PROOF COVER SHEET

PROOF COVER SHEET
Journal acronym: CEER
Author(s): Bela Yavetz
Article title: How do preservice teachers perceive ‘environment’ and its relevance to their area of
teaching?
Article no: 803038
Enclosures: 1) Query sheet
2) Article proofs
Dear Author,
1. Please check these proofs carefully. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to
check these and approve or amend them. A second proof is not normally provided. Taylor &
Francis cannot be held responsible for uncorrected errors, even if introduced during the production
process. Once your corrections have been added to the article, it will be considered ready for
publication.
Please limit changes at this stage to the correction of errors. You should not make insignificant
changes, improve prose style, add new material, or delete existing material at this stage. Making a
large number of small, non-essential corrections can lead to errors being introduced. We therefore
reserve the right not to make such corrections.
For detailed guidance on how to check your proofs, please see
http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/production/checkingproofs.asp
2. Please review the table of contributors below and confirm that the first and last names are
structured correctly and that the authors are listed in the correct order of contribution. This
check is to ensure that your name will appear correctly online and when the article is indexed.
Sequence
1
2
3
Prefix
Given name(s)
Surname
Bela
Daphne
Sara
Yavetz
Goldman
Pe’er
Suffix
Queries are marked in the margins of the proofs.
AUTHOR QUERIES
General query: You have warranted that you have secured the necessary written permission from
the appropriate copyright owner for the reproduction of any text, illustration, or other material in
your article. (Please see http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/preparation/permission.asp.) Please check
that any required acknowledgements have been included to reflect this.
AQ1
Please provide complete details for reference ‘Authors (2006, 2007, 2009)’.
AQ2
Please provide volume number and page range for reference ‘Kronlid and Őhman
(2012)’.
AQ3
Please provide the name of the city of publication for reference ‘Leopold (1949)’.
AQ4
Please provide the name of the city of publication for reference ‘National Environmental Education Advisory Council (2005)’.
CEER 803038
18 May 2013
Initial
CE: JV QA: SS
Coll: QC:
Environmental Education Research, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.803038
How do preservice teachers perceive ‘environment’ and its
relevance to their area of teaching?
Bela Yavetza*, Daphne Goldmanb and Sara Pe’erc
a
Biology and Environmental Education, Kibbutzim College of Education, Technology and
the Arts, Tel Aviv, Israel; bEnvironmental Science and Agriculture, Beit Berl Academic
College, Kfar Saba, Israel; cScience and Environment Teaching, Oranim Academic College,
Tivon, Israel
5
(Received 29 July 2012; final version received 2 May 2013)
The environment is not only an ecological entity distinct from people but a cultural, social, and political construct. Understanding how learners conceptualize
‘environment’ may contribute to more effective environmental education (EE).
This study investigated, in a paired pre–post design, 215 students’ understandings of ‘environment’ and perceptions of its relevance to their teaching area, at
the onset and toward the end of their studies in teacher-education colleges in
Israel. While student teachers, regardless of their major, acknowledged the
importance of EE to their future function as teachers, they do not demonstrate
an adequate understanding of the concept environment: humans are not viewed
as part of the environment nor is the environment understood as a complex web
of interactions among people, man-made systems and natural ecosystems. The
fact that toward the end of studies, student teachers’ understandings of environment remained essentially basic indicates the necessity to reorient teacher-education programs toward EE. The various ways in which students perceived the
relevance of environment to their teaching area are the starting points for this
change.
10
15
20
Keywords: environmental education; perception; teacher education; sustainability;
environmental philosophy
25
Introduction
This study investigated preservice teachers’ perceptions of the concept ‘environment’. Clarifying students’ perceptions of ‘environment’ is important based on the
following assumptions:
30
(a) Environmental issues are defined by the way people perceive their impact on
individuals, society, and natural systems. Furthermore, the way people experience and understand the environment projects onto their environmental behaviour, and hence, it is important to elucidate these understandings (Loughland,
Reid, and Petocz 2002; Palmer 1998). This point is especially relevant for
environmental education (EE) in view of its aim to empower learners toward
*Corresponding author. Email: belay@macam.ac.il
Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis
35
CEER 803038
18 May 2013
2
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Initial
CE: JV QA: SS
Coll: QC:
B. Yavetz et al.
social and environmental change, i.e. change that leads to responsible environmental behavior. Therefore, to attain its goals, EE should be contextual, based
on the ways in which different people perceive and understand their environment and define their place in it (Wals 1992).
(b) One of the goals of teaching is to lead learners toward meaningful learning.
Learners enter the learning process with a complex collection of understandings, ideas, beliefs, and values regarding their world. These constructed in the
course of previous experiences effect their learning (Robertson 1993). Assuming that students’ perceptions of the environment reflect their understandings,
worldview and attitudes regarding environmental issues, analysis of these
perceptions may enable development of more effective and meaningful EE
programs and teaching methods, that broaden and deepen these understandings
(Loughland, Reid, and Petocz 2002; Payne 1998; Robertson 1998).
Elucidating learner’s perceptions is all-the-more valid in the context of preservice teachers. Teachers are key agents for achieving meaningful EE in the education
system and developing environmental literacy (EL) among students (McKeown and
Hopkins 2002). To fulfill this role, teachers need to enrich their students with more
than knowledge. They need to cultivate the students’ abilities to understand, criticize, and participate rationally in the discourse on controversial, value laden issues
of sustainability which require a holistic approach addressing social, cultural and
ethical aspects. If teachers lack proficiency in their environmental knowledge, skills
and commitment, it is unlikely they will be able to effectively lead environmental
change in schools (National Environmental Education Advisory Council 2005).
There is accumulating empirical evidence indicating that inadequate incorporation
of EE within teacher education is one of the obstacles to successful implementation
of EE in schools (Babiuk and Falkenberg 2010; Cutter and Smith 2001; McKeown
and Hopkins 2002; UNESCO 1997).
In light of this, the present study explored perceptions of preservice teachers, at
the beginning and toward the end of their studies, regarding the concept ‘environment’, human–environment interrelationships and how these are related to the subject-area that they are being trained to teach. This investigation is one component
of a broader longitudinal investigation of the development of these student teachers’
EL during their professional preparation (Authors 2006, 2007, 2009). EL variables,
such as environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior, were evaluated using
quantitative tools (Authors 2006, 2007, 2009). Elucidating students’ perceptions of
the environment (in this study), illuminates aspects that are not exposed through
quantitative tools and thus contributes to constructing a more comprehensive picture
of their EL. The purpose of elucidating student teachers’ EL is to provide insight
whether graduates of the current teacher-education programs are prepared to
function as environmental educators, and how EE can be effectively integrated
within their education.
The only refinement that I would suggest is a stronger case be made for the original
contribution this paper makes to the literature in this area. There might be a case
made, for example, that this paper reports on the unique application of two different
analytical frameworks. The current argument for an original contribution is that
teacher education (or training) does not promote environmental knowledge, values and
behaviors. This is hardly new as the authors acknowledge in this paper.
CEER 803038
18 May 2013
Initial
CE: JV QA: SS
Coll: QC:
Environmental Education Research
3
Theoretical framework
Frameworks for analyzing perceptions of environment
Various frameworks can be found in the literature that can be used for analyzing
how individuals perceive the construct ‘environment.’ A useful framework that
resonates with the sustainability approach is the conceptual model provided by
UNESCO (2002) in the context of education for sustainable development and also
described by O’Donoghue and Russo (2004). The model emphasizes interactions
among social, economic, political, and biophysical dimensions of the environment
and environmental issues and thus provides a holistic and integrative framework
that addresses the environmental–social interphase.
Another framework, derived empirically, was presented by Loughland, Reid,
and Petocz (2002). From their phenomenographic study of primary and secondary
pupils’ conceptions of ‘environment,’ they identified six qualitatively different categories: environment as a place; environment as a place that contains living things;
environment as a place that contains living things and human beings; the environment as something that does something for people; people are part of the environment and are responsible for it; people and the environment are in a mutually
sustaining relationship. These categories are hierarchical, ranging from a limited
understanding of ‘environment’ to the most inclusive and comprehensive view. The
first three categories reflect perception of ‘environment’ as an object, while the
remaining three reflect a view of ‘environment’ as different relationships between
people and the environment.
Individuals’ perceptions of the relationships among humans, man-made systems,
and the natural world are related to the environmental values they hold, which influence their behavior with respect to the environment (Dietz, Fitzgerald, and Shwom
2005; Scott and Oulton 1998). A central aspect of environmental values focuses on
the value humans assign to nonhuman nature. An anthropocentric worldview situates humans and their needs at the center and assigns an intrinsic value only to
humans and a utilitarian value to nature (Dietz, Fitzgerald, and Shwom 2005). This
approach views nature as a resource for human exploitation, and therefore, its value
is determined by the benefits or uses that it provides to human. This value approach
underlies the dominant social paradigm of Western industrialized societies (Dunlap
2008). Opposing anthropocentrism is a bio/ecocentric worldview by which people
are perceived as one component of the ecological system, acknowledging intrinsic
value also to nonhuman components of nature, independent of the services they
provide people. This value approach is a basic foundation of the New Ecological
Paradigm (NEP) (Dunlap and Van Liere 1978; Dunlap et al. 2000). These opposing
value approaches are commonly abstracted as a continuum in which one pole
represents the anthropocentric position and the opposite pole represents the
bio/ecocentric position. The anthropocentric/ecocentric distinction is often used to
characterize basic values relating to the natural environment and to examine
changes in these over time and following exposure to EE. Specifically, EE strives
to move learners from a more anthropocentric orientation to a more ecocentric orientation. It is recently critiqued that the anthropocentric/ecocentric distinction is
often taken as synonymous with a nonenvironmentally friendly orientation vs. an
environmentally friendly position and that this parallelism can lead to an over
simplification of a more complex reality when implemented in the study of human
behavior (Kronlid and Őhman 2012; Wiseman and Bogner 2003). For example,
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
CEER 803038
18 May 2013
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Initial
CE: JV QA: SS
Coll: QC:
B. Yavetz et al.
people who hold anthropocentrically oriented values can be environmentally
responsible in their behavior.
Schultz et al. (2004) argue that peoples’ environmental attitudes and concerns
can be associated with the extent to which they view themselves as part of the natural environment or distinct from nature. At one extreme is the individual who
believes him/herself separate from nature and thus superior to other living organisms. At the other end of the continuum is the individual who believes that s/he is
a part of nature, and therefore, the rights that apply to humans should also apply to
other organisms (Schultz et al. 2004).
From a different perspective, this idea of a separation between humans and nature may reflect a ‘romantic’ perception by which nature is perceived as a pristine,
pure and undisturbed place, and humans and their artifacts are viewed as ‘outside’
of nature. As such, nature provides people with esthetic and spiritual values and
psychological enrichment (Leopold 1949; Muir 1915). These values have significant
practical importance in management of the environment (Safriel 2010) and are
acknowledged in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) as the ‘esthetic’
ecosystem services.
The above theoretical and empirical frameworks were used in the present study
as the lenses for analyzing the students’ perceptions of the environment
Previous studies on perceptions of environment in educationally related target
populations
Various studies have explored environmental perceptions of different target
populations: students in the education system (Loughland, Reid, and Petocz 2002;
Shepardson 2005; Shepardson et al. 2007; Wals 1992), higher education students
(Duan and Fortner 2005; Ewert and Baker 2001; Kagawa 2007; McMillan, Wright,
and Beazley 2004; Rideout 2005); and student teachers (Desjean-Perrotta, Moseley,
and Cantu 2008; Moseley, Desjean-Perrotta, and Utley 2010).
Using the hierarchical framework derived from their phenomenographic study of
perceptions of the environment, Loughland, Reid, and Petocz (2002), and Loughland et al. (2003) found that pupils in the Australian educational system demonstrated mainly an ‘object’ view of the environment, while the ‘relation’ view was
much less prevalent. Interestingly, the ‘relation’ view was more prevalent in primary
school children as compared to high school pupils. The authors traced this difference to the approach by which the subject was integrated within the two levels of
schooling: in primary schools, EE was taught in an integrated manner, whereas in
high schools, it was taught as a separate subject – ‘environmental science’.
Shepardson et al. (2007) analyzed school childrens’ drawings and explanations
of the environment, to identify their Mental Models as reflections of their conceptualizations of the environment. The researchers found that the environment was most
frequently perceived by the pupils as a natural place devoid of people and
concluded that these pupils understand the environment from a narrow ecological
perspective (Shepardson 2005; Shepardson et al. 2007).
Payne (1998) found that Australian urban sixth grade students generally have a
romantic idea of nature, as something ‘out there’ – living and nonliving things
existing naturally in the external environment, excluding humans and their artifacts.
They view the environment mainly through its physical dimensions, while conceptions of dynamics and change were mostly absent.
CEER 803038
18 May 2013
Initial
CE: JV QA: SS
Coll: QC:
Environmental Education Research
5
The perceptions reflected by the school pupils in the above studies, which
implemented different tools, indicate that these young people have an incomplete
understanding of the environment, and the researchers relate how children perceive
the environment to the ways this subject is being taught in schools (Loughland,
Reid, and Petocz 2002; Loughland et al. 2003; Shepardson et al. 2007). Such a situation needs to be taken into consideration in the way the environment and issues of
sustainability are addressed in teacher-education programs, as this is reflected in the
student teachers’ comprehensions of the environment and of environmental issues.
Along this line, several studies have addressed preservice teachers’ perceptions of
the environment (Desjean-Perrotta, Moseley, and Cantu 2008; Moseley, DesjeanPerrotta, and Utley 2010; Robertson 1993, 1998; Van Petegem, Blieck, and Van
Ongevalle 2007). Robertson (1993) identified, in student teachers in a secondary
school teacher-education program in a South African University, four different conceptualizations of the environment/social (focusing on social interactions and effects
of environmental issues on humans); political (awareness of social justice, economic
inequality and nonrepresentation of general public interests in decision-making);
biophysical (focusing on natural systems and effects of human activity on them);
and inclusive (interactions among the three foregoing aspects). These students’ conceptualizations reflect the dimensions of the environment depicted in the model
described by UNESCO (2002) and O’Donoghue and Russo (2004).
An investigation of early childhood preservice teachers’ mental models of the
environment, as reflected in their drawings and explanations of the environment,
found that the majority of these students did not include human factors and very
few indicated human relationships with other factors. Based on this, the authors
concluded that these students teachers have incomplete mental models of the environment (Desjean-Perrotta, Moseley, and Cantu 2008; Moseley, Desjean-Perrotta,
and Utley 2010). Regarding humans’ place in relation to the natural world,
Robertson (1998) found that student teachers’ approaches to such relations could be
organized on a bipolar axis/one pole reflects perception of people separate from the
natural world and the other extreme expresses perception of the environment as a
totality of interrelations among people, other living and nonliving components of
nature.
Based on the assumption that individuals’ perceptions of the environment are
one reflection of their understanding of this construct, the present study explored
student teachers’ conceptions of environment and its relevance to their area of
teaching, and whether their teacher preparation studies are contributing to the development of their capacities in this realm and thus to their potential to promote sustainability discourse with their pupils in the education system.
Methodology
Participants
The study was conducted in a pretest–post-test design with 215 students from three
teacher-education colleges in Israel (Beit Berl Academic College, Oranim Academic
College of Education and Kibbutzim College of Education). The programs in these
colleges extend four years and students graduate with a Bachelor in Education
degree (BEd) and a teaching certificate. The academic programs are structured similarly in all three colleges and are comprised of three components: (1) disciplinary
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
CEER 803038
18 May 2013
6
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Initial
CE: JV QA: SS
Coll: QC:
B. Yavetz et al.
studies in one or two major fields, (2) education and pedagogy studies and (3)
internship, the latter two designed according to the students’ professional preparation track (preschool, elementary school, secondary school, special education, nonformal education). Based on their academic major, students were classified into two
groups: those studying environment-affiliated fields such as environmental studies,
agriculture, geography, life sciences (termed EAF-majors) and those studying nonenvironment-affiliated fields such as social studies, history, literature, mathematics,
arts, physical education, etc. (termed NEAF-majors). Seventy-one percent of students (71%) majored in NEAF. Although the departments categorized in this study
as environment-affiliated address the environment through different approaches that
can influence students’ EL-outcomes, the relatively small number of students
enrolled in each of these disciplines did not enable subgrouping them according to
their approach with regards to EE. Students in all programs are also exposed to various educational activities on campus that include environmental aspects.
Students’ age at the onset of studies was 24 ± 2.5. The majority (86.6%) of the
students were females.
Instrumentation
This study addressed two open-ended questions: (1) When you hear the word
‘environment’, you think of…; (2) In your opinion, how do environmental topics
relate to the teaching area you chose to major in? Explain.
The pretest questionnaire was conducted with students during the first month of
their first academic year (beginner students) and the post-test was conducted with
the same students during the last month of their third academic year (advanced
students).
Data analysis
Qualitative analysis of students’ answers was based on the phenomenographic
approach (Martin and Booth 1997). Inductive content analysis was conducted in
two stages: (a) While reading students’ answers, words or sections of the content
were labeled with descriptive words. These were grouped into categories that were
titled. (b) With respect to the first question, the categories that emerged were then
organized into higher order themes that correspond to models, scales, and ideas
from the literature and presented in the theoretical background. In this manner,
results were the outcome of students’ responses/the initial categories emerged from
students’ answers, and regrouping was informed by researchers’ insights based on
theoretical perspectives.
Students’ answers to the first question underwent an additional quantitative analysis using the four-dimensional model of the environment (UNESCO 2002) and the
empirical categorical framework described by Loughland, Reid, and Petocz (2002)
(see theoretical background). Since this framework is hierarchical, it is useful for
identifying increasing levels of complexity of understanding the construct ‘environment.’ The distinction between an ‘object’ vs. ‘relation’ view of the environment is
relevant for characterizing environmentally responsible citizenship as this is
reflected in behavior. Finally, this typology contains aspects of many environmental
orientations, such as the anthropocentric/ecocentric distinction, the Dominants
Social Paradigm vs. the NEP (Loughland, Reid, and Petocz 2002). With respect to
CEER 803038
18 May 2013
Initial
CE: JV QA: SS
Coll: QC:
Environmental Education Research
7
Loughland’s et al. framework, only responses that explicitly addressed any of these
categories were included in this analysis, and each response could be assigned to
only one category, and hence, the sum of categories equals 100%. For analysis
using the four-dimensional framework, participants’ perceptions may fall under a
number of categories, and hence, the sum of categories may not equal 100%.
The combined application of the two above-described frameworks for analyzing
the data has not been reported in the literature and thus introduces to the research
exploring individuals’ perceptions of the environment some useful frameworks.
For validity, analyzes were conducted independently by each of the three
researchers. The outcomes were then compared and discrepancies were discussed
until agreement was reached regarding the categories.
Results
Students’ understandings of ‘environment’
Analysis of students’ responses revealed a number of categories and themes that
reflect the different ways in which they perceive and understand the concept
‘environment.’ The following categories appeared in both the beginner and
advanced students’ responses:
Romantic perception identifies the environment with pastoral nature, using
esthetic terms associated with pristine nature: ‘green, nature, bird-chirps, hikes,
flowing rivers, serenity, pure water’; … ‘outings in nature’; ‘… Mother Earth’. This
approach also views the environment as a refuge from the hazards of the modern
world: ‘pastoral environment … no noise, no pollution’; ‘a world of nature where
we can isolate ourselves from the technological environment …’
Environmental quality represents an idea of the environment through the lens of
adverse effects of human activity, with extensive use of the terms pollution and
cleanliness: ‘… pollution, smoke, soot’; ‘air pollution from cars, industry’;
‘degraded environment, environmental damage’. In addition, the environment may
be viewed as an object that needs to be preserved: ‘How important it is to save nature and animals in nature’. Students’ views of how to preserve the environment
reflect different value approaches, for example nature conservation – ‘to conserve
nature, flora and fauna, in our country’ and wise-use: ‘People should protect the
environment, especially the natural environment, because it provides use, protects
us and meets many of our needs.’
A dual perception opposes between nature and human impact – the environment
is viewed a conflict between nature, associated with good, and negative impacts of
man’s activities. Most answers were lists of words among which the contrasting
aspects were dispersed: ‘animals, nature, air pollution, nature’s beautiful scenery,
serenity, illnesses’. Only a few of the respondents better articulated this duality,
emphasizing contrast: ‘open space with plants and flowers, water, wind and earth
but sorrowfully I also think of recycling containers, dirty beaches and lots of unnecessary pollution.’
Students’ responses mirrored the dimensions described in the model of the
environment (UNESCO 2002; O’Donoghue and Russo 2004): the biophysical
dimension: ‘anywhere on earth that includes animals, fungi, bacteria, scenery, and
seas, and of course the air that surrounds u’s; the social dimension: ‘my family, my
friends, everyone I know’; the economic dimension (only one respondent): ‘many
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
CEER 803038
18 May 2013
8
5
10
15
20
25
30
Initial
CE: JV QA: SS
Coll: QC:
B. Yavetz et al.
nature reserves charge admission … you have to pay for parking’ and the political
dimension (two respondents only): … political corruption’, ‘No one pays attention
to this in Israel because the institutions that control the country don’t consider it
important’. Only few respondents expressed a complex perception relating to interactions among these dimensions, for example: ‘nature, animals, people, the interactions and mutual effects’ or ‘the State of Israel that damages the environment,
overuses resources and enables capitalists to damage the country’s unique living
environments’. Perception of the environment in biophysical terms was the most
prominent (Table 1).
Students expressed several value-based perceptions of the environment. Categories that dealt with human–environment relations were organized on a continuum
ranging from a view of man-separate-from-environment (‘Trees, green spaces,
streams, without human influence’), through perception of man-part-of-the-environment (‘plants, animals, light, water and people who take part in this house called
earth’) to a recognition of interdependence between human and natural environments (‘interaction between all components of the world, between them and man’).
The number of students’ that expressed each of the views decreased along this continuum (Table 1).
Another theme – Value-of-nature-deals with the value people allocate to nonhuman nature, which can also be organized on a continuum. One end of this continuum represents an anthropocentric, utilitarian worldview by which the value of
non-human nature is perceived in terms of human needs: ‘everything around me
that helps me live’; ‘natural environment has use – it protects us and provides our
many needs’. The other end represents a ecocentric worldview: ‘all the conditions
necessary for human life and all living creatures’, ‘how to live without damaging
our partners in nature’. Only few students explicitly articulated the value-of-nature
theme (Table 1).
Another perspective that could be found in the students’ texts expressed a selfcentered point of view, by which the students place themselves as a reference point
Table 1. The percentage each category comprises from total responses – Comparison
between students at the beginning and towards the end of studies (N = 164).
Themes
Dimensions of environment
based on UNESCO (2002)
Environmental quality
Human-nature relations
Categories
Romantic perception
Self-centered perspective
Biophysical
Social
Economical – political
Adverse effects of human
activity
Environmental protection
Man separate from
environment
Man part of the
environment
Man and the environment
are interdependent
Beginning of
studies (%)
End of
studies (%)
25.6
20.7
55.5
3.7
3.0
40.2
30.5
18.3
54.3
3.0
3.0
36.0
20.1
1.8
15.2
0.6
15.2
15.9
3.7
5.5
Notes: Fifty one students did not respond on one of the investigation dates.
Sum of categories is not 100% since students’ responses may include several categories.
CEER 803038
18 May 2013
CE: JV QA: SS
Coll: QC:
Initial
Environmental Education Research
9
for the environment with themselves as the center: ‘Nature that surrounds me in the
place where I live; everything outside the skin of my body’; ‘everything that
surrounds me and helps me live’.
Comparison between students at the beginning and toward the end of their
studies
Table 1 compares the categories and themes that emerged from students’ texts
between students and the beginning and toward the end of their studies. Analysis of
the frequency of the different categories and themes indicates that the environment
is perceived mainly in biophysical terms by both beginner and advanced students.
For most categories, no prominent differences could be found between beginner
and advanced students. Differences were only found for the perception of the
environment in terms of environmental protection, which decreased during studies,
(a)
Beginning of studies
70
EAF
% of responses
60
NEAF
50
40
30
20
10
objects
(b)
mutual
relationship
people part
of env. &
responsible
env. does
something
for people
place,
organisms
& people
place &
organisms
Place
0
relations
End of studies
% of responses
60
EAF
50
NEAF
40
30
20
10
objects
mutual
relationship
people part
of env. &
responsible
env. does
something
for people
place,
organisms
& people
place &
organisms
Place
0
relations
Note: EAF - environment affiliated fields; NEAF - non environment affiliated fields
Figure 1. Distribution of EAF and NEAF students’ responses (%) according to the
categories described by Loughland, Reid, and Petocz (2002) at the beginning (a) and
towards the end (b) of studies (N = 139).
5
10
CEER 803038
18 May 2013
10
5
10
15
20
25
30
Initial
CE: JV QA: SS
Coll: QC:
B. Yavetz et al.
and for the romantic perception, which increased during studies (Table 1). From a
linguistic perspective, the 60% of the responses were comprised of lists of components or characteristics of the environment, and the rest were phrased in complete
sentences.
Comparison between EAF and NEAF students at the beginning and toward the
end of studies
Analysis of the students’ responses using the categorical framework described by
Loughland, Reid, and Petocz (2002) (Figure 1) demonstrates that the prevailing category in both groups of students (EAF and NEAF), at both the beginning and
toward the end of studies, is ‘The environment is a place that accommodates living
creatures’. Furthermore, both groups of students, at both time points, perceive the
environment mainly as an object and seldom as relations. Noteworthy differences
between the groups were found with respect to perception of the environment in
terms of relationships, as follows: among beginner students, EAF students identified
the environment as mutual relationships between people and the environment, while
NEAF-students emphasized people are part of the environment and responsible for
it. Toward the end of studies, these differences disappeared.
Figure 2 presents the ratio between students (EAF and NEAF) who perceive the
environment in relational terms and those who perceive the environment as an
object, at the beginning and toward the end of studies. In beginner students, this
ratio did not differ between EAF and NEAF students, whereas toward the end of
studies, the ratio was higher for EAF as compared to NEAF students. It should be
noted that the low values of this ratio are consistent with the perception of the environment mainly as an object.
Students’ perceptions concerning the relevance of environmental topics to their
teaching area
Nearly, all the students (95%), both EAF and NEAF, felt that environmental topics
are relevant to their area of teaching. This relevance was perceived in two major
Note: EAF - environment affiliated fields; NEAF - non environment affiliated fields
Figure 2. The ratio between percent of students that perceive the environment as relations
to the percent of students that perceive the environment as object, at the beginning and
towards the end of studies (EAF: N = 46; NEAF: N = 94).
CEER 803038
18 May 2013
CE: JV QA: SS
Coll: QC:
Initial
Environmental Education Research
11
ways (Figure 3): on educational premises and via subject-matter (sciences as well
as social studies). Perceptions reflecting the educational premise of relevance
included four subcategories: (1) Environment as a universal issue – The environment is perceived as universal and relevant to all people, for example, ‘Environment
is connected to all aspects of life. Its validity is independent on place, language,
knowledge’ (A1); (2) Education for values – The environment and concern for the
environment are perceived as an educational value, for example: ‘We’re supposed to
teach our children not only subject matter but also a minimum of values related to
fellow men and the world’ (A2); (3) Mission as educators – Students identified educating for the environment as one of their future ethical responsibilities as educators, for example: ‘As a seminar student, and in the future, it is my role to lead
change. I hold the power to provide students with the knowledge they require to
protect the environment’ (A3); (4) Role model – A few students expressed an
approach that they, as teachers, should, through their personal environmental behavior, serve as role models for their pupils, for example: ‘as an educator of future
generations I should provide a personal example for my pupils in my conductance’
(A4).
The disciplinary lens of relevance included three subcategories (Figure 3): (1)
Environmental content –The students’ teaching area is perceived as framework for
integrating environmental content, for example: ‘When you teach English, you can
teach the environment via the whole topic of English, be it in poetry, literature, or
grammar, or an international film, or speaking’ (B1); (2) Environmental values –
Students’ area of teaching is perceived as a framework for promoting environmental
values, for example: Informal education provides an opportunity to convey the environmental message (B2); EE pedagogy – The educational methodologies used in
teaching about, and in, the environment are perceived as a means for achieving the
educational goals of their specific teaching area: ‘In special education we can
integrate things from nature and environment to develop our target population in
different aspects such as motor skills, etc.’ (B3).
beginning
end
35
A1 - Environment as a
universal issue
A2 - Education for
values
A3 - Mission as
educators
A4 - Role model
B1 - Environmental
content
B2 - Environmental
values
B3 - Environmental
education
pedagogy
NO - no connection
% of respondents
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
A1
A2
A3
A4
B1
B2
B3
Notes: Sum of categories is not 100% since students’ responses may include several categories.
Figure 3. The percentage of responses that addressed each of the rationalizations (subcategories) for relevance of the environment to the students’ area of teaching (Students at
beginning of studies, N = 184; students towards end of studies, N = 162).
5
10
15
20
25
30
CEER 803038
18 May 2013
12
B. Yavetz et al.
(a)
(b)
Beginning of studies
End of studies
60
60
50
50
40
EAF
NEAF
30
20
10
% of respondents
% of respondents
CE: JV QA: SS
Coll: QC:
Initial
40
EAF
NEAF
30
20
10
0
0
A1
A2
A3
A4
B1
B2
B3
NO
Perceptions on relationship of the environment to
area of teaching
A1
A2
A3
A4
B1
B2
B3
NO
Perceptions on relationship of the environment to
area of teaching
Notes: The categories are the same as in Figure 3.
Figure 4. The percentage of EAF students (beginning of studies, N = 61; towards end of
studies N = 57) and NEAF (beginning of studies, N = 123; towards end of studies, N = 102)
that addressed each of the rationalizations (sub-categories) for relevance of the environment
to the students’ area of teaching.
5
10
15
20
25
Some of the students articulated no connection between environmental themes
and the subject they intended to teach (NO).
Generally, beginner students perceived the relevance of the environment to their
teaching area through the educational lens, with emphasis on education for values.
Advanced students placed greatest emphasis on subject matter as the basis for relevance, and environmental content was the most prevalent category was. Furthermore, beginner students’ texts could be characterized as intuitive, ideological and
general declarations, reflecting their expectations regarding educating future generations and the power of education as a vehicle for change. As advanced students,
their answers reflected a more developed perception of their teaching area, expressing more focused and specific relationships between the environment and their
teaching area.
Figure 4 compares perception of the relevance of environment to students’
teaching area between EAF and NEAF students. EAF students perceive the
relevance mainly through the disciplinary lens, articulating this relevance via subject
matter (B1). NEAF students, at the beginning of their studies, perceive relevance of
the environment to their area of teaching mainly through the educational
perspective. Toward the end of studies, these differences between EAF and NEAF
students became more pronounced/perception of relevance through content (B1)
grew in EAF students, while perception of students’ area of teaching as a
framework for integrating environmental values (B2) became more pronounced in
NEAF students.
Discussion
Recent years have witnessed a significant increase in government commitment to
infuse EE within the Israeli educational system (Ministry of Education 2011). This
trend has created a necessity for teachers sufficiently prepared to lead and conduct
EE as an inherently integrative subject. From this perspective, teachers should comprehend the environment as a dynamic system of interactions between living and
CEER 803038
18 May 2013
Initial
CE: JV QA: SS
Coll: QC:
Environmental Education Research
13
nonliving components, including human beings and man-made systems as integral
components of a holistic system. In addition, to promote a sustainability perspective, environmental issues need to be understood not only as biophysical by nature,
but as multidimensional integrating environmental, social, economic and political
aspects. Results of this study indicate a gap between such a comprehension of the
environment and that demonstrated by the student teachers at the onset but also
toward the end of their professional preparation, as elaborated in the following.
One of the tools used in this study to analyze findings was the multidimensional
model described by UNESCO, (2002). Since this model is based on the Sustainable
Development approach, it provides a suitable framework for interpreting findings
relating to EE. Based on this, most students comprehend ‘environment’ in the narrow sense of its biophysical dimension, similar to the findings reported by Van
Petegem, Blieck, and Van Ongevalle (2007) with respect to preservice teachers in
Zimbabwe. Those few that addressed the social dimension focused on their social
circle (i.e. family, friends, etc.) and did not address social components central to
sustainability such as social welfare, public health, and environmental justice. Economic or political perspectives of the environment were rare as was articulation of
interactions among the different dimensions (Table 1).
Another analysis, using the hierarchical framework constructed by Loughland,
Reid, and Petocz (2002), showed that the majority of students view the environment
as an object and not in a relational perspective as a web of interdependencies
including humans (Figure 1). Loughland, Reid, and Petocz (2002) argue that the
distinction between perception of the environment as an object or as a web of relations is consequential for an individual’s behavior with respect to the environment:
a person who perceives the environment as an object may not necessarily grasp and
understand the need to take personal responsibility for it. In line with this idea, a
study of the environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior of the same student
teacher population investigated in the present study, found that they demonstrated
limited involvement in environmentally responsible behavior (Authors 2006, 2009).
Another issue stemming from the results relates to how the students perceive
the position of human and manmade systems in relation to the natural world. Only
a few students expressed the understanding that human beings and/or their systems
are integral components of the environment. This issue was addressed by
O’Donoghue and Russo (2004) in their critical analysis of EE programs and materials used in South Africa. According to these authors, the nature-based programs
and activities used in EE until the late 1980s, focused on the study of nature as an
ecological system, placing humans outside nature and identifying social, economic
and political processes as factors that upset nature’s balance. O’Donoghue and
Russo (2004) contend that these programs reflect an approach that both idealizes
nature vs. modernization and further fuels this approach. Barry (2010) terms this
human–nature dialectic the ‘environment/society disconnect,’ embedded in and
characterizing modern western society, which treats the environment as one extreme
of an adversarial binary opposing society. The students’ understandings, elicited in
this study, resonate with these appositions of nature and human systems. This is
portrayed in their romantic perspective which views the environment as undisturbed
nature and separates between humans and human-made systems and natural systems. It is further reflected in their perception of the environment as an arena of
conflict between pristine nature (regarded as positive) and anthropocentric effects
(viewed as negative) (Table 1).
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
CEER 803038
18 May 2013
14
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Initial
CE: JV QA: SS
Coll: QC:
B. Yavetz et al.
It can be concluded from the multi-analyses that the majority of students do not
have a clear comprehension of all components of the environment. They see the
environment as an object and not as a system of inter-relationships including relations between people and the natural world. Their writing about environment is
mainly descriptive and not explanatory or with reference to processes. These
findings are similar to those reported for elementary and junior high-school students
(Loughland, Reid, and Petocz 2002; Shepardson 2005) and teacher students
(Desjean-Perrotta, Moseley, and Cantu 2008; Moseley, Desjean-Perrotta, and Utley
2010). The emerging picture is that these student teachers’ understanding of
‘environment’ is essentially basic and their professional preparation did not lead to
substantial development in this. This incomplete understanding of the concept of
environment is consistent with the typically low level of environmental knowledge
found for this same group of students (Authors 2007, 2009).
What insights stem from these results with respect to the preservice programs?
In the Israeli educational system, teaching about environment is still viewed mainly
as the responsibility of science teachers and less related to other disciplines. The
students defined in this study as environment-affiliated viewed the relevance of the
environment to their teaching area mainly through the disciplinary perspective, with
focus on biology and ecology-related content. In this, they are reflecting the mechanistic and positivistic approach of the disciplines they studied that emphasizes
objective scientific knowledge, without developing a comprehensive and integrative
view of the environment essential for understanding and coping with environmental
issues. These findings support the growing realization that ecology studies and EE
are not the same thing (McKeown and Hopkins 2002; McKeown-Ice and Dedinger
2000; Van Petegem, Blieck, and Van Ongevalle 2007) and that the former is not
sufficient in enabling students to fully comprehend the complex environmental–
social issues of daily life so that these will be reflected in their future teaching.
In spite of the students’ limited comprehension of ‘environment.’ they assign
significant relevance of this field to their future teaching-area and perceive the environment as a value laden issue regardless of their disciplinary major (Figure 4). Values, and educating for values, are a central focus of public discourse, philosophical
thought and the pedagogy of education and educational practice in any society or
educational system (Kleinberger 1962; Scott and Oulton 1998). In line with this,
the findings of this study may reflect the significant place value education holds in
the teacher-education programs. A crucial component of EE is the awareness of the
importance of environmental issues. That the majority of students, regardless of
their major, acknowledged relevance of the environment to their future function as
teachers, is encouraging and provides a basis to work upon.
Conclusions – Implications for teacher preparation
The global environmental crisis of the twenty-first century, as a social/ethical crisis,
presents education with one of the most complex challenges. In response, Israel,
similar to other countries, is supporting implementation of EE within the school
system (Babiuk and Falkenberg 2010; Ferreira et al. 2009; Ministry of Education
2011; Sleurs 2008). In light of these trends, preparing teachers who are equipped to
educate their pupils toward sustainable values and life styles becomes imperative.
Students explanations regarding the essence of the construct ‘environment’
provide a deeper and richer understanding of the nature of the environmental beliefs
CEER 803038
18 May 2013
Initial
CE: JV QA: SS
Coll: QC:
Environmental Education Research
15
and understandings underlying their ratings to the questionnaire exploring their ELcharacteristics (Authors 2006, 2007, 2009). Most specifically, understanding of the
environment as an ‘object’ and not as a web of interrelationships that include humans
and their artifacts as components of a holistic system, and a dual view of conflict
between pristine nature and man-made systems, should be taken into consideration in
designing of programs oriented to the development of a sustainability perspective.
Combining the above with the diverse ways in which the students perceived the
relevance of ‘environment’ to their teaching area provide some directions for effective dissemination of EE in teacher-education programs:
5
Perception of relevance on educational premises indicates the advantage of using
the educational and pedagogical elements of teacher-education programs as a scaffold for integrating EE: It takes advantage of the common component of all programs. Furthermore, in view of the interdisciplinary nature of EE, it can both
contribute and benefit from the integrative nature of pedagogy studies. Finally, the
pedagogical component provides a built-in framework for addressing practical
aspects of the pedagogies for teaching environmental dilemmas in the classroom.
The fact that students (both environment and nonenvironment affiliated) toward the
end of their studies acknowledge subject-matter as a basis for relevance, supports
that teacher-preparation courses should be encouraged to integrate EE into all teaching subjects.
The results pertaining to students majoring in environment-affiliated disciplines point
to the necessity to update these teacher preparation courses to include concepts, principles, and approaches associated with sustainability, aimed at developing a multidimensional perspective. Science education will benefit from such an approach.
10
Acknowledgments
25
15
20
This research was supported by the MOFET Institute, Kibbutzim College of Education,
Oranim College of Education and Beit Berl Academic College. We would like to thank Mrs
Tali Zeiger from the Unit for Research and Evaluation of Beit Berl College for her
methodological assistance.
Notes on contributors
30
Bela Yavetz is a lecturer in the Departments for Biology and Environmental Education at
the Kibbutzim College for Education, Technology and the Arts. Her PhD is in
endocrinology. She currently is head of the committee for the Science and Technology
curriculum for junior high schools, Ministry of Education. Her research interest is in
environmental education.
35
Daphne Goldman is a senior lecturer in the Department of Environmental Science and
Agriculture, Beit Berl Academic College, where she just recently culminated 7 years as chair
of this department. She sits on the Ministry of Education committee for the high school
Environmental Science curriculum and on the National Committee for Accrediting Green
Campuses. Daphne’s PhD is in environmental biochemical toxicology. Her current fields of
research includes environmental education (focus on teacher and higher education).
Sara Pe’er is head of the Department of Science and Environment Teaching at Oranim
Academic College. Her PhD is in plant pathology. Sara is head of the Green Council at
Oranim Academic College and head of the Think Tank on Sustainability Education in
Teacher Education at the Mofet Institute. Her field of research is in environmental education.
40
45
CEER 803038
18 May 2013
16
Initial
CE: JV QA: SS
Coll: QC:
B. Yavetz et al.
References
AQ1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
AQ2
40
AQ3
45
50
55
Authors, 2006, 2007, 2009.
Babiuk, G., and T. Falkenberg. 2010. Sustainable Development and Living through Changing Teacher Education and Teaching in Manitoba. Research Report. http://www.mern.ca/
reports/Falkenberg-Babiuk.pdf.
Barry, C. 2010. “The Environment/Society Disconnect: An Overview of a Concept Tetrad of
Environment.” The Journal of Environmental Education 41 (2): 116–132.
Cutter, A., and R. Smith. 2001. “Gauging Primary School Teachers’ EL: An Issue of Priority.” Asia Pacific Education Review 2 (2): 45–60.
Desjean-Perrotta, B., C. Moseley, and L. E. Cantu. 2008. “Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions
of the Environment: Does Ethnicity or Dominant Residential Experience Matter?” The
Journal of Environmental Education 39 (2): 21–31.
Dietz, T., A. Fitzgerald, and R. Shwom. 2005. “Environmental Values.” Annual Reviews of
Environmental Resources 30: 335–372.
Duan, H., and R. W. Fortner. 2005. “Chinese College Students’ Perceptions about Global
versus Local Environmental Issues.” The Journal of Environmental Education 36 (4):
23–32.
Dunlap, R. E. 2008. “The ‘New Environmental Paradigm’.” The Journal of Environmental
Education 40 (1): 19–28.
Dunlap, R. E., and K. D. Van Liere. 1978. “The ‘New Environmental Paradigm’: A Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results.” The Journal of Environmental
Education 9 (4): 10–19.
Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. G. Mertig, and R. E. Jones. 2000. “Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale.” Journal of Social Issues
56 (3): 425–442.
Ewert, A., and D. Baker. 2001. “Standing Where You Sit – An Explanatory Analysis of the
Relationship between Academic Major and Environmental Beliefs.” Environment and
Behaviour 33 (5): 687–707.
Ferreira, J., L. Ryan, J. Davis, M. Cavanagh, and J. Thomas. 2009. Mainstreaming Sustainability into Preservice Teacher Education in Australia. Canberra: Prepared by the Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability for the Australian Government
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.
Kagawa, F. 2007. “Dissonance in Students’ Perceptions of Sustainable Development and
Sustainability.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 8 (3):
317–338.
Kleinberger, A. F. 1962. “The Right to Educate toward Material Values.” Megamot 11 (4):
332–337.
Kronlid, D. O., and J. Őhman. 2012. “An Environmental Ethical Conceptual Framework for
Research on Sustainability and Environmental Education.” Environmental Education
Research, doi:10.1080/13504622.2012.687043.
Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press.
Loughland, T., A. Reid, and P. Petocz. 2002. “Young People’s Conceptions of Environment:
A Phenomenographic Analysis.” Environmental Education Research 8 (2): 187–197.
Loughland, T., A. Reid, K. Walker, and P. Petocz. 2003. “Factors Influencing Young people’s Conceptions of Environment.” Environmental Education Research 9 (1): 3–20.
Martin, F., and S. Booth. 1997. Learning and Awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McKeown, R., and C. Hopkins. 2002. “Weaving Sustainability into Pre-service Teacher Education Programs.” In Teaching Sustainability at Universities: Towards Curriculum Greening, edited by W. F. Filho, 251–274. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
McKeown-Ice, R., and R. Dedinger. 2000. “Socio-political-cultural Foundations of Environmental Education.” The Journal of Environmental Education 31 (4): 37–45.
McMillan, E. E., T. Wright, and K. Beazley. 2004. “Impact of University-level Environmental Studies Class on Students’ Values.” The Journal of Environmental Education 35 (3):
19–28.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Living Beyond Our Means: Natural Assets and
Human Well-being. Accessed February 20, 2013. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/
en/BoardStatement.aspx
CEER 803038
18 May 2013
Initial
CE: JV QA: SS
Coll: QC:
Environmental Education Research
AQ4
17
Ministry of Education. 2011. General Director’s Release: Education for Values [In Hebrew].
Jerusalem: Ministry of Education. http://cms.education.gov.il/educationcms/applications/
mankal/etsmedorim/9/9-4/hodaotvmeyda/h-2011-5-9-4-9.htm.
Moseley, C., B. Desjean-Perrotta, and J. Utley. 2010. “The Draw-an-environment Test Rubric (DAET-R): Exploring Pre-service Teachers’ Mental Models of the Environment.”
Environmental Education Research 16 (2): 189–208.
Muir, J. 1915. Travels in Alaska. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, The Riverside Press Cambridge.
National Environmental Education Advisory Council. 2005. Setting the Standard, Measuring
Results, Celebrating Successes – A Report to Congress on the Status of Environmental
Education in the United States.
O’Donoghue, R., and V. Russo. 2004. “Emerging Patterns of Abstraction in Environmental
Education: A Review of Materials, Methods and Professional Development Methods.”
Environmental Education Research 10 (3): 331–351.
Palmer, J. 1998. Environmental Education in the 21st Century: Theory, Practice, Progress
and Promise. London: Routledge.
Payne, P. 1998. “Children’s Conception of Nature.” Australian Journal of Environmental
Education 14: 19–26.
Rideout, B. E. 2005. “The Effects of a Brief Environmental Problems Module on Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm in College Students.” The Journal of Environmental Education 37 (1): 3–11.
Robertson, A. 1993. “Eliciting Students Understanding: Necessary Steps in Environmental
Education.” Australian Journal of Environmental Education 9: 95–114.
Robertson, A. 1998. “Engaging students’ Eco-philosophies in Research and Teaching.”
Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 3: 171–188.
Safriel, U, ed. 2010. Israel’s National Biodiversity Plan. State of Israel: Ministry of Environmental Protection. Accessed April 23, 2013. http://old.sviva.gov.il/Enviroment/Static/
Binaries/ModulKvatzim/biodiversity_plan_1.pdf
Schultz, W. P., C. Shriver, J. J. Tabianco, and A. M. Khazian. 2004. “Implicit Connections
with Nature.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 24: 31–42.
Scott, W., and C. Oulton. 1998. “Environmental Values Education: An Exploration of Its
Role in the School Curriculum.” Journal of Moral Education 27 (2): 209–224.
Shepardson, D. P. 2005. “Students Ideas: What is an Environment?” The Journal of Environmental Education 36 (4): 49–58.
Shepardson, D. P., B. Wee, M. Priddy, and J. Harbor. 2007. “Students’ Mental Models of
the Environment.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44 (2): 327–348.
Sleurs, W., ed. 2008. Competencies for ESD (Education for Sustainable Development) Teachers: A Framework to Integrate ESD in the Curriculum of Teacher Training Institutes.
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/esd/inf.meeting.docs/EGonInd/8mtg/CSCT%
20Handbook_Extract.pdf.
UNESCO. 1997. Educating for a Sustainable Future: A Transdisciplinary Vision for Concerted Action. UNESCO Publication No. EPD-97/Conf.401/CLD.1. Paris: Author.
UNESCO. 2002. Four Dimensions of Sustainable Development. Accessed on March 18,
2012. http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_a/popups/mod04t01s03.html.
Van Petegem, P. V., A. Blieck, and J. V. Van Ongevalle. 2007. “Conceptions and Awareness
concerning Environmental Education: A Zimbabwean Case Study in 3 Secondary Teacher Education Colleges.” Environmental Education Research 1 (3): 287–306.
Wals, A. 1992. “Young adolescents’ Perceptions of Environmental Issues: Implications for
Environmental Education in Urban Settings.” Australian Journal of Environmental Education 8: 45–58.
Wiseman, M., and F. X. Bogner. 2003. “A Higher-order Model of Ecological Values and Its
Relationship to Personality.” Personality and Individual Differences 34: 783–794.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55