Learning Environments for Environmental Education

Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE),

Fremantle, Australia (Reference ZAN07609), November, 2007.

David Zandvliet, Associate Professor,

Science and Environmental Education

Simon Fraser University

Overview and Statement of Research Objectives

The objectives of this research program are to develop tools and processes for measuring,

evaluating and describing environmental and place-based education programs and their

associated learning environments; 2) To provide rich and extensive descriptions (quantitative and

qualitative) of how these settings can be characterized and how they differ from other types of

learning in classroom based settings and; 3) to devise interventions, detail how they unfold in

extensive case studies, and evaluate how they impact learning, learning environments, teacher

engagement and other community effects. This paper reports on a pilot study which employed a

learning environment approach and further, highlights our current work in developing a

specialised learning environment instrument: the Place-based Learning and Constructivist

Environment Survey (or PLACES).

Learning Environments: A Research Tradition

Building on earlier work on organizational climate, Herbert Walberg (1976) and Rudolf

Moos (1973) independently laid a foundation for the initial work on educational environments in

the late 1960’s and early 1970's. Studies now conducted by educators on classroom learning

environments (otherwise known as classroom climate or classroom ecology) owe much to this

earlier work and its application to educational settings. Fraser (1998) described research on

learning environments as being descriptive of the classroom and predictive of student learning.

Today, the study of learning environments has a valuable role to play: in pre-service teacher

training; professional development, evaluation of new curricula and generally as an important

field of inquiry in its own right -- the description of a valuable component of educational

experience. A central assertion of this research is that learning environment theory has much to

offer in the description of education experience in place based, environmental education settings.

In some of the earliest work on human environments, Rudolf Moos (1979) stated that interest

in the physical and social aspects of planning human environmental systems such as towns,

workplaces or public institutions was steadilty increasing and this is still true today. Moos saw

this concern as being responsive to the technological changes which (are) effecting large-scale

change in society. He suggested that this created a need for a model to conceptualise and assess

these environments. Walberg (1979) claimed that the evaluation of teaching based on structural

and behavioural theories required perceptual measures of what he termed the ‘feel of the class’.

He noted that the analysis of behavioural complexes with educational perceptions may

eventually begin to characterise important aspects of the social learning environment. Learning

environment studies seek to describe educational contexts and to identify empirical relationships

among subject matter (curriculum), teaching practices and various environmental variables.

The study of learning environments is now a growing field of academic inquiry and although

it most prevalent within science education, it has application possibilities in many different areas

and is particularly applicable to inter -- or multi-disciplinary fields of study such as

environmental or place-based forms of education. Since it’s beginnings nearly 30 years ago,

learning environment instruments have been developed, tested and validated in a variety of

settings and in a variety of countries. These instruments have been made up of scales that are

used to identify specific constructs in the learning environment. Examples of these include:

student cohesion, teacher involvement, material environment, cooperation, task orientation and

equity. Each scale typically consists of items designed to evaluate a specific aspect of the

learning environment. Over the years and in a variety of different countries, various scales have

been designed validated and tested (see Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1: Comparison of Constructs (or Scales) Present in the Learning Environment

SLEI WIHIC ESLEI CLES OBLEQ MCI PITC SCSS

Personal Relevance x x

Investigation x x

Uncertainty of Science x

Task Orientation x x

Satisfaction x

Difficulty x

Responsibility for Own

Learning

x

Ownership of Ideas x

Critical Voice x

IND

IVID

UA

L

Open-Endedness x

Involvement/

Engagement

x x x x

Persuasive Discourse x

Student Cohesion / Cohesiveness

x x x x

Cooperation x x

Shared Control/

Democracy

x x

Equity x x x

Student Negotiation x

Partisanship x

Differentiation x

Competition x

GR

OU

P

Friction x

Consistency x

Integration x x

Rule Clarity x

Material Environment x x

TE

AC

HE

R /

RO

OM

Teacher Support x

Models x

Leadership x

Depth x

Community x

EX

TE

RN

AL

Table 2: Legend of Learning Environment Tools considered by the Focus Groups

SLEI Science Laboratory Environment Inventory

WIHIC What Is Happening in This Class

ESLEI Environmental Science Learning Environment Inventory

CLES Constructivist Learning Environment Survey

OBLEQ Outcomes-Based Learning Environment Questionnaire

MCI My Class Inventory (MCI)

PITC Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students

relationships with each other and with concepts (qualitative study)

SCSS School climate and the safe school: Seven contributing factors (journal article)

Finally, a great variety of approaches have been used in the study of educational

environments. Fraser (1994; 1998) summarised three distinct methodologies for assessing and

studying classroom environments: naturalistic inquiry; interaction analysis; and the measurement

of perceptions of the psychosocial characteristics of the classroom. While various

methodologies are employed, the measurement of perceptions is a dominant methodology in the

field due to a number of important advantages over other methods. Current theory is that

perceptual measures are simpler to administer, are based on experiences over a longer period of

time, and had been shown to account for considerable variance in student learning. This research

in part, begins to examine various learning environment frameworks, and determines the

suitability of various developed instruments for use in environmental or place-based education

settings.

Context of the Study: Environmental and Place-Based Education

Claims about benefits of engaging students in environmental education/social justice

programs are many and widespread. They include: improvements in academic achievement,

problem solving, critical-thinking, and co-operative learning skills, and an increased motivation

to learn. Furthermore, it is argued that these accomplishments translate to citizens who can

participate effectively in generating sustainable solutions to environmental, social and economic

issues in communities.

What does the research indicate? After participating in such programs, students develop

genuine appreciation and respect for the environment (Lord, 1999; Corral-Verdugo et al., 1996;

Kenney et al. 2003; Cummins & Snively, 2000; Basile, 2000; Lieberman & Hoody, 1998).

Other studies show that environmental education programs motivate children to engage with

content at all levels of ability (Kenney et al., 2003; Cummins et al., 2000; Basile, 2000; Lord,

1999) which is attributed to a concrete experience of real issues that come to be perceived as

personally meaningful. NEETF (2002) has published several case studies showing that all

students, including those formerly struggling in school, became more interested in school

because they felt they could make a difference in their environment and this empowered them to

strive for more knowledge. Beyond improving student’s engagement, environmental education

programs improve academic achievement across the curriculum (NEETF, 2005).

A major study by Lieberman et al. (1998) reviewed academic scores of students in 40 schools

that used environmental education to integrate their curricula. Using standardized measures of

academic achievement they found better performance in reading, writing, math, science and

social studies. These results supplement other benefits associated with environmental education

programming; students have increased enthusiasm for learning and pride in accomplishments

which leads to improved attendance, and decreased discipline and classroom management

problems.

Lord (1999) and Corral-Verdugo et al. (1996) measured critical thinking skills among

students and found that the constructivist approach to learning (common in environmental

education programming) develops deeper comprehensive thought and therefore critical thinking

skills compared to students who learned similar lessons in a traditional lecture style. They also

found that students who learned using a constructivist approach were better able to recall

information many months after the completion of a unit.

Environmental education programming also benefits students’ collaborative skills.

Students engage in problem solving as a group, engage in meaningful interactions with others

that facilitate co-operative learning. Mason and Santi (1998) found that small group and

classroom discussions allowed children to learn from one another. It provided opportunity for

students to share thoughts and knowledge with one another and these discussions helped to either

reform or confirm their beliefs. Teachers interviewed in the studies by Cummins et al. (2000)

and Kenney et al. (2003) also noted that the environmental education lessons provided ample

opportunities for children to co-operate and work together. It also engaged students at a deeper

level. Teachers reported that lower achieving and average students shared more often and

showed greater leadership characteristics than evident in traditional learning environments.

With a greater motivation to learn and potentially deeper understandings of environmental

issues, students are often found to develop more positive views towards caring for the

environment. This fostering of active engagement with, and care towards the environment can be

described as an essential goal of stewardship education. Studies by many researchers (Ballantyne

& Packer, 1996; Bogner, 1998; Cummins et al., 2000; Kenney et al., 2003) describe such

changes in students’ environmental perspectives. These studies further note that students who

experience “real-life” issues develop a perception they can bring about change through their

behaviours. As students hold these perceptions, they therefore often engage in environmentally

responsible behaviours. The continued longevity of these behaviours is highly dependent on the

duration of the environmental or stewardship education programming.

Bogner (1998) confirms that, to foster responsible environmental behaviour, teachers must

engage students in direct experiences for a sufficient time. In this study, students involved in a 5-

day program were more willing to plan and take action toward the environment following the

program as compared to students in a 1-day program. Lieberman and Hoody (2000) compiled a

list of the major educational components of successful environmental education programs and

concur that the duration of a program is instrumental in developing environmentally conscious

students who demonstrate pro-environmental behaviours. The study suggests that creating a

continuum of learning across curriculum and grade levels may allow students to engage in multi-

year research and projects.

Two case studies published by NEETF (2002) show that a large number of students involved

in multi-year environmental education programs during school hours continue to volunteer their

time after school and on weekends to undertake local community projects to preserve the

environment. While this type of program requires a lot of planning and co-operation among

staff, we know from other studies that projects of a smaller scale are of benefit to the student as

well (cite them). Multi-year education programs mean starting at the primary level and

continuing through to the end of high school. Most schools have not introduced environmental

education at the primary level due to developmental concerns that students may not yet capable

of higher order thinking (the Piagetian influence). However as described, environmental

education programs develop a wide range of outcomes spanning higher order cognitive skills,

positive attitudes toward the environment, enhanced stewardship behaviours and we contend,

more positive perceptions of their overall learning environment.

In summary, there are many ways that environmental education may affect the learner:

cognitive structures may be altered, attitudes may be modified and further, the general learning

environment which develops around these programs may enrich or stimulate further learning and

action around environmental issues. In stewardship education programs, these elements are

viewed as interconnected and will change as a whole system, not as separate parts (Johnson, &

Johnson, 2003). Understanding of implementation and change (which we term an ecological

framework) is critical. Our proposed research and evaluation models for these programs will

therefore need to be consistent with and congruent with an ecological view of education. To

accomplish this we are conducting research that will examine the types of learning environments

developed in environmental education settings and examine a range of other outcomes as a

function of these. The research will examine a variety of indicators including the attainment of

learning outcomes, stewardship behaviours, teacher engagement and satisfaction. The unique

combination of learning environments research (see Fraser, 1994) with a participatory evaluation

strategy encompassing both qualitative and quantitative methods allows us to investigate the

relationships among these factors. Regarding the influence that learning environments may have

in effecting the quality of educational programming, too little is known.

Conceptual Framework

Ecological Research in Education

As noted, the potential benefits of environmental and stewardship education approaches also

speaks to an alternative framework for researching educational practices. This study proposes an

ecological approach that makes allowances for multiple place-based pedagogies, an

acknowledgment that educators often interpret curriculum in ways that focus learning as a

function of the context of a given community. Situating teaching or research practices with/in an

ecological framework focuses research on attempts to improve the quality of life within

communities at the same time it assists students and teachers to develop a sense of ”their place”

within them. While others make arguments for place-based or community-based models of

learning, this conceptual framework takes this idea further by describing a need for

critical/embodied approaches in implementing educational programs (Zandvliet & Brown, 2006).

The notion of a place-based education has been well described by Soble (1993; 1996) and

others have expanded these ideas (Grunewald, 2003; Hutchison, 2004; Orr, 1992, 1994;

Thomashow, 1996; Woodhouse & Knapp, 2000). Describing exactly what constitutes a place-

based education becomes clouded partly due to the multifaceted and interdisciplinary nature of

the literature where this notion seems to reside. Grunewald (2003) writes that the idea of place-

based learning connects theories of experiential learning, contextual learning, problem-based

learning, constructivism, outdoor education, indigenous education and environmental education.

To the academic critic, this might indicate the idea of a place-based pedagogy lacks a focused

theoretical framework.

Grunewald (2003), in arguing for what he describes as a critical pedagogy of place, writes

that our educational concern for local space (community in the broad sense) is sometimes

overshadowed by both the discourse of accountability and by the discourse of economic

competitiveness to which it is linked. In my opinion, place becomes a critical construct to its

opponents not because it is in opposition to economic well-being, but because it challenges

assumptions about the dominant ‘progress’ metaphor and its embedded neo-conservative values.

An ecological framework seeks to discard this one-sided view of programs by taking as its first

assumption that education is both ‘about’ and ‘for’ defined communities. Lastly, ecological

frameworks denote an emphasis on the inescapable ‘embeddedness’ of humans and communities

in natural systems (Smith & Williams, 1999).

An ecological conceptual framework therefore promotes an understanding of scientific and

environmental issues in the wider context and in particular provides a model for the

interpretation of curriculum in a broad range of communities. To facilitate this we must look

outside the routine of curriculum and program models while continuing to adopt socially relevant

strategies that make scientific issues readily accessible to the public. McBean and Hengeveld

(2000) write:

“Society in general, accumulates and processes knowledge through experience, perception and

intuition. Thus new information and facts are best understood and assimilated if these are placed

within the context of the existing knowledge and past experience of the individual or community”

(p.5).

In this effort, we must make a concerted effort to include the notion of community both in

our teaching and within this discourse of our research. The next section of this paper relates an

example of this in that it investigates a specific case study whereby learning environment

methodologies were employed in an environmental education study. The case provides insight

into how learning environments research coupled with an ecological framework can inform

environmental education research.

Case Study

The case study attempted to investigate the following in a cursory way:

1) How do educational experiences that happen in field-based environments compare to experiences in a classroom based environments.

2) What (if any) are the critical components that differ between field-based learning environments and classroom-based learning environments.

3) Can the components that make field-based learning environments successful be applied to classroom-based learning environments.

Learning environment instruments have been used to evaluate many different types of

science learning environments and researchers have had success in using questionnaires to

examine innovative education programmes. Using learning environment questionnaires to

examine the two programmes selected for this study was effective to determine student

perceptions of the overall learning environment in various settings. The questionnaires allowed

an examination of unique aspects of the field-based learning environment and consideration of

how those compared to the student perceptions of their classroom-based learning environment.

Although the sample size was not large enough to provide a statistically significant quantitative

study, the use of the quantitative data provided by the learning environment questionnaires was

used to support the findings of the qualitative aspects of the research study.

Learning environment questionnaires are completed based on the perceived experience a

student has in an actual learning environment or they can be based on the experience a student

perceives they would have in their preferred learning environment. When students are asked to

complete both types of questionnaire forms, comparisons can be made between students’

perceptions of their actual learning environment and their preferred learning environment.

Quantitative data collection began by having students complete both a preferred form and actual

form based on their classroom-based learning environment experience. These questionnaires

were completed on the very first day of the programme term. This was done to ensure that there

was no influence of the programme philosophies prior to students completing the first set of

questionnaires.

The questionnaire used for the pilot study was created by adapting scales from four different

established learning environment inventories: the Environmental Science Learning Environment

Inventory (ESLEI), the “What is Happening in this Class” (WIHIC), the Science Learning

Environment Inventory (SLEI) and the Science Outdoor Learning Environment Instrument

(SOLEI) developed by Orion et. al. in 1994. In all, a total of seven scales from these

questionnaires were used. The scales of Student Cohesion, Integration, and Involvement were

taken from the ESLEI (Henderson, 2000). The scales of Teacher Support and Cooperation were

taken from the WIHIC questionnaire. The scale of Open-Endedness was taken from the SLEI

and the final scale of Environment Interaction was taken from the SOLEI. Both the SLEI and the

WIHIC have been used and validated in several large research studies (Fraser, 1998).

The scales of student cohesion and cooperation looked at how students interact with each

other. The scale of teacher support looked at the interaction between students and the teachers.

These are important factors in creating a sense of community and belonging in the learning

environment. Involvement looked at the active participation of students in their learning. The

integration scale considered how theory and practical knowledge were connected in a learning

environment and the open-endedness scale examined how much control students had over how

they learned and demonstrated their learning. It was hoped that these three scales would indicate

any differences in how curriculum was delivered and how learning happened in the two types of

learning environments being compared. The final scale of “environment interaction” looked at

the impact of fieldwork on the learning process (see Table 3 for sample items).

Table 3: Sample Questions from the Case Study Questionnaire

Student Cohesion

Students are able to depend on each other

for help during this programme

Integration

We use the theory from our academic

learning during our field experiences

Involvement

Students explain their ideas to other

students

Teacher Support

The teacher is interested in students’

problems

Cooperation

Students work with each other on projects

in this programme

Open-Endedness

There are opportunities to pursue our own

interests in this programme

Environment interaction

Students who are silent in the classroom

can be more outgoing during the field

experiences

Table 4: Learning Environment Mean Scores form Case Study

Figure 1; Learning Environment Classroom Based Comparisons

Figure 2; Learning Environment Field Based Comparisons

Questionnaire

Stu

de

nt

Co

he

sio

n

Int e

gra

tio

n

I nvo

lve

me

nt

Te

ach

er

I nte

ractio

n

Co

op

er a

t io

n

Op

en

-E

nd

ed

ne

ss

February Actual 3.38 3.18 3.34 3.00 3.42 2.86 February Preferred 4.49 3.73 4.02 4.20 4.16 3.84 June Actual 4.40 3.92 4.40 4.33 4.45 3.99 June Preferred 4.60 3.80 4.60 4.73 4.65 4.17

Case Study Findings

Responses to the questionnaires administered in February of the research semester were

based on students’ experience in a classroom based learning environments. To allow for as much

consistency as possible, all students were asked to base their responses on one of their Science

classrooms. Students were asked to complete one questionnaire based on their actual learning

environment. They were also asked to complete the same questionnaire a second time based on

their preferred learning environment.

Responses to the questionnaires administered in June of the research semester were based

on the students’ experience in their field-based education programmes. Students were asked to

complete one questionnaire based on their actual learning environment in the programme. They

were again asked to complete the same questionnaire a second time based on their preferred

learning environment. The quantitative data was analysed. Correlation between individual items

in each scale was verified using SPSS. Five items were eliminated due to low reliability. Three

of the five items that were eliminated were from the “environment interaction” scale that was

originally taken from the SOLEI.

The mean responses based on the February data for each scale of the preferred,

questionnaire were consistently higher than the responses for the actual questionnaire. The gaps

between the preferred and actual responses ranged from 1.23 (for Teacher Interaction) to 0.55

(for Integration). This indicates that students’ actual learning environment did not meet their

expectations of their preferred learning environment.

The mean responses based on the June data for each scale of the preferred questionnaire

were \ similar to the responses for the actual questionnaire. Gaps between preferred and actual

responses ranged from 0.4 (Teacher Interaction) to 0.05 (Open-Endedness). Students’ response

for their preferred Teacher Interaction was 0.4 points higher than their response for the actual

environment. All other mean responses for their actual learning environment were within 0.2

points of their responses for their preferred environments. This indicates that students’ actual

learning environment did meet the expectations of their preferred learning environment.

Four of the seven scales of the questionnaire (Involvement, Teacher Interaction,

Cooperation and Open-Endedness) showed increases of more than 1.0 between the students’

February and June responses based on their actual learning environment. The remaining three

scales (Student Cohesion, Integration and Environmental Interaction) still showed increases in

students’ responses based on their actual learning environments. These ranged from 0.64 to .094

points. These data indicate that students were much more satisfied with the learning

environments created through the experiential programmes than they were with the learning

environments created through their classroom-based programmes.

The results described above were considerably corroborated and thickly described due to

the application of an intensive interview protocol. In general, study results describe how student

participation in this type of programme might change students’ expectations for overall learning

and for the educational learning environments they encounter in schools and provide rich (more

holistic) descriptions of the different learning environments experienced by students.

Methodology for the current PLACES Tool Creation

Fitzpatrick et al. (2006) have identified five distinct approaches to evaluation: objective-

oriented, management-oriented, consumer-oriented, expertise-oriented, and finally, participant-

oriented approaches. The latter model was selected for this research design because it responds

to the needs of participants in a program while having the following advantages: inductive

reasoning; multiplicity of data; emergent planning; and acknowledgement of multiple rather than

single realities (Fitzpatrick et al., 2006, pp. 133-134). Participatory approaches (e.g., Stake,

1967) can use description and judgement to provide background, justification and description of

a program rationale while also listing and recording intended antecedents, transactions and

outcomes. They also explicitly state standards and record judgements. In contrast, Guba’s and

Lincoln’s (1981) naturalistic evaluation approach uses: ordinary language; focuses on

participants, uses everyday categories, is based on information rather than logic, studies program

in situ, and cross-checks for triangulation.

There are a number of other measures to be developed in the evolving and participatory

design of this study. These will include a core set of learning outcomes, a survey of

environmental attitudes and a self-report of environmental or stewardship behaviours.

Psychosocial measures in our studies will be obtained by these developing, modifying and

administering scales selected and adapted from a variety of learning environment instruments.

This research draws on a depth of learning environment research methodologies developed in the

area of science education (see for example Fraser 1991; 1994, Zandvliet and Fraser, 2004;2005).

Specifically, scales measuring important attributes for environmental pedagogy (such as

environmental integration or relevance) have been developed in an effort to describe and explain

associations with environments that emphasise place-based and constructivist approaches.

Reflecting on the process of tool creation for the reported case study and the reliability and

validity problems we encountered with this cursory instrument, a decision was undertaken to

create a more robust instrument for use in place based and environmental education settings.

Our working title for this instrument is the Place-based and Constructivist Enviroenment Survey

(PLACES). During its development, we employed a participatory approach in the evaluation of

the learning environment literature and various published instruments. A series of focus groups

conducted over a period of 4 months resulted in a consensus around eight constructs which were

deemed most important to place-based and environmental educators. The resulting scales are

summarised in Table 5. Further focus groups lead to the creation and adaptation of these

constructs into the eight scales and 40 items which make up the final PLACES questionnaire.

Table 5: Scales Selected for Adaptation for the Instrument (Focus Group Outcomes)

Relevance/Integration (RI)

Critical Voice (CV)

Student Negotiation (SN)

Group Cohesiveness (GC)

Student Involvement (SI)

Shared Control (SC)

Open Endedness (OE)

Environmental Interaction (EI)

Conclusion

The study yields some interesting insight into the different learning environments

experienced by students in classroom and field-based settings which have lead our efforts

towards a robust tool for the evaluation of learning environments in place-based and

environmental education settings. In the reported case study, students noted a closer fit between

their actual and preferred environments in the field-based settings (as compared to classroom

based environments) and rated these settings more positively on all scales measured. Therefore,

the study and ongoing instrument development offers a tentative step into a promising new field

of inquiry, the learning environment in place based and constructivist oriented environmental

education settings.

References

Ballantyne, R. & Packer, J.M. (1996). Teaching and learning in environmental education: Developing

environmental conceptions. The Journal of Environmental Education, 27(2), 25-33.

Basile, C. (2000). Environmental education as a catalyst for transfer of learning in young children. The

Journal of Environmental Education, 32(1), 21-27.

Bogner, F. (1998). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables of

environmental perspective. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29(4), 17-30.

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (1995). Environmental Concepts in the Classroom: A guide for

Teachers. Retrieved on July 20, 2006 from: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/environment_ed/

Corral-Verdugo, V. & Frais-Armenta, M. (1996). Predictors of environmental critical thinking: A study

of Mexican children. The Journal of Environmental Education, 27(4), 23-28.

Cummins, S. & Snively, G. (2000). The effect of instruction on children’s knowledge of marine ecology,

attitudes toward the ocean, and stances toward marine resource issues. Canadian Journal of

Environmental Education, 5, 305-326.

Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation Alternative approaches

and practical guidelines. Toronto: Pearson.

Fraser, B.J. (1991). Two decades of classroom environment research. In Fraser, B.J., and Walberg, H.J.

(Eds.). Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences. London:Pergamon.

Fraser, B. J. (1994) Research on classroom and school climate. In D.Gabel (Ed.) Handbook of Research

on Science Teaching and Learning, New York, NY:Macmillan.

Fraser, B.J. (1998). Science Learning Environments: Assessments, Effects and Determinants. In

B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education, (pp.

527-564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gruenewald (2003). The Best of Both Worlds: A Critical Pedagogy of Place. Educational Researcher,

32(4):3-12.

Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Henderson, D. & Reid, K. (2000, January). Learning Environments in Senior Secondary Science Classes.

Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Science, Mathematics and Technology

Education, Taipei, Taiwan.

Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, F.P. (2003). Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills.

Kenney, J., Price-Militana, H. & Horrocks-Donohue, M. (2003). Helping teachers to use their school’s

backyard as an outdoor classroom: A report on the watershed learning center program. The

Journal of Environmental Education, 35(1), 15-21.

Lieberman, G. & Hoody, L. (2000). Developing leadership and community to support an EIC program in

your school: A self-evaluation guide. San Diego, CA: State Education and Env. Roundtable.

Lord, T. (1999). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmental science.

The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 22-28.

McBean, G.A. and Hengeveld, H.G. (2000). Communicating the science of climate change. Canadian

Journal of Environmental Education (5).

McRobbie, C.J., Fisher, D.J., & Wong, A.F.L. (1998). Personal and Class Forms of Classroom

Environment Istruments. In B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobin (eds.), International Handbook of

Science Education. (pp.581-594). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publsihers.

Moos, R.H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments: Procedures, measures, findings and policy

implications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

National Environmental Education and Training Foundation. (2000). Environment-based education:

Creating high performance schools and students. Retrieved July 4, 2006 from,

http://www.neetf.org/pubs/NEETF8400.pdf

National Environmental Education and Training Foundation. (2005). Environment Literacy in America.

Retrieved July 4, 2006 from, http://www.neetf.org/pubs/ELR2005.pdf .

Orion, N., Hofstein, A., Pinchas, T. & Giddings, G. (1994, March) The Development and Validation of an

Instrument for Assessing the Learning Environment of Science Outdoor Activities. Paper

presented at the NARST conference, Anaheim, CA.

Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literacy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Orr. D. (1994). Earth in mind. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Smith, G.A. & Williams, D.R. (1999). Ecological education in action: On weaving education, culture and

the environment. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press.

Sobel, D. (1993). Children’s special places. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr Press.

Sobel, D. (1996). Beyond ecophobia: Reclaiming the heart in nature education.

Stake (1967). The Countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68, 523-540.

Thomashow, M. (1996). Ecological identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Walberg, H.J. (1991). Educational productivity and talent development. In B.J. Fraser and H.J. Walberg

(Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 93-109).

London: Pergamon.

Woodhouse, J., & Knapp, C. (2000). Place-based curriculum and instruction. [ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. EDO-RC-00-6.]

Zandvliet, D.B. and Brown, D.R (2006). Framing Experience on Haida Gwaii: An Ecological Model for

Environmental Education. Canadian Journal for Environmental Education.

Zandvliet, D.B. & Fraser B (2004). Shaping learning environments. Technology, Pedagogy and

Education 13(1), pp 97-125. Oxford:Triangle Journals. Zandvliet, D. & Fraser B. (2005, Jan.). Physical and psychosocial environments associated with Internet

classrooms. Learning Environment Research 8 (1). Dordrecht, Netherlands:Kluwer.

*This work has been supported in part by the Centres for Research in Youth Science Teaching

and Learning (CRYSTAL) grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of

Canada (NSERC) and in part by a Research Development Initiative (RDI) Grant: Developing

Ecological Literacy of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada (SSHRC).