Increasing Consciousness

The interviewed environmental educators identified depth of immersion, repetition of experiences, and emotional response as the most important characteristics that increase a pupil’s environmental

consciousness. Immersion, in which a student is allowed the freedom to experience their environment, is important because children ‘see the world’ in different ways than adults (Matthews & Limb, 1999).

Matthews and Limb (1999) provide seven propositions of ways that children differ from adults in their perception of their environment. There are important differences between a child’s and an adult’s:

1. manner of seeing their world, 2. use of place and space,

3. physical boundaries set by convention, 4. sense of danger and environmental fears, 5. feeling toward a place,

6. relationship with environmental decision making, and 7. democratic responsibility (Matthews & Limb, 1999).

Since the pupils conceptualize a space and place in ways mostly foreign to adults, it makes sense that if we wish them to understand, or even enter into a relationship with the place, there needs to be a freedom afforded to them to utilize the space in a manner which suits their perceptions best. Given the opportunity to select for interactions with the natural world, children gravitate toward uneven ground, unkempt areas with a diversity of movable elements, and spaces that are rich in geologic and biologic diversity (Fjørtoft & Sageie, 2000; Waters & Maynard, 2010). In providing the pupils an opportunity for unstructured activities in the environmental program, the educators are enabling a process of

equalization between the youth, their peers, and the natural space’s inhabitants.

The role of repetition and amount of exposure for environmental consciousness enhancement has also been found to be significant. Bogner (1998) investigated the long term effects of participating in one or five day programs. Utilizing pre and post treatment testing with control groups he demonstrated that the participants that experienced the environmental program increased cognitive measures versus the control group when measured a month after the program (Bogner, 1998). Kossack and Bogner (2012) in a subsequent study found that students undertaking a one day outdoor program displayed beneficial

connection to nature effects versus the control group both directly after the program and after a seven week period after the program treatment. However, they also found that “individual initial

connectedness and a variety of short- and long-term connectedness shifts indicate the necessity of a [educative] needs-oriented environmental education” (Kossack & Bogner, 2012 p. 180). In other words, for a pupil to feel connected to an environment, their individual educative needs should be taken into account, by enabling unstructured engagement in that environment. Eagles and Demare (1999) in their study of grade 6 students in one Ontario school concluded that a week-long camp program did not increase the environmental attitude profile of the participants because the attitude profiles of the students pre- and post-program were virtually identical. In this case, it is evident that the educative needs of the pupils were not taken into account as Kossack and Bogner (2012) suggest is so vital in environmental education.

4.6.4 Visiting Adult Influence

The interviewed participants communicated that the visiting classroom teacher has an influence on the effectiveness of the environmental programs. The amount of research conducted in understanding this influence appears to be sparse. However, research placed adjacent to environmental education

reinforces the interviewees’ perceptions. Anderson et al. (2006), speaking about museum field trips state that “Teachers play a pivotal role in the learning experience during a field trip. This can have both positive and negative consequences… the educational worth of a museum field trip may be heavily dependent on the agenda of the teacher leading it, primarily in finding the balance between enjoyment and focused learning” (Anderson, Kisiel, & Storksdieck, 2006 p. 367). In a post-secondary education context, Teisl et al. (2011) used the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) to test whether courses designed to teach environmental literacy changed student environmental attitudes, and whether these changes resulted from instructor and/or course-content effects. They found that:

student environmental attitudes changed significantly after attending these courses but these attitudinal changes differed substantially depending upon who taught the course. Notably, student attitudes became either: ‘greener,’ ‘browner’ [less concern for

environment] or ‘more unsure’ depending on the instructor. Conversely, we find few differences in attitudinal changes when the instructor is the same, even when the course content differed. (Teisl et al., 2010 p. 79)

Stan and Humberstone (2011) in understanding how teachers manage risk in an outdoor classroom state that “in some cases, teachers’ approaches to risk can have a negative impact on the pupils’ outdoor experience, by depriving them of the opportunities to learn how to communicate, how to lead and how to work together as a team towards solving a task” (Stan & Humberstone, 2011). Stevenson (2007) addresses the contradictions in purpose and practice between schools and environmental education by stating that: “A problem-centred or interdisciplinary curriculum, as entailed in environmental education, creates problems for teachers in curriculum organisation, pedagogical control, and the assessment of student learning” (Stevenson, 2007 p. 150). The visiting teacher or adult is removed from their typical role as ‘classroom supervisor’ and therefore assume roles related to their own understanding of the natural world. Visiting adults that are comfortable in the outdoors will provide one type of

communication, adults that feel uncomfortable will provide another. Perhaps environmental

philosopher, Christopher Schlottmann’s (2012) statements best describe the influence of visiting adults on their pupils during an environmental lesson:

the messages embodied in the behaviour and physical qualities of a person or place teach something to students. If this lesson contradicts what students are told explicitly, then the teacher or institution is holding a double standard. (Schlottmann, 2012 p. 67-68)

Tan and Pedretti (2010), in their study of Ontario classroom teachers cite apathy and this double standard behaviour of teachers as a perceived challenge to the enhancement of environmental

education programs (Tan & Pedretti, 2010). The interviewed educators echoed Schlottmann’s, Tan’s and Pedretti’s insights. They spoke of the need for visiting adults to model behaviours for their pupils that supported the aims of the program. The interview participants communicated the frustration of knowing

that the limited time for programming they have with the students was sometimes negated by the implicit lesson the visiting adult communicated through their influence on the group.

This chapter presented the first phase of the project. The usage of a grounded theory method in

conducting the interviews resulted in the creation of a theory describing the spectrum of characteristics of environmental education programs in Ontario. The interview participants’ narratives provided an essential understanding of what environmental education in Ontario appears to be and how ideally it should exist. In the next chapter, I outline the second phase of the project whereupon the

environmental educators are surveyed whether their daily work practices are in agreement with their perceived best methods in increasing environmental consciousness.