secondary teachers in four British Columbia school districts. The rationale for choosing the individual teachers as the unit of analysis is detailed in the next section.  20  Population Besides the lack of research that focusses on the barriers to environmental education implementation faced by classroom teachers at the junior secondary school level, the rationale for targeting teachers of this age group was psychologically and educationally based. First, adolescence is a crucial and precious period of human development and a time of competing needs. The data on intelligence, problem-solving, and cognitive and moral development report a peaking and leveling off in adolescence (Horn, 1970). Research has indicated that political socialization is related to cognitive development, as is moral development (Adelson, 1970). Adelson (1970) reports that the years 12 to 16 represent a watershed in the emergence of an individual's political thought. By the time this period is at an end...(a young person's) mind moves with some agility within the terrain of political concepts; the person has achieved abstractness, complexity, and even some delicacy in his sense of political textures; he/she is on the threshold of ideology, struggling to formulate a morally coherent view of how society is and might and should be arranged (p. 43). This appears to be a good age, then, to help youth develop a firmly grounded academic and practical understanding not only of democratic philosophy and its operational ramifications in school and in society, but also of environmental problems and consequences. Hence, targeting the teachers who work with the students in this age group was considered to be extremely important. Second, the justification for selecting teachers who teach the junior secondary grades was also influenced by the provincial Ministry's curricular recommendations (B.C. Ministry of Education, 1990a). In achieving the goal of social responsibility, the Year 2000 Intermediate document (B.C. Ministry of Education, 1990a) suggested that teachers should provide learning experiences that include environmental topics, issues and themes which will help students "become aware of the need to respect and care for the environment by examining the effects to  21  their actions within their own environment and the global community" (p. 65). Thus, the B.C. Ministry of Education has recognized the importance for teachers who teach at the junior secondary school levels to implement environmental activities. Besides the two factors discussed which highlighted the importance of focussing the study at the junior secondary level, the key reason for selecting teachers as the target population is based on the supposition that classroom teachers are the definitive source for environmental education implementation in schools. As educators and researchers have noted (Buethe & Smallwood.1987; Childress, 1978; Gigliotti, 1990; Goodlad, 1984; Hooper, 1988; Lucko, Disinger, & Rother, 1982; McClaren, 1989; Hungerford, Peyton, & Wilke.1980; Schwaab, 1975; Simmons, 1987; Simpson, McLaughlin, Volk, & Hungerford, 1989; Stapp, Caduto, Mann, & Nowak.1980, Wilke, 1985; Worthing, 1983), teachers constitutes one of the most important elements of schools which most influences students' learning. Wilke (1985) asserts that "the key to successful K-12 environmental education is the classroom teacher" (p. 1). Therefore, for the purposes of this study, certified teachers who teach full-time at the grades eight, nine, or ten level comprised the study population. Site for the study Of the 75 public school districts in British Columbia, four school districts were selected from the south-western corner of British Columbia (See Figure 1). One district was selected from the nine districts located in the Greater Vancouver region (Richmond, # 38), two out of the seven districts from the Fraser Valley area were selected (Hope, # 32 and Chilliwack, #33), and one out of the six districts from the Vancouver Island North district (Port Alberni, #70) was selected for the study.  81  1 Fernie 2 Cranbrook 3 Kimberley 4 Windermere 7 Nelson 9 Castlegar 10 Arrow Lakes 11 Trail 12 Grand Forks 13 Kettle Valley 14 Southern Okanagan IS Penticton 16Keremeos 17 Princeton 18 Golden 19 Revelstoke 21 ArmstrongSpallumcheen 22 Vernon 23 Central Okanagan 24 Kambops 26 North Thompson 27 CaribooChilcotin 28 Quesnel 29 UUooet 30 South Cariboo 31 Merritt 32 Hope 33 Chilliwack 34 Abbotsford 35 Langley 36 Surrey 37 Delta 38 Richmond \ , 3 9 Vancouver  •it.rt SrUm  60  59  ^Qtittn*!  '* ^ \  "Wittumt l ^ f  */  -cc y\  ^-\  40 New Westminster 41 Burnaby 42 Maple RidgePitt Meadows 43 Coquitlam 44 North Vancouver 45 West Vancouver 46 Sunshine Coast 47 PoweO River 48 Howe Sound 49 Central Coast 50 Queen Charlotte 52 Prince Rupert 54 Bulkley Valley^ 55 Bums Lake 56 Nechako 57 Prince George . 59 Peace River Sooth 60 Peace River North 61 Greater Victoria 62 Sooke 63 Saanich 64 Gull Islands 65 Cowichan 66 Lake Cowichan 66 Nanaimo 69 Qualicum 70 Albemi 71 Courtenay 72 Campbell River 75 Mission 76 Agassiz-Harrison 77 Summerland 60 Kitimat B1 Fort Nelson 84 Vancouver Island WeM 65 Vancouver Island North 86 Creston-Kaslo 67 Stikine 68 Terrace 89 Shuswap 92 Nsga'a  27  "jy  BRITISH COLUMBIA SCHOOL DISTRICTS Province) 4W ftrtttth  Unstry ol EduOtton and Menovy R*nponstM lot MulMuQuribsffl and Human R  NEVISEO M A R C H 1992  Figure 1.  Map of British Columbia School Districts  22  23  The four selected school districts were Richmond, Chilliwack, Hope and Port Alberni (See Figure 2). The urbanized region of Richmond has an area of 16 806.8 ha. and encompasses Sea Island and most of Lulu Island. Richmond's northern boundary is approximately 10 km south of Vancouver Centre and Burnaby, while Richmond's southern boundary is bordered by the Delta municipality. With a population of 108 492 in 1986, Richmond is a large residential suburb, with many of its inhabitants employed in other parts of metropolitan Vancouver. Richmond's economic base is well diversified and the average census income for each family was reported to be at $43 685 in 1986 (B.C. Ministry of Regional Development, 1989). Ranked second after Vancouver in terms of industrial diversity and employment in the Lower Mainland, Richmond continues to expand in urban development and its ethnically diverse population. In addition, one post-secondary institution, Kwantlan College, is situated in the Richmond district and three prominent post-secondary education facilities-University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, and British Columbia Institute of Technology—are in close proximity to Richmond. In terms of public education, full-time student enrollment from primary to grade 12 was 20 345 and full-time educators totalled 1 142 in the 1991-1992 school year (B.C. Ministry of Education and Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights, 1992). The Chilliwack and Hope school districts were selected to from the Fraser Valley region. Chilliwack, east of Abbotsford, has an area of 130 425 ha and is located on the south bank of the Fraser River. Agriculture is one of the leading resources. A large proportion of the milk and other dairy products consumed in the Lower Mainland originates in Chilliwack. Much of the manufacturing activity is based on farm products/inputs. Forestry is of considerable importance; saw milling is limited, but logging is extensive in the eastern half of the area. Forestry and agriculture are the leading resource sectors. Lumber mills on the Fraser River  24  t N  SKI  ^ J- - ' y WLI  C «ftJ f " ^  >*']CHUJJWMCK OUTRlCt  -VLTU* L A S T c  1 -  RICHMOND  HOPE  Figure 2.  CHiLLlWACK  ALBERNI  Detailed Map of the Selected School Districts  e  i  25  provide the bulk of forest industries employment (B.C. Ministry of Regional Development, 1989). With a population of 45 529, the reported average income for each family was $31 946 in 1986 (B.C. Ministry of Regional Development, 1989). In the 1991-92 school year, full-time student enrollment was 9 086 while the number of full-time employed educators, from primary to grade 12 was 514 (British Columbia Ministry of Education and Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights, 1992). Approximately 54 km east of Chilliwack is the Hope district. Hope is east of Princeton, 193 km south of Cache Creek, and 116 km southwest of Merritt. The leading resource sector is forestry; logging is widespread. Manufacturing is limited primarily to a large sawmill at Boston Bar (B.C. Ministry of Regional Development, 1989). With a population of 6 975, the reported average income for each family was $35 013 in 1986 (B.C. Ministry of Regional Development, 1989). In the 1991-92 school year, full-time student enrollment was 1 549 while the number of fulltime employed educators, from primary to grade 12, was 98 (B.C. Ministry of Education and Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights, 1992). From the Vancouver Island North region, Alberni district has a total land area of approximately 774 000 ha (B.C. Ministry of Regional Development, 1989). The district of Alberni includes the city of Port Alberni (1986 population 18,241), the village of Ucluelet (1986 population 1,512), the district of Tofino (1986 population 940), and the communities of Bamfield (1986 population 110), Beaver Creek (1986 population 150), and Sproat Lake (1986 population 445). The city of Port Alberni relies heavily on forest industries which include logging, lumber, plywood, pulp, paper, and newsprint processing. Commercial fishing and farming round out the city's economy, but are of lesser importance. Tofino and Ucluelet are also resource-oriented; the emphasis is on logging, commercial fishing, fish processing, and tourism. With a total population of 30 341, the reported average income for each family was  26  $35 653 in 1986 (B.C. Ministry of Regional Development, 1989). In the 1991-92 school year, full-time student enrollment was 6 248 while the number of full-time employed educators, from primary to grade 12, was 358 (B.C. Ministry of Education and Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights, 1992). The four selected school districts can be thought of as representing three different kinds of districts according to two criteria (See Table 1). First, the districts can be differentiated along urban or rural lines. Richmond, from the Greater Vancouver region, possesses urban development while Chilliwack and Hope (from the Fraser Valley region), and Alberni (from the Vancouver North region) possess rural industries. Besides sustaining rural-like industries, the three rural districts, Chilliwack, Hope, and Alberni possess total populations under 50 000 in 1986. In contrast, Richmond, which is in close proximity to the three major post-secondary institutions, University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University and British Columbia Institute of Technology, relative to the rural districts, possess a total population greater than 50 000 in 1986 and sustains urban-like developments. The second way of categorizing the school districts is by the degree of environmental protests and controversies displayed within the communities and the dependence of the population primarily on a controversial resource-based industry. For instance, Alberni from the Vancouver Island North region, has a population very dependent on forestry and logging practices. In addition, this area has been reported to be entangled in recent environmental controversies such as the Clayoquot Sound activities (Baldrey, 1993; Bernard, 1993). The decision made by the British Columbian government to grant approval for logging practices on Clayoquot Sound's 240,000 hectares of forest land has triggered heated debates and protests between the loggers and the environmentalists in the community. Because of this, the schools in the Alberni area may be influenced by the environmental controversies to a greater degree than  27  the other school districts which are not immersed in such conflicting environmental issues. Hence, although Alberni is rural, because of its history of environmental conflicts, they were grouped separately and will be referred to as "conflict-ridden." Therefore, the four school districts may be classified according to the two criteria as shown in Table 1.  Table 1. Classification of School Districts into Groups Within the Study Population  Districts  Non-Confiict Rural Schools  Urban Schools  #32 Hope  #38 Richmond  Confiict-ridden Rural Schools #70 Alberni  #33 Chilliwack  Although there are distinct differences among the four districts, similarities do exist. The average income for a single family household is similar among the districts. In addition, none of the four school districts have structured environmental education programs, and any environmental education activities in the secondary schools are being done at the initiative of individual teachers. Moreover, no schools at the junior secondary grade level in the four districts have been recognized as being innovative in terms of the implementation of the Year 2000 Intermediate program by the provincial Ministry of Education (British Columbia Ministry of Education and Educational In novation, 1990b). Sampling method Subsequent to the selection of the four school districts, all the junior secondary high schools from the four schools districts were invited to participate in the study (See Table 2). Due to teacher-school board employment disputes and accreditation activities at the time of the study, a significant number of schools declined to participate in the study. However, of those  28  schools which volunteered to participate in the study, the eighth, ninth, and tenth grade teachers of all school subjects were randomly selected within the schools to participate in the study. Of the six junior secondary schools located in the Richmond area, two schools participated in the study. Three out of the five schools which contained junior secondary students participated in the study in the Chilliwack area, while the two high schools in the Hope area both took part in the study. In the Alberni area, teachers from three of the five junior secondary schools were involved. The sample of teachers were randomly chosen from the total population of 230 junior secondary school teachers from the four school districts. Of the 72 junior secondary school teachers in Richmond, 13 teachers were randomly selected, while 13 teachers were selected from the 67 junior secondary teachers in Chilliwack, 10 teachers from the 25 junior secondary teachers in Hope, and, from the Alberni area, 15 of the 66 junior secondary teachers were selected. This yielded a total sample size of 51 junior secondary teachers. Table 2. Total Number of Teachers in the Schools and Number Chosen for Sample District  Number of schools in district  Number of schools in sample  Number of teachers in study population  Number of teachers in sample  #32 Hope  2  2  25  10  #33 Chilliwack  5  3  67  13  #3 8 Richmond  6  2  72  13  #70 Alberni  5  3  66  15  18  10  230  51  Total  29  instrument Because the study was conducted under conditions similar to those in Ham and Sewing's study, the structured interview questions designed by Sewing (1986) were used in this study. Sewing (1986) had designed structured interview questions corresponding to each study objective. Ham and Sewing had validated the questions prior to the data collection process in their study. The content of the interview questions which Sewing (1986) utilized was initially derived from a review of the literature. For several of the study objectives, more than one measurement was used to obtain data. Through this cross-validation of data (Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, & Sechrest, 1966), much of the uncertainty in interpreting the data can be reduced. Thus, rather than using a single question in isolation which may or may not provide the necessary data to meet an objective, a series of questions or parts of questions were used to integrate the necessary data for certain objectives (See Appendix A). A summary of the content of each question designed to meet corresponding study objectives in the survey instrument is provided in Table 3. Because Questions 7 and 12 were designed for triangulation purposes, they are omitted from the table. Discussion of Questions 7 and 12 may be found in later sections. Table 3. Summary of Questionnaire Content Listed by Objective (Sewing, 1986) Objective:  Question Number:  Content of Question: Respondents were asked...  One: To determine teachers' perceptions of the definition of environmental education  To provide a definition of environmental education by writing a completion to the sentence: 'Environmental education is...'  Two: To determine teachers' perceptions of environmental education's place in the junior secondary school curriculum  Where environmental education belongs in the curriculum. In which subject area(s) teachers usually include environmental education.  30  Table 3, continued. Objective:  Question  Number:  Content of Question: Respondents were asked..  Three: To determine the relative importance of selected logistical barriers to conducting environmental education activities  What factors contribute most to the cost of environmental education. What factors contribute most to the amount of time environmental education takes. 10  To identify persons or sources they would contact to obtain environmental education information or materials.  Four: To determine teachers' perceptions of their preparation and training  11  What kind of training or background should a teacher have in order to be knowledgeable in teaching environmental education.  Five: To determine teachers' perceptions of the importance of environmental education relative to the other parts of the curriculum  1A  To rate the relative importance of nontraditional areas of learning compared to other things taught.  1B  To choose the three most important and three least important non-traditional areas to include in a student's junior secondary education. What grade level teaching environmental education should begin and end. To indicate how often they teach environmental education.  Question 1 was designed to determine teachers' perceptions of the relative importance of environmental education compared to other parts of the school curriculum (Objective 5). This question was posed as the first question in the interview (i.e., before respondents learned the  31  questionnaire content) in order to avoid biasing responses about the importance of several nontraditional areas of learning (eg., self-concept enhancement, consumer education, safety education). The list of non-traditional learning areas used in Question 1 were derived from Mack's (1985) study which determined the perceptions of whether or not creativity enhancement methods were being taught in teacher education programs. Designed to determine teachers' perceptions of the definitions of environmental education (Objective 1), Question 2 required respondents to provide a definition of environmental education by writing a completion to the sentence: "environmental education is...." Since many definitions of environmental education exist and individual perceptions vary greatly, a preselected definition of environmental education was presented to the respondents following their response to Question 2. Thus, respondents' replies following Question 2 were based on the preselected definition of environmental education. In displaying a standard definition to the respondents, comparing responses for the remaining questions in the interview was possible. Respondents were asked to respond to a series of Likert-type items in Questions 1, 6, and 12. The semantic properties of the items were selected from Bass, Casscio, and O'Connor's (1974) work to ensure equal-appearing intervals.  In their study which examined the  numerical equivalents of 39 expressions of frequency ranging from never to always. Bass et al. (1974) demonstrated that it was possible to assign quantitative meanings that were associated with verbal judgments of frequency and amount. This permitted employment of statistical analysis appropriate for interval level data. As indicated earlier, Questions 7 and 12 were designed specifically to triangulate data for several objectives. Question 7 served as a triangulation question for Objectives 2, 3, 4, and 5 by attempting to measure the relative importance of certain selected barriers to environmental education. Subjects were provided with a deck of cards which listed a factor  32  identified in the literature as a possible barrier to environmental education (See Table 4). Subsequently, the respondents were requested to separate the deck of cards into three piles: most important, important, and not important. Following this, respondents were asked to rank the cards in each pile according to their importance. Table 4. Factors Listed on Cards Used in Question 7 and Corresponding Objectives (Sewing, 1986). Objectives  Factors  (2)  Conceptual  Barriers  ( 3)  Logistical  (4)  Educational  Barriers  ( 5)  Attitudinal  Barriers  Barriers  -Environmental education is not prescribed in curriculum  -Class size too large -Class size too small -Lack of funding -Lack of instructional materials -Lack of activity preparation time -Lack of principal support -Lack of time during school day -Liability worries -Safety problems -Problems with transportation -No natural environments readily available -My own lack of knowledge about environmental education -My own lack of natural science background -Environmental education is not particularly relevant to what I teach  Like Question 7, Question 12 served as a cross-validation question. Teachers were invited to respond to 16 belief statements by circling one of the Likert-type categories: always, often, sometimes, or never to each statement. These categories were selected to present equalappearing intervals (Bass et al., 1974). Unlike Question 7 which required respondents to rank the importance of eleven logistical barriers, Question 12 asked respondents to use the four point scale in order to respond to only two logistical barriers: lack of funding and lack of time.  33  Randomly presented, the 16 statements in Question 12 were designed to reflect teachers' beliefs about five possible barriers to environmental education which corresponded to four study objectives (See Table 5). Other questions in the interview were designed to elicit background information on the teachers' experience and training. Question 13 was an open-ended question for gaining information on environmental education workshop attendance and the type of workshops being most utilized by junior secondary school teachers. In addition, other questions that served to ascertain teachers' background included: whether the teachers completed environmental education instructional methods courses (Question 14), the institution where the teachers obtained their teachers' training (Question 15), the teachers' area of specialization (Question 16), the number of years of teaching experience (Question17), the type of degree held by the teachers and whether the teachers had prior knowledge of the topic of the study (Question 19).  34  Table 5. Summary of Belief Statements Used in Question 12 and Corresponding Objectives (Sewing, 1986). STATEMENT  ITEM  OBJECTIVE  I think that knowing about plants and animals is important in teaching environmental education. 10  I think that the best background for environmental education is a background in science.  12  I think that environmental education is best taught in the science curriculum. I think that environmental education is an extra burden on the school budget.  BARRIER Conception that science is the best background for teaching environment.  Lack of funding  I think that obtaining environmental education materials and conducting environmental education activities is expensive. 13  I think that environmental education takes money our teaching budget doesn't have. I think that environmental education takes time away from the other subjects I teach.  11  I think that environmental education is an extra burden on my time.  15  Because of the other things I must teach, environmental education _ takes time I don't have. I am comfortable applying environmental education materials to the areas I teach.  6  I think I have a good background for teaching environmental education.  8  I am comfortable applying classroom matter to outdoor environmental education activities.  14  I  Lack of training  think my undergraduate education classes provided good preparation for teaching environmental education.  I think that teaching environmental education is a worthwhile task. I think that environmental education is important in a student's junior secondary education. 16  Lack of time  I think that it is important for environmental education to be taught in the school curriculum.  Attitude towards teaching environmental education  35  Pre-Testlng  the  Instrument  In terms of validity, the interview questions were evaluated based on the subjective professional expertise of four experienced British Columbian teachers who were enrolled in a graduate program at a recognized university. This evaluating panel consisted of four junior secondary teachers from Maple Ridge, Abbotsford, Vancouver, and Richmond. Their combined total of teaching experience was 54 years which ranged from 7 to 18 years. Each of the individuals were interviewed and were invited to comment on the difficulties they may have encountered in understanding the questions. In addition, the interview questions were also evaluated by researchers at the University of British Columbia. As a result of the pre-testing, the following include modifications to the original survey designed by Sewing (1986): (1) References to elementary schools were changed to junior secondary school since the junior secondary level is the target population for this study (2) Question 5: Additional junior secondary school subjects were added to the original list of elementary subjects (3) Question 6: Respondents were asked to indicate how often and under the auspices of which curricular unit (s) they conducted environmental discussions or activities (4) Question 7: Respondents were asked whether they perceived any barriers which prevented them from implementing more environmental topics, discussions, or activities prior to ranking the list of barriers which Sewing (1986) derived from a literature review. (5) Question 13: Additional names of local and provincial workshops were added to the original list. (6) Question 16: Specific areas of specialization supplemented the original list (7) Question 18: Teachers' higher education degree status was ascertained The direct interaction process in standardized interviews provided both advantages and  36  disadvantages when compared to questionnaire surveying. For instance, one principal advantage in using personal interviews over mailed questionnaire studies is an increased response rate. That is, there is a greater tendency for respondents to discard a mail-in questionnaire than to refuse an interviewer's questions (Babbie, 1989; Borg & Gall, 1989; Fowler, 1988; McMillan & Schumacher, 1989).  In addition, interviewers are more able to elicit answers that are more  complete and less ambiguous than questionnaire surveys. The "don't know" or "no answers" are also minimized by using direct interaction (Babbie, 1989; Borg & Gall, 1989; Fowler, 1988; McMillan & Schumacher, 1989). However, interviewing techniques have definite limitations as a research tool. The interaction between the respondents and the interviewer are subject to potential bias from many sources. For instance, a leading question that is worded so that the respondents are more aware of one answer than another may bias the response (McMillan & Schumacher, 1989). In addition, interviewers may contribute to the bias by seeking out answers that only support their preconceived ideas. Other personal characteristics of interviewers such as age, interviewing experience, racial background, and gender may affect the respondents' answers (Babbie, 1989; Borg & Gall, 1989; Fowler, 1988; McMillan & Schumacher, 1989). To reduce these sources of error, careful study of the target teacher population, appropriate preparation and training of the interviewer, and mechanical taperecordings of the interviews were used in this study. Procedures The interviews were carried out in April, May, and June of 1993. After securing administrative approval, appointments were made with randomly selected junior secondary teachers. As indicated in Ham and Sewing's study, at the outset of each interview, the selected teachers were informed of the confidentiality of the data and also that the nature of the study was to identify teachers' perceptions and feelings about what they taught. As specified by Ham and  37  Sewing, this latter stage was necessary to avoid biasing responses to questions about the importance of environmental education in comparison to other subject areas. After the preliminary questions were answered, the interviewer revealed that the remaining part of the interview focussed on environmental education. The duration of the interviews ranged from 20 to 45 minutes, with the average length being approximately 30 minutes. Analysis of Data Subsequent to the data collection process, the responses were coded for statistical treatment. An alpha level of 0.05 was used when inferential tests of significance were performed. The present study utilized analytical strategies similar to those used by Ham and Sewing in order for comparative analyses to be made. However, differences in the sample groupings between this and Ham and Sewing's study necessitated the usage of different statistical tests. For example, while the t-test was used for comparisons of means between two groups in Ham and Sewing's study, one-way ANOVA was used for analysis among three group means in the present study. The results were generalized to the four school districts. As indicated earlier, the four selected school districts may be grouped as urban-like or rural-like schools. In addition, the school districts may be categorized as a community very dependent on resource-based industries and entangled in environmental controversies or a community not immersed in great environmental conflicts. Because these characteristics could conceivably influence results, the data for each objective were analyzed based on comparisons between rural schools located in environmentally contentious communities (conflict-ridden rural), and urban and non-conflict rural schools in communities which are characterized by fewer environmental issues (urban and non-conflict rural).  38  Objective 1: Definition of Environmental Education.  To determine teachers'  perceptions of the definition of environmental education, the junior secondary teachers were requested to provide personal definitions of environmental education by completing the sentence "Environmental education is..."(Question 2). The responses to this open-ended question were categorized using content analysis as recommended by Krippendorff (1980). Content analysis as defined by Krippendorff (1980) is "a research technique for making replicable valid inferences from data to their context" (p. 21). The procedure used for content analysis in this study are as follows: (1) Recurring themes were identified by examining the responses. (2) Subsequently, discrete categories were formed and responses were classified into the categories. (3) Because the researcher was the sole person classifying each response into the categories, reliability concerns may arise (Stankey, 1972). Hence, "Interpanel agreement" (Ham and Shew, 1979; Van Every, 1983; Fazio and Gilbert, 1981) was used to test the reliability of the analysis. In this study, four individuals were selected and each of them independently categorized the responses. A minimum reliability coefficient of 0.75, indicating that at least three out of the four (or 75 per cent) of the raters agreed on the assignment of the responses under the category was set as a standard for interpretation. Responses that did not meet this standard were labelled as unidentifiable. The nominal level data generated from the content analysis was analyzed using frequencies and other descriptive statistics. Since more than one response was possible from each teacher, inferential statistics were not computed. Objective 2: Environmental Education's Place in the Curriculum.  Several  questions were designed to determine teachers' perceptions of environmental education's place in the junior secondary school curriculum. First, Question 4 was designed to determine in which curricular area(s) teachers thought environmental education should be included. Teachers were then asked in Question 5 to indicate the subjects and units in which they actually  39  included environmental education. In a manner similar to Question 2, the data obtained in Question 4 were categorized using content analysis. In addition, using the frequency of responses for each of the categories, a rank ordering of response categories was calculated. The rank order test of significance designed by Kruskal-Wallis (Siegel & Castellan, 1988) was used to make comparisons between groups of schools. Objective 3: Relative Importance of Selected Logistical Barriers. A series of questions were used to determine the relative importance of selected logistical barriers. Question 8 attempted to identify factors that contributed most to the costs of environmental education, while Question 9 determined factors associated with the amount of time required for implementing environmental education activities.  Question 10 asked respondents to identify  sources for obtaining environmental education instructional materials and resources. As in Question 2 and 4, the responses from these three open-ended questions were categorized using content analysis. The multiple responses for each question were once again rank-ordered based on the frequency of responses from each of the categories, and comparisons among groups of schools were determined using the Kruskal-Wallis rank order test of significance. Objective 4: Preparation and Training to Conduct Environmental Education. By asking teachers to indicate the training or background they thought was necessary to teach environmental education, Question 11 attempted to determine teachers' perceptions of their preparation and training to conduct environmental education activities. As in the previously described questions, content analyses were performed following the procedures outlined for Question 2, and a rank order analysis using the Kruskal-Wallis test was calculated for comparisons among groups of schools. Objective 5: importance of Environmental Education. Questions 1, 3, and 6 were designed to determine teachers' perceptions of the importance of environmental education  40  relative to other parts of the curriculum. Question 1 consisted of two parts. First, respondents were asked to rate the importance of several non-traditional types of education relative to the areas they taught. Mean scores for each item were calculated and one-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated to determine whether respondents viewed environmental education as more or less important than the non-traditional learning areas listed. The second part of Question 1 asked respondents to select, from the same list, the three most important and the three least important types of education to include in a student's junior secondary education. Subsequently, rank ordering was conducted and Kruskall-Wallis tests were applied. Question 3 attempted to determine whether respondents thought environmental education was important at the junior secondary level. This ordinal level data were analyzed using frequencies and other descriptive statistics. Question 6 was designed to measure teachers' perceptions of the importance of environmental education by determining the frequency with which respondents conducted environmental education activities or discussions. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA for comparisons between groups were used for this interval level data. Triangulation. Questions 7 and 12 were used to triangulate certain measurements in this study. Question 7 was used to determine the relative importance of logistical, educational, conceptual, and attitudinal barriers as perceived by the teachers. After the respondents were asked to separate these barriers into three groups—most important, important, not important-the respondents sorted the barriers into each group. Frequencies and other descriptive statistics were utilized for analyses and a rank-ordering resulted.  In addition, Kruskal-Wallis  tests were used to make comparisons among groups of schools. The ranking also served to corroborate other questions, thus providing evidence of validity. Questions 12 asked respondents to consider a series of statements pertaining to: (1) teachers' perceptions of the definition of environmental education's place in the junior  41  secondary school curriculum; (2) the relative importance of selected logistical barriers to conducting environmental activities; (3) teachers' perceptions of their preparation and training in conducting environmental education activities; and (4) teachers' perceptions of the importance of environmental education relative to other parts of the curriculum. The Likerttype items were coded from one to four. Responses with a higher score indicated a higher degree of environmental education orientation. ANOVA and mean scores were used to make comparisons. Background Questions. Background information about the respondents was obtained from Questions 13 through 19. Frequencies and other descriptive statistics were used in the analysis of the nominal level data from Questions 13 to 19 (excluding Question 17). Measuring the number of years of teaching experience, the ratio level data in Question 17 were analyzed using descriptive statistics and ANOVA was employed to compare groups of schools. Summary of Data and Analyses. The various data that were collected, the purposed of each set of data, and the analyses performed are summarized in Table 6.  42  Table 6. Summary of Statistical Analyses of Questions in Survey Instrument Listed by Objectives (Sewing, 1986) Objective  Question  Level of Measurement  Statistical  Analysis  (1) To determine teachers' perceptions of the definition of environmental education  Nominal  Content analysis; frequencies  (2) To determine teachers' perceptions of environmental education's place in the junior secondary school curriculum  Nominal  Content analysis; frequencies, Kruskal-Wallis test  Nominal  Frequencies, Kruskal-Wallis test  Interval  Frequencies, descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis test  12  Interval  Mean scores, one-way ANOVA  7  Interval  Frequencies, descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis test  8  Nominal  Content analysis; frequencies; Kruskal-Wallis test  Nominal  Content analysis; frequencies; Kruskal-Wallis test  10  Nominal  Content analysis; frequencies; Kruskal-Wallis test  12  Interval  Mean scores, one-way ANOVA  7  Interval  Frequencies, descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis test  11  Nominal  Content analysis; frequencies; Kruskal-Wallis test  12  Interval  Mean scores, one-way ANOVA  1A  Interval  Descriptive statistics; mean scores; one-way ANOVA  1B  Interval  Descriptive statistics; mean  (3) To determine the relative importance of selecting logical barriers to conducting environmental education activities  (4) To determine teachers' perceptions of their preparation and training to conduct environmental education activities  (5) To determine teachers' perceptions of the importance of environmental education relative to other parts of the curriculum  scores; one-way ANOVA 3 6  Nominal  Frequencies  Interval  Descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA  43  Table 6, continued Objective  (6) Background Information  Question  Level of Measurement  Statistical  Analysis  Interval  Frequencies, descriptive statistics; Kruskal-Wallis test  12  Interval  Mean scores, one-way ANOVA  13  Ordinal  Frequencies  14  Ordinal  Frequencies  15  Ordinal  Frequencies  16  Ordinal  Frequencies  17  Ratio  Descriptive statistics, Kruskal Wallis test  18  Nominal  Frequencies  44  Limitations Because the population was limited to four districts in the southwestern corner of British Columbia, generalizations of the results are limited to the specific school districts. However, the inclusion of regions that possess characteristics akin to rural, urban, and resource-based areas increased the study's external validity. In addition, the external validity of the study can be strengthened by comparing the results of this study to Ham and Sewing's study in the Palouse-region. The sampling was limited because of the teachers' disputes in contract negotiations at the time of study. Because of this less than ideal climate, and the accompanying interruptions in schools, delays in arranging interviews limited the participation of all schools. In addition, although 51 teachers participated in the study, 17 teachers declined to be interviewed due to various reasons. Even though the 51 teachers were randomly selected from the 10 schools, some of the assumptions of the random ANOVA model may be violated because of the declination of eight schools and 17 teachers to participate in the study. Despite efforts made to schedule and interview all teachers selected from an individual school in one school day, some schools with a larger teacher population were visited over a twoday period. Because of this, respondents could possibly discuss interview content with others yet to be interviewed. To diminish this possibility, teachers were interviewed over the shortest possible time span and reminded of the confidentiality of the interview. Although interviews were conducted at the convenience of each teacher, certain interviews were not conducted under ideal situations. For instance, interviews interrupted by students or other teachers may have affected the length and quality of teachers' responses to open-ended questions. Because all the interviews were conducted by the principal investigator, the internal  45  reliability of the study may be questionable. However, to reduce threats to internal reliability, several strategies were implemented: (1) the interviews were tape recorded, (2) verbatim accounts of conversations and transcripts were reported, and (3) several graduate students participated to verify the content analysis.  46  CHAPTER IV: RESULTS This chapter will present the major results of the study. Additional summary tables for the items of the study instrument may be found in Appendix C. Although not all the tables will be discussed in the following chapters, the summary tables are included for the convenience of interested readers.  Description of the Sample The population sample for this study consisted of 51 full-time junior secondary school teachers (grades eight to ten) who teach in the public school system. Of the 51 teachers, 35 or 68.6% were males and 16 or 31.4% were females. As shown in Table 7, the sample of teachers were an experienced group, with a mean experience of 13.4 years and a range from a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 39 years.  More than half of the teachers had ten or more years of  experience in teaching. This characteristic may be significant since half of the respondents would have been able to observe the growth of environmental education activities between the 70's and 80's from a teacher's perspective.  Table 7. Distribution of Years of Teaching Experience for Respondents (n=51) Years of Experience  Frequency  Percent  1-5  13  25.5  6-10  10  19.6  11-+  28  54.9  Total:  51  100.0  Mean= 13.4 years  47  As indicated in Table 8, comparisons of the mean years of teaching experience between the districts did not differ significantly. Thus, the groups for each of the districts can be regarded as consisting of fairly experienced teachers.  Table 8. Comparison of Years of Experience Means Among Groups of Teachers.  Analysis of Variance Table Source Between Within Total  SS 109.65 4254.50 4364.16  Group:  Count  NON-CONFLICT RURAL  df 2 48 50  MS 54.83 88.64  F 0.619  P <0.05  Mean  Std. Dev.  Std. Error  23  15.00  11.14  2.32  13  12.31  8.61  2.39  15  11.87  6.73  1.74  URBAN CONFLICT RURAL  Comparison:  Mean Diff.  Fisher PLSD  Scheffe F-test  Dunnett t  NON-CONFLICT RURAL vs. URBAN  2.69  6.57  0.34  0.82  NON-CONFLICT RURAL vs. CONFLICT RURAL  3.13  6.28  0.50  1.00  URBAN vs. CONFLICT RURAL  0.44  7.17  0.01  0.12  When requested to specify an area of specialization other than education, the respondents replied with 14 teaching areas which ranged from English, Sciences, and Social Studies, to Art, Commerce, and Anthropology (See Table 9). As previously emphasized in the literature, a  48  conception often exists that environmental education should be included only in the science curriculum. Thus, two groups apropos to this study are those teachers with backgrounds in science and those in non-science related fields. Thirteen (25.5%) of the teachers listed science as their major background, while 13 English (25.5%) and 16 Social Studies (31.4%) were listed most often in the non-science group. Table 9. Areas of Specialization Reported by Respondents. Area  Frequency  Percent  Social Studies  16  English  13  31.4 25.5 25.5 19.6 15.7  Science  13  Physical Education Mathematics Psychology Industrial Education/ Technology Art French Anthropology Commerce Home Economics Music Women's Studies  1 0 8 5 3 2 2  3.9 3.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0  Total  77*  154.9*  9.8 5.9  'Figures add to greater than 51 respondents and 100% due to more than one area of specialization being possible from each respondent. Another relevant teacher characteristic for the study was the number of teachers who had exposure to environmental education training (See Table C. 1 in Appendix C). Almost half of the teachers reported having attended at least one environmental workshop/conference and course since becoming a teacher. When examining the groups of schools, a greater percentage of the non-conflict rural teachers (69.6%) and conflict-ridden rural teachers (60%) than the urban teachers (46.2%) reported attendance (See Table C. 2 in Appendix C).  49  Objective 1: Perceived Definitions of Environmental Education Objective 1 was to determine teachers' perceptions of a definition of environmental education. Subjects were asked to complete the phrase "Environmental education is...." Through content analysis, eight characteristics or concepts within the definitions were identified. [See Appendix D(1) for detailed discussion]. As indicated in Table 10, each of the first three categories were included in more than one third of the responses. That is, 60.8% of the teachers indicated that they believed that environmental education is, at least in part, gaining knowledge or awareness of the contents of our surroundings. Learning to use our resources wisely or awareness of how humans affect the environment was mentioned by 47.1% of the teachers, and learning about interactions and interdependences was included in their definition by 33.3% of the teachers. Interestingly, only 6.7% of the teachers who were all from the conflict-ridden rural region included outdoor education as part of their definition of environmental education. Table 10. Frequency Distribution Among Categories of Environmental Education Category  ount  Percent of Cases  Knowledge, Awareness of the Environment  31  60.8  Wise Use, Human's Effect on the Environment  24  47.1  Interactions, Interdependences  17  33.3  Protection of Natural Resources  12  23.5  Appreciation of the Environment  11  21.6  Environmental problems/Problem Solving  8  15.7  Science  3  5.9  Outdoor Education  1  2.0  Total: 107* 209.8* 'Figures add to greater than 51 respondents and 100% due to more than one response being possible from each respondent.  50  When teachers were separated into groups of schools, differences emerged in their definitions of environmental education. As indicated in Table 11, while 69.6% of the nonconflict rural teachers and 69.3 % of the urban teachers included gaining an awareness or knowledge of the environment in their definitions of environmental education, only 40.0% of the teachers in environmentally conflict-ridden rural communities included these elements. In contrast to the responses from teachers of non-conflict rural and urban schools, learning about the interactions and/or interdependences of the environment were most frequently specified by teachers in the environmentally conflict-ridden rural communities (46.7%). Another difference observed among the groups of schools was the frequency in which educating students about environmental problems and/or the role they play in solving these problems were included in the teachers' definitions. While 21.7% of the non-conflict rural teachers and 23.1% of the urban teachers emphasized this element in their definitions, none of the teachers in the environmentally conflict-ridden rural communities included this element in their definitions.  51  Table 11.  Frequency Distribution Among Categories of Environmental Education Definitions When Separated into Groups of Schools  Categories  Non-Conflict Rural n=23  Urban nxl3  Conflict-ridden Rural n=1S  Knowledge, Awareness of the Environment  69.6%  69.3%  40%  Wise Use, Human's Effect on the Environment  52.2%  46.2%  40%  Interactions, Interdependence  21.7%  38.5%  46.7%  Protection of Natural Resources  21.7%  23.1%  26.7%  Appreciation of the Environment  2 6.1 %  15.4%  20.0 %  Environmental Problems/Problem Solving  21.7%  23.1%  0  Outdoor Education  0  0  6.7%  Science  4.3%  0  13.3%  52  Objective 2: Perceptions of Environmental Education's Place In the  Curriculum  Objective Two was to determine teachers' perceptions of environmental education's place in the junior secondary school curriculum. Nine categories of responses were identified through content analysis when respondents were asked "Where should environmental education be taught in the public school curriculum?" [See definitions of these categories in Appendix D(2)]. Overall, 66.7% of the respondents indicated that environmental education should be included in all subjects throughout the school curriculum (See Table 12). In addition, 27.5% of the respondents indicated that environmental education should be taught in science, while 19.6% of the respondents stated that environmental education should be included in the social studies curriculum. Table12 summarizes the inclusion of environmental education in other areas as indicated by the teachers. Table 12.  Frequency Distribution Among Categories of Responses Indicating the Area in which Environmental Education Should be Taught in the School Curriculum.  Category  Count  Percentage of Cases  Throughout Curriculum  34  66.7  Science  14  27.5  Social Studies  10  19.6  Within Non-traditional Curriculum  8  15.7  Humanities  3  5.9  Separate Subject  2  3.9  Science Strandt  1  2.0  Unstructured  1  2.0  73'  143.5*  Total  •Figures add to greater than 51 respondents and 100% due to more than one response being possible from each respondent. tScience Strand represents a Science/Mathematics integrated program  53  Comparisons were made between groups of schools by rank-ordering the categories according to the frequency of responses by the subjects. The Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance by ranks was computed to test for differences between the rank-orderings. The test is useful for determining whether the independent samples are from different populations. The Kruskal-Wallis technique tests the null hypothesis which is premised on the idea that the samples in the study come from the same population or from identical populations with the same median. Thus, the Kruskal-Wallis test assesses the differences among the average ranks to determine whether they are so disparate that they are not likely to have come from samples which were drawn from the same population (see Appendix E).  In determining environmental  education's place in the curriculum, no significant differences existed in the rank-orderings when the schools from the three areas (non-conflict rural, urban, conflict-ridden rural) were compared. (See Table C. 3 in Appendix C). However, a general trend in the percentage of respondents who indicated that environmental education should be taught throughout the curriculum among the three groups were apparently different when individual categories were examined. Ninety-three percent of the teachers from the environmentally conflict-ridden rural area and 60.9% of the teachers from the non-conflict rural areas stated that environmental education should be taught throughout the curriculum compared to only 46.2% of the urban teachers. Similarly, a trend that showed differences among the groups were apparent when 53.8% of the urban teachers and 30.4% of the non-conflict rural teachers specified that environmental education should be taught in the science curriculum compared to none of the teachers from the environmentally conflict-ridden rural area. In addition, none of the teachers from the environmentally conflictridden rural area indicated that environmental education should be taught in the social studies curriculum, while 46.2% of the urban teachers and 17.4% of the non-conflict rural teachers  favoured the inclusion of environmental education in social studies. Respondents were also asked to indicate the curriculum areas in which they usually include environmental education.  Interestingly, while 66.7% (Table 12) of the teachers  believed that environmental education should be taught across the curriculum, only 13.7% or seven respondents (Table 13) reported actual inclusion of environmental education in all the subjects they taught (i.e., throughout the curriculum).  In fact, 29.4 % of the respondents did  not include environmental education in any of the subject areas they taught. Science and social studies were identified most frequently by the teachers (27.5% and 19.6%, respectively) as the two areas in which environmental education is usually taught (See Table 13). Of the 14 (27.5%) teachers who indicated that they included environmental education in science, 13 of the teachers were classified as science teachers in their schools. Similarly, of the 10 (19.6%) teacher who indicated that they included environmental education in social studies, 8 of the teachers were assigned to teach at least one social studies course in their schools. Thus, the reported actual inclusion of environmental education reflected the type of course the teachers taught. Moreover, the reported number of actual inclusion and implementation of environmental education in science and social studies is consistent with the number of respondents who believed that environmental education should be taught in science and social studies (See Table 12). Hence, Table 12 and 13 show that for science and social studies, these teachers who were mostly science and social studies specialists actually translated their beliefs into action.  55  Table 13.  Frequency Distribution of Responses Indicating the Curriculum Areas In Which Respondents Include Environmental Education  Category  Count  Percent of the Cases  None  15  29.4  Science  14  27.5  Social Studies  10  19.6  English  9  17.6  All Subjects  7  13.7  Art  3  5.9  Physical Education  2  3.9  Mathematics  1  2.0  Technology  1  2.0  6 2*  121.8*  Total  'Figures add to greater than 51 respondents and 100 % due to more than one response being possible from each respondent. When separated into groups of respondents, there were no statistically significant difference between rank-orderings for urban schools and the other two areas, non-conflict rural and conflict-ridden rural (See Table C. 4 in Appendix C). However, some trends that were apparently different resulted. Forty-six percent of the urban teachers did not include any environmental education activities compared to only 26.1% and 20.0% of the non-conflict rural teachers and teachers from conflict-ridden rural schools, respectively.  In addition,  26.7% of the teachers from the conflict-ridden rural area indicated that they included environmental education activities and discussions in all subjects and science and 30.4% of the non-conflict rural teachers included environmental education activities in science and social studies. In contrast, only 13.3% of the urban teachers included environmental education activities in all subjects and social studies and only 20% of the non-conflict urban teachers  56  taught environmental education in science. The rank-orders are displayed in Table C. 5 in Appendix C. Question 7 asked respondents to rank the importance of logistical, educational, attitudinal, and conceptual environmental education barriers. Of the 15 barriers, the factor of "environmental education not being prescribed in the curriculum" was ranked eighth relative to the other barriers and had an overall mean rank of 7.75. This conceptual barrier factor was categorized as either the "most important" or an "important" barrier to environmental education by 43.2% of the respondents (See Table 14). Although no difference in overall mean ranks between the urban, non-conflict rural and environmentally conflict-ridden rural areas were observed, a difference was found in how the teachers from the various areas perceived the prescription of environmental education in the school curriculum. Teachers from the conflict-ridden rural areas did not consider "environmental education not being prescribed in the curriculum" as a major barrier (ranked twelfth) as compared to urban teachers (ranked sixth) and non-conflict rural teachers (ranked seventh). Thus, although environmental education is not formally prescribed in the curriculum, only 20 % of the teachers from the conflict-ridden rural region considered this lack of prescription as a barrier to implementing environmental education compared to 47.8% of the non-conflict rural teachers and 61.5% of the urban teachers (See Table 15). Objective 3: Logistical  Barriers  The third objective was to determine the relative importance of selected logistical barriers. During the interview, the respondents were requested to separate 15 cards which listed possible barriers to environmental education into three groups according to their perceived importance: "most important," "important" and "not important". Eleven of these factors used in this study were classified by Ham and Sewing as logistical barriers. Shown in  57  Table 14 is the resulting rank-ordering of the barriers according to mean ranking. Table 14.  Relative Importance of Logistical Barriers to Environmental Education (EE)  Rank  Barrier  Mean Rank  Groijp Frequencies* (%) Most Important Not Important Important  1*  Lack of EE material  2.3  29.4  47.1  23.5  2*  Lack of time in school day  2.5  31.4  39.2  29.4  3*  Lack of funding  3.4  27.5  47.1  25.5  4*  Lack of preparation time  3.5  27.5  39.2  33.3  5  Lack of EE knowledge  4.4  13.7  41.2  45.1  6*  Transportation problems  5.5  15.7  43.1  41.2  7  Lack of science knowledge  7.1  11.8  37.2  51.0  8  EE is not prescribed  7.8  15.7  27.5  56.9  9*  Class size too large  9.0  3.9  29.4  66.7  10*  Safety problems  10.3  2.0  25.5  72.5  1 1'  Liability worries  11.3  5.9  13.7  80.3  12*  Lack of principal support  11.4  5.9  13.7  80.4  13  EE is not relevant to what I teach  11.9  2.0  15.7  82.4  14*  No natural environments readily available  13.5  3.9  5.9  62.7  15*  Class size too small  14.0  0  3.9  96.1  * Logistical barriers  As previously discussed in Chapter 2, lack of instructional materials and lack of time and funding have been identified as three major logistical barriers to environmental education. In this study, these same barriers ranked in the top four of the "most important" barrier to environmental education. The most important logistical barrier overall to environmental education was "lack of environmental education materials" with 76.5% of the respondents  58  placing it in either the "most important" or the "important" category. "Lack of time in the school day," placed by 70.6% of the respondents in the two above categories, was second in the overall rank-ordering. "Lack of funding" was ranked third among the top four overall barriers. Lack of funding was placed in either the "most important1 or "important" categories by 74.6% of the respondents. Fourth in the overall ranking was "lack of preparation time." More than three-fifths of the respondents (66.7%) placed it in either the "most important" or "important" barrier groups. Other logistical barriers considered as somewhat important were "transportation problems" and "class size too large", which appeared sixth and ninth in the overall rankordering, respectively. More than half of the respondents placed "transportation problems" in either the "most important' or "important" groups, while more than one-third of respondents categorized "class size too large" in on of the "most important" and "important" groups. The overall rank-orders generated when respondents were separated according to groups of schools were likely from the same population as indicated by the Kruskal-Wallis calculated observed value. That is, there was probably no significant difference in the overall mean ranks among the teachers from the three types of areas according to the Kruskal-Wallis calculations. The rank-orders for each group and frequency distributions among the "importance" categories are shown in Table15. However, although no overall statistical differences were observed, differing trends were evident when individual barriers were examined. For instance, "lack of funding" was very highly ranked as a barrier by both teachers from the non-conflict rural (ranked third) and conflict-ridden rural (ranked first) schools as compared to urban teachers. Forty percent of the respondents from the conflict-ridden rural area and 34.8% of the respondents from the non-conflict rural area placed "lack of funding" in the "most important" category compared to 0% of the respondents from the urban area. Since the urban teachers  59  appeared to view funding as being adequate, it is not surprising to find that while the non -conflict rural teachers ranked "lack of environmental education materials" as the first most important barrier and teachers from the conflict-ridden rural area as the second most important barrier, the urban teachers ranked the "lack of educational materials" as the fourth most important barrier.  Similarly, "problems with transportation" were perceived  differently. While 69.6% of the non-conflict rural teachers and 60% of the teachers from the conflict-ridden rural area placed this barrier in either the "most important" or "important" categories, only 38.5% of the urban teachers placed transportation problems in these categories. Another difference was found in how the teachers perceived principal/administration support as a barrier to environmental education. Non-conflict urban teachers and teachers from the conflict-ridden rural zone considered the lack of principal/administration support much more of a problem than non-conflict rural teachers. Evidently, 30.8% of the urban teachers and 33.3% of the teachers in the conflict-ridden rural area viewed the lack of principal/administration support as the "most important" and "important" barrier compared to only 4.3% of the non-conflict rural teachers. This difference may have been influenced by the teachers' disputes with their school boards in the urban and conflict-ridden rural area during the time of this study.  60 Table 15. Comparison Among the Schools in the Three Types of Areas of Relative Importance of Logistical Barriers to Environmental Education Barrier  Non- conflict Rura I Freq uenciesf (%) n=23 Rank Mlmp Imp  NImp  Conflict-ridden Rural Frequencies! (%) n=15  Urban Frequencies! (%) n s l 3 Rank Mlmp Imp  NImp  Rank Mlmp Imp  NImp  Lack of EE material*  1  26.1  56.5  17.4  4  46.2  15.4  38.5  2  20.0  60.0  20.0  Lack of time in school day*  2  34.8  43.5  21.7  1  23.1  46.2  30.8  4  33.3  26.7  40.0  Lack of funding*  3  34.8  39.1 26.1  7  0  61.5  38.5  1  40.0  46.7  13.3  Lack of preparation time*  5  26.1  34.8  39.1  2.5  15.4  53.8  30.8  3  40.0  33.3  26.7  Lack of environmental knowledge  6  I4.3  47.8  47.8  2.5  15.4  53.8  30.8  6  26.7  20.0  53.3  56.5  30.4  8  7.7  30.8  61.5  5  26.7  33.3  40.0  38.5  38.5  7  13.3  33.3  53.3  12  0  20.0  80.0  8  0  46.7  53.3  Transportation problems*  4  13.0  Lack of science knowledge  8  4.3  39.1  56.5  5  23.1  EE is not prescribed  7  26.1  21.7  52.2  6  15.4 46.2 38.5  Class size too large*  10  4.3  21.7  73.9  9  7.7  Safety problems*  9  0  11  7.7  7.7  84.6  11  0  26.7  73.3  Liability  11  4.3  17.4  78.3  14  0  7.7  92.3  10  13.3 13.3  73.3  Lack of principal support*  14  4.3  0  95.7  9  7.7  23.1 69.2  9  6.7 26.7  66.7  EE is not relevant  12  0  13.0 87.0  9  7.7  23.1 69.2  13  0  13.3  86.7  No natural environmental available*  13  8.7  91.3  13  0  15.4 84.6  14.5  0  6.7  93.3  Class size too small*  15  0  4.3 95.7  15  0  0  6.7  93.3  worries*  34.8 65.2  4.3  23.1 69.2  0  100  14.5  'Logistical barriers r Categories of importance were: Most Important (Mlmp), Important (Imp), and Not Important (NImp). Notes: Kruskal-Wallis=-1.08; Critical Value: KW.95=5.99  61  In an attempt to identify why the lack of time is perceived to be such an important barrier to environmental education, respondents were requested to list the factors that contributed to the amount of time environmental education would require if implemented. Eight categories of responses were identified through content analysis. [See Appendix D (4) for the definitions of these categories]. As shown in Table 16, one response was most prevalent. About seventy percent (70.6%) of the teachers stated that preparation of lesson plans, materials, and activities was the most time-consuming factor. The second most frequent response, asserted by 17.6% of the teachers, was the amount of time necessary to become knowledgeable about environmental education concepts and materials. When groups of schools were compared, the resulting rank-ordering were very similar between the urban and non-conflict rural schools, but both differed from the conflict-ridden rural schools. (See Table C. 5 in Appendix C)  Table 16.  Frequency Distribution of Responses Indicating Time-Consuming Factors in Environmental Education  Category  Count  % of Cases  Preparation  36  70.6  Becoming knowledgeable  9  17.6  Lack of curriculum time  5  9.8  Teaching abstract concepts  5  9.8  Changing attitudes  4  7.8  Field trips  3  5.9  Environmental Education activities  3  5.9  Uncertain  1  2.0  Total 66 129.4 * Figures add to greater than 51 respondents and 100% due to more than one response being possible from each respondent.  62  The detailed factors which contributed most to the expense of environmental education were also solicited from the respondents. Content analysis identified six categories of responses [See Appendix D (3) for the definitions of the categories]. More than half of the responses were categorized to include one of two categories. As indicated in Table 17, 58.8% of the teachers specified field trips and 58.8% of the teachers noted that the costs associated with purchasing environmental education materials were the major expenses to environmental education implementation. In addition, 25.5% of the teachers viewed teacher training and 19.6% of the teachers considered curriculum organization as another significant cost of environmental education implementation. Only 3.9% of the teachers stated that environmental education was inexpensive. Table 17. Frequency Distribution of Responses Indicating Contributing Expenses to Environmental Education Category  Count  % of Cases  Field trips  30  58.8  Materials  30  58.8  Teacher Training  13  25.5  Curriculum Organization  10  19.6  Guest Speakers  4  7.8  Inexpensive  2  3.9  89*  174.4*  Total  'Figures add to greater than 51 respondents and 100 % due to more than one response being possible from each respondent. When comparisons were made between groups of schools, resulting rank-order means did not differ statistically as indicated by the computed Kruskal-Wallis value (See Table C. 7 in Appendix C).  63  As shown in Table 18, respondents relied greatly on provincial agencies to provide resources. Over sixty percent (64.7%) of the respondents named provincial agencies as the most likely source in obtaining environmental education information and materials. Environmental associations and/or groups, listed by 47.1% of respondents, and the respondents' colleagues, listed by 41.2%, were also reported as likely sources of environmental education information and materials. Thirty-three percent (33.3%) of the respondents named an individual or specific department at the university level, while 35.3% of the respondents specified local resources, which ranged from community experts to recreation departments, as sources to contact in acquiring environmental education information and materials. Only one respondent indicated that he did not know any source to contact for environmental information.  64  Table 18. Frequency Distribution of Responses Indicating Sources to Contact for Environmental Education Information and Materials Count  % of Cases  Provincial Agency  33  64.7  Environmental Associations/Groups  24  47.1  Another Teacher  21  41.2  Other (local resources)  18  35.3  University Resource  17  33.3  Federal Agency  10  19.6  Popular Reading Material  4  7.8  Textbook  3  5.9  Study Guide  1  2.0  Would not know who to contact  1  2.0  132*  258.9*  Source  Total  'Figures add to greater than 51 respondents and 100% due to more than one response being possible from each respondent. Again, no significant statistical differences among the rank-order means were observed when comparisons were made between groups of schools (See Tables C. 6 and C. 7 in Appendix C).  65  Qbjectlye 4; Education^ Barriers The fourth objective was to determine teachers' perceptions of their preparation and training to conduct environmental education activities. Two barriers, "my own lack of knowledge about environmental education" and "my own lack of a natural science background," were included in the group of barriers that respondents were asked to rank in importance for Question 7. As indicated in Table 19, both were ranked as fairly important. Although other barriers which were primarily logistical were ranked as more important, "lack of environmental education knowledge" was still placed in either the "most important" or "important" category by over half of the respondents (54.9%) and ranked fifth overall. In addition, a significant difference was found in how teachers from the urban, non-conflict rural, and conflict-ridden rural areas perceived the importance of this factor. As Table15 shows, while the teachers from the non-conflict rural and conflict-ridden rural areas ranked "lack of environmental education knowledge" as the sixth most important barrier, urban teachers ranked this factor, on average, as the 2.5 most important barrier. Although a natural science background is not necessary to teach environmental education (Ritz, 1977; Clark 1975; Hungerford, 1975), many teachers still considered this qualification as important. Table 19 shows that almost 50% of the respondents placed this factor in either the "most important" (11.8%) or "important" (37.2%) category.  Its  importance, like the environmental knowledge barrier, was perceived differently by teachers from the three types of areas. As Table 15 indicates, 43.5% of the rural teachers and 46.7% of the teachers from the conflict-ridden rural area categorized this factor as either "most important" or "important" compared to 61.5% of the urban teachers.  66  Table 19. Relative Importance of Educational Barriers to Environmental Education (EE) Rank  Barrier  Mean Rank  Grouo Freauencies * (%) Most Important Not Important Important  1  Lack of EE material  2.250  29.4  47.1  23.5  2  Lack of time in school day  2.500  31.4  39.2  29.4  3  Lack of funding  3.375  27.5  47.1  25.5  4  Lack of preparation time  3.500  27.5  39.2  33.3  5*  Lack of EE knowledge  4.400  13.7  41.2  45.1  6  Transportation problems  5.500  15.7  43.1  41.2  7*  Lack of science knowledge  7.125  11.8  37.2  51.0  8  EE is not prescribed  7.750  15.7  27.5  56.9  9  Class size too large  8.958  3.9  29.4  66.7  10  Safety problems  10.250  2.0  25.5  72.5  11  Liability worries  11.250  5.9  13.7  80.3  12  Lack of principal support  11.417  5.9  13.7  80.4  13  EE is not relevant to what I teach  11.917  2.0  15.7  82.4  14  No natural environments readily available  13.458  3.9  5.9  62.7  15  Class size too small  14.000  3.9  96.1  0  * Educational barriers. As might be expected, slight differences were observed when the rankings of these two educational barriers were compared between teachers with science backgrounds and those with non-science backgrounds (e.g., English, Music, Social Studies, etc.). Table 20 indicates that 61.5% of the teachers with science backgrounds did not consider their lack of environmental knowledge as an important barrier. In contrast, 44.7% of the teachers with non-science backgrounds classified this factor as a barrier that was 'not important.' In addition, as shown  67  in Table 2 1 , similar differences were evident when the respondents classified "lack of a natural science background" within the importance scale. Again, 61.5% of the teachers with science backgrounds categorized the "lack of natural science background" as a barrier that was compared to only 44.7% of the teachers with non-science backgrounds. The similarities in the categorization of the importance of the two factors, "lack of environmental education knowledge" and "lack of natural science background, " implies that respondents may be equating environmental education knowledge with natural science knowledge. Table 20. Relative Importance of "Lack of Environmental Education Knowledge" to Respondents with Science and Non-Science Backgrounds Group  Categories Most  Important  Important  Not  Important  Respondents with Science  Background  7.7%  30.8%  61.5%  13.2%  42.1%  44.7%  (n=13) Respondents with Non-Science  Background  (n = 38)  Table 21. Relative Importance of "Lack of Natural Science Background" to Respondents with Science and Non-Science Backgrounds Group  Categories Most  Important  Important  Not  Important  Respondents with Science  Background  7.7%  30.8%  61.5%  39.5%  44.7%  (n = 13) Respondents with Non-Science  Background  15.8%  (n = 3 8 ) When questioned on the type of training or background desirable for a teacher to be knowledgeable in teaching environmental education (Question11), the respondents provided  68  answers that were inconsistent with the above findings. Table 22 indicates the frequency distribution of responses among categories established in the content analysis of this question. [See Appendix D(5) for the definitions of the categories]. As shown, over 100% of the responses were classified under two categories. First, 60.8% of the teachers indicated that no special training was necessary in order to be knowledgeable in teaching environmental education. For example, some teachers reasoned that it was an individual's responsibility to become knowledgeable. Others asserted that reading current newspapers, journals, and magazines and other sources were all that was necessary for being knowledgeable in teaching environmental education. Conversely, a substantial number of teachers believed that knowledge in environmental education and scientific knowledge was necessary for teaching environmental education. Respondents suggested that this background could be attained through university courses, education classes, workshops, and environmental education methods classes in which content areas might include hands-on learning, integration of environmental education into other subject areas, or application of environmental materials to specific grade levels. In support of this interpretation, a background in science was indicated to be the best preparation by only 17.6% of the respondents, specifically courses in natural science, environmental science training, and science methods. When comparisons were performed between groups of schools, the calculated observed Kruskal-Wallis value indicated the rankings of the categories to be from the same population and are thus, not significantly different (See Table C. 8 in Appendix C).  69 Table 22. Frequency Distribution Among Response Categories Indicating Desirable Background for Teaching Environmental Education. Category  Count  % of Cases  Special Training is Not Necessary  31  60.8%  Environmental Education  22  43.1%  Science  9  17.6%  Knowledge of Outdoors/Outdoor Skills  3  5.9%  Social Studies  1  2.0%  Total  66*  129.4%*  * Figures add to greater than 51 respondents and 100% due to more than one response being possible from each respondent.  Objective  5: Attitudinal  Barriers  The fifth objective was to determine teachers' perceptions of the importance of environmental education relative to other parts of the curriculum. Overall, respondents considered that environmental education was important, and their attitudes toward environmental education can be described as very positive. Several results support this observation and are discussed in the following pages. First, the selected teachers were required to rate the importance of several nontraditional areas of education in a student's junior secondary education based on six Likert-type items ranging from "not important" (coded "1") to "extremely important" (coded "6") (See Tables C. 9 and C. 10 in Appendix C for results). The mean score for environmental education was 5.2 which places the importance of environmental education between "very important" and "extremely important." The results of the one-way ANOVA calculation indicate no significant differences exists among mean ratings of responses from the urban, non-conflict rural, and conflict-ridden rural areas (See Table 23).  70  Table 23.  Results of ANOVA Among Groups of Schools Comparing Mean Importance Ratings of Environmental Education  Summary Table Source  SS  df  MS  F  P  Between  1.135  2  0.567  0.828  < 0.05  Within  32.904  48  0.686  Total  34.039  50  F0.95 = F2.28 = 3.19  The teachers were also requested to select, from the same list of non-traditional teaching areas, the three most important and the three least important types of education to include in a student's junior secondary education. As shown in Table 24, respondents ranked five educational areas as more important than environmental education. However, ten other areas were ranked below environmental education in terms of importance. When the rankings were compared among groups of schools, the calculated Kruskal-Wallis value indicate that there is no significant difference between the samples (See Table C. 11 in Appendix C). Over ninety percent (90.2%) of the teachers agreed that kindergarten was the appropriate level to begin formal environmental education instruction. Furthermore, 94.1% of the teachers believed that environmental education instruction should never end. The rest of the 5.9% of the teachers indicated that environmental education should at least be taught through the twelfth grade. These are indications that respondents considered environmental education to be important enough to be included at all grade levels. One of the factors the selected teachers were asked to rank as a barrier to environmental education was 'Environmental education is not particularly relevant to what I'm trying to teach." 82.4% of the teachers placed this factor in the "not important" category and it ranked  71  eleventh in the 15 item ranking (See Table 14). Again, this provides some indication that the teachers have very positive attitudes towards environmental education and consider environmental education to be an important part of a student's junior secondary education.  Table 24.  Relative Importance of Non-traditional Education Areas.  Rank  Education Area  1  Self-concept Enhancement  1.0  2  Career Education  3.5  3  Computer Education  4.6  4  Creativity Enhancement  4.8  5  Values Clarification  5.5  6  Environmental Education  5.8  7  Sex Education  6.8  8  Multicultural Education  8.0  9  Vocational Education  8.1  10  Music Education  11.5  1 1  Safety Education  12.0  12.5  Extracurricular  12.5  Athletics/Team Sports  12.3  14  Consumer Education  13.1  15  Art Education  13.5  16  Bilingual Education  13.5  Activities  Mean Rank  12.1  Although the teachers reported having positive attitudes toward environmental education, these positive attitudes did not necessarily translate into the actual implementation and instruction of environmental education in the classroom. The teachers were requested to estimate the frequency that they conducted environmental education discussions or activities. Four Likert-type items were used for this estimation: "never" (coded "1"), "now and then" (coded "2"), "frequently" (coded"3"), and "continually" (coded "4"). About half of the teachers (50.98%) asserted that they conducted environmental education discussions or activities "now  72  and then." (See Tables C. 12 in Appendix C). In addition, 19.61% of the teachers never conducted any environmental education discussions or activities while only 7.84% of the teachers stated that they implemented environmental education discussions or activities continually. The overall mean rating of the frequency in which the teachers conducted environmental education discussion or activities was 2.2 placing the responses between the "now and then" and "rather frequently" items. One-way ANOVA calculations indicated no significant differences in mean ratings when the groups of schools were compared (See Table C. 13 in Appendix C). Environmental Education Barrier Scales Consisting of 16 statements presented in Likert-type format, Question 12 was designed to include items referring to five possible barriers to environmental education: lack of funding, lack of time, conception that science is the best background for teaching environmental education (Ritz, 1977; Clark, 1975; Hungerford, 1975), educational barriers, and attitudinal barriers. According to Ham and Sewing, after performing a factor analysis on the barrier scales, the educational barrier scales were eliminated from further analysis because of low inter-item correlations (See Sewing, 1986). Because of the low inter-item correlations reported by Ham and Sewing, originally intended items from the educational barrier scale were not used in the present study. However, although the items were not used for analyses in the present study, the inclusion of these items may have influenced respondents' thoughts on other items in Question 12. Hence, the educational barrier scale was included in the present study for consistency and comparability to Ham and Sewing's study. The two components classified as logistical barriers in this study were time and funding. Seven statements in Question 12 revealed additional insights into how respondents viewed the factors of time and funding. Four statements comprised the lack of time scale resulting in a  73  possible scoring range of 4 to 16 for each respondent.3 As the histogram in Figure 3 indicates, respondents' scores ranged widely. In comparison to the median of 10.0, the resulting mean score of 8.16 indicate that respondents viewed the lack of time factor as an important influence in decisions to implement environmental education instruction. This is consistent with the findings discussed earlier in this study which revealed that respondents ranked the factors of "lack of time in the school day" and "lack of preparation time" as second and fourth, respectively, as important barriers to environmental education (See Table 14). One-way ANOVA calculations indicated at least one statistically significant difference in the mean scores among the groups of schools (See Table C. 14 in Appendix C). Further analysis using the multiple comparison test of Scheffe F-test indicated that there is was a significant difference between how the teachers from the non-conflict rural and conflict-ridden rural regions viewed the lack of time factor. Thus, with a mean score of 9.04, the non-conflict rural teachers tend to perceive the lack of time factor as less of a barrier than teachers from the conflict-ridden rural area who scored a mean of 7.20. However, both of the means in the two regions fall in the Magnitude of Barrier t?K>re « •—•less 14 1 to  E< Ul  ui  00  Z  1  2-1  MIDPOINT: 10 CI f l  0  MEAN SCORE: 8.16  8 JO. 12 14 16 Often Sometimes Never Always SCORES Frequency distribution of respondents' scores on "lack of time" scale 4  Figure 3.  (1  -_  6  74  Three items comprised the lack of funding scale with a possible scoring range of 3 to 12 for each respondent.4 In Figure 4, the histogram reveals that 98% of the respondents had scores less than the median of 7.5 . This result substantiates the findings presented earlier in this study which showed that respondents ranked this factor third overall in the importance of barriers to environmental education (See Table 14). Hence, teachers viewed the lack of funding as a major barrier in the implementation of environmental education activities and programs. No significant differences among the mean scores were found when comparisons were performed among groups of schools (See Table C. 15 in Appendix C). Magnitude of Barrier more *16  -» less  CO t-  £ 12 5 z p 10 CO Q£  8  fe  6-.  a  1  4  .,.n.,  2 0 Always  MIDPOINT: 7.5 MEAN SCORE: 4.84  £"_"?  Often Sometimes Never SCORES Figure 4. Frequency distribution of respondents' scores on "lack of funding" scale.  A scoring range of 4 to 16 was attainable for the attitude toward environmental education scale made up of four statements.5  All the respondents scored higher than the median of 10.0  as indicated by the histogram in Figure 5. The mean score was 14.5, which agree with the results previously presented in this study indicating that respondents have a very positive attitude towards environmental education. When comparisons were made between the groups of  75  schools using ANOVA, no significant differences emerged (See Table C. 16 in Appendix C). Magnitude of Barrier -Hess  more 4-  1616 £ 12 o <2 10-1  b  8  £5 6^  1« 1\ _ .0 4.  Figure 5.  , ,, , n  6 . Always  8 10. 12 . Often Sometimes "SCORES ]  MIDPOINT: 10 MEAN SCORE: 14.5 \4  16  Never  Frequency distribution of respondents' scores on attitude scale  Three statements made up the factor that examined the belief that science is the best background for teaching environmental education. Thus, a scoring range of 3 to 12 for each respondent was possible.6 According to the histogram in Figure 6, more than half (55% ) of the respondents scored above the median. In addition, an overall mean of 7.91 indicates that respondents thought that lacking a science background can sometimes hinder the implementation of environmental education discussions and activities in their classrooms. This finding is consistent with the other results in this study which showed that approximately half of the respondents (49.0%) categorized the "lack of science knowledge" as either a "most important" or "important" barrier and ranked this factor seventh out of the 15 environmental education barriers (See Table 19). Moreover, "a background in science" was the third most frequently reported response when respondents were asked to indicate the best type of preparation for teachers to teach environmental education (See Table 22). However, as indicated earlier in this  76  study, differences were observed in how teachers with and without science backgrounds viewed "a background in science" as a necessary prerequisite for teaching environmental education. When comparisons were made between groups of schools, the calculated F value in the one-way ANOVA test indicated no significant differences (See Table C. 17 in Appendix C). Magnitude of Barrier more • -  12  —9 less  10 V)  z d  8  ui  b  i  a. o  u.  e  4  00  Z z  2 0 5  a  MIDPOINT: 7.5 n  MEAN SCORE: 7.91  4 5^ 6^ 7 „ w 8 9 10 11 12 Always Often Sometimes Never SCORES  Figure 6.  Frequency distribution of respondents' scores on "lack of science  background" scale.  77  CH.5: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS  The purpose of this study was to identify and determine the relative importance of barriers which hindered junior secondary school teachers from implementing environmental education programs. The findings, as presented in the previous chapter, suggest that barriers do exist for junior secondary school teachers in the Richmond, Hope, Chilliwack, and Alberni school districts. This chapter presents plausible explanations for the major findings of this study. This discussion is organized around, and based on the categories of barriers employed throughout the study. However, it is important to note that the four main categories of conceptual, logistical, educational, and attitudinal barriers, as defined by Ham and Sewing, function only as a tool and are not necessarily held to be universally accepted. Since this study was derived from Ham and Sewing's research, references and comparisons of results between the two studies will be made. A subsequent section on differences in results between teachers of the urban, non-conflict rural, and environmentally conflict-ridden rural districts concludes the chapter. Conceptual  Barriers  As discussed in the literature review, one of the most important problems confronting environmental educators is the lack of explicitness in the definition of what "environmental education" includes and precludes (Troy & Schwaab, 1982). In a Journal of Environmental Education opinion piece, Keach (1978) commented that a diverse range of "concepts, generalizations, and processes" (p. 3) have not been well integrated into environmental education. Weibel (1983) attributed this problem to a "lack of blue print" (p. 42) which has resulted in environmental education's sporadic rate of progress. The initial stages of environmental education lacked focus and fine details that were added later in a piecemeal  78  fashion. Consequently, vague guidelines and objectives, designed by educational offices at various levels, yielded environmental education curricula deficient in direction, organization, and conceptual clarity. Because of the difficulty in defining the scope and purpose of environmental education, it is not surprising to find teachers in this study providing a variety of environmental education definitions. However, most definitions emphasized cognitive objectives. As discussed in the literature review, Lucas (1979) classifies this type of environmental education as education about the environment. That is, definitions stressed teaching about the content of the environment, interactions of environmental components, or of human uses of the environment. Education foi the environment (Lucas, 1979) which stresses the affective objectives of environmental education including teaching students to value their environment or to appreciate the importance of the environment, were generally ignored by respondents. In addition, elements that focussed on helping students actually solve environmental problems and develop problem solving skills as recommended by Stapp (1969) were lacking in many of the definitions provided by the teachers. Focussing on the cognitive rather than the affective aspects of environmental education may be influenced by the type of teaching practices utilized at the junior secondary level. That is, unlike learning concepts and information, attitudes may not be formed through a rational process by which facts are gathered and a reasonable conclusion drawn. Furthermore, cognitive exercises that elicit a rational response may also be less time consuming, less sensitive, and easier to evaluate than affective exercises which elicit an emotional response. This may explain, in part, the emphasis on cognitive components in the definitions of environmental education. Second, another possible explanation for the narrow focus may emanate from the technique used to acquire a definition from respondents. Although given unlimited time to  79  provide a definition of environmental education, respondents were not given reference materials, discussion opportunities, or revision periods to assist in their responses. The extensiveness of Stapp's (1969) definition for environmental education used in this study provides evidence that formulating an organized and complete definition was a fairly demanding assignment. Unlike findings from other studies in which elementary and secondary teachers identified science and social studies as the two areas most often responsible for environmental instruction (Arnsdorf, 1975; Bottinelli, 1976; Childress, 1978; Ham & Sewing, 1987; Hyde 1976; Langseth 1982; Tewksbury & Harris, 1982), the majority of the respondents in this study believed that environmental education should be taught throughout the school curriculum. This is consistent with the widely accepted belief that environmental education should be interdisciplinary (Cook, 1982; Tanner, 1974; Terry, 1971).  This disparate finding between  the present study and the other studies, may be due to two factors: (1) the changing practices of teachers and (2) the teachers' exposure to environmental education issues. First, since the studies in the literature review were conducted prior to 1988, the present study may reflect changing teachers' attitudes and teaching practices in recent times. For example, the recent implementation of the Year 2000 program in British Columbia (B. C. Ministry of Education, 1990a) may have influenced the teachers' responses. The Year 2000 philosophy is partly based on curricular integration which is viewed by educators as "a means of reflecting the nature of learning, addressing question of relevance, and attending to the 'connections' that can facilitate transfer of learnings from one setting to new situations" (p. 26). The nature of the evolution of this teaching philosophy and methodology in British Columbia may partly explain the deviation of responses from this study compared to other studies.  80  Another plausible explanation for the differing views between the past and present study is the impact of the environmental education movement. With environmental concerns such as deforestation, pollution, and energy resources so apparent and gaining much media attention today, teachers, like the rest of the population, are becoming increasingly conscious of the enormous impact of technology on human as well as natural systems. As a result, teachers are becoming more aware of the importance of the interconnective nature of environmental education.  Evidently, the holistic nature of environmental education is advocated by 66.7% of  the respondents who advocate the integration of environmental education throughout the school curriculum. In addition, more than half of the teachers in this study had ten or more years teaching experience. Thus, since many of the respondents likely observed and participated in the growth of environmental education activities during the 70's and 80's, they may be well versed in the environmental education philosophy. Moreover, 4 5 . 1 % of the respondents reported attendance at one or more environmental workshops and/or courses where likely the integrated philosophy of environmental education was proposed (See Table C. 1 and C. 2 in Appendix C). Although the majority of the teachers maintained that environmental education should be integrated throughout the school curriculum, the actual implementation and instruction of environmental education activities were apparently limited.  Twenty-nine percent (29.4%) of  the teachers did not include environmental education activities at all. Of the teachers who did implement environmental education activities, science and social studies were identified as the two areas in which environmental education activities were most frequently included. This is consistent with other findings in literature (Arnsdorf, 1975; Bottinelli, 1976; Childress, 1978; Ham & Sewing, 1987; Hyde 1976; Langseth 1982; Tewksbury & Harris, 1982).  Only  13.7% of the teachers professed to include environmental education in all their teaching areas. This apparent disparity between belief and practice may be due to several factors.  81  First, the 13.7% teachers who claimed to include environmental education activities in all their subjects were generalists rather than specialists. That is, instead of specializing in one subject area, these teachers were conducting special programs such as language assistance and tutorial sessions that encompassed all academic subjects. Hence, these teachers had the opportunity to incorporate environmental education discussions/activities into all subjects.  In contrast,  teachers who specialized in one or two subject areas, which commonly occurs at the junior secondary level, could only report the inclusion of environmental education activities in their specialized subject areas. Thus, because of the structural divisions into individual subject areas in the public school system, the majority of the teachers were unable to translate into practice their belief that environmental education should be integrated throughout the curriculum. However, the respondents' desire to include environmental education throughout the curriculum is subject to another interpretation. That is, if the respondents truly believed that environmental education should pervade the entire curriculum, then more subject areas besides the seven categories listed in Table 13 would have been reported. For instance, if these teachers truly believed that environmental education should pervade throughout the whole curriculum, even French teachers would have reported the inclusion of environmental education in their specialized area as per Table 13.  However, because they and other teachers specializing in  other areas, such as Computer science and Home Economics, did not indicate such inclusion, other barriers to environmental education probably exist. This is evidenced by 29.4% of the teachers who contended that they did not include any environmental education discussion/ activities in their teaching practices. The discrepancy between belief and practice may be further explained by examining the respondents' perceived logistical barriers.  82  Logistical  Barriers  Respondents clearly indicated the "lack of environmental education material" as one of the main impediments to environmental education. This is somewhat surprising since considerable amounts of materials are available to school districts from provincial ministries and associations at relatively low costs. However, more than half (58.8%) of the respondents identified environmental education materials as one of the most expensive items contributing to the cost of environmental education (See Table 17). This may suggest that these teachers may be unaware of the type of materials available. However, more than half of the respondents (64.7%) listed provincial agencies as the most likely source in obtaining environmental education information and materials. Respondents also cited an assortment of local community resources as well as environmental associations and agencies as possible sources for environmental education materials. Hence, although respondents can list sources to obtain environmental education information and materials, they may not be knowledgeable in accessing low cost environmental education materials available. Besides the cost of the materials, part of the problem in identifying the "lack of environmental education materials" as a major barrier may lie in the quality and suitability of the materials. Comments such as the following were common: "I need lesson plans and packages that are usable and useful. Most of the time I have to rework the materials I get. The stuff I get are usually not suitable for my grade level." (Interview No. 9) "There's hardly any good materials out there. I would like some posters, computerized games, videos, and other hands on activities..." (Interview No. 18)  Another possible explanation for the perceived "lack of environmental education materials" may be that the materials may be biased, presenting only one perspective on an environmental issue. Because of this, teachers may be wary of using such materials in their classrooms, and may  83  claim that there is a lack of environmental education materials available. In addition, although many of the environmental education materials are designed for integration into all curricular areas, the titles and packaging of materials may be perceived by many non-science teachers to be suitable only for science courses. For instance, the very titles of interdisciplinary materials, such as Project Wild. Project Learning Tree, and Salmonoids in the Classroom, have connotations of only science and therefore, deter non-science teachers from using such materials. Thus, although teachers are able to list resources to obtain environmental education materials, the perceived lack of usefulness of the materials may, in part, explain the high percentage of "lack of environmental education materials" reported by teachers. Respondents also indicated time constraints as another major barrier to environmental education. One teacher stated: "If I want to teach environmental education, I'll have to sacrifice other units in the curriculum. I'd have to find time to teach environmental education in an already full curriculum... something in the curriculum has to give 'cause there's not enough time in the day...." (Interview No. 50) This sentiment was echoed by many other teachers who viewed time as extremely limited and valuable. In addition to the lack of teaching time, many perceived that there was a lack of preparation time. Implicit in the statement about the lack of curriculum time is a conception that environmental education is a discrete unit vying for precious time with other subjects. This is inconsistent with the widely held notion that environmental education ideally should be integrated throughout the various disciplines (Cook, 1982; Tanner, 1974; Terry, 1971). Nevertheless, the two barriers, "lack of time in the school day" and "lack of preparation time," were still classified as principal barriers to environmental education in this study as well as other studies (Ham & Sewing, 1987; Tewksbury & Harris, 1982; Childress, 1978; Trojcak & Harvey, 1976). As expected from previous studies (Tewksbury & Harris, 1982; Childress, 1978;  84  McCaw, 1979), the "lack of funding" barrier was considered an important impediment to environmental education in this study. For many districts, the perceived lack of funding contributed to transportation worries which also emerged as an important barrier to environmental education.  According to respondents, field trips, which usually required  transporting students, added to the expense of environmental education. One teacher commented: "We don't have much funding for busing in this district... If I was going to get the kids to learn about the environment, I'll have to bus them out to the forest to let them see whafs going on..." (Interview No. 28) In fact, 58.8% of the respondents cited that field trips, along with environmental education materials, were the two most costly features of environmental education. At the essence of this finding is a sense that environmental education necessitates field trips, even though, in actuality, field trips are just one of many approaches available for teaching environmental education. Respondents overlooked the many other environmental education activities that can be done in the classroom and the schoolyard. Perhaps these shortcomings are linked to some of the education barriers discussed in the next section.  Educational Barriers Ranked fifth in the fifteen item list, "lack of environmental education knowledge" was perceived as a prominent barrier to environmental education among junior secondary teachers. This knowledge barrier becomes even more meaningful when considered in association with other barriers. For example, as implied in the previous section, the conception that environmental education necessitates field trips could be attributed to the teachers' unfamiliarity with the types of environmental education activities that can be conducted in the classroom and schoolyard.  Mirka's (1973) study supports this plausibility. Teachers in  Mirka's study reported that one of the main reasons for not teaching environmental education was their insufficient repertoire of environmental education instructional activities.  In  85  addition, this perceived need for environmental education knowledge may help explain teachers' view that transportation costs as a significant barrier. Teachers' "lack of environmental education knowledge" may also contribute to the way respondents perceived the importance of possessing a natural science background for teaching environmental education. As documented in the literature (Clark, 1975; Hungerford, 1975; Ritz, 1977), a science background is not a prerequisite for instructing environmental education. However, this perception that a science background is desirable is evidenced throughout the educational system; almost half of the respondents categorized lacking a science background as an important barrier. In addition, a substantial number of respondents indicated that science methods classes and natural science courses were the best training grounds for the preparation of environmental education instructors. This perception may be promoted by the presence of science-affiliated associations at environmental conferences and workshops since these events are often funded or sponsored by university science departments or science organizations such as the Provincial Science Teachers' Association. The perception that a science background is essential for teaching environmental education produces profound repercussions as evidenced by how teachers with or without science backgrounds perceive the two barriers of "my own lack of environmental education knowledge" and "my lack of natural science background." Those teachers who did not possess a science background viewed these two barriers to be more important than the respondents with science backgrounds. Since the majority of junior secondary teachers lack a science background, this conception may act as a major obstacle to environmental education at the junior secondary level. However, although a substantial number of the respondents appeared to hold this belief, other reported responses were consistent with the widely accepted tenet that environmental  86  education instruction does not necessitate a science background. In fact, 60.8% of the respondents stated that special training was not essential to teach environmental education. Instead, these teachers placed greater emphasis on being environmentally concerned and aware, as well as being interested in keeping current on environmental issues. This positive attitude towards environmental education is discussed in the next segment. Attitudlnal  Barriers  Consistent with other studies that focussed on teachers' attitudes toward teaching environmental education (Bethel et al., 1982; Jaus, 1978, McCaw, 1979, Ham & Sewing, 1987), teachers in this study generally possessed positive attitudes toward environmental education and viewed environmental education to be important. Even though environmental education was not considered as the most important type of non-traditional education, respondents in this study still rated environmental education sixth out of fifteen as the most important non-traditional area of education to include in a student's junior secondary education. This positive attitude is further exemplified by the overwhelming support for the inclusion of environmental education throughout all the grade levels. In addition, 82.4% of the teachers placed the factor of "environmental education is not particularly relevant to what I'm trying to teach' in the 'not important" barrier category. Moreover, although environmental education is not formally prescribed in most subject curriculum, more than half (56.9%) of the teachers did not view this lack of prescription as an important barrier to environmental education. In spite of the reported positive attitudes toward environmental education, these positive attitudes did not necessarily translate into the actual implementation and instruction of environmental education in the classroom. Over 70% of the teachers never conducted any environmental education instruction or provided environmental education instruction "now and then." Less than 10% of the teachers professed that they implemented environmental education  87  discussions or activities continually. Several plausible reasons could account for this difference between attitude and actual implementation of environmental education discussions/activities. First, although the respondents expressed positive attitudes, the presumption that positive attitudes will be translated into pro-active behaviours may not be true. As some research have shown (Bern, 1972; Fishbein & Azjen, 1975), attitudes are generally poor predictors of future performance. Hence, possessing favourable environmental attitudes does not necessarily signify instructional practice. Second, although the respondents espoused having positive environmental education attitudes, the lack of adherence to actual implementation may be due to the combined effects of the perceived logistical and knowledge hindrances. In all probability, the lack of materials, time, funds, and knowledge all act together to prevent teachers from conducting environmental education activities in spite of their positive attitudes. Environmental Education Barrier Scales The five barrier scales in Question 12, designed to cross-validate other responses, provided additional data on possible barriers to environmental education. Overall, the results from the barrier scales corroborated the findings. Respondents again voiced concern for the lack of time in environmental education implementation. In addition, environmental education was considered to be too expensive for school budgets, as reported earlier. Furthermore, as indicated earlier, a significant segment of the respondents believed that lacking a science background hindered the implementation of environmental education activities in their classrooms. Similarly, possessing a background in environmental education knowledge was considered beneficial in conducting environmental education activities. Moreover, consistent with the findings reported earlier in this study, the teachers again scored at a highly positive  88  level on the attitude scale, indicating that their attitudes toward environmental education were very positive.  Differences Among Teachers from Urban. Non-conflict Rural, and Environmentally  Conflict-ridden  Rural  Areas  With the exception of attitudinal barriers, at least one significant difference between the teachers from the urban, non-conflict rural, and environmentally conflict-ridden rural areas were reported in each of the three barrier groups in Chapter 4. These differences are summarized as follows: Conceptual Barriers (1) In defining environmental education, the most frequently mentioned elements by both urban and non-conflict rural teachers were "gaining an awareness or knowledge of the environment." In contrast, teachers from the conflict-ridden rural zone stressed that "learning about the interactions and/or interdependences of the environment" was the most important element to environmental education. (2) Also, in defining environmental education, while both the urban and non-conflict rural teachers included "educating students about environmental problems and/or the role they played in solving these problems," in their definitions, none of the teachers from the conflict-ridden rural zone mentioned this element. (3) A larger percentage of teachers from the conflict-ridden rural areas than did both the nonconflict rural and urban teachers indicated that environmental education should be taught throughout the curriculum. Correspondingly, a greater percentage of non-conflict rural teachers indicated that environmental education should be included throughout the curriculum than did the urban teachers. (4) Non-conflict urban teachers believed that the science curriculum is best for environmental education instruction. None of the teachers from the conflict-ridden rural area believed that environmental education should be taught exclusively in either the science or social studies curriculum. (5) Teachers from the rural areas tended to actually incorporate more environmental education activities than did urban teachers. (6) Non-conflict rural and urban teachers tended to view "environmental education not formally prescribed in the curriculum" as a greater barrier to implementing environmental education than teachers from the conflict-ridden rural region.  89  Logistical Barriers (7) Compared to urban teachers, teachers from the non-conflict rural and conflict-ridden rural areas ranked the "lack of funding," "lack of materials," and "transportation problems" factors higher in terms of being environmental education barriers (8) "The lack of principal support" was considered more of an environmental education barrier by teachers from the urban and conflict-ridden rural regions than by teachers from nonconflict rural regions.  Educational Barriers (9) Urban teachers ranked "my own lack of knowledge about environmental education" as a greater environmental education barrier than did teachers from the non-conflict rural and conflict-ridden rural zones.  Differences in the way teachers from the three types of areas perceived environmental education barriers may be partly explained by the cultural and economic influences of their various communities.  For instance, at the time of the study, the conflict-ridden rural region,  which has a population relying heavily on forestry and logging practices, was immersed in environmental controversies. The decision made by the British Columbian government to grant approval for logging practices on Clayoquot Sound's 240,000 hectares of forest land triggered heated debates and protests between the loggers and the environmentalists in the community. Even the local newspapers in the community devoted large sections of their daily news to the Clayoquot Sound protests (unlike newspapers published in urban and rural areas). Usually, at least one "environmental" story appeared on page one, often as the top story of the day in the conflict-ridden rural region (Baldrey, 1993).  Because of this, the schools in this region may  be influenced to a greater extent the environmental controversies. Nonetheless, because this area has historically faced and is still facing such conflicts between the forestry supporters and the environmentalists, the effects of these conflicting environmental pressures on the community may offer some rationale for the way teachers in this region perceive environmental  90  education. The daily exposure to environmental issues may, in part, account for greater understanding and awareness of environmental issues and concepts among teachers of the conflict-ridden rural region vis-a-vis teachers from the urban region.  For instance, most of  the teachers in the conflict-ridden rural region did not view themselves as lacking knowledge about environmental education, which is contrary to the findings for urban teachers. In addition, consistent with the widely held belief that environmental education should be multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary (Cook, 1982; Tanner, 1974; Terry, 1971), most of the teachers in the conflict-ridden rural area indicated that environmental education should be integrated throughout the entire curriculum rather than concentrating only in the science and social studies curriculum, which was indicated by the majority of urban teachers.  Moreover,  even though environmental education is not formally prescribed in most curriculum areas, teachers from the conflict-ridden rural zone did not view this as a great impediment to environmental education. Instead, these teachers tended to see the importance of environmental education, and tended to incorporate more environmental education activities and discussions than did urban teachers. Another explanation for greater awareness and understanding of environmental issues among the teachers from the conflict-ridden rural areas may be attributed to a greater attendance at environmental education workshops; a greater percentage of teachers from the conflict-ridden rural region reported attending environmental education workshop and/or conferences than did urban teachers in this study. Hence, perhaps the combined effects of receiving more environmental education and being deluged with environmental controversies may influence the type of reponses expressed by teachers in the conflict-ridden rural areas. The emphasis on specific elements deemed valuable in defining what environmental  91  education should entail may also, in part, be attributed to the cultural influences of the community.  The disputes witnessed by teachers in the conflict-ridden rural area may have  influenced their emphasis on teaching students about the "interactions and/or interdependences of the environment" rather than just teaching "awareness or knowledge of the environment" as indicated by most urban teachers. Furthermore, perhaps disheartened by the many disputes due to the complexity of the environmental issues, teachers in the conflict-ridden rural region may not see a satisfactory resolution to the environmental problems and therefore emphasize understanding of the interactions of the environment, rather than searching for absolute solutions, in their teaching practices. Also, teachers in this region may not see the necessity of teaching students about environmental problems since most of their students are exposed daily to such issues in their communities. This is contrary to the beliefs of urban and non-conflict rural teachers who stressed that environmental education should include teaching students about environmental problems and/or the role they can play in solving these problems. Perhaps cultural influences could also explain the differences reported between how the regions viewed "the lack of principal support" as a barrier. At the time of the study, both the urban teachers and teachers from the conflict-ridden rural area had just emerged from contract negotiations between the districts' teachers association representatives and school boards. The residual feelings from the bitter confrontations during the teacher contract negotiations may have affected the teachers' response to "principal support." Finally, differences in economics may explain, in part, the variances in responses to logistical barriers as perceived by teachers from the three types of areas. Since a significant segment of the urban teachers appeared to view funding as being adequate in their district, they did not view the "lack of educational materials" and "problems with transportation", which are contingent on funding, as major barriers.  In contrast, teachers from the non-conflict rural  92  districts and conflict-ridden rural districts perceived the "lack of educational materials'1 and "transportation problems" as substantial barriers since these are intricately linked to the lack of funding. Differences in how urban teachers and teachers from the other two areas perceived "lack of environmental instructional materials" and "transportation problems" may also be explained, in part, by accessibility. For example, a wider variety of environmental resources is more conveniently available to urban teachers as is inexpensive public transport to access those resources. As reported earlier, a larger percentage of teachers from the non-conflict rural and conflict-ridden rural region were more dependent on local resources in the community than urban teachers. This may suggest that non-conflict rural and conflict-ridden rural area teachers may perceive local resources as limited and all resources including locally and provincially based as costly. Thus, this may account for some of the differences reported in the findings. Present Study Versus Ham & Sewing's Study Ham and Sewing recommended that their study should be replicated in other geographic regions and at the junior secondary levels in order to increase the study's external validity. As stated earlier, following these recommendations, the present study used a modified design of Ham and Sewing's study. However, most of these modifications in the present study were minor since most of the changes were performed in order to conform to the junior secondary rather than the elementary level. With the exception of attitudinal barriers, at least one significant difference between the findings of the two studies was reported in each of the three barrier groups in Chapter 4. These differences are summarized as follows: Description of Sample (1) Although both studies reported comparable years of teaching experiences among teachers, more females (89%) were sampled in Ham and Sewing's study than in the present study (31%).  93  Conceptual Barriers (2) A greater percentage of teachers (66.7%) in the present study indicated that environmental education should be taught throughout the curriculum than did teachers (29.7%) in Ham and Sewing's study. 62.6% of the teachers in Ham and Sewing's study reported that environmental education should be taught in the science curriculum. (3) While science was the most frequently reported area for the actual inclusion of environmental education activities by teachers in Ham and Sewing's study, the majority of the teachers in the present study did not include any environmental education activities in their teaching areas. Logistical Barriers (4) In rating the 15 logistical barriers to environmental education, the teachers in Ham and Sewing's study ranked "lack of time in school day" and "lack of preparation time" as the two most important barriers. In the present study, "lack of environmental education instructional materials" was ranked first while "lack of time in school day" was ranked second in importance. (5) In obtaining environmental education information and materials, most of the teachers in Ham and Sewing's study relied heavily on university and local resources, while teachers in the present study were more dependent on provincial agencies and environmental associations/groups. Educational Barriers (6) Most of the teachers (87.9%) in Ham and Sewing's study indicated that possessing knowledge in environmental education and science were the most desirable backgrounds for teaching environmental education, while the majority of the teachers (60.8%) in the present study asserted that special training was not necessary for environmental education instruction.  Differences seen in teacher responses between the two studies may be explained in part by three factors: (1) differences in teaching assignments between elementary and junior secondary school teachers, (2) differences in study site, and (3) differences in the time the studies were conducted. First, because of differences in the organization of the school system at the elementary and junior secondary levels, most elementary teachers are trained as generalists, while most junior secondary teachers are specialists, concentrating on one or two subject areas. Hence, elementary teachers are generally expected to, and have the opportunity to teach all of the academic subjects. Because of this, elementary teachers have the advantage of easier integration of environmental education into many school subjects. Despite having this opportunity, the majority of the teachers in Ham and Sewing's study still preferred to include  94  environmental education activities in only the science and social studies curricula. Unlike elementary teachers, the majority of junior secondary educators lacked the advantage of easy integration of environmental education in all subjects, since they usually specialized in only one or two subject areas. Therefore, junior secondary teachers in this study were only able to report the inclusion of environmental education activities in their own specialized subject areas despite believing that the environmental education should be taught throughout the entire curriculum. This probably accounts for much of the discrepancy observed in the findings which indicate that despite believing environmental education should be taught throughout the curriculum, the majority of junior secondary teachers did not actually implement of environmental education activities and discussion throughout the whole curriculum. Second, the differences in why teachers in the two studies relied on different sources for their environmental education information and materials could be explained, in part, by the geographic location in which the studies were conducted. Because the teachers were in close proximity to two local universities in Ham and Sewing's study, most of the teachers may have specified university personnel as environmental education sources. In contrast, the majority of the teachers in this study tended to identify provincial agencies as their main source of environmental education information since many of the districts in this study were not in close proximity to university settings. This hypothesis is supported by the greater number of urban teachers, who teach in schools that are in close proximity to three major post-secondary institutions, who cited university personnel as environmental education sources, as opposed to the citations of teachers from the non-conflict rural and conflict-ridden rural areas. Finally, differences in what teachers from the two studies perceive as the most desirable background for teaching environmental education may be a reflection of the changing times. Since the time of Ham and Sewing's study, which was seven years ago, environmental issues and  95  concerns have become much more prominent in the media. Hence, with greater education and understanding of the complexities of environmental education, teachers in the present study recognized that possessing a background in environmental education and science were not necessarily the only backgrounds adequate for environmental education instruction. Greater environmental understanding and awareness may also partly explain the finding that teachers in the present study recognized the importance of teaching environmental education in a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary fashion rather than in an isolated area such as science. However, even with this greater understanding of environmental education, many logistical barriers identified seven years ago still remain today. Although the teachers in Ham and Sewing's study may have ranked the lack of time as the most important barrier and teachers in the present study may have ranked the lack of instructional materials as their most important barrier, the top four identified logistical barriers were identical in the two studies. That is, even though the barriers were not ranked in identical order in both studies, "the lack of environmental education material," lack of time in the school day," "lack of funding," and "lack of preparation time," were still all ranked as the top four most important logistical barriers. Clearly, the same logistical barriers continue to plague teachers today.  96  CH. VI: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  The aim of this study was to identify and ascertain the importance of barriers to environmental education as perceived by teachers. Based on the results discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, conclusions and recommendations are presented here. Conclusions (1) Overall, teachers stress teaching the cognitive components of environmental education. Most definitions of environmental education stressed teaching about the content of the environment, interactions of environmental components, or human uses of the environment. The affective component of environmental education, which include teaching students to value their environment or to appreciate the importance of the environment, were generally ignored by respondents. (2) Most teachers believe that environmental education should be integrated throughout all curriculum areas. Even though the majority of the teachers maintained that environmental education should be integrated throughout the school curriculum, the actual implementation and instruction of environmental education activities were apparently limited. The organization of subjects into separate entities in junior secondary schools does not readily afford junior secondary teachers the opportunity for interdisciplinary integration. Nevertheless, science and social studies teachers reported including environmental education activities more frequently than their counterparts from other disciplines. (3) Lack of environmental education materials is a primary logistical barrier to environmental education instruction. Availability, suitability, quality, and the expense of environmental education instructional materials may be contributing factors as to why this barrier is a major impediment to environmental education instruction. Although many  97  environmental education materials are available from local and provincial agencies, junior secondary teachers tend to perceive these materials as costly, inaccessible, and/or requiring modifications before classroom implementation. (4) Another important barrier to teaching environmental education is time. Because of the many demands and responsibilities inherent in the junior secondary curriculum, many respondents found it problematic to find actual teaching time for environmental education activities and discussions. In addition, the lack of time in researching, designing, and preparing suitable environmental education materials emerged as a substantial hindrance to teaching environmental education. (5) Generally, the lack of funding acts as a major barrier to the implementation of environmental education activities and programs. Respondents generally considered environmental education implementation as an expensive venture causing an additional drain on their already limited school budgets. Costs connected to fieldtrips and instructional materials were viewed as major expenses.  (6) In general, many teachers believe that environmental education necessitates taking field trips. Evidently, many respondents viewed field trips as an integral part of environmental education. For instance, many respondents cited that field trips were the most costly feature of environmental education. In addition, respondents ranked transportation problems as an important barrier to environmental education. Many respondents overlooked the many other environmental education activities that can be conducted in the classroom and schoolyard. These beliefs may also contribute to the respondents' perceived notion that environmental education is expensive.  98  (7) Many teachers believe that special training is not necessary for environmental education instruction. Although many teachers believed that possessing training in environmental education and the natural sciences is beneficial, many teachers considered being well-read and active in current environmental concerns and issues as being the most important background in teaching environmental education. Thus, because environmental issues are so prevalent in their lives, teachers reasoned that there was not a need for special training. However, the "lack of environmental education knowledge" was still perceived as a prominent barrier to environmental education among junior secondary teachers. (8) Generally, teachers' positive attitudes toward teaching environmental education does not translate into actual classroom implementation. Despite the reported positive attitudes toward environmental education, these positive attitudes did not translate into actual classroom teaching time. Perhaps the lack of materials, time, funds, and knowledge all contribute to the failure of teachers to conduct environmental education activities. (9) Teachers' perceptions of barriers to environmental education differed depending on their area of residence- urban, non-conflict rural or conflict-ridden rural. With the exception of attitudinal barriers, differences among the teachers from the urban, non-conflict rural, and environmentally conflict-ridden rural areas were reported in each of the three barrier categories used in this study. The greatest variation occurred in how the groups of teachers conceptualized environmental barriers. Perhaps influenced by cultural and economic differences in the regions, the teachers from the conflict-ridden rural areas tend to be more confident in their understanding and awareness of environmental issues than do urban or nonconflict rural teachers. Evidently, teachers from the conflict-ridden rural regions tend to hold beliefs that are consistent with the widely accepted tenet that environmental education should be integrated throughout the entire curriculum. Unlike teachers from the non-conflict rural and  99  conflict-ridden rural zones, many urban teachers appeared to view funding as being adequate and did not perceive the "lack of educational materials" and "problems with transportation" as major barriers. General Recommendations (1) Junior high teachers should seek to work collaboratively to ensure the integration of environmental education activities. Because junior secondary schools tend to organize subjects into separate teaching areas, teachers tend to work independently and, often in isolation, in only one or two subject areas. Consequently, in addition to the apparent limited time for preparing and teaching environmental education activities, teachers may view implementing fragments of environmental education as a discouraging prospect since most believe that environmental education should be integrated holistically throughout the curriculum. To encourage holistic curricular integration, and eliminate some of the perceived time constraints, teachers might be encouraged to cooperatively design and implement activities that will promote the goals of environmental education. (2) Quality environmental education materials appropriate for junior secondary levels should be made readily accessible to all teachers in the four districts. Respondents in the present study identified provincial agencies and environmental education groups /associations as the most likely sources from which to obtain environmental education materials and information. Whether at the provincial, district, or school levels, a reference library of environmental education materials for the junior secondary level should be organized. These materials should be easily implemented into all curriculum areas and should be available to teachers or districts at relatively low costs. In addition, because of the rapid influx of environmental education information into the schools, a communication system via newsletters or computer networks should be established to enhance the dissemination of suitable  100  environmental education materials. Implementing these recommendations may help reduce barriers such as lack of instructional materials and lack of preparation and teaching time. (3) Teachers should be encouraged to attend more environmental education workshops and conferences. Since many teachers are dependent on workshops and conferences for increasing knowledge, acquiring usable materials, and exchanging ideas, proponents of environmental education have the opportunity to dispel some environmental education myths and assist in the reduction or elimination of environmental education barriers facing teachers. Environmental education workshops and conferences provide an ideal forum for promoting the following: -environmental education knowledge and teaching strategies that could be integrated in all curriculum areas; -alternative teaching methodologies that cultivate the use of classroom and school yards as environmental education sites; -enhancement of environmental education knowledge that engender a holistic conception of environmental education by emphasizing both cognitive and affective elements; -the exploration of an assortment of environmental education instructional materials.  Recommendations for Future Research (1) Follow-up replication in other geographic regions.  Although this study did increase  Ham and Sewing's study's external validity in some respects, some discrepancies were apparent between the two studies. Future studies could clarify the extent of these discrepancies and might examine other types of settings besides the non-conflict rural, urban, and conflict-ridden rural areas. In addition, a follow-up study may determine the evolution of teachers' perceptions of environmental education in the future. (2) Replication is needed at the senior secondary school level. Like many advocates of environmental education, most junior secondary teachers believed that environmental education should be taught at all subject areas and grade levels. Future research may add insight into how  senior secondary school teachers perceive barriers to environmental education when compared to junior secondary and elementary teachers. (3) Improvement in environmental education barrier scales. As Ham and Sewing (1987) indicated in their report, the usefulness of certain components of the environmental education barrier scales in Question 12 of this study was limited, due to the low inter-item correlation. Improving or modifying these scales in future studies may elicit additional information about teachers' perceptions of barriers to environmental education. However, when considering modifications to the scales, the interactions that might exist among items should also be taken into account. (4) Follow-up exploration of environmental education barrier issues. Since results in this study indicated that teachers from urban, non-conflict rural and conflict-ridden rural regions perceived environmental education barriers differently, future in-depth studies may provide further insight into the effects of communities or residential areas on the perceptions of barriers to environmental education. In addition, other future in-depth research may include exploration of attitudinal effects on classroom implementation.  1  FOOTNOTES  "•For the purposes of the study, "junior secondary level" representing grades eight, nine and ten are synonymous with the "upper intermediate level" representing intermediate levels five, six, and seven as indicated by the Year 2000 program in British Columbia. 2 Since the present study is a modified replication of Ham and Sewing's (1987) study, there will be frequent references to their work. Hence, further references to this study will be cited as follows: Ham and Sewing 3  Four Likert-type items ranging from "never" (coded "1") to "always" (coded "4")  were used for each statement. Thus, a minimum score of 4 and a maximum score of 16 for four statements was possible for each respondent. Hence, a higher score indicated a higher degree of environmental orientation than a lower score. 4  Four Likert-type items ranging from "never" (coded "1") to "always" (coded "4")  were used for each statement. Thus, a minimum score of 3 and a maximum score of 12 for three statements was possible for each respondent. Like the lack of time factor, a higher score indicated a stronger degree of environmental education orientation. 5  Four Likert-type items ranging from "never" (coded "1") to "always" (coded "4")  were used for each statement. Thus, a minimum score of 4 and a maximum score of 16 for four statements was possible for each respondent. 6  Four Likert-type items ranging from "never" (coded "1") to "always" (coded "4")  were used for each statement. Thus, a minimum score of 3 and a maximum score of 12 for three statements was possible for each respondent.  1  REFERENCES  Adams, C. E., Biddle, B. A. & Thomas, J. K. (1988). Present status of environmental science in Texas public schools.  Journal of Environmental Education. 19(3). 19-24.  Adelson, J. (1970). The political imagination of the young adolescent. Daedalus. Amsdorf, V. (1975). A report on the nature and status of environmental education. In R. Marlett (ed.), Current Issues in Environmental Education, 1955: selected papers from the 4th annual conference, Association for Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio. Babbie, E. (1989). The Practice of Social Research (5th ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Baldrey, K. (1993). Logging concerns centred on Vancouver Island. The Vancouver Sun, October 25, p. B2. Barber, B. H., & Tomera, A. N. (1985). Is ecology being taught in general biology classrooms?--a survey of Illinois teachers.  School Science and Mathematics. 85(4).  285-297. Bass, B. M., Casscio, W. F., & O'Connor, E. J. (1974). Magnitude estimations of expressions of frequency and amount. Journal of Applied Psychology. 59(3). 313320. Bateson, D., Anderson, J., Brigden, S., Day, E., Deeter, B., Eberie, C , Gurney, B., McConnell, V. (1992). British Columbia Assessment of Science 1991 Technical Report I: Classical Component (FCG 1986). Victoria: British Columbia Ministry of Education: 44, 59-66, 220-222, 282, 369, 406, 408, 458, 460-461, 480-481. Bateson, D., Erickson, G., Gaskell, P. J., & Wideen, M. (1992). Science in British Columbia:  The 1991 British Columbia Science Assessment Provincial Report (FCG 185)- Victoria:  1  British Columbia Ministry of Education: 6-7. 42-57, & 76. Bedwell, L. E. (1984). Environmental education attitudes of biology students, teachers, and administrators.  Journal of Environmental Education. 1£(1), 20-22.  Bern, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L Berkowitz (Ed.) Cognitive Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press. Bernard, W. (1993). Compromising positions over Clayoquot. The Vancouver Sun. February, 13, p. A11. Bethel, L J., Ellis, J. D., & Barufaldi, P. (1982). The effects of an NSF institute on inservice teachers' views of science and attitudes toward environmental education. Science Education. M ( 4 ) :  643-51.  Booth, P. R. (1979). The teaching of ecology in schools. Journal of Biological Education. 12.(4),  261-266.  Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational Research: An Introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman, Inc. Bottinelli, C. A. (1976). A brief summary of the status of secondary environmental education in Colorado.  Journal of Environmental Education. Z(4), 2-11.  British Columbia Ministry of Education. (1990a). The Intermediate Program: learning in British Columbia (Response Draft). Victoria, B.C.: British Columbia Ministry of Education Educational Programs. British Columbia Ministry of Education and Educational Innovation (1990b). [Intermediate Development Sites 1990/91]. Unpublished raw data. British Columbia Ministry of Education and Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights. (1992). Public School Student/Educator Ratio by School and District. Report Number 2089. Victoria: Statistical Services Data Services Branch Ministry of  1  Education, B.C. British Columbia Ministry of Regional Development. (1989). B. C. Regional lndex:1989. Victoria, B. C : Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data. Buethe, C. & Smallwood, J. (1987). Teachers' environmental literacy: check and recheck, 1975 and 1985. Journal of Environmental Education. 18(3). 39-42. Cherif, A. H. (1989). Ecology and education: Alternative prospective framework for ecology education. Ph.D. Diss. Simon Fraser University. Cherif, A. H. (1992). Barriers to ecology education in North American high schools: another alternative perspective.  Journal of Environmental Education. 2S(3), 36-46.  Cherif, A. H., & Pye, I. (1991). The status of ecology in secondary school biology textbooks. B. C. Catalyst. 3_5_(1),  17-21.  Cherif, A. H., & Pye, I. (1990). What prevents biology teachers from teaching ecology effectively in B. C ?  B. C. Catalyst. 33(3),  10-15.  Childress, R. B. (1978). Public school environmental education curricula: A national profile. Journal of Environmental Education. 9.(3), 2-12. Clark, E. (1975). Good education is environmental. Journal of Environmental Education. 6_(4),  1-5.  Cook, R. S. (1982). Environment education: a national perspective. Journal of Environmental Education. 13.(4), 4-6. Disinger, J. F. (1985). Current trends in environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education. 1Z(2),  1-3.  Disinger, J. F., & Bousquet, W. S. (1982). Environmental education and the state education agencies.  Journal of Environmental Education. 13.(3), 13-24.  Duffy, S. (1989). Silent Spring and A Sand County Almanac: The two most significant  1  environmental books of the 20th Century. Nature Study. 44.(2-3), 6-8. Fazio, J. R. & Gilbert, D. L. (1981). Public Relations and Communications for Natural Resource Managers. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Fishbein, M. & Azjen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intentions and behaviour: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Fowler, F. J. Jr. (1988). Survey Research Methods. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc. Frischknecht, K., & Brandengurg, R. (1981). The systems approach in education with special consideration of environmental education: A review. Education. 13(2).  Journal of Environmental  25-33.  Gaskell, P. J., Flemming, R., Fountain, R., & Ojelel, A. (1993). British Columbia Assessment of Science 1991 Technical Report III: Socioscientific Issues components (FCG 188). Victoria: British Columbia Ministry of Education. Gigliotti, L. M. (1990). Environmental education: What went wrong? What can be done? Journal of Environmental Education. 22.(1), 9-12. Goodlad, J. L (1984). A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Ham, S. H., Langseth, R., & Fazio, J. (1985). Back to definitions in environmental education: the case of inland northwest camps. Journal of Environmental Education. 16_(4),  11-15.  Ham, S. H., & Sewing, D. R. (1987). Barriers to environmental education. Journal of  Environmental Edugation, i£(2), 17-24. Ham, S. H., & Shew, R. L. (1979). A comparison of visitors' and interpreters' assessments of conducted interpretive activities.  Journal of Interpretation. 4(2), 39-44.  107  Ham, S. H., Rellergert-Taylor, M. H., & Krumpe, E. E. (1988). Reducing barriers to environmental education.  Journal of Environmental Education. 19(2). 25-33.  Hirsch, J. E. (1992). Conceptions of Outdoor Education that Underlie Outdoor Education Courses at English Speaking Canadian Universities. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia. Hooper, J. K. (1988). Teacher cognitions of wildlife management concepts. Journal of Environmental Education. 19(3). 15-18. Horn, J. L. (1970). Organization of data on life span development of human abilities. In L. R. Goulet & P. B. Boltes (Eds.), Life-Span Developmental Psychology. New York: Academic Press. Hungerford, H. R. (1975). Myths of environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education. 6.(4),  11-15.  Hungerford, H. R., Peyton, B., & Wilke, R. J. (1980). Goals for curriculum development in environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education. £(3), 42-47. Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1984). The challenges of K-12 environmental education. Monographs in Environmental Education and Environmental Studies. 1. ERIC/SMEAC. Hyde, L.C. (1976). Perceptions of teachers about selected environmental issues and problems. Unpublished PhD. dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. lozzi, L A. (1989). What research says to the educator: Part one: Environmental education and the affective domain. Journal of Environmental Education. 20(3). 3-9. Jaus, H. (1978). The effect of environmental education instruction on teachers' attitudes toward teaching environmental education. Science Education. 62(1). 79-84. Karst, R. R. (1985). Energy opinions of southern, northern and academically prepared students in selected secondary schools. Journal of Environmental Education. 1£(4), 17  108  -24. Keach, E. Jr. (1978). Opinion-Implementing a primary level environmental education curriculum.  Journal of Environmental Education. 10(21. 3-6.  Keown, D. (1986). Teaching science in U. S. secondary schools: A survey. Journal of Environmental Education. 18.(1), 23-32. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications. Langseth, R. D. (1982). School camps and environmental education in the inland northwest: a descriptive analysis.  Unpublished MS thesis, Dept. of Wildland Recreation Management,  University of Idaho, Moscow. Lucas, A. M. (1979). Environment and Environmental Education: Conceptual Issues and Curriculum Implications (pp. 50-65). Melbourne, Australia: Australian International Press & Publications. Lucko, B. J., Disinger, J. F. & Rother, R. E. (1982). Evaluation of environmental education programs at the elementary and secondary school levels. Journal of Environmental Education. 13.(4), 7-12. Mack, R. (1985). Are methods of enhancing creativity being taught in teacher education programs as perceived by teacher educators and student teachers? Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow. McCaw, S. (1979). Teacher attitudes toward environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education. 11(2), 18-23. McClaren, M. (1989). Developing environmental literacy: The critical element of liberal education for the 21st century. Education Manitoba. 16(5). 10-12. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (1989). Research in Education: A Conceptual  109  Introduction (2nd ed.). Virginia: Harper Collins Publishers. Mirka, G. (1973). Factors which influence elementary teachers' use of outdoor classrooms.  Journal of Environmental Education, 1(4), 31-33. Morgan, R. (1983). Curriculum development in environmental education: Some problems and possibilities.  Environments. 15(3). 43-52.  Moss, S., & Theobald, D. (1979). An answer to the teaching of ecology. Journal of Biological Education. 13.(1),  17-24.  Pemberton, D. A. (1989). Definitional problems for environmental education and geographic education. Journal of Environmental Education. 21(1), 5-14. Pettus, A. M., & Teates, T. G. (1983). Environmental education in Virginia schools. Journal of Environmental Education. 15.(1),  17-21.  Rakow, S. J. (1985). A review of teacher inservice in environmental education: 19701980.  Journal of Environmental Education. 16(4). 7-10.  Ramsey, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1992). Environmental education in the K-12 curriculum: Finding a niche.  Journal of Environmental Education. £3.(2), 35  -45. Ritz, W. C. (1977). Involving teachers in environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education. &(3), 40-47. Robottom, I. (1989). Social critique of social control: some problems for evaluation in environmental education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 26(5). 435-443. Ross, J. E. (1979). Environmental awareness in the year 2000. Journal of Environmental  Education. ii(i). 16-21. Schwaab, K. E. (1975). A survey of the effectiveness of environmental education teaching methods as rated by public school teaches and professors of education in Illinois.  110  Southern Illinois University.  Dissertation Abstracts. 36.(12), 7752-A.  UMI 76-13,  286: 21 Op. Sewing, D. R. (1986). Barriers to environmental education: perceptions of elementary teachers in the Palouse-Region of Washington and Idaho. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Idaho. Siegel, S. & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd Ed.). Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Simmons, D. A. (1987). The teacher's perspective of the resident environmental education experience.  Journal of Environmental Education. 19.(2), 35-42.  Simpson, P. R., McLaughlin, J., Volk, T., & Hungerford, H. (1989). A survey concerning teachers' perceptions of the importance of SRSI issues. Journal of Environmental Education. 2J_(1), 31-37. Stankey, G. (1972). The use of content analysis in resource decision making. Journal of Forestry. ZP_(3),  148-151.  Stapp, W. (1969). The concept of environmental education.  Journal of Environmental  Education, 1(1), 30-31. Stapp, W. B., Caduto, M. J., Mann, L. & Nowak, P. F. (1980). An analysis of preservice environmental education of teachers in Europe and an instructional model for furthering this education.  Journal of Environmental Education. 12(2). 3-10.  Tanner, R. T. (1974). Conceptual and instructional issues in environmental education today. Journal of Environmental Education. 5.(4), 48-53. Terry, M. (1971). Teaching for Survival. New York, NY: Ballantine Books, Inc. Tewksbury, S., & Harris, G. (1982). The status of environmental education in northern New York. Journal of Environmental Education. 13.(3), 30-38.  111  Towler, J. O. (1980). A survey of Canadian pre-service training in environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education. 12(2). 11-16. Towler, J. O. & Francis, G. (1980). Observations on the current status of environmental education in Canada, Part II: Environmental education at post-secondary levels in Canada. Journal of Environmental Education. 12(2). 17-19. Trent, J. H. (1976). Changes and trends in environmental education: 1972-1975. Journal of Environmental Education. Z(3), 51-60. Trent, J. H. (1983). Environmental education in our schools during the 1970s. Journal of Environmental Education. 15.(1), 11-15. Trojcak, D. A. & Harvey, G.D. (1976). Environmental education in Missouri.  Journal of  Environmental Education. Z(4), 46-50. Troy, T. D„ & Schwaab, K. E. (1982). A decade of environmental education. School Science and Mathematics. 82(3). 209-216. Uma, A. K. (1988). The teaching of ecology in Nigerian secondary schools. Journal of Biological Education. 22.(1), 67-71. Van Every, M. (1983). Mapping interpretive series: development, application and improvement of a technique. Unpublished MS thesis, Department of Wildland Recreation Management, University of Idaho, Moscow. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally. Weibel, C. (1983). Building for tomorrow.  Journal of Environmental Education. 11(4),  42-44. Wilke, R. J. (1985). Mandating pre-service environmental education teacher training: the Wisconsin experience. Journal of Environmental Education. 12(1), 1-8.  112  Wilkinson, P. F., & Wyman, M. (ed.) (1986). Environmental Challenges: Learning for Tomorrow's World. London, Ontario: The Althouse Press. Williams, H. (1989). What is environmental education?  Education Manitoba. 16(5), 18-  19. Worthing, D. C. (1983). Implementation of Curriculum: Actual Use Compared to Intended Use of an Environmental Education Programme. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of British Columbia.  113  APPENDIX A INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE Standardized  Interviews  The standardized interviews used in this study contain both structured and semistructured questions. The interviews were administered to obtain: (1) the teachers' background and teaching experience, (2) the teachers' perceptions of environmental education and (3) the current implementation levels of environmental education activities in the classrooms.  114  Date Interviewer # Interview # M  School District # Subject area(s) and Grade(s) taught  F STANDARD INTERVIEW FORM  Q. 1 It seems that more and more, teachers are asked to be responsible for other types of education besides the traditional basics. (Hand respondent Item 1) How important is each of the following types of education? Specifically read question: Compared to the other things you teach, how important is it to include each of the following in a student's junior secondary education, Gr. 8-10? Please circle one word for each item. (When respondent finishes list, read:) At the bottom of the list are two questions asking you to choose which types of education are most important and least important to include in a student's junior secondary education. First, from the list above, which would you consider the most important to a child's junior secondary education? Write in the item number in the blanks. Secondly, which would you consider the least important to a student's junior secondary education? Again, write the item number in the blanks. (Collect Item 1 from respondent.) The rest of this interview will be concerned with only one type of education, specifically, environmental education.  Q. 2 In the past 15 years, many definitions of environmental education have been discussed; there is not an accepted "right" definition. How would you define environmental education? Keep in mind that there is no one right definition. (Hand respondent Item 2.) Please write a completion to this sentence: Environmental  education  is....  (Collect Item 2 from respondent. Give respondent unlimited time to answer) Thank you; this will be very helpful to our study. To make it possible to compare responses between teachers to the rest of the questions in this interview, we've chosen one definition of environmental education from the many found in the literature. It's not any better than the one you gave me; again, it's only to make it possible to later compare responses between teachers. (Set definition in front of respondent and read.)  (1) (2) (3) (4)  An educational process aimed at producing citizens who: are knowledgeable about their relationship with the environment; are ajtfaie. of environmental problems; understand how to best solve these problems; and are motivated to work toward solving these problems.  115  Q. 3 At what grade level, K through 12, if any, should environmental education start to be taught? (Circle answer below.) At what grade level, K through 12, if any should environmental education stop to be taught? (Circle answer below.) Start SJojj K K 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 Never Never Q.4 Where should environmental education be taught in the school curriculum? (Open-ended; record answer verbatim.)  Q.5 What subject areas do you teach at the junior secondary level? (Open-ended; check all named by respondent.) .All subjects .Math .English Science Social Studies  Art Physical Ed. Home Ec. Wood Work Computer Sc.  Music Keyboarding/Typing French/Spanish/Mandarin/Other Metal work Other, specify  In what subject areas do you usually include environmental discussions, or activities?(Openled; check all named by respondent) All subjects .Math .English Science .Social Studies  Art Physical Ed. Home Ec. Wood Work Computer Sc.  Music Keyboarding/Typing French/Spanish/Mandarin/Other None Other, specify  116  Q. 6 How often do you conduct environmental topics, discussions, or activities? (Circle response.) Never  Now and Then  Rather Frequently  Continually  [If respondents answer Now and Then, Rather Frequently, or Continually, ask:) In which unit(s) of the curriculum do you conduct these topics, discussions, or activities? (Open-ended; record  verbatim)  Is there an environmental education program in your school?  Yes  No  Q.7 Do you think there are factors or barriers preventing you from implementing more environmental topics, discussions, or activities? Yes No (Give respondent deck of cards.) On each of the cards in this deck is a factor which others have described as a constraint or barrier to environmental education. Please separate these cards into three piles as follows: In the first pile, place those barriers you feel are most important in preventing you from conducting more environmental education activities. (Place card labeled 'Most Important' in front of respondent.) In the next pile, place those you feel are important, but not necessarily most important, in preventing you from conducting more environmental education activities. (Place card labeled 'Important" in front of respondent.) In the last pile, place those barriers which are not important. (Place card labeled 'Not important' in front of respondent) (Allow time for cards to be separated.) Now take the first pile you have selected as most important and rank them by placing the most important barrier on top, the second most important next, and so one. Do this for all three groups. (Record ranking in the appropriate cells using the numbers on the back of the cards.) Most Important Important Not Important  117  We feel this is a complete list of barriers to environmental education but perhaps we might have overlooked some factors. Are there any you feel we missed? (Record if respondent suggest others; do not probe.) The next series of questions deals with potential barriers to environmental education. Q. 8 What things do you feel contribute most to the cost or expense of environmental education? Please give me you answer in single words or phrases since I'm going to be recording them.  Q.9 What things do you feel contribute most to the amount of time environmental education takes? Please give these as single words or short phrases also.  Q.10 What sources or persons would you contact if you needed environmental education materials or information? (Open-ended; check all replies given.) Another teacher Federal agency/person Journal, specify Other administrator Person at university or college Popular reading material, specify Principal Provincial agency/person Study guide/activity book Resource book, specify Textbook Would not know who to ask Other, specify Q.  11  What kind of training or preparation should a teacher have in order to be knowledgeable in teaching environmental education? (Open-ended; record answers verbatim.)  118  Based on your experiences as a teacher, you've probably thought from time to time about environmental education. The next series of questions has to do with what those thoughts might have been. Q.12 (Give respondent Item 12.) For each of the following, circle the work which best describes the way you feel. (Collect Item 12.) Q.13 have you found time to attend any environmental education workshops since becoming a teacher? Yes No (If yes,...) What workshops have you attended? (Open-ended; check all replies given.) Alpine Conference District in-service CISPUS NEED OBIS PSA sponsored in-service  Project Learning Tree Project WILD Sawtooth Workshop University sponsored in-service Other, specify  Q.14 Have you had a college course in environmental education instructional methods? Yes No As nearly as you can recall, where did you obtain this training? (Check response and obtain title if possible.) Course Title Workshop Title Q.15 At what university or college did you obtain most of your teacher's training?  Q.16 Aside form education courses, what was you area of specialization? Fine Art Mathematics English History Music General Science Geography Physical Education Natural Science Social Studies Computer Science Physical Science General Arts Home economics Applied Science Psychology Languages Other, specify Commerce None Q.17 How many years of teaching experience do you have including this one? Q.18  What is the highest degree you hold as of September 1992?  Q.19 Did you know the topic of this survey prior to our interview?  Yes  No  119  ITEM 1 Compared to the other things you teach, how important is it to include each of the following in a studenfs junior secondary education, Gr. 8-10? Please circle one word for each item. Extremely Important  Very Important  Moderately Important  1) Safety Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  2) Vocational Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  3) Career Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  4) Multicultural Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  5) Values Clarification Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  6) Bilingual Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  7) Music Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  8) Athletics/team sports  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  9) Computer Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  10) Creativity Enhancement  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  11) Environmental Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  12) Self-concept Enhancement  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  13) Consumer Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  14) Extracurricular Activities  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  15) Art Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  16) Sex Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  From the list above, which would you consider the most important to a student's junior secondary education, 8-10? Write Write the item numbers in the blanks below. Most Important.  (Item No.)  Somewhat Important  Of Little Important  Not  Important  From the list above, which would you consider the least important to a studenfs junior secondary education, 8-10? the item numbers in the blanks below. Least Important  (Item No.)  Second Most Important.  . (Item No.)  Second Least Important  (Item No.)  Third Most lmportant_  (Item No.)  Third Least Important  (Item No.)  120  ITEM 2 Complete the following statement:  Environmental  education  is.  An educational process aimed at producing citizens who: (1) are knowledgeable about their relationship with the environment; (2) are aware of environmental problems; (3) understand how to best solve these problems; and (4) are motivated to work toward solving these problems.  ITEM 7 Barriers on Cards:  (1) No natural environments available. (2) Lack of time in school day (3) Class size is too large (4) Lack of preparation time (5) Lack of science knowledge (6) Lack of environmental education knowledge (7) Liability worries (8) Safety problems (9) Class size is too small (10) Lack of principal (administrator's) support (11) Environmental education is not relevant to what I teach (12) Transportation problems (13) Lack of funding (14) Lack of environmental education instructional materials  ITEM 12 For each of the following, please circle the word which, when inserted into the statement, best describes how you feel. Never Alwavs Sometimes Often comfortable applying environmental 1) I am education materials to the areas I teach.  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  2) I feel that environmental education is an extra burden on the school budget.  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  feel that knowing about plants and animals is important in teaching environmental education.  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  feel that environmental education takes time away from the other subjects I teach.  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  feel that teaching environmental education is a worthwhile task.  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  feel I have a good background for teaching environmental education.  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  feel that obtaining environmental education materials and conducting environmental education Always activities is expensive.  Often  Sometimes  Never  comfortable applying classroom matter 8) I am Always to outdoor environmental education activities.  Often  Sometimes  Never  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  feel that environmental education is an extra burden on my time.  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  feel that environmental education is best taught in the science curriculum.  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  15) Because of the other things I must teach, environmental education takes time I don't have. Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  Often  Sometimes  Never  3) I  4) I  5) I  6) I  7) I  9) I  feel that environmental education is important in a student's jr. secondary education. feel that the best background for environmental education is a background in science.  10) I  11)1  12) I  13) I feel that environmental education takes money our teaching budget doesn't have. I 14) I  feel my undergraduate education classes provided good preparation for teaching environmental education.  16) I  feel it is important for environmental education to be taught in the school curriculum.  Always  1  APPENDIX B PRE-TEST  QUESTIONNAIRE  SEWING  (1986)  Interviewer # Interview # Grade taught M F  State Location  STANDARD INTERVIEW FORM Q. 1 It seems that more and more, teachers are asked to be responsible for other types of education besides the traditional basics. (Hand respondent Item 1) How important is each of the following types of education? Specifically read question: Compared to the other things you teach, how important is it to include each of the following in a child's elementary education, K-6? Please circle one word for each item. (When respondent finishes list, read:) At the bottom of the list are two questions asking you to choose which types of education are most important and least important to include in a child's elementary education. First, form the list above, which would you consider the most important to a child's elementary education? Write in the item number in the blanks. Secondly, which would you consider the least important to a child's elementary education? Again, write the item number in the blanks. (Collect Item 1 from respondent.) The rest of this interview will be concerned with only one type of education, specifically, environmental education.  Q. 2 In the past 15 years, many definitions of environmental education have been discussed; there is not an accepted "right" definition. How would you define environmental education? Keep in mind that there is no one right definition. (Hand respondent Item 2.) Please write a completion to this sentence: Environmental  education  is....  (Collect Item 2 from respondent Give respondent unlimited time to answer) Thank you; this will be very helpful to our study. To make it possible to compare responses between teachers to the rest of the questions in this interview, we've chosen one definition of environmental education from the many found in the literature. It's not any better than the one you gave me; again, it's only to make it possible to later compare responses between teachers. (Set definition in front of respondent and read.)  (1) (2) (3) (4)  An educational process aimed at producing citizens who: are knowledgeable about their relationship with the environment; are aware of environmental problems; understand how to best solve these problems; and are motivated to work toward solving these problems.  *  124  Q. 3 At what grade level, K through 12, if any, should environmental education start being taught? (Circle answer below.) At what grade level, K through 12, if any should environmental education stop being taught? (Circle answer below.) Start SlfiB K K 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 Never Never Q.4 Where should environmental education be taught in the school curriculum? (Open-ended; record answer verbatim.)  Q.5 What subject areas do you usually include environmental topics, discussions, or activities? (Open-ended; check all named by respondent) All subjects Art Health Language Arts/English Math  Music Physical Ed. Reading Science  Social Studies/History None Other, specify  125  Q. 6 How often do you conduct environmental topics, discussions, or activities? (Circle response.) Never  Now and Then  Rather Frequently  Continually  Q.7 (Give respondent deck of cards.) On each of the cards in this deck is a factor which other have described as a constraint or barrier to environmental education. Please separate these cards into three piles as follows: In the first pile, place those barriers you feel are most important in preventing you from conducting more environmental education activities. (Place card labeled 'Most Important' in front of respondent.) In the next pile, place those you feel are important, but not necessarily most important, in preventing you from conducting more environmental education activities. (Place card labeled 'Important' in front of respondent.) In the last pile, place those barriers which are not important. (Place card labeled 'Not important' in front of respondent.) (Allow time for cards to be separated.) Now take the first pile you have selected as most important and rank them by placing the most important barrier on top, the second most important next, and so one. Do this for all three groups. (Record ranking in the appropriate cells using the numbers on the back of the cards.) Most Important Important Not Important  We feel this is a complete list of barriers to environmental education but perhaps we might have overlooked some factors. Are there any you feel we missed? (Record if respondent suggest others; do not probe.) The next series of questions deals with potential barriers to environmental education. Q. 8 What things do you feel contribute most to the cost or expense of environmental education? Please give me you answer in single words or phrases since I'm going to be recording them.  1  a.9 What things do you feel contribute most to the amount of time environmental education takes? Please give these as single words or short phrases also.  Q.10 What sources or persons would you contact if you needed environmental education materials or information? {Open-ended; check all replies given.) Another teacher Federal agency/person Journal, specify Other administrator Person at university or college Popular reading material, specify Principal State agency/person Study guide/activity book Resource book, specify Textbook Would not know who to ask Other, specify  Q. 11 What kind of training or preparation should a teacher have in order to be knowledgeable in teaching environmental education? (Open-ended; record answers verbatim.)  Based on your experiences as a teacher, you've probably thought from time to time about environmental education. The next series of questions has to do with what those thoughts might have been. Q.12 (Give respondent Item 12.) For each of the following, circle the work which best describes the way you feel. (Collect Item 12.)  Q.13 have you found time to attend any environmental education workshops since becoming a teacher? Yes No (If yes,...) What workshops have you attended? (Open-ended; check all replies given.) Alpine Conference District in-service CISPUS NEED OBIS  Project Learning Tree Project WILD Sawtooth Workshop University sponsored in-service Other, specify  Q.14 Have you had a college course in environmental education instructional methods? Yes No As nearly as you can recall, where did you obtain this training? (Check response and obtain title if possible.) Course Title Workshop Title  Q.15 At what university or college did you obtain most of your teacher's training?  Q.16 Aside form education courses, what was you area of specialization? Art Mathematics Reading History/Social Studies Music General Science Language Arts/English Physical Education Other, specify None  Q.17 How many years of teaching experience do you have including this one?  Q.18 Did you know the topic of this survey prior to our interview?  Yes  No  1  ITEM 1 Compared to the other things you teach, how important is it to include each of the following in a child's elementary education, K-6? Please circle one word for each item. Extremely Important  Very important  Moderately important  1) Safety Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  2) Vocational Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  3) Career Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  4) Multicultural Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  5) Values Clarification Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  6) Bilingual Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  7) Music Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  8) Athletics/team sports  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  9) Computer Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  10) Creativity Enhancement  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  11) Environmental Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  12) Self-concept Enhancement  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  13) Consumer Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  14)  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  15) Art Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  16) Sex Education  Extremely  Very  Moderately  Somewhat  Little  Not  Extracurricular Activities  From the list above, which would you consider the most important to a child's elementary education, K-6? Write the item numbers in the blanks below. Most Important.  (Item No.)  Somewhat Important  Of Little Important  Not Important  From the list above, which would you consider the least important to a child's elementary education, K-6? Write the item numbers in the blanks below. Least Important.  (Item No.)  Second Most Important.  . (Item No.)  Second Least Important,  . (Item No.)  Third Most lmportant_  (Item No.)  Third Least Important.  . (Item No.)  ITEM 2 Complete the following statement:  Environmental education is.  An educational process aimed at producing citizens who: (1) are knowledgeable about their relationship with the environment; (2) are aware of environmental problems; (3) understand how to best solve these problems; and (4) are motivated to work toward solving these problems.  130 ITEM 7 Barriers on Cards:  (1) No natural environments available. (2) Lack of time in school day (3) Class size is too large (4) Lack of preparation time (5) Lack of science knowledge (6) Lack of environmental education knowledge (7) Liability worries (8) Safety problems (9) Class size is too small (10) Lack of principal support (11) Environmental education is not relevant to what I teach (12) Transportation problems (13) Lack of funding (14) Lack of environmental education instructional materials  131  ITEM 12 For each of the following, please circle the word which, when inserted into the statement, best describes how you feel. Sometimes Never Always Often 1) I am comfortable applying environmental education materials to the areas I teach.  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  2) I feel that environmental education is an extra burden on the school budget.  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  feel that knowing about plants and animals is important in teaching environmental education.  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  feel that environmental education takes time away from the other subjects I teach.  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  feel that teaching environmental education is a worthwhile task. Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  feel I have a good background for teaching environmental education.  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  feel that obtaining environmental education materials and conducting environmental education activities is expensive. Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  8) I am comfortable applying classroom matter Always to outdoor environmental education activities.  Often  Sometimes  Never  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  feel that environmental education is an extra burden on my time.  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  feel that environmental education is best taught in the science curriculum.  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  feel that environmental education takes money our teaching budget doesn't have.  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  feel my undergraduate education classes provided good preparation for teaching environmental education.  Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  15) Because of the other things I must teach, environmental antal education takes time I don't have. Always  Often  Sometimes  Never  16) I feel it is important for environmental education to be taught in the school curriculum.  Often  Sometimes  Never  3) I  4) I  5) I  6) I  7) I  9) I  feel that environmental education is important in a student's jr. secondary education.  10) I  feel that the best background for environmental education is a background in science.  11) I  12) I  13) I  14) I  Always  132 APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES Table C. 1 Frequency Distribution of Respondents Who Have Received Environmental Education Training.  Type of Training  Frequency  Percent  None  30  58.8  Workshops  19  37.3  Course  4  7.8  Total  53'  103.9*  'Figures add to greater than 51 respondents and 100% due to more than type of training being possible for each respondent.  Table C. 2  Frequency Distribution of Non-conflict Rural, Urban, and Conflictridden Rural Teachers Who Have Received Environmental Education Training. Teachers  Type of Training  Workshops Course  Non-conflict Rural (n=23) % 30.4 4.3  Urban (n=13) %  Conflict-ridden Rural (n=15) %  46.2  40.0  0  20.0  1  Table C. 3  Rank-Order Comparisons Among Non-conflict Rural, Urban, and Conflict-ridden Rural Area Teachers of Response Categories to Environmental Education's Place in the School Curriculum. Teachers  Category  Non-conflict Rural (n-23) Rank %  Urban (n-13) Rank %  Conflictridden Rural (n=15) Rank %  Throughout Curriculum  1  60.9  2.5  46.2  1  93.3  Science  2  30.4  1  53.8  6  0  Social Studies  3  17.4  2.5  46.2  6  0  Within Non-traditional Programs  4  13.0  4  30.8  2  6.7  Humanities  5  8.7  5  0  2  6.7  Separate Subject  7  4.3  5  0  2  6.7  Unstructured (e.g. current events)  6  4.3  5  0  6  0  Sciences  8  0  5  0  2  6.7  Kruskal-Wallis Test: Non-conflict Rural n=8 N=24  2Rj= Rj=  109 13.625  Urban 86 10.75  Conflict-ridden Rural 71 8.875  (i) Ho: there is no difference in the means of the three areas H i : the groups differ with respect to the three means (ii)  I nj R* - 3 (N + 1) KWo = 12_ J•I«I N(N + 1) =60.795 -75 =-14.205 KWo --14.21  KW.95 = 5.99  (iii) Conclusions: (a) Since KWo < KW.95; retain Ho (b) There is probably no significant difference between the three means.  134  Table C. 4 Rank-Order and Frequency Distribution of Responses indicating the Curriculum Areas in which Respondents Include Environmental Education when Separated into Non-conflict Rural, Urban and Conflict-ridden Rural areas. Teachers Category  Non-conflict Rural  IJrban  (n*23)  (ni « 1 3 ) % Rank 1 46.2  Conflictridden Rural (n«15) Rank % 3.5 20.0  Rank 3  % 26.1  Science  1.5  30.4  2  20.0  1.5  26.7  Social Studies  1.5  30.4  4.5  13.3  5.5  6.7  English  4  17.4  3  15.4  3.5  20.0  All Subjects  6.5  4.3  4.5  13.3  1.5  26.7  Art  5  8.7  7.5  0  5.5  6.7  Physical Education  8.5  0  6.5  7.7  5.5  6.7  Mathematics  8.5  0  6.5  7.7  8.5  0  Technology  6.5  4.3  7.5  0  8.5  0  None  121.6*  Total  116.6*  'Figures add to greater than 100 % due to more than one response being possible from each respondent. Kruskal-Wallis Test  n=9  ZRj=  N=27  Rj=  Non-conflict Rural  Urban  Conflict-ridden Rural  200  167.5  223.5  16.66  13.9583  18.625  (i) Ho: there is no difference in the means of the three areas Hi: the groups differ with respect to the three means (ii)  KW0 = 12. I nj Rf - 3 (N + 1) N (N + 1) =88.59496 -111 =-22.41 KWo = -22.41 KW.95 = 5.99 Conclusions: (a) Since KWo < KW.95; retain Ho (b) There is probably no significant difference between the three means.  113.5*  135 Table C. 5  Rank-Order Comparisons Among Non-conflict Rural, Urban, and Conflict-ridden Rural Teachers of Responses Indicating TimeConsuming Factors of Environmental Education. Teachers  Category  Non-conflict Rural (n-23) Rank %  Urban (n=13) Rank %  Conflictridden Rural (n=15) Rank %  Preparation  1  82.6  2  38.5  1  Becoming knowledgeable  2  13.0  1  46.2  8.5  0  Lack of curriculum time  3  8.7  3  23.1  8.5  0  Teaching abstract concepts  3  8.7  4  15.4  3  6.7  Changing attitudes  6.5  4.3  6  0  2  20.0  Field trips  6.5  4.3  8  7.7  3  6.7  Environmental Education activities  3  8.7  6  0  3  6.7  Uncertain Not a Factor  8 9  0 0  6 9  0 0  3 3  6.7 6.7  130.3*  Total  130.9*  80.0  133.5*  *Figures add to greater than 100% due to more than one response being possible from each respondent. Kruskal-Wallis Test:  n=9 N=27  Non-conflict Rural  Urban  Conflict-ridden Rural  2Rj=  121  113  99  Rj.  13.4  12.56  11  (i) Ho: there is no difference in the means of the three areas Hi: the groups differ with respect to the three means (ii)  KWo = 12 Z nj Rj - 3 (N + 1) N(N + 1) J "' =65.628 -84 =-18.372 KWo =-18.37  KW.95 = 5.99  (iii) Conclusions: (a) Since KWo < KW.95; retain Ho (b) There is probably no significant difference between the three means.  136  Table C. 6  Rank-Order Comparisons Among Non-conflict Rural, Urban, and Conflict-ridden Rural Teachers of Responses Indicating Contributing Expenses to Environmental Education. Teachers Non-conflict Rural  Category  (n = 2 3 ) % Rank  Urban (n..13) Rank %  Conflictridden Rural (n=15) Rank %  30.8  1  86.7  1  53.8  2  46.7  2  46.2  4  6.7  30.8  3  13.3  5  15.4  4  6.7  6  0  4  6.7  Field trips  2  56.5  3.5  Materials  1  59.6  Teacher Training  3  26.1  Curriculum Organization  4  17.4  Guest Speakers  5  7.7  Inexpensive  6  4.3  3.5  Total 171.6* 177.0* 166.8* 'Figures add to greater than 100 % due to more than one response being possible from each respondent. Kruskal-Wallis Test Conflict-ridden  Non-conflict  n=6 N=18  Rural  Urban  Rural  2Rj=  60  60  48  Ri=  10  10  8  (i) Ho: there is no difference in the means of the three areas H i : the groups differ with respect to the three means  (ii)  KW 0 = 12. \ nj R* N (N + 1) =55.5789 -57 =-1.421  3 (N + 1)  KWo = -1.42 KW.95 = 5.99 Conclusions: (a) Since KWo < KW.95; retain Ho (b) There is probably no significant difference between the three means.  1 Table C. 7  Rank-Order Comparisons Among Non-conflict Rural, Urban, and Conflictridden Rural Teachers of Responses Indicating Sources to Contact for Environmental Education Materials and Information. Teachers  Source  Non-conflict Rural  Conflict-ridden Rural  Urban  Rank 1  % 56.5  Rank 1  % 92.3  Rank 2  % 53.3  Environmental Associations/ Groups  5.5  30.4  2  53.8  1  66.7  Another Teacher  2  52.2  4  23.1  4  40.0  Other (local resources)  3  47.8  4  23.1  3  46.7  University Resource  4  34.8  3  38.5  5  26.7  Federal Agency  5.5  30.4  7  7.7  6.5  13.3  Popular Reading Material  8  0  4  23.1  Textbook  9  0  7  7.7  6.5  Study Guide  7  4.4  10  0  9  0  Would not know who to contact  10  0  7  7.7  10  0  Provincial Agency  Total  256.5*  8  277.0*  'Figures add to greater than 100 % due to more than one response being possible from each respondent.  KrusKal-Wallis Test Non-conflict Rural  Urban  Conflict-ridden Rural  n=10  SRj=  144  148  152  N=30  Rj=  14.4  14.8  15.2  (i) Ho: there is no difference in the means of the three areas H i : the groups differ with respect to the three means (ii)  KWo = 12 Z nj R* - 3 (N + 1) N (N + 1) J " =84.83096 -93 =-8.169 KWo =-8.17 KW.95 = 5.99 Conclusions: (a) Since KWo < KW.95; retain Ho (b) There is probably no significant difference between the three means.  6.7 13.3  266.7*  1  Table C. 8  Rank-Order Comparisons Among Non-conflict Rural, Urban, and Conflict-ridden Rural Teachers of Responses Indicating Desirable Background for Teaching Environmental Education. Teachers  Category  Non-conflict Rural (n-23)  Conflictridden Rural (n-15)  Urban (n>- 1 3 ) Rank % 1 76.9  Jgnk  %  1  66.7  Special Training is Not Necessary  2  47.8  Environmental Education  1  60.9  2  15.4  2  40.0  Science  3  17.4  3  13.3  3  20.0  Knowledge of Outdoors/ Outdoor Skills  4.5  0  4  7.7  4  13.3  Social Studies  4.5  0  5  0  5  6.7  Total  126.1*  113.3*  146.7*  'Figures add to greater than 100 % due to more than one response being possible from each respondent. Kruskal-Wallis Test: Non-conflict  n=5 N=15  Conflict-ridden  Rural  Urban  Rural  2Rj=  38  34.5  44.5  Rj.  7.6  6.9  8.9  (i) Ho: there is no difference in the means of the three areas H i : the groups differ with respect to the three means (ii)  KWo = _ _ L 2 _ _ Z nj R? - 3 (N + 1) N (N + 1) J " =46.145 -48 =-1.855 KWo =-1.86  KW.95 = 5.99  (iii) Conclusions: (a) Since KW0 < KW.95; retain H 0 (b) There is probably no significant difference between the three means.  1  Table C. 9  Mean Importance of Non-traditional Education Areas.  Overall Rank  Education Area  1  Self-concept Enhancement  5.4  2  Computer Education  5.2  3  Environmental Education  5.2  4  Sex Education  5.1  5  Career Education  5.0  6  Creativity Enhancement  5.0  7  Multicultural Education  5.0  8  Values Clarification  4.9  9  Vocational Education  4.8  10  Safety Education  4.7  1 1  Extracurricular  12.5  Consumer Education  4.4  12.5  Athletics/Team Sports  4.4  14  Art Education  4.2  15  Music Education  4.2  16  Bilingual Education  4.1  Activities  Mean Rank  4.7  140  Table C. 10 Results of Kruskal-Wallls Test Among Groups of Schools Comparing Mean Importance Ratings of Non-traditional Education Areas  Educational Area  Non-conflict Rural  Urban  Conflict-ridden Rural  Self-Concept Enhancement  5.3  5.5  5.5  Computer Education  5.1  5.3  5.4  Environmental Education  5.2  5.0  5.4  Sex Education  4.6  5.5  5.5  Career Education  5.2  4.6  5.3  Creativity Enhancement  4.8  5.2  5.3  Multicultural Education  4.9  4.9  5.1  Values Clarification  4.9  5.2  4.9  Vocational Education  5.0  4.3  4.8  Safety Education  5.0  4.5  4.5  4.2  4.9  5.3  Consumer Education  4.5  4.2  4.5  Athletics/Team Sports  4.3  4.6  4.3  Art Education  4.1  4.2  4.5  Music Education  3.9  4.4  4.5  Bilingual Education  4.0  3.9  4.5  Extracurricular  Activities  Kruskal-Wallis Test:  n=16  2 Rj=  N=48  Rj=  Non-conflict Rural  Urban  Conflict-ridden Rural  338  378  460  21.125  23.625  28.750  (i) Ho: there is no difference in the means of the three areas Hi: the groups differ with respect to the three means (ii)  KW0 = 12 $ n ] R f - 3 ( N + 1) i»t N (N + 1) i =149.4668 -147 =2.467 KWo =2.47  KW.95 = 5.99  (iii) Conclusions: (a) Since KWo < KW.95 ; retain Ho (b) There is probably no significant difference between the three means.  141  Table C. 11  Educational  Rank-Order Comparisons Among Non-conflict Rural, Urban, and Conflict-ridden Rural Teachers of Relative Importance Ratings of Non-traditional Education Areas Rank  Area Nor i - c o n f l i c t Rural  Urban  Self-concept Enhancement  1  1  1  Career Education  2  7  2  Computer Education  6  5  3  Creativity Enhancement  4.5  3  6  Values Clarification  3  4  9  Environmental Education  4.5  9  4  Sex Education  9  2  8  Multicultural Education  7  6  12  Vocational Education  8  11  5  Music Education  16  8  7  Safety Education  10.5  13  13  13  10  14  Athletics/Team Sports  10.5  12  15  Consumer Education  12  14  16  Art Education  15  15  10  Bilingual Education  14  16  11  Extracurricular  Activities  Conflict-ridden Rural  Kruskal-Wallis Test:  n=16  2Rj=  N=48  Rj=  Non-conflict Rural 391  Urban 402  Conflict-ridden Rural 380  24.438  25.125  23.75  (i) Ho: there is no difference in the means of the three areas H i : the groups differ with respect to the three means •4  (ii)  - i  KWo = _ 1 2 _ I njRj - 3 (N + 1) N (N + 1) * ' =146.328 -147 =-0.671875 KWo =-0.672  KW.95 = 5.99  Conclusions: (a) Since KWo < KW.95; retain Ho (b) There is probably no significant difference between the three means.  142  Table C. 12  Frequency Distribution of How Often Teachers Conduct Environmental Education Activities.  Code  Never (D  Now and Then (2)  Number of Respondents  10.0  26.0  Percent of Respondents  19.6  51.0  Rather  Frequently (3)  Continually (4)  11.0  4.0  21.6  7.8  Mean: 2.176  Table C. 13  ANOVA Summary Table of the Frequency in which Teachers Conduct Environmental Education Activities  Summary Table: Source Between Within  SS 0.095 35.32  df 2 48  Total  35.41  50  MS 0.048 0.74  F 0.656  P <0.05  Fc=0.95F2,48=3.19 (a) H 0 : ui = u i = ui H i : ui % uj for any i and j . (b) Calculations: See Table C. 13 (c) Conclusion: (i) Since Fo < Fc, retain Ho (ii) There is probably no significant difference between the three groups.  143  Table C. 14  ANOVA Summary of "Lack of Time" Barrier Scale  Summary Table: Source Between Within  SS 38.87 220.88  df 2 48  Total  2559.88  50  MS 19.43 4.60  F 4.22*  P <0.05  *FC= 0.95F2,48=3.19  (a) H 0 : ui = ui= ui H i : ui ^ uj for any i and j . (b) Calculations: See Table C. 14. (c) Conclusion: (i) Since Fo > Fc, reject Ho (ii) There is probably a significant difference between at least two of the three groups.  SCHEFFE F-TEST: Fc' = (J - 1) Fc = (3 - 1) 3.19 = 6.38 (I) Non-conflict Rural Vs. Urban X i = 9.04348 X2 = 7.9231  (a) H 0 : ui = U2 H i : ui * U2 (b) Calculations: Fo= 2.27 Fc'= 6.38 (c) Conclusion: (i) Since Fo < Fc, retain Ho (ii) There is probably no significant difference between rural and nonconflict urban teachers' perceptions of time barrier.  (2) Non-conflict Rural Vs. Conflict-ridden X1 = 9.04348 X3 = 7.20  Rural  (a) H 0 : ui = U3 H i : u i * U3 (b) Calculations: Fo= 6.70 Fc'= 6.38 (c) Conclusion: (i) Since Fo > Fc, reject Ho (ii) There is probably a significant difference between rural and conflictridden teachers' perceptions of time barrier.  (3) Urban Vs. Conflict-ridden Rural X l =7.9231 X2 =7.20  (a) Ho: ui = U2 H i : ui * U2 (b) Calculations: Fo= 0.79 Fc'= 6.38 (c) Conclusion: (i) Since Fo < Fc, retain Ho (ii) There is probably no significant difference between urban and conflict-ridden teachers' perceptions of time barrier.  1  Table C. 15  ANOVA Summary of "Lack of Funding" Barrier Scale  Summary Table: Source Between Within  SS 2.51 96.24  Total  98.75 50  df 2 48  MS 1025 2.00  F 0.626  P <0.05  *FC= 0.95F2,48=3.19  (a) H 0 : ui = ui= ui H i : uj * uj for any i and j . (b) Calculations: See Table C.15 (c) Conclusion: (i) Since Fo < Fc, retain Ho (ii) There is probably no significant difference among the three groups.  146  Table C. 16  ANOVA Summary of Attitude Barrier Scale  Summary Table: Source Between Within  SS 0.86 117.85  df 2 48  Total  118.71  50  MS 0.43 2.46  F 0.175  P <0.05  *FC= 0.95F2,48=3.19  (a) Ho: ui = ui= ui H i : uj ^ uj for any i and j . (b) Calculations: See Table C. 16. (c) Conclusion: (i) Since Fo < Fc, retain Ho (ii) There is probably no significant difference among the three groups.  147  Table C. 17  ANOVA Summary of "Lack of Science Background" Barrier Scale  Summary Table: Source Between Within  SS 6.80 186.18  df 2 48  Total  192.98  50  MS 3.40 3.88  F 0.88  P <0.05  *F C =0.95F2,48=3.19  (a) H 0 : ui = ui= ui H i : u i * uj for any i and j . (b) Calculations: See Table C. 17. (c) Conclusion: (i) Since Fo < Fc, retain Ho (ii) There is probably no significant difference among the three groups.  148  Table C. 18  Distribution of Teachers According to the Academic Qualifications Held by Respondents.  Type of Degree  Frequency 41 9 1  Bachelors Masters No Degree  Table C. 19  80.4 17.6 2.0  Distribution of Teachers According to the Academic Qualifications Heid by Respondents Among the Three Areas. Freauencv  Type of Degree Non-conflict Rural (n=23) % Bachelors Masters No Degree  Percent(%)  73.9 21.7 4.3  Urban (n=13) % 76.9 23.1 0  Conflict-ridden Rural (n-15) % 93.3 6.7 0  149  Table C. 20  Distribution of Teachers According to Institutions Attended by Respondents for Teacher Education.  College of University  Frequency  Percei  University of British Columbia  22  43.1  University of Victoria  1 1  21.6  Simon Fraser University  7  13.7  University of Calgary  2  3.9  University of Western Ontario  2  3.9  McMaster University  2.0  Nova Scotia Teacher's College  2.0  University of Alberta  2.0  University of Manitoba  2.0  University of Quebec  2.0  University of Toronto  2.0  University of Windsor  2.0  Table C. 21  Response  Frequency Distribution of Teachers' Perception of Whether There are Barriers Preventing More Environmental Education Implementation. Frequency  Percent  Yes  40  78.4  No  11  21.6  APPENDIX D DEFINITIONS (Adapted from Sewing, 1986)  (1) Definitions of Categories Established for Content Analysis of Question 2: "Environmental Education is...."  (a) Science: This category includes reponses which emphasizes science education or equates environmental education with a specific branch of science (i.e., natural science, biology, botany, etc.) (b) Knowledge and Awareness of Environment: Response emphasizes gaining an awareness or knowledge of the contents of the environment. Education about the physical world, biotic and abiotic elements, the functioning, and general constituents of the environment are stressed. These responses were broad statements: -the study of our surroundings -learning about our environment -the study of things in the physical world -helping students to be aware of the environment -an awareness of our surroundings (c) Appreciation for the Environment: Teaching students to value or appreciate the environment and its importance is emphasized in this definition. Examples include: -teaching students an appreciation of the importance of the environment -appreciating our surroundings in an affective sense -teaching students to value or respect their environment -teaching students how to love their environment (d) Protection of our Environment and Natural Resources: Definition emphasizes protection of natural resources or nature. Statements may be similar to the following: -teaching students to protect the outdoors -teaching ways to safeguard our environment -guarding the balance of nature (e) Interactions and Interdependences: Responses emphasizes that environmental components (human and nonhuman, living and nonliving) interact and/or are interdependent. Statements include: -learning about the interdependence of nature -awareness of how things are dependent on other things -understanding how humans and nature affect each other -the interaction between living organisms and the environment -how the environment affects us  151  (f) Wise Use and Human Impacts on the Environment: Response emphasizes human uses of the environment. This includes responses which stresses learning to use our resources wisely, or awareness of how humans affect the environment-both favourably and unfavourably. Examples include: -how we use our environment -how humans relate to their environment -how humans affect their environment -how we can use our natural resources -learning how to keep the environment healthy -being aware of how humans can destroy nature -managing our natural resources wisely (g) Environmental problems/Problems Solvinp: Responses stress educating students about environmental problems and/or the role they play in solving these problems. Statements may include: -making students aware of environmental problems -teaching students to become motivated to help solve problems -teaching students how to deal with environmental problems (h) Outdoor Education: Definition emphasizes education about the outdoors or learning to appreciate the outdoors. Examples include: -learning how to enjoy the outdoors -learning how to understand the outdoors  1  (2) Definitions of Categories for Content Analysis of Question 4: Where should environmental education be taught in the school curriculum?  (a) Throughout Curriculum: Responses suggested that environmental education should/can be taught in any/every area of the curriculum. (b) Science: Responses suggested that environmental education should be part of the science curriculum. (c) Social Studies: Responses suggested that environmental education should be part of the social studies curriculum. (d) Within Non-traditional Curriculum: Environmental education should be included in a non-tradtional program or a block of time set aside for special activities. Examples include "Environmental Awareness Week," Environment clubs, leadership clubs, etc. (e) Humanities: As defined by the Year 2QQQ Program in British Columbia, the humanities strand includes the integration of English and Social Studies curriculum. Responses indicated that environmental education should be taught within this curriculum strand. (f) Separate Subject: Responses suggested that environmental education should be taught as an individual course and not as part of another subject. (g) Science Strand: As defined by the Year 2000 Program in British Columbia, the science strand include the integration of Science and Mathematics curriculum. Responses indicated that environmental education should be taught within this curriculum strand. (h) Unstructured: Environmental education should be implemented spontaneously and without prior planning. For example, current event topic discussions were considered unstructured.  153  (3) Definitions of Categories for Content Analysis of Question 8: What things do you think contribute most to the cost or expense of Environmental Education?  (a) Field Trips: Transportation and substitute teaching costs associated with field trips are included in this category. (b) Materials: All resources commonly used in classroom teaching are included in this category. Example include audio-visual materials, textbooks, and lab materials. Also included in this category are costs associated with preparing materials. (c) Teacher Traininq/lnservice training expenses: Teachers considered that environmental education training for teachers contributed to the cost of environmental education. (d) Curriculum Organization: This category included any costs associated with implementing or coordinating environmental education within the curriculum. Costs associated with committee work and personnel are included in this classification. (e) Guest Speakers: Costs associated with obtaining guest speakers were categorized in this classification. (f) Inexpensive: Teachers indicated that there were no important contributing costs; that environmental education was not expensive and that cost was not a factor.  (4) Definitions of Categories for Content Analysis of Question 9: What things do you think contribute most to the amount of time Environmental Education takes?  (a) Preparation: Researching, collating materials or units, assembling materials or arranging activities/field trips were reported as time consuming factors in teaching environmental education. (b) Becoming knowledgeable: Time would be used to increase one's own knowledge about environmental education and becoming familiar with environmental education concepts and materials. (c) Lack of curriculum time: Teachers indicated that there was a lack of time for environmental education in the curriculum because of the emphasis on teaching the basics. Other factors included the opinions that environmental education was not a curriculum priority and that too many other programs had been added to the curriculum. (d) Teaching abstract concepts: Teachers indicated that, because of the complexity of environmental education, the process of developing and teaching abstract concepts to students was a time-consuming venture. (e) Changing attitudes: Teachers indicated that motivating students and changing students' attitudes toward environmental issues would require a great deal of time. (f) Field trips: The time set aside for the trip was considered to be contributing to the amount of time environmental education requires. (g) Environmental education activities: Teachers suggested that the amount of time necessary to complete a classroom activity or discussion contributed most to the amount of time environmental education requires. (h) Uncertain: Teachers indicated that they did not have an answer to this question.  1  (5) Definitions of Categories for Content Analysis of Question 11: What kind of training/preparation should a teacher have in order to teach environmental education?  (a) Special Training is Not Necessary: Responses emphasized that a particular background was not considered essential. A response may have indicated that it is an individual's responsibility to become knowledgeable about environmental problems, develop an outdoor ethic, or be self-motivated to help solve problems. In addition, responses that indicated training in methods that could apply to any type of education were included in this category (e.g., learning how to involve students in activities). (b) Environmental education: Responses indicated that a background in environmental education was desirable. Teachers indicated that the appropriate environmental education training could be obtained through college courses, education classes, workshops, conferences, environmental methods classes, and/or lab classes in which areas of emphasis included handson learning, integration of environmental education into their subject areas, and application to specific grade levels. (c) Science: Responses indicated that the most desirable background was science. Science methods, environmental science training, and natural history background were included in this category. (d) Knowledge of Outdoors/ Outdoor Skills: Responses emphasized learning about the outdoors, knowledge about the content of one's surroundings, and gaining experience in outdoor skills and field activities. (e) Social Studies: A social studies background was indicated to be advantageous in teaching environmental education.  APPENDIX E FORMULAS  Kruskal-Wallls  Tast:  The terms necessary to compute the Kruskal-Wallis statistic are as follows: KW=  or  -4  -  -  12 7 nj(Rj -R)2 N(N + 1) •»"'  KW= f  12 N(N + 1)  4. Z njRj2] - 3(N+1) J*'  where k = number of samples or groups n\= number of cases in the yth sample N = number of cases in the combined sample (the sum of the n/s) Ry = sum of the ranks in the yth sample or group Ry = average of the ranks in the yth sample or group R = (N + 1)/2 = the average of the ranks in the combined sample (the grand mean)  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054847/manifest

Comment

Related Items