Contemporary Challenges and Opportunities in Environmental Education

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249038403
Contemporary Challenges and

Opportunities in Environmental
Education: Where Are We Headed and
What Deserves Our Attention?
Article in The Journal of Environmental Education October 2009
DOI: 10.1080/00958960903210015
CITATIONS
READS
33
161
1 author:
Thomas Marcinkowski
Florida Institute of Technology
14 PUBLICATIONS 112 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Manuscripts from the NELA Phase 2 and Phase 3 Studies View project
Available from: Thomas Marcinkowski
Retrieved on: 23 September 2016
THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, 41(1), 3454, 2010

C Heldref Publications
Copyright
ISSN: 0095-8964
DOI: 10.1080/00958960903210015
Contemporary Challenges and Opportunities in

Environmental Education: Where Are We Headed and
What Deserves Our Attention?
Thomas J. Marcinkowski
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida, USA
Over the past four decades, numerous professionals in the field of environmental education (EE)
have attempted to take stock of conditions within and outside of EE. In turn, many used the results
of their analyses to describe challenges to and opportunities for EE. Many of these challenges and
opportunities continue to ring true today, although the purpose of this article is not to explore those,
but to explore several contemporary challenges and opportunities. The first challenge posed is to
continue to expand and make use of the range of professional development opportunities within the
field, such as is apparent in several of NAAEEs sets of Guidelines and related initiatives, particularly
as the field continues to grow in numbers and in different directions. A second challenge pertains to the
need for increased attention to sustainability in developed and developing nations contexts, the rapid
growth of Education for Sustainability (ESD) since UNCED, and the need to maintain clarity over
the complex and dynamic relationships between EE and ESD with respect to sustainable development
needs. A third challenge pertains to climate change as the most recent environmental crisis and
set of problems we face, as evidence continues to mount. However, climate change represents a
different kind of challenge, and underscores the challenge of preparing citizens to participate in
problem-solving and in envisioning desirable futures through EE. In addressing these challenges and
opportunities, we must continue to seek out and affirm the best of what is traditional and innovative,
as well as effective and adaptive, within the field.
Keywords climate change, education for sustainable development, environmental education, professional development
During the past forty years, numerous writers in the field of environmental education (EE)
have described challenges facing the field and suggested opportunities to be pursued. Some of
the earliest of these writings focused on how EE was, or should be, different than its earlytwentieth century predecessorsNature Study, Outdoor Education, and Conservation Education
(e.g., Hungerford, 1975; Disinger, 1983; Johnson, 1977; Schoenfeld, 1969; Tanner, 1974). Over
the 1970s and 1980s, others focused on what EE was or should be, drawing on in-depth analyses
(e.g., Lucas, 1973; Townsend, 1982), consensus-seeking research (e.g., Hammerman, 1979), and
in-depth reviews of professional publications (e.g., Hart, 1980; Harvey, 1977a, 1977b). Most of the
Correspondence should be sent to Thomas J. Marcinkowski, PhD, Science & Mathematics Education Department, Florida Institute of Technology, 150 W. University Boulevard, Melbourne, FL 32901-6975, USA. E-mail:
marcinko@fit.edu
CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
35
work cited above went on prior to or shortly after the UNESCO-UNEP Tbilisi Intergovernmental
Conference, which set forth its own set of challenges and opportunities in the form of goals,
categories of objectives, guiding principles, and 39 additional sets of recommendations for EE
(UNESCO, 1978).
After the Tbilisi Conference, several prominent leaders in the field sought to develop a coherent
national strategy to guide further development within the field in the United States (e.g.,
Stapp et al., 1979), while others facilitated the development of recommendations during national
conferences (e.g., Stapp, 1978; Gustafson, 1983). Although there have rarely been postconference
mechanisms for implementing or monitoring the implementation of such recommendations, some
efforts were made to address them. One noteworthy example was attention by Hungerford, Peyton,
and Wilke (1980) to the recommendation that the Tbilisi goals and objectives be further clarified
for use by teachers and youth leaders (Stapp, 1978, p. 71; Gustafson, 1983, p. 112). Into the
1990s, other leaders in the field wrote about contemporary challenges and opportunities (e.g.,
Hungerford & Volk, 1984, 1990; Ramsey, 1993; Ruskey & Wilke, 1994; Simmons, 1995). Many
of these writings gave rise to, supported, or were compatible with NAAEEs National Guidelines
for Excellence Project.
As was apparent at the Tbilisi Conference and at UNESCO-UNEP conferences and meetings
since then, EE has been in various stages of development in an ever-increasing number of nations
in UN regions around the world. As EE professionals in those nations have gone about their
work and interacted with EE professionals from the United States, the former began to recognize
and present challenges to the latter regarding the philosophical and ethical basis for, perspectives
on curriculum and instruction in, and approaches to assessment, evaluation, and research in EE
(e.g., Jickling, 1993; Robottom, 1985a, 1985b). Some of these challenges have been reasonably
consistent with NAAEEs National Guidelines for Excellence Project, whereas others have been
critical of such approaches and efforts in the United States.
Following the 1992 UN Conference on Environmental and Development (United Nations,
1992), the challenges noted above were complicated by growing tensions between the more
established EE and the newer Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) over matters of
definition, scope, need, purpose, and prospect (e.g., Du Toit, 1999; Goodfellow & AndrewPower, 2007; Gough & Scott, 2008; Li, 1996; Sato, 2006; Smith, 1989; Vare & Scott, 2007). It
is noteworthy that some who have been critical of EE approaches and efforts in the United
States gravitated to ESD, where they have found an emerging theme and community that
permits them to discuss their views, undertake their work, and continue to offer critiques
of EE.
In summary, this brief overview is presented to support the writers contention that there is a
lengthy and complex history to writings within the EE literature that pertain to challenges and
opportunities. Many writers have made significant contributions to this literature, and many of
the challenges and opportunities they have identified remain quite relevant today. Further, these
writings have touched virtually every aspect of EE theory and practice, leaving few, if any, stones
unturned.
Although it is important, if not necessary, to be mindful of these writings, the purpose of
this article is not to review or summarize challenges and opportunities apparent in the literature.
At the same time, its purpose is not to distill from this substantial literature those challenges
that may be most relevant today; the field has become too broad and diverse to attempt that
(e.g., different philosophies, traditions, sectors, providers, purposes, programs, and approaches).
36
MARCINKOWSKI
Rather, as is implicit in this introduction, time continues to move along, and, as it does, the wider
EE community within the United States is asked, if and even expected, to come to grips with and
address emerging educational and environmental challenges (e.g., No Child Left Behind and the
emergent culture of educational accountability, climate change). Sometimes those challenges are
felt and perceived as barriers, sometimes as opportunities, and sometimes as both. Therefore, as
has been done by virtually all writers in this tradition, I have tried in this article to explore several
emerging challenges and opportunities for the EE community that, at least to this writer, appear
to be vital to the field in the United States now and into the coming decades.
CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY #1: PROFESSIONALIZING THE FIELD

Nearly all of the writings on challenges and opportunities facing EE have emphasized the professionalization of the field in one way or another, either explicitly or implicitly. Few would argue
that programs need to be well conceived and delivered, that professionals working in them should
be well prepared in content and pedagogy, and that evidence should be gathered and used to
maintain and improve professional development and programming. Although the diversification
of the field since 1990 has offered different ways to view and address professional development,
programming, and evidence gathering needs, these fundamental needs still exist.
Within the United States, a prominent stimulus to professionalize the field of EE came in the
form of criticisms of practices in the field in the 1990s (e.g., Adler, 1992, 1993; Kwong, 1995;
Sanera & Shaw, 1996). Essentially, they argued that EE had become too advocacy-oriented, which
they believed was apparent in messages they called laced with despair, emotionalism, hype, and
misinformation. These criticisms began to appear in the popular press, raising questions about the
status and future of EE (e.g., Satchell, 1996). Some critics were invited to NAAEE Conferences to
discuss their criticisms publicly, although their presence was often viewed with skepticism (e.g.,
Wilke, 1996b). One attendee was Dr. Michael Sanera, a Fellow at the Claremont Institute who
founded the Center for Environmental Education Research. As many in the field know, Sanera
was responsible for challenges to, or what many within the field perceived to be attacks on, EE
programming in Arizona, Wisconsin, and other states with reputable programsactivities that
seemed to validate skepticism about the intentions of these critics.
These and other criticisms were advanced in a national report prepared by the Independent
Commission on Environmental Education (ICEE; 1997), a group convened by the George C.
Marshall Institute. This report criticized EE for being weak in science and economics, for being needlessly controversial, and for often failing to prepare students to understand tradeoffs
when addressing problems and to deal with controversial issues (p. 3). Collectively, these documents offered criticisms of ill-prepared providers, advocacy practices, inaccurate and superficial
materials, and limited programs within what they viewed to be mainstream EE. It is worth
noting that this 11-member panel was not uninformed about EE, because Dr. John Disinger
(1997), former NAAEE President and Board Member, was a member of this panel. Furthermore,
some within the field recognized that several of the ICEE criticisms had some merit (Hungerford, 1996; Weilbacher, 1997; Wilke, 1996a). Moreover, in defense, Salmon (2000) argued that
the ICEE report was not a broadside against EE, but rather an unbiased analysis of materials
and guides.
37
Deborah Simmons (1996), then president of NAAEE, responded to several of these criticisms:
We could, of course, ignore the criticism or bemoan this spate of bad press as a passing phase.
Alternatively, we can welcome this as an opportunity for open and vigorous discourse with concerned
individuals both in and out of the field . . . It is important that we examine each of these issues as
well as their underlying assumptions carefully . . . [T]he critiques must be put into perspective and
given a certain amount of scrutiny themselves. Often environmentalism, environmental advocacy,
and environmental education are used interchangeably. The lines are blurred . . . Where criticism
is unfounded, based on misplaced assumptions, or poorly drawn conclusions, EE must respond
affirmatively . . . We must show the public what quality environmental education looks like . . .
We must keep ourselves informed of our proven successes as well as what our critics are saying,
continually examining our assumptions and analyzing our practice. (pp. 23)
Richard Wilke (1996a) echoed similar sentiments and pointed to steps being taken at that
time by NAAEE to begin to address these criticisms, notably those pertaining to the quality of
materials:
Where there are truly problems with the quality of EE materials or instruction, we must work to
improve them. Where criticisms are based on misinformation or half-truths environmental educators
must be skilled in responding effectively through the media and other sources . . . While there are many
excellent EE curriculum materials, there are also some materials that can be questioned regarding their
accuracy and objectivity. Professional environmental educators led by Dr. Bora Simmons, president
of the North American Association for Environmental Education, have been working for nearly two
years to develop EE material standards . . . The standards will help to insure that the best EE programs
and curricula are used by educators. (pp. 12)
In hindsight, the words above by Simmons seem prophetic, for they served as both harbinger
and hallmark of NAAEEs National Project for Excellence:
Through the National Project for Excellence in Environmental Education, NAAEE is working to
establish a series of guidelines for the development of balanced, scientifically accurate, and comprehensive environmental education programs. These guidelines will show how environmental education
can be used as a means for meeting the high standards set by the traditional disciplines . . . It is hoped
that, when completed, these sets of guidelines will help educators develop meaningful environmental
education programs that integrate across and build upon the core disciplines. (Simmons, 1997)
As a starting point, Simmons (1995) synthesized much of the thinking in the field in the
United States in a set of working papers designed to provide initial guidance and perspective
to the guidelines development process. With support from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) through the Environmental Education and Training Partnership (EETAP), Simmons and a project team prepared the first set of guidelines for EE materials (NAAEE, 1996).
These were then used to review a wide range of available EE materials (NAAEE, 1997, 1998a,
1998b). The next set of guidelines pertained to K12-grade education (NAAEE, 1999a), and was
accompanied by a document containing a self-assessment tool (NAAEE, 1999b). The third set
of guidelines pertained to the preparation of environmental educators (NAAEE, 1999c), which
was later modified to accommodate both preparation and professional development (NAAEE,
2004a). The fourth set of guidelines pertained to nonformal EE programs (NAAEE, 2004), and
a fifth set of guidelines for early childhood education is in development.
38
MARCINKOWSKI
According to NAAEE (2004),

[This National Project for Excellence] is committed to synthesizing the best thinking about environmental education through an extensive process of review and discussion. Thus far, thousands of
individuals and organizations representing all aspects of education and environmental education have
reviewed working outlines and drafts. Reviewers include teachers, educational administrators, environmental scientists, curriculum developers, and natural resource agency and education department
staff. (p. ii)
It is worth commenting on several aspects of these sets of guidelines. First, each set of
guidelines focuses on one or more of the criticisms leveled at the field in the 1990s. Prominent
among these are the attention to the distinction between education and advocacy, and a greater
emphasis on skill development. Second, as is apparent in the name of this project, these sets of
guidelines are intended to help professionalize the field. Third, the manner in which these sets of
guidelines were developed helped moderate internal and external criticism, as well as prepare for
their dissemination and use (i.e., by actively seeking review and comment on iterative drafts by
a wide range of professionals). Fourth, the adoption and use of these guidelines is voluntary, for
by design, these are not called standards. To support dissemination and use, EETAP has support
Guidelines Trainings around the United States, as well as the development of a cadre of trained
professionals, most notably members of NAAEEs Guidelines Trainers Bureau, to help Dr.
Simmons deliver these workshops.
These sets of guidelines are similar to recommendations from EE conferences and in other
writings in that they present what can and should be done in EE. However, these sets of guidelines are unlike prior recommendations in some very important ways. By design, there was
an organization, NAAEE, which assumed responsibility for moving these guidelines beyond
publication, passive dissemination, and even voluntary adoption. Further, there was continued
support for NAAEE to do so through EETAP and EPA. Finally, over the past six years, NAAEE
has taken steps to develop Councils and initiatives to translate these sets of guidelines into practice.
Noteworthy among these are (a) the Resource Review Advisory Council and its resource review
project; (b) the Certification Advisory Council, its support for state EE certification programs,
and its development of a process to accredit such programs; and (c) the Pre-Service Advisory
Council, which has begun to work on strategies needed to support implementation of the Standards for the Initial Preparation of Environmental Educators approved by NCATE in October
2007 for use by university EE programs. Information about each of these councils is available at
<www.naaee.org/programs-and-initiatives>. Very simply, these and others efforts are designed
to move these guidelines into the mainstream of EE programming. The people involved in these
efforts envision improved materials, new and better programs to serve the professional development needs of K12 teachers and nonformal educators and, as a result, environmental educators
who are better prepared to fulfill day-to-day and wider professional responsibilities.
In summary, these sets of guidelines and related initiatives reflect opportunities and challenges
for virtually everyone within the EE community to do the following:
develop a deeper understanding of these sets of guidelines, as well as about the conditions
that gave rise to them and to which they speak;
actively participate in the cycles of review and comment for draft sets of guidelines in
development;
39
become more informed about NAAEEs Council and initiatives, notably what each is doing
to translate these guidelines into practice, how these may affect you and your program, and
how you can become involved; and
take steps to use pertinent sets of guidelines and initiatives to review and upgrade your
professional development and your programs.
CHALLENGE #2: THE INTERFACE BETWEEN EE AND ESD
As I noted in the Introduction, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) or, alternatively,
Education for Sustainability, has evolved a rather complex relationship with EE since the early
1990s. It is noteworthy that the initial phase of the national assessment of professional development needs in EE commissioned by EETAP indicated that sustainable development (SD) and
economics were content area needs (L. Fleming, personal communication, May 7, 2009). For
this reason, I will begin by providing some background on SD and then ESD. To begin, the
U.N. Secretary-General established the World Commission on Environment and Development
(WCED) in 1983 to formulate a global agenda for change (WCED, 1987, p. ix). This was the
U.N.s third and compelling call for political action: After Brandts Programme for Survival and
Common Crisis, and after Palmes Common Security, would come Common Future (1987, p.
x). The charge to the WCED included the following:
. . . to propose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development by the
year 2000 and beyond; [and] to recommend ways concern for the environment may be translated
into greater cooperation developing countries and between countries at different stages of economic
and social development and lead to the achievement of common and mutually supporting objectives
that take account of the interrelationships between people, resources, environment, and development.
(1987, p. ix)
According to the Chair of the WCED, Gro Harlem Bruntland,

The environment is where we all live; and development is what we all do in attempting to improve
our lot within that abode. The two are inseparable. Further, development issue must be seen as crucial
by the political leaders who feel that their countries have reached a plateau towards which other
nations may strive. Many of the development paths of the industrialized nations are unsustainable.
(1987, p. xii)
The WCED, or Bruntland Commission, included 21 members represented UN-member nations

from all continents, as well as diverse with political perspectives, and stages of economic and
social development.
We . . . come from widely differing backgrounds: foreign ministers, finance and planning officials,
policymakers in agriculture, science, and technology. Many of the Commissioners were cabinet
ministers and senior economists in their own nations, concerned largely with the affairs of those
countries. As Commissioners, however, we were acting not in our national roles, but as individuals;
and as we worked, nationalism and the artificial divides between industrialized and developing,
between East and West, receded. In their place emerged a common concern for the planet and the
interlocked ecological and economic threats with which its people, institutions, and governments,
now grapple. (1987, p. xii)
40
MARCINKOWSKI
Given this historical context, charge, and set of challenges, WCED offered the following
statement regarding sustainable development (SD):
Humanity has the ability to make development sustainableto ensure that it meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The
concept of sustainable development does imply limitsnot absolute limits but limitations imposed
by the present state of technology and social organization on environmental resources and by the
ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities . . . Sustainable development is not
a fixed state of harmony, but rather a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the
direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional changes are
made consistent with future as well as present needs. We do not pretend that the process is easy or
straightforward. Painful choices have to be made. Thus, in the final analysis, sustainable development
must rely on political will. (1987, pp. 89)
It is readily apparent that this conception of and vision for sustainability is quite broad
because of the presence of complex interrelationships among social, economic, technological,
and environmental needs and problems. At the same time, this scope does carry with it its own
difficulties. For one, the SD dialogue has brought together environmentalists and economists,
and advocates within each arena have tended to define SD in their own terms. Also, this scope,
coupled with the fluid nature of SD, makes it difficult to define SD in ways that lead to concrete
proposals and initiatives (i.e., it is both evolving and context-specific). As a result, some within
the environmental arena have expressed concerned that the emphasis on current and future
generations applies only to humans and that many SD decisions will, in the short or longer term,
serve as another rationale to continue the lengthy tradition of value trade-offs that favor humans
over other species, environmental conditions, and ecosystems on planet Earth. Although some
efforts have been made to address this, including better defining and determining the economic
valuation of ecosystem services, and including environmental criteria among indicators of SD,
these and other difficulties linger.
Allow me to turn now to the educational implications and manifestations of SD. The WCEDs
report, Our Common Future, served as the impetus within the U.N. to plan the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992. As with Tbilisi, official delegations
were sent to UNCED, which culminated in a report that comprised 39 sets of recommendations
on many aspects of environment and development, including a set entitled Promoting education, public awareness, and training (United Nations, 1992). At the same time, an international
nongovernmental organization (NGO) forum was held, at which NAAEE was represented. This
NGO forum also resulted in a report that included a treaty entitled Environmental Education for
Sustainable Societies and Global Responsibility (International Non-Governmental Organization
Forum, 1992). These documents represent the beginning of a shift in emphasis within the U.N.
away from EE and towards ESD. Following UNCED, staff within the UNESCOs International
Environmental Education Program encouraged authors of documents in its Environmental Education Series to revise them by placing greater emphasis on sustainability topics. This shift toward
EE in the Context of ESD was reflected in numerous articles (e.g., Hopkins, Damlamian, &
Ospina, 1996), as well as within UNESCOs Tbilisi+20 Conference held in Thessaloniki, Greece
(UNESCO, 1997). In about 2000, this shift was highly visible; UNESCOs EE program was
placed in a smaller division, whereas the ESD program was enlarged and given greater prominence, culminating in the declaration of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable
41
TABLE 1
A General Conception of the Overlapping and Divergent Interests of EE and ESD
Column Field
Problems of Interest
and Goals
A
Primarily EE
B
Shared
Environmental
Development
Potable Water
Resource
Environmental Quality Sanitation
Biodiversity
Food and Energy
Resources
Natural
C
Primarily ESD
Social/Economic
Poverty
Health Care
Basic Literacy
Development (U.N. Decade). A recent search of the UNESCO website (www.unesco.org) revealed
that ESD serves as one of UNESCOs 18 major themes within its Education for All International
Coordination program, whereas EE does not. This diminished attention to EE within UNESCO
has been a serious, albeit quiet, disappointment to many within the EE community.
As numerous writers and analysts from both EE and ESD perspectives have pointed out, there
is no singular or simple way to frame the EE/ESD relationship. Over time, prominent writers
within ESD have noted that the roots of education for sustainable development are firmly planted
in environmental education (Hopkins et al., 1996, p. 8; UNESCO, 1997, p. 27). Thus, just as
Stapp (1974), Swan (1984), and Disinger (1983) noted that Nature Study, Outdoor Education,
and Conservation Education contributed to the purposes of, infrastructure and sites for, practices
in, and research/evaluation base for EE, ESD advocates now suggest that EE serves in this same
capacity with respect to ESD (e.g., Sato, 2006). To some, this implies that Sustainability may
function as the fourth major wave of the conservation and environmental movement within the
United States, following the Preservation, Resource Management, and Environmental Quality
waves suggested by Stapp (1974). However, given the relative recency and broad scope of SD, it
is too early to determine whether this movement can and will eventually function as the fourth
wave, particularly within the United States.
Although EE has had a longer history than ESD, it is evident in passages from the Bruntland
Commission report that ESD is much broader in scope than EE. As such, ESD, like SD, seeks
to address social goals (e.g., access to food and water, healthcare, and education; basic literacy),
economic development goals (e.g., alleviating poverty, improving living standards), and technological development goals (e.g., cleaner and more efficient technologies to serve local needs),
as well as environmental goals (World Resources Institute, 1992). Of these, the EE community
has been and remains interested in the environmental goals, as well as settings in which those
environmental goals are related to other SD goals. Although attention to how environmental
goals are related to other SD goals has opened up the kind of North/South dialogue within and
encouraged by the Bruntland Commission, it has tended to blur what constitutes EE. Table 1 is
an attempt to describe the overlapping and divergent features of EE and ESD.
Some will disagree with this general charting, in light of the scope of SD, and suggest that
ESD has an interest in problems in all three areas (i.e., A, B, and C). Others may argue over the
specifics of which problems fall into which column (e.g, Should Poverty be placed in Column B
or C, given the extent to which impoverished peoples need access to and can erode sustainable
food and energy resources?). Those are relevant questions worth exploring and discussing.
42
MARCINKOWSKI
However, I prepared the chart in Table 1 to raise three questions that pertain to the scope of
EE as EE community continues to grapple with its relationship to ESD:
1. To what extent should EE follow the lead of ESD and seek to address problems in Column
C?
2. To what extent do EE and ESD proponents believe that ESD either has sole interest in,
or is better poised than EE to address, problems in Column B?
3. To what extent do EE proponents agree with ESD proponents who suggest that EE falls
under the broader umbrella of ESD, and is therefore only a narrow part of ESD, with
respect to the problems and associated goals in Column A?
With respect to the first question, although many within the EE community may be sympathetic
to SD goals that are less unrelated or unrelated to environmental goals on a personal or professional
basis, environmental educators have argued that those lie beyond the bounds of EE per se.
The reasons for maintaining such a focus is simple: if we promiscuously attach the label
environmental education to anything we are studying because the label is currently in vogue,
then that which is peculiar to EE and important about EE will be lost in a sea of insignificance
and irrelevance. Another way of saying that all this is to maintain that EE deals primarily with
[hu]man-earth relationships. It deal with [hu]man-[hu]man relationships only as they affect, or are
affected by [hu]man-earth relationships (Tanner, 1974, pp. 2425, 26). In a more general sense,
[I]t is absolutely essential that any problem area [such as EE] that is to be studies seriously, be
limited in scope (Helgeson et al., 1971, p. 3).
However, this thinking is not as readily apparent in the field of EE as it once was, and it might
be dismissed as historical (i.e., attributed to conditions in the 1970s). I happen to view these
and other dismissive comments as unfortunate, for the frequent failures to differentiate between
problems and goals of interest to EE and to ESD in keynote addresses, sessions, and informal
discussions at events such as annual World Environmental Education Congresses and NAAEE
Conferences do contribute to an ever so gradual blurring of EEs mission, scope, and identify.
With respect to the second question, one of the challenges before the EE community in the
United States is how to interface with ESD community around SD problems and goals of mutual
interest. As much as anything, this appears to depend on context. For example, for those working
in developing nations, EE may have important roles to play in supporting access to potable water,
managing sewage, harnessing renewable energy resources, and supporting the use of cleaner
technologies, as well as in basic education. Within developed nations, these kinds of needs
exist on a smaller scale, particularly in impoverished and marginalized communities: These
links between poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation formed a major theme in our
analysis and recommendations (WCED, 1987, p. xii). In these settings, there is a clear need for
highly qualified teams of leaders to formulate an interdisciplinary, integrated approach to [these]
global concerns (WCED, 1987, p. xii). In other words, solving such complex and entrenched
problems at any level requires more than either ESD or EE alone can provide, although ESD
may be better poised to initiate discussion and action under the aegis of the U.N. Decade. Thus,
EE and ESD specialist alike must team up and work with include national and local leaders,
private sector representatives, scientists and technical experts, public information specialists, and
educators in related fields (e.g., literacy experts, health educators, vocational training experts),
among others, to address SD concerns in these contexts.
43
With respect to the third question, I would like to begin with WCEDs premise that [m]any
of the development paths of the industrialized nations [such as the U.S.] are unsustainable
(1987, p. xii). Although the U.S. population is relatively small and growing slowly, it is the
relatively large share of the consumption of global resources and relatively large contribution of
pollution and waste that has warranted this assertion. Within the EE community, the former has
received modest attention in the form of educational programs and communications messages
about what can be done to reduce consumption, particularly wasteful consumption, of water,
energy, and other natural resources. At the same time, the latter has tended to receive greater
attention, given the prominence of pollution themes in EE over time (e.g., water pollution;
wastewater treatment; disposal of solid, toxic and radioactive waste; air pollution; and global
warming/climate change; Disinger, 1983). Both consumption and pollution topics are almost as
common as traditional topics in ecology, biodiversity, and natural resources in materials reviewed
by NAAEE (1997, 1998a, 1998b), other sets of EE materials (Andrews et al., 1995; Boerschig &
DeYoung, 1993; Rohwedder, et al., 1992a, 1992b, 1993), and textbooks (Bennett, 1990; Pettus,
1978; Ramler, 1976; Willson, 1981). Thus, in a developed nations context such as the United
States, sustainability seems to reflect different concerns and goals than it does in developing
nations. Consequently, in partial response to third question, by virtue of its infrastructure and
traditions, EE is better poised than ESD to address the types of problems in Column A (see
Table 1).
In summary, during this stage of growth in ESD as a movement, the ESD community continues
to draw upon EEs institutional infrastructure, materials, and human and intellectual capital.
This has been apparent at events such as
UNESCO meetings, World Environmental
Education Congresses, and NAAEE Con[I]t is clear that the ESD comferences. On one hand, it is clear that the
munity is concerned about goals
ESD community is concerned about goals
and problems that extend beyond
and problems that extend beyond environenvironmental ones. On the other
mental ones. On the other hand, the profeshand, the professional commitments
sional commitments and passions of EE proand passions of EE professionals
fessionals and practitioners remain, largely
and practitioners remain, largely
because the litany of environmental probbecause the litany of environmenlems with which EE is concerned have not
tal problems with which EE is
gone away, and therefore warrant our continconcerned have not gone away, and
ued attention. Thus, as was apparent in UNtherefore warrant our continued
ESCOs International EE Programme and in
attention.
efforts within the United States in the 1990s,
it continues to be appropriate to address environmental sustainability goals and problems
in EE programming (e.g., Du Toit, 1999; Li, 1996; Smith, 1989; Woods, 1993). As a whole, the
tensions between (a) maintaining the identify and focus of EE, and (b) supporting and collaborating with ESD that have followed from developments in SD and ESD, reflect both opportunities
and challenges for those in the EE community:
within NAAEE and other professional settings, continue to become better informed about,
and dialogue with proponents of SD about, the inclusion of and roles for environmental
44
MARCINKOWSKI
criteria in SD projects, as well as with proponents of ESD about differences, mutual interests,
and relationships between EE and ESD;
for the benefit of both EE and ESD, continue to emphasize, expand, and refine our understanding of environmental literacy (knowledge, affect, skills and participation) and behavior
change in the context of EE programming for citizen participation in community-based and
larger-scale environmental problem-solving;
as part of the U.N. Decade, apply what we know about effective EE and communications
through collaboration with peoples in impoverished and marginalized communities within
the U.S., and document what works in these settings. NAAEEs Environmental Justice
Commission exists to support such efforts; and
as part of the U.N. Decade, we must apply what we know about effective EE and communications through participation in what the Bruntland Commission referred to as interdisciplinary, integrated approaches in developing world communities, and document what
works in these settings. NAAEEs International Commission exists to support these efforts.
CHALLENGE #3: THE CHALLENGES OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Readers may note the conspicuous absence of a recommendation in the set above regarding
overconsumption and waste in developed nations such as the United States. This is because
these topics require further analysisparticularly within the context of climate change. In the
aforementioned national assessment of professional development needs in EE, climate change
was identified as a prominent content area need (L. Fleming, personal communication, May
7, 2009). At the same time, climate change presents some rather unique methodological or
pedagogical challenges to the EE community in the United States.
Historically, there has been a pervasive emphasis on problems and issues, as well as on citizen
involvement in efforts aimed at problem-solving. This is apparent in descriptions of the educational movements that preceded EE, notably the emphasis on the conservation of natural resources
within conservation education (Disinger, 1983; Stapp, 1974; Swan, 1984). It is apparent in early
definitions of EE that consisted of one or two sentences (Disinger, 1983; Harvey, 1977a, 1977b;
Schmeider, 1977), including one of the earliest and most widely recognized of those definitions:
Environmental education is aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable concerning the
biophysical environment and its problems, aware of how to help solve those problems, and motivated
to work toward their solution. (Stapp et al., 1969, p. 31)
This emphasis on problems and problem-solving was equally apparent in the next generation of definitions of EE (i.e., sets of goals and objectives for the field; Harvey, 1977a, 1977b;
Hungerford et al., 1980; UNESCO, 1977, 1978) and accompanying key characteristics of and
guiding principles for EE (Hart, 1980, 1981; UNESCO, 1978). For example, the Tbilisi objectives
(i.r., awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, and participation) have been reaffirmed at all subsequent UNESCO EE conferences and, therefore, serve as the most widely recognized and accepted
international definition of EE. These objectives may be viewed as stepping stones intended to
prepare and enable citizens to become involved in prevention and resolution of environmental
problems.
45
In the 1990s, yet another way of defining EE emerged. Following recommendations from the
Tbilisi Conference and other EE conferences in the United States, efforts were made to summarize
available evidence from EE research and evaluation studies e.g., Iozzi, 1984; Rickinson, 2001;
Roth, 1976; Roth & Helgeson, 1972; Volk & McBeth, 1997; Zelezny, 1999), as well as from
studies of active participation in environmental problem solving (e.g., Bamberg & Moser, 2007;
Hines, 1985; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1986/87; Marcinkowski, 1998; Osbaldiston, 2004).
One prominent message emerged from these summaries: there were more learning outcomes
in EE and more factors related to environmental problem-solving than were apparent in the
Tbilisi categories of objectives (e.g., beyond attitudes, affective outcomes included environmental
sensitivity, locus of control, personal responsibility, and verbal commitment or intention). On the
basis of this evidence and on Simmons (1995) review of EE frameworks in the United States,
the Tbilisi goals and objectives were permutated into environmental literacy frameworks (e.g.,
Roth, 1992; Simmons, 1995; Wilke, 1995). To many professionals in the United States, these
frameworks reflected a natural evolution of thought and practice based on the premise that the
mission of EE is to foster the development of an environmentally literate citizenry (e.g., Harvey,
1977a, 1977b; NEEAC, 2005; Roth, 1992).
Beyond challenging and expanding thinking in the field about what may be required to achieve
this mission, the available evidence supports two tentative conclusions about EE practice. First,
although most EE programs and approaches make some type of contribution to environmental
literacy, for many this is both limited in scope and a longer term prospect (developmentally).
In contrast, relatively few EE approaches immerse students in Grades K12 in environmental
problem solving efforts. Notable among those that do are action research, service-learning, and
environmental issue-and-action instruction as advanced by Hungerford and his colleagues, whose
elements can be combined as in placed-based education (Billig et al., 2008; Duffin, Murphy, &
Johnson, 2008; Marcinkowski, 2004; Rickinson, 2001; Volk & McBeth, 1997; Zelezny, 1999).
From an educational perspective, these approaches provide learners with opportunities to apply,
expand, refine, and reflect on cognitive and affective aspects of their participation in environmental
problem-solving. Second, some leaders in the field have expressed an interest in determining the
actual environmental, rather than educational, benefits of participation in environmental problem
solving, particularly among older students (e.g., NEEAC, 2005). Although there are numerous
anecdotes about the positive impacts of specific student projects, research evidence is limited. To
date, I am aware of only two studies that have developed methods for investigating this, both of
which were supported by EPA, and both of which indicate that the approaches mentioned above
can and do contribute to such impacts (Short, 2007; Duffin, Murphy, & Johnson, 2008). These
two areas continue to serve as challenges for and within the field.
This short overview of the evolution of EEs emphasis on and attention to environmental
problem solving is very relevant to climate change, which, like SD, presents new challenges to
the field of EE. Yes, it may be possible to apply the environmental literacy and environmental
problem-solving paradigm described above to climate change. In this context, climate change
serves as the next environmental problem or crisis in need of educational and societal attention,
following resource depletion, pollution, population growth, ozone depletion, loss of biodiversity,
and unsustainable development, among others. The potential need for and role of EE and related
areas with respect to climate change is apparent in the third report of the International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC): Change in lifestyle and behaviour patterns can contribute to climate
change mitigation across all sectors (e.g., Darnton, 2008), and, further, Education and training
46
MARCINKOWSKI
programmes can help overcome barriers to the market acceptance of energy efficiency, particularly
in combination with other measures (2007c, p. 12).
However, the extent to which this paradigm can and will be applied fruitfully to address climate
change needs is open to critical analysis. First, the recent three-part report of the IPCC (2007a,
2007b, 2007c) documents the advances in systems thinking (e.g., as in Ecology and Earth Systems
Science), research and monitoring, and in-depth analyses of evidence and its implications that
support the growing body of evidence regarding climate change, its varied causes and effects, as
well as the need for attention on a global scale. In this context, the second IPCC report analyzes
climate change in the context of sustainability: Sustainable development can reduce vulnerability
to climate change by enhancing adaptive capacity and increasing resilience . . . [However], it is
very likely that climate change can slow the pace of progress toward sustainable development,
either directly through increased exposure to adverse impact or indirectly through erosion of the
capacity to adapt (2007b, p. 20). Thus, just as spokespersons for the environmental movement
in the 1970s suggested that we find everything hooked to everything else, we now find the
causes and effects of climate change hooked to virtually every other environmental problem that
has received attention in EE over the past 40 or more years.
Second, climate change poses several unique challenges to the EE community in the United
States and beyond. Certainly, climate change presents problems that are larger in scale, more
interrelated and complex (both bio-physically and sociopolitically), and of potentially greater
consequence than any other environmental problem that has been of interest to EE to date.
Analysis of the means to address climate change raises additional questions.
To what extent are those representing the diversity of approaches and voices in the field
willing and able to come together so that environmental educators across the United States
can work toward common educational and environmental goals relevant to climate change?
To what extent are those in the field of EE prepared, individually and collectively, to reach
out to develop new relationships and forms of collaboration with entities outside of the field
of EE that are equally interested in addressing climate change (e.g., energy utility personnel
who work in household energy audit programs)?
To what extent has the field of EE achieved a level of respectability in governmental and
intellectual circles that will allow what we have learned about effective EE to be brought
into policy and programmatic discussions of national responses to climate change?
Third, if, as Dr. Simmons recommended, we continue examining our assumptions and analyzing our practice[s], then we must review some of the premises underlying the environmental
literacy and environmental problem-solving paradigm in a climate change context. Most, if
not all, of the environmental problems that have been of interest to EE have allowed the EE
community to focus outward on others who are, or who are perceived to be, responsible for
resource depletion, pollution, and so on. It has been relatively easy for us to distance ourselves
from entities or people who hold noticeably different beliefs, values, and behaviors, particularly
those who appear to contribute to or even cause these problems. In the case of climate change,
we can no longer focus outward, for as the comic strip character Pogo once said, We have met
the enemy, and it is us Very simply, on a global scale, the United States is the largest emitter of
all greenhouse gasses, including CO2, that contribute to climate change (i.e., nearly 20%), even
though the United States represents about 5% of the worlds population. Energy conservation and
47
shifting to clean or green energy sources are often cited as ways of addressing this disparity.
The latter is underway, but it will require time and capital for technological and infrastructure
development, as well as diffusion and adoption. Thus, the former is recognized as a necessity, at
least on a short-term and interim basis, so that the United States can reduce reliance on energy
sources that contribute to climate change. This applies to not only the residential, transportation, and communications sectors that we as citizens rely upon daily, but also the industrial and
manufacturing, agricultural, transportation, entertainment, and other business sectors. As noted
in the third report of the IPCC, this will require changes in our own lifestyles and behaviors, as
individual consumers and on a collective or corporate basis.
In summary, climate change presents opportunities and challenges for virtually everyone
within the EE community to do the following:
continue to become better informed about climate change, its causes and effects, and its
implications individually, in learning communities, and through professional associations
such as NAAEE;
become better informed about the proposed roles and actual opportunities for education,
training, communication, and behavior change in national discussions of our responses to
climate change, and where EE can and does fit into such discussion and plans;
continue to emphasize, expand, and refine our understanding of environmental literacy
(knowledge, affect, skills and participation) and behavior change in the context of EE
programming for citizen participation in problem-solving related to climate change;
enter into dialogue with representatives of government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and business that have a dedicated interest in climate change about the roles of
education, training, communications, and behavior change in strategies designed to address
climate change; and
continue to take steps that are needed to address climate change in our programs and
operations (e.g., green building and campus greening efforts), as well as in our daily
lives.
DISCUSSION
The challenges to professionalize the field, to understand the interface between EE and
ESD, and to help address climate change, pose three different, yet related, sets of challenges
to the field of EE today. As I noted in the Introduction, these are not the only challenges facing
the field of EE, although I think that these three, taken together, encompass or reflect many of
the prominent challenges we face. In addition, although what I have proposed here reflects one
way of framing these prominent challenges (i.e., other ways of framing these challenges can be
found in the EE and ESD literature, such as Hungerford & Volk, 1984, 1990; and Vare & Scott,
2007), I think this way of framing them has some advantages for the EE community in the United
States. After all, we in the United States tend to be pragmatists in our outlook and approach on
many things, including education (i.e., we seek and emphasize what works), thanks in part to
the influence of educational philosophers such as John Dewey (Dennis & Knapp, 1997; Disinger,
1983; Marcinkowski, 1993).
48
MARCINKOWSKI
It is difficult to contend with the temporal dimensions of education and environment embedded
in these and other challenges. The environmental problems of interest to the field are tangible,
and continue to have very real consequences for human societies and ecosystems on a daily basis.
Although EE has contributed to the reduction and solution of some of these problems, many
persist and new ones, such as climate change, emerge. These problems require the continued
attention of the field, and we must work in cooperation with professionals in other fields and
sectors who have an equivalent commitment to problem solving (e.g., scientists, business leaders,
policy makers, NGO leaders). Nonetheless, in very broad and general terms, problem solving
tends to be reactive and to reflect a past-to-present temporal orientation within and beyond the
field (i.e., how to solve each emerging or emergent environmental crisis).
Real world problems require a different kind or level of thinking than is inherent in what led
or contributed to those problems. Yes, reductions in consumption and pollution are needed to
continue to help reduce the magnitude and effects of environmental problems, but these may not be
sufficient. Yes, steps such as the EIS process required for federal projects under the 1969 National
Environmental Protection Act have been taken to prevent problems, but as helpful and necessary as
these measures are, they may not be sufficient. Reduction and prevention activities alone may not
bring into existence the kind of world in which environmental problems become less prominent,
for they may not alter the societal conditions that required reduction and prevention measures.
In this larger temporal landscape, EE does have a role in helping to create this kind of world,
culture, and society. To do so requires analysis of possible, probable, and desirable futures, as
well as what is needed for a more environmentally sound future to begin to take root and flourish
today (i.e., a present-to-future temporal orientation common to future studies).
I would suggest that both problem-solving and envisioning desirable futures have important
roles to play in EE. Both offer insights into educational and environmental challenges such as
those described here. With respect to the
educational challenges, most professionals
recognize the contributions that past educa[M]ost professionals recognize
tional movements such as nature study, outthe contributions that past educadoor education, conservation education, and
tional movements such as nature
even ecology (or ecological) education have
study, outdoor education, consermade to the purposes, infrastructure, sites,
vation education, and even ecoland practices in EE. At the same time, EE has
ogy (or ecological) education have
evolved its own purposes and practices, and
made to the purposes, infrastrucexpanded its infrastructure and program sites
ture, sites, and practices in EE. At
(e.g., environmental centers, environmental
the same time, EE has evolved its
magnet schools, green schools). In one way
own purposes and practices, and exor another, most of these developments have
panded its infrastructure and proaddressed the environmental literacy and
gram sites (e.g., environmental cenproblem-solving goals of the field. Together,
EE and its forerunners constitute a traditers, environmental magnet schools,
tional and emergent view of EE (i.e., pastgreen schools). In one way or anto-present), which is reflected prominently
other, most of these developments
in NAAEEs Guidelines for Excellence.
have addressed the environmental
Furthermore, during the past two decades,
literacy and problem-solving goals
ESD has emerged, and has proceeded to build
of the field.
upon EE in much the same way EE built
49
upon its forerunners, where ESD advocates now discuss sustainability literacy and a broadened
application of the problem-solving paradigm. In this context, SD and ESD tend to focus on
addressing existing, even entrenched, social problems in their historical social, political, and
economic contexts. However, SD/ESD does espouse a vision of a more peaceful, democratic,
and equitable world for all in the future and, in doing so, lays some of the groundwork for what
SD/ESD advocates perceive to be a more desirable future. It is up to the EE community to help
ensure that elements of a more desirable environmental future, implicit in much of the thinking
and work in the field, are as clearly articulated in cooperation with agencies, institutions, and
organizations that share this vision.
More concretely, what implications do these challenges hold for EE into the future? Whether
viewed in the context of formal, nonformal, or informal education, one may argue that there
will be a greater need for the kinds of competence (cognitive knowledge and skills)
and capacity (affective and behavioral dispoWhether viewed in the context
sitions) required to both help solve existing
of formal, nonformal, or informal
and avoid new environmental/sustainability
education, one may argue that
problems in the future. In other words, in
there will be a greater need for
historical transition periods such as the one
the kinds of competence (cognitive
in which we find ourselves, EE goals and
knowledge and skills) and capacity
objectives must emphasize the preparation
(affective and behavioral disposiof citizens to (a) participate in the solution
tions) required to both help solve
of ongoing problems such as climate change
existing and avoid new environmen(e.g., UNESCO, 1978) and, at the same
tal/sustainability problems in the
time, (b) contribute to the development of
future.
greener cultures and societies that no longer
contribute to such problems (e.g., Swan,
1983).
Even the most cursory analysis of research-based frameworks for environmental literacy
and sustainability literacy permit us to identify some of the competencies and capacities that
citizens will need now and in the future. For example, these frameworks and the supporting research base indicate that we must prepare university educators, teachers, docents, students, and citizen participants with the skills needed to think critically and pose questions
about, analyze, investigate, and evaluate environmental problems and issues at the community level and beyond, and to develop and implement plans to address those problems and
issues. Members of the EE community will continue to discuss, even debate, which approach
may be more appropriate or useful (e.g., Bardwell, Tudor, & Monroe, 1994; Ramsey, 1998),
whether this is possible in the nonformal sector, when to do so in the formal sector (e.g.,
in scope-and-sequence plans), and so on. Nonetheless, it is readily apparent that the ability
to apply these and other skills will continue to be vital, and it is worth noting that this emphasis on skill building is apparent in the NAAEE Guidelines for Excellence and associated
initiatives.
In closing, to meet these challenges, we must continue to use and adapt the best of we have
come to know and understand about EE. Challenge #1 calls us to continue to professionalize
50
MARCINKOWSKI
ourselves, our programs, our professional organizations, and, through them, the field of
The environmental conditions
EE by doing just thatby putting sets of
and problems we face require
NAAEE Guidelines for Excellence into pracour diligence in understanding and
tice. Said another way, guideline developers,
shaping policy, theory, research,
trainers, and users think it is time that we
curriculum, teaching and learning,
grow out of some of the cultural trappings
and assessment and evaluation into
of the field that have tended to marginalize
EE in national and state standards, school
more coherent and holistic plans. . .
district and school programs, colleges and
universities, and federal and state agencies.
The environmental conditions and problems we face require our diligence in understanding
and shaping policy, theory, research, curriculum, teaching and learning, and assessment and
evaluation into more coherent and holistic plans (e.g., State Environmental Literacy Plans required under the No Child Left Inside legislation). In creating such plans, we must continue
to work to find a better balance among what is traditional, innovative, effective, and adaptive, for climate change and the other environmental problems we seek to address require that
we not always default to tradition or place a premium on innovation. The NAAEE Guidelines and related initiatives described herein reflect due attention to traditions within the field,
provide room for innovation, emphasize effective practices, and are accompanied by a process whereby they can adapted (e.g., to address emerging needs related to Challenges #2 and
#3). In light of this and the manner in which they were developed, these suggestions serve
as an important basis for planning as we work to address these and other challenges facing
the field.
REFERENCES
Adler, J. (1992). Little green lies: The environmental miseducation of Americas children. Policy Review, (Summer),
1826.
Adler, J. (1993). A childs garden of misinformation. Consumers Research, (September), 1116.
Andrews, E., & The Cooperative Extension National Review Team. (1995). Educating young people about water: A
guide to goals and resources. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.)
Bamberg, S., & Moser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psychosocial determinants of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 1425.
Bardwell, L., Monroe, M., & Tudor, M. (1994). Environmental problem solving: Theory, practice, and possibilities in
environmental education. Troy, OH: North American Association for Environmental Education.
Bennett, L. B. (1990). A content analysis of environmental themes in selected first, second, and third-grade science textbooks (Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(12),
3846A. (UMI No. DEX9007398)
Billig, S., Northrup, J., Fredericks, L., Brown, S., & Turnbull, J. (Eds.). (2008). K12 service-learning standards for
quality practice: An annotated bibliography. Denver, CO: RMC Research Corporation.
Boerschig, S., & DeYoung, R. (1993). Evaluation of selected recycling curricula: Educating the green citizen. The Journal
of Environmental Education, 24(3), 1722.
Darnton, A. (2008). Reference report: An overview of behaviour change models and their uses. A GSR behavior change
knowledge review. Westminster, UK: Center for Sustainable Development, University of Westminster.
Dennis, L., & Knapp, D. (1997). Viewpoint: John Dewey as environmental educator. Journal of Environmental Education,
28(2), 59.
51
Disinger, J. (1983). Environmental educations definitional problem (ERIC Information Bulletin #2). Columbus, OH:
ERIC Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education Clearinghouse.
Disinger, J. (1997). Are we building environmental literacy? A report on this report. Environmental Communicator, 27(3),
15.
Duffin, M., Murphy, M., & Johnson, B. (2008). Quantifying a relationship between place-based learning and environmental quality. Woodstock, VT: NPS Conservation Study Institute in cooperation with the Environmental Protection
Agency and Shelburne Farms.
Du Toit, A. S. (1999). A philosophic-educational perspective on environmental education with specific reference to
environmentally sound behavior and sustainable development. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Africa
[South Africa], 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(11), 4091A. (UMI No. DA0599651)
Goodfellow, M., & Andrew-Power, K. (Eds.). (2007). Raising standards: Making sense of the sustainable schools agenda.
London: Specialist Schools and Academies Trust.
Gough, S., & Scott, W. (2008). Higher education and sustainable development: Paradox and possibility. London:
Routledge.
Gustafson, J. (Ed.). (1983). The First National Congress on Environmental Education Futures: Policies and practices.
Columbus, OH: ERIC Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education Clearinghouse.
Hammerman, E. L. (1979). A Delphi formulation of environmental education objectives (Doctoral dissertation, Northern
Illinois University, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40(5), 2447A. (UMI No. 79-24376)
Hart, P. (1980). Environmental education: Identification of key characteristics and a design for curriculum organization
(Doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40(9), 4985A. (UMI No,
AATNK41144)
Hart, E. (1981). Identification of key characteristics of environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education,
13(1), 1216.
Harvey, G. D. (1977a). A conceptualization of environmental education. In J. Aldrich, A. Blackburn, & G. Abel (Eds.),
A report on the North American Regional Seminar on Environmental Education (pp. 6672). Columbus, OH: ERIC
Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Harvey, G. D. (1977b). Environmental Education: A delineation of substantive structure. (Doctoral dissertation,
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38(2), 611A. (UMI No. 7716622)
Helgeson, S., Helburn, N., Howe, R., Blosser, P., Wiley, K., & Others. (1971). A review of environmental education for
school administrators. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Research Foundation.
Hines, J. M. (1985). An analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior (Doctoral dissertation,
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(3), 665A. (UMI No.
DER85-10027)
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986/1987). An analysis and synthesis of research on responsible
environmental behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 18.
Hopkins, C., Damlamian, J., & Ospina, G. (1996). Evolving education for sustainable development: An international
perspective. Nature & Resources, 32(3), 211.
Hungerford, H. R. (1975). The myths of environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 7(3), 2126.
Hungerford, H. R. (1996). Response to a presidents message. Environmental Communicator, 26(4), 1415.
Hungerford, H. R., Peyton, R. B., & Wilke, R. J. (1980). Goals for curriculum development in environmental education.
The Journal of Environmental Education, 11(3), 4247.
Hungerford, H., & Volk, T. (1984). The Challenges of K12 environmental education. In A. Sacks (Ed.): Monographs in
Environmental Education and Environmental Studies, Volume 1 (pp. 330). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for
Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.)
Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 21(3), 821.
Independent Commission on Environmental Education. (1997). Are we building environmental literacy? Washington,
DC: Author.
International Non-Governmental Organization Forum. (1992). Alternative treaty making: A process in support of sustainable societies and global responsibility. Bedfordshire, England: International Synergy Institute.
International Panel on Climate Change, Working Group I. (2007a). Climate change 2007The physical science basis.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
52
MARCINKOWSKI
International Panel on Climate Change, Working Group II. (2007b). Climate change 2007Impacts, adaptation and
vulnerability. New York: Cambridge University Press.
International Panel on Climate Change, Working Group III. (2007c). Climate change 2007Mitigation of climate change.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Iozzi, L. (Ed.). (1984). A summary of research in environmental education, 19711982. The second report of the National
Commission on Environmental Education Research. Monographs in Environmental Education and Environmental
Studies, Volume 2. Columbus, OH: ERIC Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education Clearinghouse. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED259879)
Jickling, R. J. L. (1993). Thinking environmentally: Considerations for education and curriculum in the Yukon. (Doctoral
dissertation, Simon Fraser University (Canada), 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(4), 1308A. (UMI No.
DANN78180)
Johnson, D. I. (1977). A quantitative comparison of environmental education, conservation education, outdoor education,
ecological education, environmentalized education, and general education based on goals (Doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38(5), 1973B. (UMI No. 77-25251)
Kwong, J. (1995). Environmental education: Getting beyond advocacy. St. Louis, MO: Center for the Study of American
Business, Washington University.
Li, H. L. (1996). Sustainable development: Toward an understanding of the ethical foundations of environmental education
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(9), 3496A. (UMI No.
DA9543650)
Lucas, A. M. (1973). Environment and environmental education: Conceptual issues and curriculum implications (Doctoral
dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 33(11), 6064A. (UMI No. 7311531)
Marcinkowski, T. (1993). A contextual review of the quantitative paradigm in EE research. In R. Mrazek (Ed.),
Alternative paradigms in environmental education research (pp. 2979). Troy, OH: North American Association for
Environmental Education.
Marcinkowski, T. (1998). Predictors of responsible environmental behavior: A review of three dissertation studies. In
H. R. Hungerford, W. Bluhm, T. Volk, & J. Ramsey (Eds.), Essential Readings in Environmental Education (pp.
247276). Champaign, IL: Stipes.
Marcinkowski, T. (2004). Using a logic model to review and analyze an environmental education program. In T. Volk (Ed.),
NAAEE Monograph Series, Volume 1. Washington, DC: North American Association for Environmental Education.
National Environmental Education Advisory Council. (2005). Setting the standard, measuring results, and celebrating
successes. A report to Congress on the status of environmental education in the United States (EPA 240-R-05-001).
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
North American Association for Environmental Education. (1996). Environmental education materials: Guidelines for
excellence. Troy, OH: Author.
North American Association for Environmental Education. (1997). The environmental education collectionA review of
resources for educators, Volume 1. Troy, OH: Author.
North American Association for Environmental Education. (1998a). The environmental education collectionA review
of resources for educators, Volume 2. Troy, OH: Author.
North American Association for Environmental Education. (1998b). The environmental education collectionA review
of resources for educators, Volume 3. Troy, OH: Author.
North American Association for Environmental Education. (1999a). Excellence in environmental educationGuidelines
for learning (K12). Troy, OH: Author.
North American Association for Environmental Education. (1999b). Excellence in environmental educationGuidelines
for learning (K12), Executive summary and self-assessment tool. Troy, OH: Author.
North American Association for Environmental Education. (1999c). Guidelines for the initial preparation of environmental
educators. Rock Spring, GA: Author.
North American Association for Environmental Education. (2004a). Guidelines for the preparation and professional
development of environmental educators. Washington, DC: Author.
North American Association for Environmental Education. (2004b). Nonformal environmental education programs:
Guidelines for excellence. Washington, DC: Author.
Osbaldiston, R. (2004). Meta-analysis of the responsible environmental behavior literature (Doctoral dissertation,
University of MissouriColumbia, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(8), 4340B. (UMI No. AAT
3144447)
53
Pettus, E. S. (1978). A study of the treatment of ecology, air pollution, and water pollution in selected recommended
books for elementary grades published in the United States, 19601975 (Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State
University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38(9), 5106A. (UMI No. 78-01505)
Ramler, L. G. (1976). An analysis of conservation content in selected elementary and secondary school textbooks
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 37(6), 3321A. (UMI
No. 76-27776)
Ramsey, J. (1993). The science education reform movement: Implications for social responsibility. Science Education,
77(2), 235258.
Ramsey, J. (1998). Comparing the four environmental problem solving models: Additional comments. In H. Hungerford,
W. Bluhm, T. Volk, & J. Ramsay (Eds.), Essential readings in environmental education (pp. 145155). Champaign,
IL: Stipes Publishing, LLC.
Rickinson, M. (2001). Special Issue: Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical review of the evidence.
Environmental Education Research, 7(3), 208320.
Robottom, I. M. (1985a). Contestation and continuity in educational reform: A critical study of innovations in environmental education. (Doctoral dissertation, Deakin University, Australia, 1985). (Not Available through Dissertation
Abstracts International)
Robottom, I. (1985b). Evaluation in environmental education: Time for a change in perspective. The Journal of Environmental Education, 17(1), 3136.
Rohwedder, R. (Ed.), (1992a). Environmental education: Compendium for energy resources. Sacramento, CA: California
Department of Education.
Rohwedder, R. (Ed.), (1992b). Environmental education: Compendium for water resources. Sacramento, CA: California
Department of Education.
Rohwedder, R. (Ed.), (1993). Environmental education: Compendium for integrated waste management. Sacramento,
CA: California Department of Education.
Roth, C. (1992). Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution, and directions in the 1990s. Columbus, OH: ERIC Science,
Mathematics, and Environmental Education Clearinghouse.
Roth, R. (1976). A review of research related to environmental education, 19731976. Columbus, OH: ERIC Science,
Mathematics, and Environmental Education Clearinghouse. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED135647)
Roth, R., & Helgeson, S. (1972). A review of research related to environmental education. Columbus, OH: ERIC
Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education Clearinghouse. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED068359)
Ruskey, A., & Wilke, R. (1994). Promoting environmental education: An action handbook for strengthening EE in your
state and community. Stevens Point, WI: National Environmental Education Advocacy Project.
Salmon, J. (2000). Are we building environmental literacy? The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(4), 410.
Sanera, M., & Shaw, J. (1996). Facts, not fear: A parents guide to teaching children about the environment. Washington,
DC: Regnergy Publications.
Satchell, M. (1996, June 10). Dangerous waters: Why environmental education is under attack in the nations schools.
U.S. News & World Report, 6364.
Sato, M. (2006, May). Evolving environmental education and its relation to EPD and ESD: Overview of the conceptual
development based on a series of international discussion on environmental education. Paper presented at the
UNESCO Expert Meeting on Education for Sustainable Development, Kanchanaburi, Thailand.
Schmeider, A. (1977). The nature and philosophy of environmental education: Goals and objectives. In J. Aldrich and A.
Blackburn (Eds.), Trends in Environmental Education (pp. 2334). Paris: UNESCO.
Schoenfeld, C. (1969). Whats new about environmental education? The Journal of Environmental Education, 1(1),
14.
Short, P. (2007). Use of the Oslo-Potsdam solution to test the effects of an environmental education model on tangible
measures of environmental protection (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 69(1), 169-A. (UMN No. AAT 3291635)
Simmons, D. (1995). Papers on the development of environmental education. Troy, OH: North American Association for
Environmental Education.
Simmons, D. (1996). Presidents message. Environmental Communicator, 26(2), 23.
Simmons, D. (1997, March). Why we need good environmental education citizens. Paper presented at the League of
Environmental Educators in Florida annual conference, Deland, FL.
54
MARCINKOWSKI
Smith, G. A. (1989). Educating for sustainability: The educational implications of the environmental crisis (Doctoral
dissertation, University of WisconsinMadison, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(11), 3420A. (UMI
No. DEX89-23814)
Stapp, W. (1974). Historical setting of environmental education. In J. Swan and W. Stapp (Eds.), Environmental education
(pp. 4249). New York: Wiley.
Stapp, W. (Ed.). (1978). From thought to action in environmental education: A report of the National Leadership
Conference on Environmental Education. Columbus, OH: ERIC Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education
Clearinghouse.
Stapp, W., Havlick, S., Bennett, D., Bryan, W., Fulton, J., MacGregor, J., et al. (1969). The concept of environmental
education. Environmental Education, 1(1), 3031.
Stapp, W., Albright, J., Cox, D., Cyrus, D., Greager, J., Hudspeth, J., et al. (1979). Toward a national strategy for
environmental education. In A. Sacks & C. Davis (Eds.), Current issues V: The yearbook of environmental education
and environmental studies (pp. 92125). Columbus, OH: ERIC Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education
Clearinghouse.
Swam, J. (1983). Afterword: Sharing the good news. In M. Cohen (Ed.), Prejudice against nature (pp. 233257). Freeport,
ME: Cobblesmith.
Swan, M. (1984). Forerunners of environmental education. In N. McInniss & D. Albrecht (Eds.), What makes education
environmental? (pp. 420). Medford, NJ: Plexus.
Tanner, R. (1974). Ecology, environment, and education. Lincoln, NE: Professional Educators Publications.
Townsend, R. D. (1982). An investigation into the underlying structure of the domain of environmental education concepts
(Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43(5), 1492A. (UMI
No. DEO82-22192)
United Nations. (1992). Agenda 21: Programme of action for sustainable development. New York: Author.
UNESCO. (1977). Trends in environmental education. Paris: Author.
UNESCO. (1978). Final report: Intergovernmental conference on environmental education. Paris: Author.
UNESCO. (1997). Educating for a sustainable future: A transdisciplinary vision for concerted action. Paris: Author.
United Nations. (1992). Chapter 36: Promoting education, public awareness and training. In Earth summit: Agenda 21,
The United Nations programme of action from Rio. New York: Author.
Vare, P., & Scott, W. (2007). Learning for a change: Exploring the relationship between education and sustainable
development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 1(2), 191198.
Volk, T., & McBeth, W. (1997). Environmental literacy in the United States. (Report Funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and submitted to the Environmental Education and Training Partnership, North American Association for Environmental Education). Washington, DC: North American Association for Environmental
Education.
Weilbacher, M. (1997). Confronting the enemy within: Why our students are environmentally illiterate. Clearing, 96,
1719.
Wilke, R. (Ed.). (1995). Environmental Education Literacy/Needs Assessment Project: Assessing environmental literacy
of students and environmental education needs of teachers; Final Report for 19931995. (Report to NCEET/University
of Michigan under U.S. EPA Grant #NT901935-01-2). Stevens Point: University of WisconsinStevens Point.
Wilke, R. (1996a). EE criticisms: Challenges and opportunities. The Environmental Advocate, Fall, 12.
Wilke, R. (1996b). EE criticisms: What they say and where. The Environmental Advocate, Fall, 34.
Willson, T. E. (1981). A content analysis of environmental problems in basal reading textbooks. (Doctoral dissertation, The
Pennsylvania State University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41(10), 4282A. (UMI No. DEN81-07652)
Woods, A. L. (1993). Sustainable development and tropical rainforest loss: The design and validation of an interdisciplinary
environmental education curriculum unit (Doctoral dissertation, Florida Institute of Technology, 1993). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 53(12), 4271A. (UMI No. DA9311787)
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
World Resources Institute. (1992). World resources, 199293: A guide to the global environment. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Zelezny, L. (1999). Educational interventions that improve environmental behaviors: A meta-analysis. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 31(1), 514.

Contemporary Challenges and Opportunities in Environmental Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contemporary Challenges and Opportunities in Environmental Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

Contemporary Challenges and

THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, 41(1), 3454, 2010

Contemporary Challenges and Opportunities in

CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY #1: PROFESSIONALIZING THE FIELD

CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

According to NAAEE (2004),

CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

According to the Chair of the WCED, Gro Harlem Bruntland,

The WCED, or Bruntland Commission, included 21 members represented UN-member nations

CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

CHALLENGE #3: THE CHALLENGES OF CLIMATE CHANGE

CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

You might also like