Studies in Educational Evaluation xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

G Model

JSEE-523; No. of Pages 3

Editorial

Moving environmental education forward through evaluation

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Studies in Educational Evaluation

jo ur n al ho mep ag e: www .e lsev ier . c om / s t u ed u c

Why have a special issue on evaluation in environmentaleducation?

Since the Industrial Revolution, human activities have increas-ingly disrupted ecosystems. The destruction of habitats, theintroduction of invasive exotic species, ever increasing pollutionand over-exploitation of natural resources all have far-reachingconsequences, both for the natural environment and for humanwellbeing (Diaz, Fargione, Chapin, & Tilman, 2006). Drivers ofenvironmental problems are rarely the result of malicious intent,but rather the consequences of the lifestyles of billions of humans.In 1993, E.O. Wilson stated – provocatively – that the wayhumanity is mistreating the earth and its natural riches in a singlelifetime will impoverish our descendants for all time to comeWilson (1993). Examples are well known (e.g., loss of biodiversity,natural disasters) and have come to occupy a prominent place,both in current affairs and in the media. Environmental educationis seen by many as one of the crucial instruments in diminishing oreven reversing the adverse effects of humans.

Environmental education and education for sustainable devel-opment are rising topics on national and international agendas. The1977 Tbilisi conference determined criteria to increase and supportefforts in environmental education, at global, national and locallevels. By doing so, the Tbilisi declaration provided a framework forformal and informal environmental education initiatives and it isoften seen as a precedent to Agenda21. That document wasformalized at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit (or the UN Conferenceon Environment and Development), and is regarded as a foundationfor the idea of education as an essential tool to achieve sustainabledevelopment. The importance of education in achieving this goal isreflected in the fact that the UN declared the period 2005–2014 asthe Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. With thisdecade nearing its end as the current special issue goes into press,eyes are turning to the outcomes of the many educational initiativesthat were and are being undertaken.

What contributes to the success of environmental education?How do we measure success? Do initiatives reach the goals they setout to reach? And, are those the goals that should be reached?These seem to be straightforward questions, but answering them isfar from easy. In essence, environmental education deals withhuman behavior (Hungerford & Volk, 1990), be it as an outcome ofinterventions or as a mediating factor in the successful implemen-tation of that intervention. Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) haveargued that ‘the question of what shapes environmental behavior is

such a complex one that it cannot be visualized through one single

framework [. . .].’ Considering behavior as the ultimate outcome of

Please cite this article in press as: J. Boeve-de, Moving environmenEvaluation (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.04.002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.04.002

0191-491X/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

environmental education has inspired in some scholars andpractitioners the belief that behavior can and should be taught.With that logic, giving a reasonable and understandable explana-tion should persuade people to behave a certain way. Courtenay-Hall and Rogers (2002) argue that shaping behavior as afundamental aim of environmental education is in contradictionwith at least the last 50 years of debate on educational goals. Such abehaviorist approach is, indeed, bypassing humans as thinkingbeings, capable of making their own decisions about whatconstitutes responsible environmental behavior. However, as thearticles included in this special issue illustrate, contemporaryevaluation studies in the field of environmental education rarelyfocus solely on whether or not the target audiences’ behavior hasbeen changed. Often, psychosocial factors that are theorized asimportant for environmental behavior are central to studies in thisfield: interest, values, motivation, and connectedness to nature. Allthese constructs, together with contextual factors play theirinterwoven role in the causation of environmental behavior andbehavior change. Understanding the causation and change ofhuman behaviors is a vastly complex matter, and one that asks forcomplex and diverse approaches of inquiry and research methods.

In her introductory chapter on the emergence of environmentaleducation research in the International Handbook of Research on

Environmental Education (Stevenson, Brody, Dillon, & Wals, 2013),Cough (2013) sketches the tension that has lived in the field ofenvironmental education when it comes to research methods.Some researchers in the eighties and nineties regarded theapplication of ‘positivist’ methods in the evaluation of environ-mental education as a sign that the field was ‘maturing’ (Iozzi,1984), others (e.g., Robottom & Hart, 1993), regarded theirapplication as inappropriate for environmental education. Others(e.g., Connell, 1997) have critiqued such arguments as ‘naiveantipositivism’. These kinds of disagreements have also beenpresent at local and international conferences, with escalatingdiscussions sometimes focusing more on methods than onmessages. As Cough (2013) argues, Connell’s argument has openedup space for legitimizing the wide range of research methodologieswhere researchers ‘do what they do well and where methodologies

are selected to meet clearly identified research needs, balanced with a

clear understanding of the social, political and philosophical contexts

in which they are located’ (Connell, 1997, p. 130).

The current special issue

The overall objective of the issue is twofold. First, to present anoverview of studies focusing on the evaluation of environmental

tal education forward through evaluation, Studies in Educational

Editorial / Studies in Educational Evaluation xxx (2014) xxx–xxx2

G Model

JSEE-523; No. of Pages 3

education with no selection criteria based on the methodologyapplied but rather as an open invitation to report on a diverserange of methodological approaches. Second, to publish thatoverview in a journal with no typical focus on environmentaleducation but rather one on educational evaluation. The call forthe issue was launched early in 2013 and there was a plentitude ofreactions: 27 notifications of interest were received. Afterconsultation with the editorial office of the journal, an ‘Ok, go’was received for a double special issue and the authors of 17 of thenotifications were invited to submit a structured abstract. Basedon these structured abstracts the full scope of the issue waspresented to the editorial office and authors were invited toprepare their full manuscripts. After peer review 14 papers wereaccepted for inclusion in the current issue. While these 14manuscripts are very diverse, they reflect only part of the diversityof research topics and methodologies applied in evaluationresearch in environmental education. Yet, all together theypresent a unique opportunity for scholars interested in educa-tional evaluation, environmental education or both, to getacquainted with the diversity of research topics and methodolo-gies within this field.

Most studies in this special issue present the results ofempirical evaluation studies, but they differ essentially in themethodologies applied to do so. Some papers apply in-depthqualitative methods; others are based on strongly quantitativeor even mixed methods. Diverse as the methodologies are, theoutcomes from the studies are just as diverse. The studiesreported use, for example, digital photography and journaling tomeasure interest in environmental issues as an outcome of afield-based environmental education program (Ardoin et al.,2014), or headset cameras to study interest in different learningconditions all focusing on biodiversity (Kimble, 2014). Othersreport on the findings of studies using vignettes to identifychildren’s attitudes to environmental and social issues (Kopnina,2014), or a repertory grid to assess cognitive outcomes of aplace-based educational intervention (Keynan, Ben-Zvi Assaraf,& Goldman, 2014). Several more quantitative studies areincluded, focusing on connectedness to nature as an importantoutcome of interventions (Frantz & Mayer, 2014), or dealingwith issues of conceptualization and operationalization ofenvironmental values and their use as an outcome (Kibbe,Bogner, & Kaiser, 2014), or the impact of earth education(Manoli et al., 2014).

While some papers (e.g., Mintz & Tal, 2014) focus on the diverseeffects of education for sustainable development relating tolearning outcomes in students in higher education, others focusless on the effectiveness of interventions but rather on howevaluation was implemented in those interventions; Matiasek andLuebke’s (2014) study, for example deals with the engagement ofeducators in program evaluation. Zimmerman and McClain (2014)move away from the individual as the level of measurement inenvironmental education research and study children (from asyoung as three years old) with their families as the target audienceof environmental education programs. Other papers deal withspecific issues related to standards (Tenam-Zemach, 2014) orlearning environments (Zandvliet, 2014).

Challenges for the field of environmental education research

Effectiveness is a word that has become central to environ-mental education. This special issue presents a variety of studieseach dealing with the effectiveness of environmental educationand education for sustainable development interventions throughtheir own specific lenses. Next to a clear and transparent insightinto the nature of the intervention under scrutiny, there is a clearneed for using carefully developed and psychometrically sound

Please cite this article in press as: J. Boeve-de, Moving environmenEvaluation (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.04.002

instruments to measure the outcomes of environmental education.As Leeming, Dwyer, and Dwyer (1995) pointed out almost 20 yearsago, the availability of such instruments would provide commonstandards against which the effectiveness of various interventionscould be compared. Such information could greatly benefit bothenvironmental education research and practice. At the same timetriangulation of results through the application of a variety ofmeasurement methods is essential to validate findings within andacross studies. For both these arguments, inspiration can be foundin the current special issue. While, for example, Kibbe et al. (2014),Manoli et al. (2014), or Frantz and Mayer (2014), use widelyaccepted and thoroughly validated instruments in their studies,Kimble (2014), Ardoin et al. (2014) and Kopnina (2014) go for adiverse array of methods.

But perhaps even more important than knowing whether or notan intervention is effective, is in knowing why or why not this is thecase. We must therefore study more than the outcomes ofinterventions; the process (or the way to effectiveness) is at leastequally if not more important. In the current special issue, theinterventions being studied are described in detail, and authors linktheir results to the specificities of the programs. Studying the processof environmental education in relation to the outcomes can movethe field forward: which practices result in which outcomes, andwhy? Several interesting steps for this move forward are provided inthis special issue. While, for example, Thomas, Teel, and Bruyere(2014) the success lies in rooting the intervention in the culturalidentity of the target group, Zint, Kraemer, and Kolenic (2014)connect outcomes to instructional practices.

Perhaps the largest challenge that lies ahead is connectingresearch to practice. Evaluation should not be a post hoc activityfocusing on how participants perceived taking part in anintervention. Rather it should be part of the development ofinterventions for the early start of planning and throughout theimplementation (Jacobson, McDuff, & Monroe, 2006). The evalua-tion itself can benefit from collaboration between researchers andpractitioners. The study of Matiasek and Luebke (2014) in thisspecial issue, illustrates how educators can be involved indesigning the evaluation of the intervention that they provide.The objective to be pursued, would then be to find a balancebetween comparability of results, and their applicability toprogram specificity while guarding a methodological diversitythat allows for triangulation, while taking into account relevantcontextual factors. Furthermore, if evaluation is meant as a(trans)formative action, including different stakeholders, such aseducators, will help in creating support for the messages that arisefrom it.

All of the studies in this issue offer concrete possibilities toimplement evaluation into practice in environmental education.With the end of the UN Decade of Education for SustainableDevelopment in sight, my hope is that the current special issue canserve as inspiration for the widespread inclusion of evaluation inenvironmental education. The diverse collection of articlesincluded in the issue offers insights into the possibilities tofacilitate the evaluation of the many initiatives that have beenlaunched under the umbrella of the UN decade or even thoselaunched long before that. Ambitious initiatives deserve ambitiousevaluation. Diverse methods can act as reinforcing powers.Evaluation can expose strengths and identify what deserves stillmore attention. Environmental education is just too important forit not to be effective.

References

Ardoin, N. M., DiGiano, M., Bundy, J., Chang, S., Holthuis, N., & O’Conner, K. (2014). Usingdigital photography and journaling in evaluation of field-based environmentaleducation programs. Studies in Educational Evaluation (in this issue).

tal education forward through evaluation, Studies in Educational

Editorial / Studies in Educational Evaluation xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3

G Model

JSEE-523; No. of Pages 3

Connell, S. (1997). Empirical-analytical methodological research in environmentaleducation: Response to a negative trend in methodological and ideological dis-cussions. Environmental Education Research, 3(2), 117–132.

Cough, A. (2013). The emergence of environmental education research: A history of thefield. In R. B. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon, & A. E. J. Wals (Eds.), Internationalhandbook of research on environmental education (pp. 13–22). New York, NY: AERA.

Courtenay-Hall, P., & Rogers, L. (2002). Mind the gap: Problems in environmentalknowledge–behavior modelling research. Environmental Education Research, 8(3),283–297.

Diaz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin, S. F., III, & Tilman, D. (2006). Biodiversity loss threatenshuman well-being. PLoS Biology, 4(8), 1300–1305.

Frantz, C. M., & Mayer, F. S. (2014). The importance of Connection to Nature in assessingenvironmental education programs. Studies in Educational Evaluation (in this issue).

Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environ-mental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8–21.

Iozzi, L. A. (Ed.). (1984). A summary of research in environmental education 1971–1982.Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and EnvironmentalEducation. Monographs in Environmental Education and Environmental Studies, #2.

Jacobson, S. K., McDuff, M. D., & Monroe, M. C. (2006). Conservation education andoutreach techniques. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Keynan, A., Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Goldman, D. (2014). The repertory grid as a tool forevaluating the development of students’ ecological system thinking abilities.Studies in Educational Evaluation (in this issue).

Kibbe, A., Bogner, F. X., & Kaiser, F. (2014). Exploitative vs. appreciative use of nature –two interpretations of utilization and their relevance for environmental education.Studies in Educational Evaluation (in this issue).

Kimble, G. (2014). Children learning about biodiversity at an environment centre, amuseum and at live animal shows. Studies in Educational Evaluation (in this issue).

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentallyand what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental EducationResearch, 8(3), 239–260.

Kopnina, H. (2014). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): Exploring children’smoral reasoning about sustainable development and environment through vign-ettes. Studies in Educational Evaluation (in this issue).

Leeming, F. C., Dwyer, W. O., & Dwyer, B. A. (1995). Children’s environmental attitudeand knowledge scale: Construction and validation. Journal of Environmental Edu-cation, 26(3), 22–31.

Manoli, C., Johnson, B., Hadjichambis, A., Hadjichambi, D., Georgiou, Y., & Ioannu, H.(2014). Evaluating the impact of the earthkeepers earth education program onchildren’s ecological understandings, values and attitudes, and behaviour inCyprus. Studies in Educational Evaluation (in this issue).

Please cite this article in press as: J. Boeve-de, Moving environmenEvaluation (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.04.002

Matiasek, J., & Luebke, J. F. (2014). Mission, messages, and measures: Engaging zooeducators in environmental education program evaluation. Studies in EducationalEvaluation (in this issue).

Mintz, K., & Tal, T. (2014). Sustainability in higher education courses: Multiple learningoutcomes. Studies in Educational Evaluation, current issue.

Robottom, I., & Hart, P. (1993). Research in environmental education: Engaging the debate.Geelong, VIC: Deakin University.

Stevenson, R. B., Brody, M., Dillon, J., & Wals, A. (Eds.). (2013). International handbook ofresearch on environmental education. New York, NY: AERA.4.

Tenam-Zemach, M. (2014). Development of an innovative method for analyzing thepresence of environmental sustainability themes and an ecological paradigm inscience content standards. Studies in Educational Evaluation (in this issue).

Thomas, R. E. W., Teel, T. L., & Bruyere, B. L. (2014). Seeking excellence for the land ofparadise: Integrating cultural information into an environmental education pro-gram in a rural Hawai’ian community. Studies in Educational Evaluation, currentissue.

Wilson, E. O. (1993). Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson(Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 31–41). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Zandvliet, D. B. (2014). PLACES and SPACES: Case studies in the evaluation of post-secondary, place-based learning environments. Studies in Educational Evaluation,current issue.

Zimmerman, H., & McClain, L. (2014). Exploring the outdoors together: Assessingfamily learning in environmental education. Studies in Educational Evaluation,current issue.

Zint, M., Kraemer, A., & Kolenic, G. (2014). Evaluating meaningful watershed educa-tional experiences: An exploration into the effects on participating students’environmental stewardship characteristics and the relationships between thesepredictors of environmentally responsible behavior. Studies in Educational Evalua-tion (in this issue).

Jelle Boeve-de PauwUniversity of Antwerp, Research Unit Edubron, Belgium

E-mail address: jelle.boevedepauw@uantwerp.be(J. Boeve-de Pauw).

5 April 2014

tal education forward through evaluation, Studies in Educational