• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Environmental Education in Pennsylvania's Elementary Teacher Education Programs: A Statewide Report

Posted on: Sunday, 24 July 2005, 03:01 CDT

ABSTRACT:

The status of environmental education in elementary teacher education programs in Pennsylvania was previously unknown. This study was undertaken to survey all of the preservice elementary teacher education institutions in the state using a mailed questionnaire. The response rate was approximately 57%. The results indicate that the inclusion of environmental education and Pennsylvania's recently mandated environment and ecology standards were inconsistent, and not well institutionalized within the institutions preparing elementary teachers. This report addresses only a portion of the findings from the survey.

KEY WORDS: elementary, environmental, Pennsylvania, preservice, survey

In 2002, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania passed into law environment and ecology (E & E) standards as core content knowledge for all public school students. As a result, the Pennsylvania Department of Education, Department of Environmental Protection, Center for Environmental Education, and the State System of Higher Education formed a partnership to survey all of the elementary teacher preparation institutions in the state. In this article, I detail a portion of the findings from that survey.

This study provided baseline information concerning Pennsylvania's teacher preparation programs as they relate to environmental education (EE) and newly state-mandated E & E standards by addressing the following goals: (a) assessment of the current level of E & E standards implementation in Pennsylvania preservice elementary education programs, (b) assessment of the current level at which EE pedagogical methods and strategies have been integrated into Pennsylvania's preservice elementary education programs, and (c) identification of positive factors, as well as barriers, relative to EE content inclusion and pedagogy.

For the purpose of this study, instruction in EE falls into two main categories: (a) teaching methodologies for EE and (b) content knowledge for E & E. Throughout this article, there will be references to EE, which is the umbrella term that includes both teaching methodologies and environmental content knowledge. E & E refers specifically to the Pennsylvania State Board of Education's content-based standards. These standards are part of current educational law and must be taught in public schools. They are also considered an academic core subject, along with such subjects as reading, writing, mathematics, and science. The nine main components of Pennsylvania's E & E standards include (a) watersheds and wetlands; (b) renewable and nonrenewable resources; (c) environmental health; (d) agriculture and society; (e) integrated pest management; (f) ecosystems and their interactions; (g) threatened, endangered, and extinct species; (h) humans and the environment; and (i) environmental laws and regulations.

Method

Survey Development and Description

The basic procedure was to develop a survey designed to gather specific information concerning environmental education at a given institution and use these results to address the aforementioned goals of the project. The instrument used in the study was a modification of the survey employed by McKeown-Ice and the Environmental Literacy Assessment Consortium (1996). Modifications were made to the original survey to meet the specific needs of Pennsylvania, and two external reviewers served as consultants in the development of the instrument. Once the original survey was adapted to meet the special needs of Pennsylvania's E & E standards, a draft was sent to the consultants who reviewed it for clarity. Virtually all of the changes made to the original version of the instrument were a result of tailoring the questions to obtain specific data concerning issues unique to Pennsylvania's mandated E & E standards. The data collected for this study were descriptive in nature, consistent with the study's purpose to gather baseline information concerning elementary teacher preparation in environmental education in Pennsylvania.

Part 1 of the survey instrument was intended to identify the location of required environmental education methodology and E & E content within the undergraduate course content. Methodological information included defining environmental education, as well as historical aspects of EE, education about environmental issues, pedagogy specific to environmental education, and conveying action strategies that focus on environmental issues. We designed the initial portion of the survey to gather information concerning how preservice elementary education majors received content knowledge about the newly revised E & E standards in required courses. We also included questions that identified specific curricula and instructional methods concerning EE.

Part 2 of the instrument focused on institution-specific items such as institutional barriers and identification of specific factors that encourage or inhibit the inclusion of EE in the teacher preparation programs at their institution.

The third and final portion of the survey gathered general demographic information about the institution, such as whether it was public, private, or church-related. This section also collected data about the size of enrollment at the institution as a whole and within its elementary education preservice teacher preparation programs.

We used five types of questions in the survey. We asked the respondents to reply to yes or no questions, rate items on a scale, check appropriate items from a list, provide open-ended comments, or provide short answers.

Survey Distribution

We identified all elementary education teacher preparation programs in the state using Pennsylvania Department of Education data. The survey, along with an explanatory cover letter and a self- addressed stamped envelope, was distributed to each of the 74 identified institutions. We directed the survey to the chairperson of the elementary education department with instructions to forward the survey to the most knowledgeable individual concerning EE in preservice elementary education teacher education, if necessary. Included with the self-addressed, stamped envelope was a postage- paid postcard on which the department chair was to indicate who would be filling out the survey from the given institution. This postcard was to be returned immediately to the researchers. We employed this design in the hopes of achieving a high return rate.

We made follow-up phone calls 4 weeks after the initial surveys were mailed. We asked the individual to return the survey by mail, complete the survey over the phone, or indicate whether an individual other than the person to whom the survey was sent was now responsible for its return. This process is a modification of the Dillman method (Dillman, 1978).

Data Entry and Tabulation

We entered data from the survey into an Excel spreadsheet and analyzed to produce frequency counts. In most cases, the data were reported as the percentage of all respondents. However, some questions allowed for multiple responses. In those cases, frequencies were tabulated and expressed as a percentage of all responses. In other cases, the data were expressed as a simple frequency of responses. It should be noted that the number of institutions responding and the total number of responses differ for various portions of the survey instrument because not all respondents replied to every question, and some questions allowed for multiple responses. The database was electronically scanned for entry errors, and a representative number of surveys was randomly selected for error analysis. An error rate of 0.12% was calculated from the random surveys, which was not considered sufficient to take remedial measures.

Results

Overall, 42 of the 74 institutions identified in the project as preparing elementary teachers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania returned the instrument, resulring in a return rate of 56.8%. Several of the original 74 institutions reported that they no longer had preservice elementary education programs or that they were in transition and moving away from such programs.

Of the 42 reporting institutions, 14 were public and 27 were private (one did not respond to this question), with 20 of the private institutions reporting as church-related. The respondents were most often department heads or chairs. The total enrollments at the institutions ranged from fewer than 1,000 students to more than 10,000, with the majority reporting enrollments in the range of 1,000 to 5,000 students. The enrollments in preservice elementary education programs ranged from fewer than 50 students to more than 1,000 students.

Integration of EE Methods and Strategies Into Education and General Studies Courses

The first survey question asked whether preservice elementary education students were required to take a specific course in EE as part of their program. Only 10% of responding institutions indicated that they required such a course.

We asked the respondents to identify which education and general studies courses integrate major environmental education methods and strategies. Figure 1 lists the six EE methods and strategies assessed by the survey. The results indicated that a majority of elementary educ\ation programs in Pennsylvania teach some EE methods. Half (50%) of the surveyed institutions stated that they provide all six of the EE methods. Approximately 10% of the reporting institutions provided none of the six pedagogical components. When these components were provided, they were most often found in science methods, biology, or general methods classes. In addition, six institutions offered EE opportunities during practicum or student teaching.

Figure 1 provides a comparison of which environmental methods and strategies were employed most frequently by faculty. Of the six methodologies, the most often used were educating about environmental issues (22%) and introducing environmental issues into the classroom (19%). Least often used were history and philosophy of EE (13%) and conveying EE action strategies (14%).

The survey also asked respondents to identify which specific instructional methods were taught most frequently to preservice elementary education students relative to environmental education (Table 1). According to the respondents, faculty demonstrated clear preferences for which instructional methods they wanted preservice teachers to use when teaching about the environment. The methods most commonly used by more than 70% of the respondents were discussion, cooperative learning, integration across the curriculum, inquiry, and field trips.

Environment and Ecology Standards Inclusion

The respondents were asked to indicate in which required courses elementary education majors received content knowledge in E & E. By law, students are required to be proficient in the nine components of this standard, and teachers are required to be able to teach to these standards. Most teacher preparation programs did not provide the full nine components of the E & E standards as required by Pennsylvania law. The inclusion of these content-based knowledge components ranged from 24% to 74% (Figure 2).

FIGURE 1. Environmental education (EE) methodologies most frequently used by faculty.

TABLE 1. Percentage of Institutions Providing Environmental Education Instructional Methods to Preservice Elementary Education Students

According to the respondents, the E & E content areas most frequently taught through required courses were ecosystems and their interactions (74%); threatened, endangered, and extinct species (71%); humans and the environment (71%); and renewable and nonrenewable resources (67%). The content areas least frequently covered in required courses were integrated pest management (24%), agriculture and society (36%), and environmental laws and regulations (45%).

Institutional Factors That Facilitated or Inhibited Inclusion of EE in Preservice Elementary Education Programs

A majority (76%) of the 42 responding institutions indicated that there were positive factors at their institution that facilitated the inclusion of environmental education in their preservice elementary education programs (Figure 3). The two positive factors noted most frequently were state certification guidelines and standards (60%) and faculty interest/knowledge (52%).

With regard to factors that inhibited the inclusion of environmental education within preservice elementary education programs, 67% of the responding institutions indicated that such barriers do exist. The specific factors most frequently reported were budget (43%) and faculty interest/knowledge (24%; Figure 4). It is important to note that many respondents wrote other comments (31%), the majority of which related to time constraints within existing curricula and schedules.

FIGURE 2. Inclusion of environment and ecology standard components in required courses.

FIGURE 3. Positive factors facilitating environmental education inclusion in preservice elementary education programs.

FIGURE 4. Barriers to the inclusion of environmental education in preservice elementary education programs.

Discussion

This survey was intended to gather information in Pennsylvania concerning environmental education, but there are some results that may transcend state boundaries. The data suggest that many universities and colleges across the commonwealth have not institutionalized the inclusion of environmental education within their preservice elementary education programs. This lack of institutionalization is seen in the relatively small number of colleges and universities offering required courses in EE and generally agrees with findings from the McKeown-Ice (2000) national survey.

Attempting to draw conclusions from this study is somewhat problematic in that EE inherently entails exploration of environmental issues in a multidimensional manner. As such, the E & E standards mandated in Pennsylvania do not necessarily reflect this complexity. The E & E standards are designed primarily to transmit content knowledge tailored specifically to the nine areas within the framework. Therefore, it should be recognized that environmental education does not directly equate to teaching methodologies alone. Care should be taken in drawing conclusions on the basis of implementation levels found in the study.

It should also be noted that the legislative mandates that created the E & E standards do not necessarily affect the level of EE inclusion or the quality at a given institution. Teaching content as prescribed by Pennsylvania's E & E standards does not necessarily equate to the most current definition of environmental education. In essence, the conclusions drawn here are likely to reflect the more narrow parameters of EE content and pedagogy set forth by the legislative mandates. This circumstance brings to light the apparent disconnect between the politically driven mandates and the genuine substantive structure and discovery inherent in EE. It would seem that, in the effort to structure the standards more toward pedagogical techniques, the complex nature of EE somehow has been overlooked.

Even with the mandated standards, it would seem that many of the institutions surveyed in this study do not place great value on EE content and pedagogy. Many states like Pennsylvania are feeling the "crunch" of external mandates for teacher accreditation as well as the call for decreased numbers of credits to satisfy legislators clamoring for realistic 4-year graduation credit requirements.

The number of institutions that do not have a faculty member with interest or knowledge in EE also illustrates the lack of institutionalization. This is also a problem that is likely not confined to Pennsylvania. Unless the institution has a specific program in EE, the chance of having a faculty member who specializes in EE is not high. The data suggest that one faculty member may frequently have the major responsibility for environmental education at a given institution. Interestingly, when asked how many elementary education full-time faculty involved in the preservice teacher preparation programs specialize in EE, more than 85% of respondents reported that they had none. McKeown-Ice (2000) noted the same pattern, concluding, "Because EE is not institutionalized, its presence in the curriculum is at the mercy of the continued employment of one person. This leaves environmental education in a precarious position. Other educational disciplines are in stronger positions" (p. 9). It would seem prudent for faculty searches to consider candidates who have expertise or interest in EE when the opportunity arises. This is particularly true when selecting education faculty, as many of those who do have expertise in EE tend to be from the sciences.

Regarding the factors that impact the inclusion of environmental education in preservice elementary education programs, the most frequently cited positive factor influencing environmental education inclusion was state certification guidelines and standards. It is encouraging that many institutions find state guidelines and standards to be a positive influence on environmental education inclusion. However, based on the current level of inclusion of the E & E standards, it would appear that the positive factors currently in place have not resulted in the prioritization and ultimate inclusion of these standards in teacher preparation. It is important to note that 86% of respondents identified limited course time conflicts with mandated course content as a significant factor limiting the inclusion of environmental education in their programs. This factor was cited considerably more often than the next most- frequent limiting factors, budget and limited faculty preparation time (cited by 43% of respondents). This result may have significant policy implications. While greater funding is often seen as a solution to the problem, respondents to this survey suggest that there is simply insufficient time to comprehensively include environmental education.

The data also suggest that environmental education is frequently treated in a superficial or survey-type manner. Preservice elementary education students are possibly introduced to some broad topics in EE but are left to pursue any depth of understanding on a more individual basis. Evidence for these inferences comes from the fact that the nine components of the standards were frequently lumped into one or two courses; often these components were widely distributed in up to 12 courses; and there was a lack of a scope and sequence for learning. In addition, there was no evidence of a capstone experience that would enable students to integrate and apply these concepts.

The demands made on course time and faculty were a major impediment to the comprehensive inclusion of EE in preservice teacher preparation programs. The type of information gathered in this survey can serve as a starting point for further inclusion of EE in Pennsylvania's schools and the basis for subsequent investigations. Indeed, the state report generated from this survey has played an important role in fundamentally changing the approach the Pennsyl\vania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has taken to help produce an "environmentally literate citizenry" in the commonwealth. The DEP has now changed its strategy to provide assessment grants to teacher education institutions across the state. In addition, DEP has made funds available to provide resources and follow-up assessment to those institutions willing to infuse more EE content and pedagogy into their teacher education programs. This is a good start, but more long-term solutions are needed if EE is to be more institutionalized.

Several recommendations may serve to mitigate the current situation. First, a committee to prepare and implement a strategy for increasing inclusion of E & E content knowledge and EE teaching methodologies on a statewide level should be established. Second, environmental education teaching methodologies and E & E content knowledge should be added to the general knowledge portion of the Praxis exam for teachers. Finally, faculty in teacher preparation and general studies needs to cooperatively design a scope and sequence to address environmental education pedagogy and E & E content knowledge. Faculty must make efforts to integrate EE methods and standards into existing coursework in a manner that does not significantly increase time demands and workloads while, at the same time, not sacrificing the quality of the EE instruction.

REFERENCES

Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and telephone survey: The total design method. New York: Wiley.

McKeown Ice, R., & the Environmental Literacy Assessment Consortium. (1996). Environmental education in the United States: A survey ofpreservice teacher education programs, Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, Center for Geography and Environmental Education.

McKeown-Ice, R. (2000). Environmental educarion in the United States: A survey of preservice teacher education programs. The journal of Environmental Education, 32(1), 4-11.

Pennsylvania 21st Century Environment Commission (1998). The first Pennsylvania environmental readiness for the 21st century report. Harrisburg: Author. Retrieved May 13, 2005, from http:// www.21stcentury.state.pa.us

Thomas Mastrilli is an associate professor of Education and serves as the program coordinator of the Environmental Education Program at West Chester University, Pennsylvania.

Copyright HELDREF PUBLICATIONS Spring 2005

Source: Journal of Environmental Education, The

More News in this Category