Beliefs and education for sustainability in rural and regional Australia.
Boon, Helen J.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Higher education is expected to play a critical role in fulfilling
the goals of the United Nations' Decade of Education for
Sustainable Development (DESD). Education for Sustainable Development
(ESD) is gathering momentum in the university education sector
nationally and internationally (Dawe, Jucker & Martin, 2005;
Shephard, 2010). This movement has been facilitated by the development
of several initiatives aimed specifically at the tertiary sector
including the well-recognised "Talloires Declaration of University
Leaders for a Sustainable Future" (Thomas & Nicita, 2002).
Universities are subject to particular scrutiny in relation to how they
fulfil their role outlined by the United Nations Education Scientific
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) (2005) in relation to the training of
pre-service teachers.
This matter is especially important for preparing teachers to teach
in Australian rural schools, which urgently need teachers who reshape
and re-construct rural identity to support its sustainability for the
future (Reid, Green, Cooper, Hastings, Lock & White, 2010). The
future sustainability of rural communities underpins the social,
economic and environmental sustainability of Australia as a whole
(Halsey, 2009). The objectives that UNESCO sets for Education for
Sustainable Development are focused on (a) incorporating Sustainable
Development into pedagogy and curricula from pre-school to university,
(b) steering lifelong education on the acquisition of knowledge, skills
and values needed by future citizens to improve and sustain the quality
of life in a sustainable world, (c) raising awareness of the concept of
Sustainable Development, to develop responsible citizenship locally,
nationally and internationally and (d) providing continuing education to
teacher trainers, pre-service and in-service teachers to enable
Sustainable Development to become reality (UNESCO, 2005).
Pre-service Teacher Training
Pre-service teacher training for sustainability education appears
to be slightly ad hoc internationally and nationally (Elshof, 2005;
Holden & Hicks, 2006; Spiropoulou, Antonakaki, Kontaxaki &
Bouras, 2007). This might be due to the newness and/or ambiguity of the
conceptualisation of Education for Sustainability (EfS) and its
emergence from the disciplinary area of Environmental Education. In
Australia, Environmental Education has not traditionally been a
pre-requisite study area for primary teachers and a matter of choice for
secondary specialists. Concepts related to sustainability are often
subsumed under larger disciplinary areas and might include environmental
science topics within a particular science discipline or matters of
justice and equity in relation to studies of society and environment.
Thus it is likely that primary and early childhood teachers graduate
with minimal exposure to sustainability education, while secondary
teachers might graduate with nil exposure to sustainability education.
Recent research has demonstrated this.
Cutter-McKenzie and Smith (2003) reported that Queensland primary
teachers appear to be operating at a level of ecological illiteracy, a
finding supported by Taylor, Kennelly, Jenkins and Callingham, (2006)
who stated concern with the level of understanding of sustainability
concepts in the teacher population overall. This is not surprising given
that EfS has not historically played a prominent role in curriculum and
planning documents that serve as tools to guide teachers. It is only
recently that EfS reached prominence through its inclusion as a
cross-curricular theme in the new draft National Curriculum (following a
similar move in the UK) and in national and state initiatives related to
Sustainable Schools (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and
the Arts, 2010; Department of Education and Training, Queensland, 2010).
Pre-service teacher programs may have scope to address some of the
broader structural constraints that impede the effective delivery of
sustainability education, as they are well-situated to address issues
related to awareness and improvement in levels of content knowledge. For
example, studies have highlighted constraints faced by practising
teachers in implementing sustainability programs in schools. These have
variously identified the pressures of an over-crowded curriculum,
prioritisation of literacy and numeracy over other subject areas in the
primary context, tight disciplinary boundaries in the secondary context
and a lack of knowledge as it relates to sustainability education
(Cutter-Mackenzie & Smith, 2003; Robinson & Crowther, 2001;
Taylor, Nathan & Coll, 2003).
Another problem, noted by Cutter-McKenzie and Smith (2003), is
teachers' tendency to skim over subject areas they are less
confident with. For example, a recognised lack of content knowledge in
primary science has resulted in teachers spending only 5% of classroom
time on science instruction (Masters, 2009). In Queensland educators
have had considerable freedom to select what they teach. CutterMcKenzie
and Smith (2003) showed that 'personal choice' dictates what
is taught. This highlights the importance of ensuring that pre-service
teachers develop a strong knowledge and pedagogical base in relation to
EfS to encourage pedagogical practice with an appropriate sustainability
orientation. If the endpoint of EfS is citizens capable of
'informed decision-making', teacher education programs have a
critical role to play in ensuring that graduate teachers are indeed
informed.
Beliefs and Attitudes about Education for Sustainability
Debate exists about the particular set of cognitive skills and
beliefs that combine to create an effective teacher of (EfS). Defining
appropriate graduate attributes will be one of the key challenges of
implementing pre-service teacher programs with a new emphasis on EfS.
While there is some literature examining the affective elements of EfS,
particularly in relation to values and motivation (Bussey, 2008; Dillon
& Gayford, 1997; Fien, 2003; Jurin & Fortner, 2002), there is
more limited research upon the beliefs and attitudes of pre-service
teachers about EfS. This represents a gap in our knowledge because as
Yencken, Fien and Sykes (2000) argue, environmental cognition involves
belief systems and values as well as knowledge. Skamp (2000) also notes
that attitudes about, and actions taken, for the environment, are
dependent upon beliefs and knowledge we hold about environmental
problems and issues. As such, they become part of the perceived pedagogy
that students are subject to and can play a significant role in the
formation of their environmental attitudes (Strong, 1998). Influences of
this kind can potentially impact upon the ecological sustainability of
rural (and urban) locales through the actions of future generations.
Few studies have investigated pre-service teachers' beliefs
and their knowledge of EfS. Where they have, (for example, Spiropoulou,
Antonakaki, Kontaxaki & Bouras, 2007), their perceptions of the
future and their beliefs about the instrumentality of their actions have
not been linked to their knowledge of EfS. This paper therefore focuses
on the links between beliefs and knowledge of pre-service teachers about
EfS, since it is considered that awareness and acquisition of knowledge
about EfS will be motivated by beliefs held by pre-service teachers:
beliefs and attitudes about the instrumentality of one's actions,
the value for and intention to teach EfS, and their evaluation of
context, in this case, the future environmental health of local and more
distant places on the planet. This proposition stems from Ajzen's
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TOPB) which incorporates the variety of
influences that are likely to impact upon intentions to behave in a
particular way and has been validated over the last 30 years in a range
of studies.
The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TOPB) (Fig. 1) posits that
one's behavioural intention predicts an actual behaviour. Intention
is the decision to perform or not perform the behaviour, and it is in
turn predicted by attitude to the behaviour (whether the behaviour is
seen as good or bad, beneficial, and so on ), and subjective norms
(cultural factors, i.e., perceptions of others' level of
endorsement of the behaviour). Attitude is in turn predicted by beliefs
about the potential consequences of performing the behaviour (e.g.
'it will save time', 'it will hurt others'),
weighted by evaluations of the desirability or undesirability of those
consequences (e.g. 'saving time would be a good/bad thing').
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Similarly, subjective norms, culture-driven beliefs that inform our
views about what is a good or desirable action, are in turn predicted by
normative beliefs about whether particular people would approve of one
performing the behaviour in question, weighted by motivation to comply
with their views.
The theory also incorporates the concept of perceived behavioural
control as an additional predictor of behaviour. Perceived behavioural
control refers to a person's perceptions of their ability to
perform a given behaviour. Perceived behavioural control comprises two
main facets. First, perceived behavioural control depends on the degree
to which individuals conceptualise themselves as sufficiently
knowledgeable, skilful, disciplined, and able to perform some act,
called internal control (Kraft, Rise, Sutton, & Roysamb, 2005),
which overlaps with the concept of self efficacy. Second, perceived
behavioural control depends on the extent to which individuals feel that
other factors, such as the cooperation of colleagues, resources, or time
constraints, could inhibit or facilitate the behaviour, called external
control (Kraft, Rise, Sutton, & Roysamb, 2005). As a general rule,
the more favourable the attitude and the subjective norm, and the
greater the perceived control, the stronger should be the person's
intention to perform the behaviour in question. However, intentions to
perform do not always predict behaviour. Perceived behavioural control
is partly, but not absolutely, related to actual behavioural control
(Armitage & Conner, 2001), which in turn affects the extent to which
intentions are associated with the corresponding behaviours. Perceived
and actual behavioural control can sometimes diverge, if, for example,
individuals do not account for factors that obstruct their intended
behaviour. For example, a desire to introduce environmental education
modules into a primary work program might be inhibited by time
constraints imposed in preparing for national testing.
It is not assumed that the matter of intending to enact a
particular behaviour (to teach EfS) is a simple one for as Folke (2003,
p. 227) states:
... directing human behaviour towards improved environmental
performance and sustainability is not just a simple matter of
providing information and policy prescriptions but a complex
socio-cultural process. It will require understanding of the
contexts that form, shape and reshape habits of thought and action.
Yet, if pre-service teachers already possess the willingness to
engage with EfS and the belief that this is worthwhile, and endorsed by
a culture that sees education as instrumental to the process, the
process of further engagement seems likely to be facilitated.
Aside from beliefs and intentions driving pre-teacher motivation to
learn and teach EfS, it is important not to neglect existing problems
associated with issues of awareness and knowledge of EfS, both linked to
science education. One problem is that of misconceptions about key
conceptual understandings of disciplinary knowledge. These often remain
unchecked at the professional level and are in fact promulgated through
the process of teaching and learning. Spiropoulou et al (2007) refer to
a large number of studies demonstrating teacher (and student)
misconceptions on science topics and environmental issues highlighting
problems in discrimination between weather and climate, global warming
and ozone depletion and air and water pollution. Recent work by Boon
(2010) with both secondary students and pre-service teachers has
demonstrated similar confusion around the concepts of global warming and
ozone depletion. It is then of no surprise that surveys of the general
population also demonstrate a similar lack of understanding, causing
authors such as Robinson and Crowther to bemoan that 'knowledge of
the environment seems rather dismal even among educated people'
(2001, p. 14).
Aims and Methods
The aim of the study was to explore the knowledge and beliefs of
primary and early education pre-service teachers beginning a Bachelor of
Education degree to inform the development of an EfS tertiary curriculum
for trainee teachers.
An anonymous survey instrument was employed to gauge the level of
first year, pre-service teachers' environmental science and
sustainability knowledge, attitudes and beliefs. In accordance with
ethics conditions, the survey was administered by a research assistant
during the latter half of a lecture. The research assistant collected
completed surveys at the end of the lecture. The survey instrument
included demographic questions, attitudinal questions, items assessing
participants' confidence about their knowledge and their actual
knowledge of environmental sustainability issues (Appendix A). The
survey examined subject matter classified under three domains of
sustainability education as described by the OECD (2009) (p. 20),
namely: living systems, earth and space systems and physical systems.
Items assessing "Intention" according to the TOPB were
Questions 2 and 4; items assessing "Attitudes towards the
behaviour" were Questions 5, 6 and 7, items assessing
"Perceived behavioural control" were Questions 1 and 3. All
survey analyses were performed using the PASW statistical package (IBM
SPSS Inc, 2010).
Results
The response rate of completed surveys was 52.7%. Table 1 shows the
demographic characteristics of participants (N= 97) and Table 2 shows
the results of the attitudinal factors for the group. The maximum
possible score for these constructs was 4, the minimum 0. As can be
seen, both primary and early childhood pre-service teachers hold very
similar attitudes to EfS.
Following the rationale of the OECD (2009) study which assessed
student knowledge of environmental science and geo-science, pre-service
teachers were asked to rate their knowledge about: Greenhouse gases,
Nuclear waste, Forest clearing and Water shortages on a four point
scale:
(1) "I have never heard of this"
(2) "I have heard about this but I would not be able to
explain what it is really about"
(3) "I know something about this and could explain the general
issue"
(4) "I am familiar with this and I would be able to explain
this well".
Results of these questions are summarised in Table 3.
Tests of analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed there were no
significant differences between the different specialist groups or by
age in relation to their perceived knowledge about environmental issues.
There was one significant difference between males and females which was
in relation to their declared awareness to nuclear waste issues with
females having a lower mean than males (F (1,94) = 6.4, p <.05).
A comparison of these results with the results obtained by OECD
(2009) for the same questions answered by Australian fifteen year olds
shows that this group of pre-service teachers' beliefs about their
awareness of, and confidence about explaining these issues, reflects
similar trends as those stated by fifteen year old Australian students.
On average, the pre-service teachers report a greater confidence in
their knowledge of these issues, except in relation to water shortage
knowledge where their reported knowledge is significantly lower than
that of secondary students.
The next analysis involved computing composite variables from the
items designated to measure "Intention to teach EfS",
"Attitudes towards EfS" and "Perceived behavioural
control of EfS" to find out whether the part of the TOPB tested by
this group of questions was upheld by results. In other words, whether
"Intention" was predicted by "Attitudes towards the
behaviour" and "Perceived behavioural control". As
normality assumptions were met, Pearson's correlations were
conducted (Table 4).
As is shown in Table 4, there is a significant relationship between
the intention to teach EfS and attitudes about the desirability of the
behaviour r = .51 (p <.01) and intention to teach EfS and perceived
behavioural control, r = .43 (p <.01) validating the TOPB. It seems
then that these pre-service teachers are both confident about being able
to include EfS in their teaching and have a desire to do so, believing
that this is a desirable and necessary thing to do for their students.
Table 5 shows results for the next analysis which examined
pre-service teachers' actual knowledge, indicated by their
responses to the multiple choice environmental knowledge items of the
survey.
The top mark gained for overall knowledge was 16 out of a possible
21; the most frequently occurring mark being 7. When the marks are
examined by subsection of the test it is evident that questions based on
Living Systems were more likely to be correctly answered, while those
based on Earth and Space systems and Physical Systems were poorly
answered. Of note is that questions based on conceptual understanding
(such as the water cycle, element cycling, photosynthesis, nuclear waste
disposal and power generation, forest clearing, the greenhouse effect
and the ozone layer) were more poorly answered than questions which
could be answered by extracting memorised facts. Indeed, the question on
climate change was correctly answered by 73.9% of respondents while the
one on greenhouse gases was correctly answered by only 28.2%. This
indicates familiarity with the current media climate change debate but
not a clear grasp of the science underpinning the greenhouse effect.
Disparity in understanding was also evident in the way questions
about nuclear power and waste disposal were answered. While respondents
knew which initial starting material would produce nuclear waste when
used for power generation (68.0% correct), they were not clear about how
to effectively dispose of nuclear waste (20% correct) or about the
nuances of nuclear power generation and its ramifications (36.6%).
Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to see if there were
any score differences between the various sub-groups of respondents. No
significant differences were found between different specialists or
between gender and knowledge, but there was a difference between those
who were 26 years old and over compared to the others, with the older
cohort having a higher mean knowledge score (9.2 and 9.9 compared to
10.9) though this was not statistically significant at the p <.05
level of significance. These scores might reflect a greater interest in
environmental issues or a different exposure to these concepts at
school. Robinson and Crowther (2001) have theorised that higher
knowledge scores for older students might be associated with a
corresponding increase in familial responsibilities with age, and
concomitant concern for future environmental quality. They also
considered the role of the type and quality of media accessed by
different age groups, but could not draw causal relations about such
influences. Further research is necessary to tease out the influences
bearing upon the above results.
Finally, a regression analysis conducted to examine whether
attitudes towards EfS, intent to teach EfS or perceived control of EfS
predicted the total knowledge score of pre-service teachers yielded non-
significant results. This was somewhat surprising, since it might be
expected that an intent to teach EfS would be a motivator to research
issues associated with EfS and therefore increase one's knowledge
base of environmental science and sustainability issues, since the
affective part of one's cognition is engaged and this has been
shown to be an important factor in predicting learning in the context of
sustainability education (Dillon & Gayford, 1997).
DISCUSSION
The results of this study offer some interesting data for
curriculum designers in teacher training institutions planning on
embedding EfS for pre-service teachers. The relatively low response
rates to the survey might be attributed to the survey length and
difficulty, design issues or (lack of) compensation for doing the survey
(Dillman, 2000). Judging by comments on the returned surveys, the survey
length was problematic. Since the non-respondents were part of the same
interest "population" it is difficult to analyse how they
differed from respondents except by inferring attitudinal
characteristics.
Dillman (2000) emphasises that response rates are centred on trust,
cost and rewards. Lower response rates then might be due to the high
time and effort "cost" of this survey or uncertainty about how
the results would be used to modify the course curriculum. It is likely
therefore that non-respondents were not sufficiently interested in
sustainability matters, or were unsure about the purpose of the survey,
or were lacking in confidence about their environmental knowledge. Cook,
Heath and Thompson, (2000) stress that the representativeness of
response samples is more critical than the rate of response for deciding
whether results are generalisable. Given the number of respondents (97)
the sample is a good representation of the cohort enrolled in the first
year of the BEd degree of this institution, in terms of age group,
specialisation and gender. One could infer from the results here that
they reflect the better informed pre-service teachers' knowledge.
Given higher response rates average knowledge levels might have been
shown to be lower.
Results of the attitudinal questions of the survey confirm prior
findings which have shown that tertiary students think sustainability is
"a good thing", their positive response not particularly
correlating with their degree of familiarity with either of the concepts
of sustainability (Kagawa, 2007).
The attitudes reflected in the survey responses appear to conform
with the instrumental view of education for sustainability (Sterling,
2010) which is a position that sees learning as a process that increases
awareness and knowledge about environmental issues, one that will lead
to personal, behavioural and, eventually, social change. This view was
also implied by the survey questions. A competing view, one espousing a
position of the intrinsic value of education for sustainability
(Sterling, 2010) is driven by stressing education per se, the quality of
the learning experience, the importance of contextualised knowledge, the
development of a critically reflective learner who is able to make
informed decisions. In either case, whether teachers espouse one or
other of these perspectives about EfS, teachers need to be fully
prepared to address issues of sustainability education. This will be
more easily achieved by teachers if, in addition to having a
willingness, and confidence about their ability to teach EfS, they
possess accurate background knowledge and a range of suitable, engaging
pedagogies that transform the learning experience of their students so
that they are both informed and motivated to reflect and act upon issues
of sustainability. This is especially critical for those teachers who
will be employed in rural and regional schools where the level of
staffing is often low in relation to the needs of the students, a
corollary of this being a narrower range of specialist knowledge
available for professional exchange and development. Moreover, people in
rural and regional locales who are employed in agriculture, deal with
matters that need a secure knowledge of sustainable practice. Being able
to implement sustainable practice in issues, for example, of fertiliser
runoff and other land management matters, is important. The need to be
empowered and informed about sustainability from an early age to be able
to respond critically to both practical and political, ideological
issues of sustainability is clear. Conversely, being given inaccurate or
insufficient information and little practice to critically engage with
such matters could lead to detrimental effects in rural spaces that
could stifle the their sustainability.
Respondents show an apparent confidence about environmental issues,
matching or surpassing that declared by fifteen-year olds Australians
(OECD, 2009). However, their answers also show a gap in knowledge and
conceptual understanding which echoes prior research (Cutter-McKenzie
& Smith, 2003; Taylor et al., 2006).
Supporting Robinson and Crowther's (2001) findings, younger
pre-service teachers were less knowledgeable about environmental
sustainability than their older peers. It may be useful to explore in
more depth the affective elements that motivate students to engage with
EfS on a personal and professional level.
If future teachers are to guide their students to effectively
ponder and debate issues that impact upon their ability to engage in
effective citizenship and modify their behaviour, students need to be
schooled in collaborative critical discourse (Osborne, 2010). To do
that, teachers must have a secure knowledge and understanding of the
subject matter. This applies to tertiary teachers as well as school
teachers at all levels.
A challenge for tertiary institutions is curriculum space to
address the requirements of pre-service teacher knowledge. Ferreira,
Ryan, Davis, Cavanaugh and Thomas (2009) outline some of the challenges
facing educators, focusing on the need for systemic change. While not an
exhaustive list, competing for curriculum space are the multi-faceted
areas of numeracy, literacy, scientific literacy, EfS, and cultural
perspectives apart from matters of pedagogy, educational psychology and
sociology.
Tertiary educators understand the parallel challenges that will
face future K-12 teachers trying to balance the requirements of an
already crowded curriculum with the new challenges and priorities of the
21st century. Tertiary educators must lead the way in navigating the new
EfS terrain. The first step in this process is to understand and meet
the needs of pre-service teachers in relation to EfS at the point of
entry to their career in teaching. This is critical in the wake of the
current global environmental stresses, and also to fulfil the aims
declared by UNESCO (2005), wherein the teacher's role is of
paramount importance to supporting sustainability education and
sustainable development.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on
behavior. In: Albarracin D, Johnson BT, Zanna MP (eds) Handbook of
attitudes and attitude change: basic principles. Lawrence Erlbaum, New
York, pp. 173-221.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of
planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 40, 471-499.
Boon, H. (2010). Climate change? Who knows? A comparison of
secondary students and pre-service teachers. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 35(1), 104-120.
Bussey, M. (2008). Embodied education: reflections on sustainable
education. The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural,
Economic & Social Sustainability, 4(3), 139-147.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R.L. (2000). A meta-analysis
of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 60, 821-836.
Cutter-McKenzie, A., & Smith, R.(2003). Ecological literacy:
the 'missing paradigm' in environmental education (part one).
Environmental Education Research, 9(4), 497-524.
Dawe, G., Jucker, R., & Martin, S. (2005). Sustainable
development in higher education: current practice and future
developments. York, UK: A Report for the Higher Education Academy.
Department of Education and Training, Queensland. (2010).
Queensland Environmentally Sustainable Schools Initiative (QESSI).
Retrieved 19 March, 2010:
http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/environment/outdoor/qessi.html
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.
(2010). Sustainability Education: Australian Sustainable Schools
Initiative (AuSSI). Retrieved 19 March, 2010:
http://www.environment.gov.au/education/aussi/about.htm
Dillman, D.A (2000). Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design
method. New York: John Wiley
Dillon, P.J., & Gayford, C. G. (1997). A psychometric approach
to investigating the environmental beliefs, intentions and behaviours of
pre-service teachers. Environmental education research, 3(3), 283-297.
Elshof, L. (2005). Teachers' interpretation of sustainable
development. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,
15, 173-186.
Ferreira, J., Ryan, L., Davis, J., Cavanagh, M., & Thomas, J.
(2009). Mainstreaming sustainability into pre-service teacher education
in Australia. Prepared by the Australian Research Institute in Education
for Sustainability for the Australian Government Department of the
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.
Fien, J. (2003). Learning to care: education and compassion.
Professorial Lecture presented at the Griffith University EcoCentre, 15
May 2003.
Folke, C. (2003). Social-ecological resilience and behavioural
responses. In A. Biel, B. Hansoon, & M. Martenensson (Eds),
Individual and Structural Determinants of Environmental Practice (pp.
226-42). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Halsey, J. (2009). Australia's sustainability: anew policy
front for rural education? Education in Rural Australia, 19(2), 13-24.
Holden, C., & Hicks, D. (2006). Making global connections: the
knowledge, understanding and motivation of trainee teachers. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 23, 13-23.
IBM SPSS Inc. (2010). PASW STATISTICS 18.0 Command Syntax
Reference. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Jurin, R., & Fortner, R. (2002). Symbolic beliefs as barriers
to responsible environmental behaviour. Environmental Education
Research, 8(4), 373-394.
Kagawa, F. (2007). Dissonance in students' perceptions of
sustainable development and sustainability
Implications for curriculum change. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education 8(3), 317-338.
Kraft, P., Rise, J., Sutton, S., & Roysamb, E. (2005).
Perceived difficulty in the theory of planned behaviour: perceived
behavioural control or affective attitude. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 44, 479-496.
Masters, G. (2009). A shared challenge: improving literacy,
numeracy and science learning in Queensland primary schools. Camberwell,
Victoria: ACER.
OECD. (2009). Green at Fifteen? How 15-year-olds perform in
environmental science and geo-science in PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.
Osborne, J (2010, 23 April) Arguing to learn in science: the role
of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463-466.
Reid, J., Green, B., Cooper, M., Hastings, W., Lock, G., &
White, S. (2010) Regenerating rural social space? Teacher education for
rural-regional sustainability. Australian Journal of Education, 54(3),
262-276.
Robinson, M., & Crowther, D. (2001). Environmental science
literacy in science education, biology & chemistry majors. The
American Biology Teacher, 63(1), 914.
Shephard, K. (2010). Higher education's role in
'education for sustainability'. Australian Universities'
Review, 52(1), 13-22.
Skamp, K. (2000). Environmental concepts: important and neglected?
Conference Proceedings Southern Crossings: Pointers for Change (pp.
103-116). Australian Association of Environmental Education, Sydney.
ISBN:0957833407
Spiropoulou, D., Antonakaki, T., Kontaxaki, S., & Bouras, S.
(2007). Primary teachers' literacy and attitudes on education for
sustainable development. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
16, 443-450.
Sterling, S. (2010). Learning for resilience, or the resilient
learner? Towards a necessary reconciliation in a paradigm of sustainable
education. Environmental Education Research, 16(5), 511-528.
Strong, C. (1998) The impact of environmental education on
children's knowledge and awareness of environmental concerns.
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 16, 349-355.
Taylor, N., Kennelly, J., Jenkins, K., & Callingham,R. (2006).
The impact of an education for sustainability unit on the knowledge and
attitudes of pre-service primary teachers at an Australian university.
Geographical Education, 19, 46-59.
Taylor, N., Nathan, S., & Coll, R. (2003). Education for
sustainability in regional New South Wales, Australia: an exploratory
study of some teachers' perceptions. International Research in
Geographical and Environmental Education, 12(4), 291-311.
Thomas, I., & Nicita, J. (2002). Sustainability education and
Australian universities, Environmental Education Research, 8(4),
475-492.
UNESCO (2005). Promotion of a global partnership for the UN decade
of education for sustainable development (2005-2014). Retrieved 3 April,
2010: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001473/147361e.pdf.
Yencken, D., Fien, J. & Sykes, H. (2000). The research. In
D.Yencken, J. Fien & H. Sykes (Eds), Environment, education and
society in the Asia-Pacific: local traditions and global discourses.
London: Routledge.
Helen J. Boon
James Cook University
Queensland
Table 1 Pre-service teacher characteristics:
specialist areas, gender and age
Specialist Area
Early Childhood
Education (ECE) Primary (PRI)
N = 32 % N = 65 %
AGE 17-19 14 43.8 40 61.5
20-25 4 12.5 10 15.4
26+ 14 43.8 15 23.1
GENDER male 1 3.1 7 10.8
female 31 96.9 58 89.2
Table 2 Attitudinal Factor Means (X) by Specialist area (N = 97)
Attitudinal Factor Range X S.D ECE Primary
specialists specialists
X X
Attitudes towards EfS 2.50 3.27 0.46 3.25 3.28
Intent to teach EfS 3.00 2.88 0.51 2.94 2.85
Perceived behavioural 3.00 3.42 0.46 3.43 3.42
control of EfS
Table 3 Perceived confidence and familiarity
with selected environmental issues
Environmental Gender Specialisation
issue MALE FEMALE ECE PRI
% % % %
Greenhouse gases (1) .0 .0 .0 .0
(2) 12.5 23.0 19.4 21.9
(3) 56.3 55.7 64.5 51.6
(4) 31.3 21.3 16.1 26.6
Total (3 and 4) 87.6 77.0 80.6 78.2
(OECD * 72%)
Nuclear waste (1) .0 .0 .0 .0
(2) 25.0 46.7 48.4 43.8
(3) 59.4 43.4 45.2 40.6
(4) 15.6 9.8 6.5 15.6
Total (3 and 4) 74.0 53.2 51.7 56.2
(OECD * 53%)
Forest clearing (1) .0 .8 .0 1.6
(2) 15.6 13.1 12.9 9.4
(3) 53.1 57.4 51.6 57.8
(4) 31.3 28.7 35.5 31.3
Total (3 and 4) 84.4 86.1 87.1 89.1
(OECD * 80%)
Water shortages (1) .0 .0 .0 .0
(2) 15.6 11.5 16.1 9.4
(3) 56.3 53.3 41.9 54.7
(4) 28.1 35.2 41.9 35.9
Total (3 and 4) 84.4 88.5 83.8 90.6
(OECD * 98%)
Environmental Age
issue 17-19 20-25 26+
% % %
Greenhouse gases (1) .0 .0 .0
(2) 21.3 26.9 14.7
(3) 55.3 46.2 64.7
(4) 23.4 26.9 20.6
Total (3 and 4) 78.7 73.1 85.3
(OECD * 72%)
Nuclear waste (1) .0 .0 .0
(2) 43.6 46.2 35.3
(3) 45.7 46.2 50.0
(4) 10.6 7.7 14.7
Total (3 and 4) 55.3 53.9 64.7
(OECD * 53%)
Forest clearing (1) 1.1 .0 .0
(2) 13.8 15.4 11.8
(3) 54.3 65.4 55.9
(4) 30.9 19.2 32.4
Total (3 and 4) 85.2 84.6 88.3
(OECD * 80%)
Water shortages (1) .0 .0 .0
(2) 11.7 15.4 11.8
(3) 56.4 50.0 50.0
(4) 31.9 34.6 38.2
Total (3 and 4) 88.3 84.6 88.2
(OECD * 98%)
* Percentage offifteen year old students'
responses reported in the OECD (2009) report
Table 4 Pearson's correlations of beliefs, intent and attitudes
Attitudes Intent to Perceived behavioural
towards EfS teach EfS control of EfS
Attitudes towards EfS 1 .51 ** .37 **
Intent to teach EfS 96 1 .43 **
Perceived behavioural 95 96 1
control of EfS
** p <.01
Table 5 Mean scores of knowledge results
Student scores (N = 97) Mean Maximum Mode Minimum
Overall Knowledge Score 9.82 16.00 7.00 0.00
(Max. marks possible 21)
Subsections:
Nuclear Energy/Physical Systems .95 3.00 1.00 0.00
(Max. possible 3)
Earth and Space systems 1.70 4.00 2.00 0.00
(Max. possible 5)
Living Systems 7.20 12.00 8.00 0.00
(Max. possible 13)
