"EE in cyberspace, why not?" Teaching, learning and researching tertiary pre-service and in-service teacher environmental education online.

Whitehouse, Hilary

Introduction

The Tbilisi Declaration proposed for environmental education to be embedded within pre-service teacher education (Fien, 1995) but until recently this has generally been a low priority for teacher education faculties (Tilbury, Coleman & Garlick, 2005). Fortunately, this situation is now changing, though, as Van Petegem et al. (2005) have shown, implementation still takes some considerable degree of persistence. The introduction of online learning management systems in the last decade means universities can offer electronically mediated options for teacher education subjects (Baskin & Anderson, 2008). Briano, Midoro & Trentin (1997) wrote a "warts and all examination" account of an early, Italian, online teacher training course in environmental education and concluded the interactive capacities of web-based education offered enormous potential for teacher training and professional development in the field. Simon (2002) documented how two Open University online environmental courses encouraged collaborative and interactive learning and shifted the pedagogical focus to a more participatory process of learning.

This paper discusses a participatory process of researching teaching and learning in a tertiary environmental education subject that has been delivered online for eight years. In 2001, the School of Education at James Cook University (a multi-campus university) developed a web-based, fourth year, elective subject for pre-service and in-service teachers called ED4944:03 Environmental Education for the Tropics. The subject is delivered from Cairns and has attracted 35 to 55 enrolments per year from students living in urban, regional, rural and remote areas. The geographic spread has been from Orange in New South Wales to Coen in Cape York and north to the Torres Strait Islands. The majority of students have been located in the Cairns and Townsville regions. The World Heritage Areas of the Great Barrier Reef and the Wet Tropics forests are key foci for study. There is no face-to-face component in this subject and students contact their lecturer by email or telephone. Any pre-service teacher enrolled in an early childhood, primary or secondary education program can elect to study this subject and twenty-two in-service teachers undertaking qualification upgrades have enrolled between 2001 and 2008.

Australia is a big country. Information communication technologies (ICTs) give people access to time and geographically flexible tertiary subjects. A significant proportion of pre-service and in-service teachers fit university study around work and family responsibilities and, with the climbing price of petrol, are looking for study options without having to travel long distances. Regional communities rely on agriculture, horticulture, grazing, mining, fishing and environmental tourism for economic stability, so it necessary to have teachers with the knowledge, confidence and skills to engage with environmental education for sustainability (EEfS) in their professional lives. When online delivery enables greater numbers of intending and inservice teachers to engage with contemporary ideas for sustainability, then this is a positive use of the technology. Web-based learning is shown to suit adult learners and is well recognised as a solution to the problem of education delivery across regional areas (Owen & Moyle, 2008). While Baskin and Anderson (2003, 2008) argue university decisions to implement e-learning sometimes appear to be made more with an eye to cost efficiency than a commitment to improving quality of teaching, online delivery can realise quality outcomes if the principles of participatory inquiry are kept firmly in mind.

Qualitative data on pre-service and in-service teacher reactions to learning environmental education online were collected through a Discussion Board forum that remained open on the ED4944 Learn JCU subject site from 2003 to 2006. An introduction to this forum set out the research problem as: "the contradiction in this subject is that we have to use the unreal place of cyberspaces to teach and learn about the very real places that are the sites of environmental education". This expressed my own concern as a long time environmental educator who had had to abandon journeying around tropical country to sit in an air-conditioned office at a computer to teach. The voluntary participants who elected to post responses took this statement at face value and wrote considered responses to research questions on their enjoyment of learning online, their levels of confidence, their opinions of the subject structure and their experiences as e-learners of environmental education. Responses were anonymous except for three people who wrote long emails. The overall response rate was 34% (n = 56) of total enrolment (n = 166) over four years.

In the following sections of the paper, I describe and discuss the curriculum and pedagogical decisions made in terms of the subject design and reflect upon pre-service and in-service teachers responses to learning environmental education online.

Online Learning Management

The advent of a suite of enabling technologies known as Web 2.0 has changed how we currently define and understand cyberspace and cyberspace communities (Thomas, 2008). However, this research was conducted within an older Web 1.0 concept of online delivery, where the students and their lecturers are "users" of an online learning management system (or LMS). Universities are careful not to breach copyright laws so institutional control of online content resides strictly in the hands of subject coordinators, lecturers and professional staff who are employees of the university. Students cannot change the lecture or tutorial content. They can load text, web links, images and podcasts only to open forums (wikis and blogs became available in 2007). The LMS used for this subject sets out standardised and prescribed domains into which subject content must fit. However, such formal modularisation of learning contradicts the known sporadic access patterns of learners (Baskin & Anderson, 2008). For example, online tracking indicates many students "graze" the lecture and tutorial content rather than going through the materials in a systematic way. The subject was designed to be followed in a logical sequence, but tracking patterns consistently show what content is explored, and when, are not under the lecturer's control. This is because all subject materials are accessible 24/7 for the whole semester. There are no timed examinations or quizzes and only two deadlines for completion of open-ended inquiry assignments. I discuss the design and learning impacts of assessment later in this paper.

To maximise flexibility for adult learners with saturated lives, all subject materials are updated, loaded and ready to go at the start of semester. Younger adult students, in particular, prefer to have a program of study all set out, which they may, or may not, then follow in a linear sequence. This subject has consistently scored highly on formal, tertiary student feedback metrics, a fact not unnoticed by university administrators, meaning a place for this elective subject was secured as a continued offering in lean financial times when the "core business" of teacher education was up for discussion. Nonetheless, there are limitations to online study and I shall mention these first before moving on to my main argument that well-conceived delivery is certainly no barrier to teaching and learning environmental education online in the tertiary sector.

Limitations of Online Learning

The absence of personal contact was widely commented upon as the primary limitation. The following four comments from pre-service teachers over the time of data collection show limitations are consistently understood as missed opportunities for personal exchange, for checking and clarification, and for overcoming isolation:

   I don't have a problem with doing Environmental Education online
   ... it is convenient. However, I feel it would also be beneficial
   to have some face-to-face lectures to see if we are on the right
   track with assessment and to listen to some verbal discussion of
   ideas, as people have been posing some very interesting arguments.
   (PST07, 2003)

   I miss face-to-face interaction in tutorials ... to hear what
   others think, respond, and get immediate feedback. (PST22, 2004)

   I am really enjoying this subject [but] ... I am a little
   disappointed that the subject is based only on the Internet. It
   would have been more beneficial to meet as a group or tutorial and
   discuss where we are in relation to learning about the environment.
   (PST44, 2005)

   I don't mind the flexibility of the subject. I like doing most of
   my work at home. However, I do miss the motivation of the
   face-to-face lectures and the interaction that comes with meeting
   other students doing the subject. I feel quite isolated. It is hard
   to cater for all learning styles and the equity issues of online
   learning must be a nightmare. (PST50, 2006)

It is true that not all "learning styles" can be catered for through web-based education. However, data show once pre/in-service teachers develop confidence in learning environmental education online their interest in the subject tends to take over from their initial concerns about the mode of delivery. This comment is from an in-service teacher:

   I was very doubtful at the beginning ... but as the weeks flew by
   my confidence improved and I looked forward to logging on ... This
   subject has refreshed my passion in my environment and hopefully
   this will shine through, not only in my personal life but my
   professional one as well. (IST05, 2004)

"We Don't Need to be Sitting Under a Tree" to Learn Environmental Education

In moving to teaching environmental education online, I was initially confronted with the most contemporary of dilemmas of how to engage meaningfully with place-based learning through electronic, "disembodied space" (Bell, 2001). My subject specifically focused on Australian tropical environments and, as an educator, I locate my own practice within concepts of place-based learning (see Gruenewald & Smith, 2008). Gussow (1974, quoted by Knapp 2008, p. 5) wrote that "a place is a piece of the whole environment that has been claimed by feelings", and my own feelings for tropical places are so strong as to be almost beyond words (Whitehouse, 2000). I have since learned that most pre-service and in-service teachers do not worry about learning environmental education in cyberspace in quite the same way as I did in 2003. When I first set up the research Discussion Board forum, one pre-service teacher jumped immediately online and wrote that she did not see any contradiction in that:

   Doing environmental education is more than being out there with
   nature. We need to think about our morals, our ethics and our
   strategies for how we might be able to do our little bit for the
   world. We don't need to be sitting under a tree to think about
   saving that tree. (PST01, 2003)

One pre-service teacher pointed out the nature of the subject itself "necessitated" speaking with people and constructing learning from "real experiences" offline.

   I see cyberspace as the medium through which the course is
   delivered. We not only take part in the 'technology' of this
   subject, as in discussion list & getting our notes, but we are
   required to then construct meaning from real experiences, e.g.,
   field trips and the majority of the Learning Investigations. Since
   taking this subject, I have spoken to more people in my immediate
   local environment than before. This subject most definitely has
   necessitated a link with people. Even though I like the online
   side, it's not the 'whole' of the subject. (PST05, 2003)

Similarly, another pre-service respondent rationalised:

   Although we are doing this subject online, I am sure nobody's
   learning has taken place in total isolation to his or her
   environment. Perhaps the value of this subject is that you can
   learn about new issues and concepts, develop your own thoughts and
   apply them to your own teaching practice and the world
   around you. (PST13, 2003)

From the first year of data collection, it was clear that pre/in-service teachers were adapting to using new learning technologies and did not find the "medium" of delivery interfered with environmental learning. In fact, quite a number of respondents wrote very favourably on how using an online learning platform actively enhanced their conceptual understandings.

"I Can Enjoy the Advantages" of Online Learning

Online learners flourish when the pedagogy supports the formation of learning relationships (Mayes & Fowler, 2006) and when learning materials encourage exploration, research and risk-taking (Sutton, 2006). Effective distance teaching requires varied and flexible learning opportunities (Ross, Siepen & O'Connor, 2003). Students enrolled in e-learning subjects have to learn to how to learn online as well as offline and make effective use of information communication technologies. The most important factor for successful online learning is the establishment of a "social presence", and here, the teacher's role is vital (Anderson, 2006). Online learners have to be encouraged to reveal and exchange thoughts and feelings to develop shared understandings. The lecturer's social presence is central to these transactions to model the types of sharing that can take place. In setting up online discussion forums I used the first and second person discourse of "I" and "you" to ask directly for people's thoughts in relation to discussion topics. Respondents to the research questions indicated quite clearly that, once they developed confidence in accessing the Learn JCU site, they enjoyed the "flexibility" of self-paced learning and relating to others online.

   Now that I am used to web delivery of subjects I can enjoy the
   advantages that these subjects offer--flexibility, timeless
   tutorials, chat rooms and email contact. (PST48, 2006)

Of particular value in developing shared understandings of environmental education is seeing "other people's ideas written down", because, as one pre-service teacher pointed out, "there are big issues at stake" in this subject.

   I think the online aspect is effective as we get to see other
   people's ideas written down. This helps because there are big
   issues at stake here and lots to talk about and it is helpful to
   put it into words and have access to other's views. (PST39, 2005)

Contextualising personal experience is part of transformative education. What Mayes (2001) termed "vicarious learning" is readily supported by electronic technology where, "the questions asked by other learners, and the resulting discussions, can often articulate and expose shared aspects of conceptual difficulty" (Mayes & Fowler, 2006, p. 31). Mayes and Fowler (2006) employ the term "horizontalisation", coined by Wenger (2005, cited in Mayes & Fowler, 2006), to describe the establishment of knowledge sharing and knowledge creating networks online. When explicitly encouraged in contributory forums, sharing thoughts, experiences, ideas and resources readily builds a learning community over a semester. The following comments show there are advantages to asynchronous and self-paced learning. Pre/in-service teachers used terms such as "freedom" and "opportunity" to describe how "we are able to interact" online.

   This is the first subject I have done online, however, I found this
   format allowed freedom of expression without the pressure of 'being
   seen' (PST8, 2003) I believe it's possible to do this subject
   online and to achieve the desired outcomes both for lecturer and
   student. Online learning does not suit everyone. Some colleagues I
   work with hate discussion lists as a way of sharing information
   --they would rather meet face-to-face. Yet, I have learned so much
   from the Discussion Board questions and really feel part of this
   online community. Online learning gives one the opportunity to
   read, think over issues, re-read and work along at a pace that
   suits. I don't have to be at a lecture at 4pm after work if I'd
   rather go home! It's great! (IST09, 2006)

   Online learning is about building learning communities. Does it
   really matter that this community communicates via cyberspace? I
   don't think so. What does matter is how learning is presented, how
   we are able to interact and how meaning is constructed. With so
   many options for learning as presented in this EE course, most
   multiple intelligence learning styles are catered for. (PST41,
   2005)

Discussion Board forum topics include developing a personal definition for the term sustainability using the work of Fien (2001); exploring ecological identity through writing an eco-autobiography; responding to Orr's (2002) polemical paper on the political ecology of childhood; calculating one's carbon emissions; exploring educational resources relevant to the Queensland tropics; analysing the aesthetics of classrooms; undertaking a values clarification exercise; and discussing the merits of teaching resources and curriculum documents. The Discussion Board forums are positioned as participatory learning spaces with postings being seen by one respondent as "real, honest, and free from ridicule".

   At first it was quite daunting to think I would be an EE learner in
   cyberspace. I am not very technologically minded and I feared I
   would be out of my depth without face-to-face contact. I was gladly
   proven wrong. I have enjoyed the freedom to complete lectures and
   tutorials at my own leisure and being able to post my thoughts as
   they come to me. I feel the postings [on Discussion Board] from
   others have been real, honest and free from ridicule. People let
   their emotions come through more than they would in an actual
   tutorial that is more teacher-directed ... the focus questions were
   clear and allow for individual thoughts rather than simply
   responding to a text and regurgitating another's work. I found this
   online experience to be one of my best experiences at university
   and I will not fear being a student in cyberspace again. (PST21,
   2004)

Online contributions to the Discussion Board carry a 20% subject assessment weighting. At the end of the semester students are asked to self-assess their contributions. I believe that this allows students to write what they want as it is not judged by the lecturer. This is an important feature of the subject design. Setting up participatory, shared learning spaces in an online subject is necessary as this comment shows:

   One of my other subjects is also online ... There is no Discussion
   Board, no online notes, nothing to challenge me to want to work
   towards the end. What a difference! (PST37, 2005)

Universities may commit to web delivery of subjects and courses as a cost effective strategy for reaching a dispersed student body. These data show the interests of online learners of environmental education are not compromised by such a move. Indeed, the 24/7 availability of this subject was seen as having a significant advantage in many respects. This email response sent in 2005 sets out why:

   You go online when your mind is active not because of some pre-set
   timetable. There is no pressure for immediate answers so you
   reflect more and have more time to really think about the
   questions, deeper thought. Being able to read others points of view
   is also mind-expanding. Especially as online you just see a name
   and read their input, there is none of that human prejudging that
   stops you from talking to people who don't look friendly or seem
   unapproachable. We are all just names and text, all the same to
   look at, a great social leveller and probably the reason so many
   people are addicted to chat rooms ... What I like about online work
   is the reflection time, the six words typed, the pause, looking out
   the window at home, the mental editing before the completion of the
   sentence. Later, maybe weeks later, you can still re-read your work
   and reassess what you have learned and whether your opinions have
   changed. (PST42, 2005)

Computing power has been associated with a sense of speed and hurriedness (Gleick, 2000)--what McKibben (2004, p. 118) identifies as "the speed of the world ... we feel [as] a kind of frantic restlessness". Yet here is evidence online learners are using the very technologies blamed for increasing the pace of our lives, to slow down and take time for reflection, to write carefully as democratic "names and text", taking the time to return to the participatory spaces (forums) to reassess what they have learned.

Learning Offline for Place-Based Learning

The challenge for teacher educators in designing subjects is recognising that the pedagogy pre-service teachers experience may influence their own practice as future teachers (Kennelly & Taylor, 2007; Miles, Harrison & Cutter Mackenzie, 2006). This made the design of the online subject critical to its intended purpose of encouraging place-based learning. The initial challenge I faced was to incorporate what Orr (1999) calls "vernacular knowledge" into the no-place of cyberspace. Vernacular knowledge is firsthand experience of country, and is described by Lopez (1989) as personal and local knowledge from which a "real" geography is derived. Lopez argues this is the knowledge on which a country must ultimately stand. Place-based pedagogy demands a sensate dimension for learning, and, unlike cyber-environments, real geographies (e.g. "real" places) don't disappear when a server fails or a landline is cut by a road-digger or a cyclone blows through. Online spaces may be constituted as "information-rich" learning "environments" (Levin & Wadmany, 2006). However, the true subjects of my online subject (ED4944) are the four-dimensional realities of tropical environments--the persistent, photosynthetic, and climate-changing places beyond the computer screen.

Freedom of choice in assessment encourages adult learners to pursue topics of interest (or even passion). I deliberately designed learning and assessment options (worth a total of 80% of subject assessment) that require my students to shut down their computers and go offline and outdoors to undertake activities of their choosing. The first assessment requirement is two self-guided field visits to local environmental education sites, defined loosely as places where environmental education can safely take place with a class of school students. Sites range from offshore reefs to urban waste facilities; from local museums and environmental education centres to mangrove boardwalks and rainforest canopy walks. This simple assessment task has proved most effective in re-engaging pre/in-service teachers with their own locales. Here is an example of a response from a pre-service teacher, who returned to the Discussion Board research forum to explain how he now understands his position as an environmental educator:

   Participating in the field trips has opened my eyes to how lucky we
   are that we live in this beautiful environment where students can
   enjoy environmental education if we [as teachers] allow. I have
   realised that the part we have to play in the future of our planet
   is massive, and if carried out correctly, can create citizens who
   are environmentally conscious. I have discovered a passion for
   environmental education and am ready to take this on. (PST39, 2005)

In addition to field visits, pre-service and in-service teachers complete three Learning Investigations. These are activities that can be replicated with school-aged students. The choices sit across the Key Learning Areas and have catchy titles such as Plant a Garbage Garden, How Degrading (a popular choice about toilet paper), My Ecological Footprint, My Experiences of Learning Country, Mapping My Place, My Animal Eyes, Turtle Troubles, Plastic Fantastic, Environmental Art Piece (any media) and Analysis of the Biodiversity of a Computer Game. In 2008, I added an option called My Ecological Handprint. The combined field trip visits and Learning Investigations are worth 40% of the total assessment. This combination of online delivery and offline activity drew many positive responses in the data collection. Indicative is this comment from an in-service teacher working in a small, rural school 9 hours drive from the Townsville campus:

   I was a little sceptical when starting this subject but I have
   found it has opened my eyes to many different ways of thinking
   about different environmental and teaching aspects and focusing on
   what kids can demonstrate they have learned from an activity and
   alternative/different ways of showing it--very handy when you are a
   9 hour drive from uni. (IST08, 2004)

Also required for assessment is a short Research/Curriculum project worth 40% of subject marks. Options include writing a curriculum unit; undertaking a Learnscape analysis of a school ground; researching the lives and interests of an established environmental educator; researching the cradle to grave journey of a consumer item; designing a web-quest; undertaking a school-based project and reporting on its progress (or barriers to progress in some cases); and critically analysing ideas in a published monograph. The most popular option is called Inform Yourself, which involves researching a topic of personal interest, including cases of local environmental action. Features of transformative learning such as active learning, experiential learning, inquiry learning and constructive dialogue locate agency with a learner's capacity "to be able to bridge theory and practice, reflection and action" (Tilbury & Henderson, 2003, p. 85). All subject assessment is active, informed by theory (which is presented in online lectures) and requires reflection. Assessment that allows pre/in-service teachers go offline and have "experiences" has positive results as these data show:

   The knowledge I have gained and the experiences I have had as a
   result of completing [the subject] have caused me to re-assess my
   future goals in terms of a personal teaching philosophy. This means
   bringing environmentally conscious teaching practices into the
   classroom and from there to the wider community. (IST10, 2005)

   EE to me is a very hands on subject--the opportunity to go out and
   interact with the community. So I feel online EE has its advantages
   [for] inquiry and gaining information quickly, but there is nothing
   like using all the senses for learning with, or participating on a
   fieldtrip, or taking part and feeling responsible for measuring the
   quality of the water in your local creek and repairing river banks
   by replacing vegetation. (PST41, 2005)

Jenkins (2006, p. 170) writes that digital learning, "presents education institutions with both challenges and opportunities to the support of students. To meet these challenges and reap the potential benefits it is important that a holistic approach is taken ...There will be no one-size-fits all approach". Looking at a globe one day, I realised the distances I teach across are commensurate with the width of Europe, from the west coast of Ireland to the Polish borders. That vast Australian geography is the reason I employ diverse assessment options to address the problematic of fostering place-based learning while teaching in (and through) cyberspace. And for all its many challenges, the subject has proved sustainable over the years and works well. As one cheerful, pre-service teacher wrote:

   I loved doing this subject online but I think it has more to do
   with the subject itself. I would have loved it anyway. (PST43,
   2005)

Conclusion

New technologies create opportunities for environmental educators to shape new ways of doing their work. In the subject, ED4944:03 Environmental Education for the Topics, integration of online and offline learning is necessary for the success of the enterprise. While subject content is updated each year, the pedagogical mix of online and offline activities has changed little since 2001. The formula works for its regional context and appears to achieve many of the desired learning outcomes for pre/in-service teacher environmental education. This final comment from a pre-service teacher beautifully sums up what the research data generally showed: "Why not" teach and learn environmental education online in tertiary education?

   Of all the subjects that I have ever engaged in online, this is the
   only one that has made me think, ask questions, evaluate my
   position as an educator and thoroughly enjoy ... To me, this is
   what learning is about--choice--a wide variety of pathways through
   which to explore issues and ideas. It is also about being
   challenged to go out and experience what we haven't before ... Hey,
   EE in cyberspace, why not? (PST21, 2004)

References

Anderson, N. (2006). Socio-cultural approaches to literacy and subject knowledge development in learning management systems. In A. Martin & D. Madigan (Eds.), Digital literacies for learning (pp. 189-195). London: Facet Publishing.

Baskin, C., & Anderson, N. (2003). The on-line classroom: A self-actualising theme park or trial by multi-media. Australian Educational Computing, 18(1), 11-20.

Baskin, C., & Anderson, N. (2008). Learning management systems and virtual learning environments: A higher education focus. In D. Leu, C. Lankshear, J. Coiro, J. & M. Knobel (Eds.). Handbook of Research on New Literacies (pp. 973-997). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bell, D. (2001). An introduction to cybercultures. London: Routledge.

Briano, R., Midoro, V., & Trentin, G. (1997). Computer mediated communication and online teacher training in environmental education. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 6(2), 127-146.

Fien, J. (1995). Teaching for a sustainable world: The environment and development project for teacher education. Environmental Education Research, 1(1), 21-33.

Fien, J. (2001). Education for sustainability: Reorientating Australian schools for a sustainable future. Melbourne: Australian Conservation Foundation.

Gleick, J. (2000). Faster: The acceleration of just about everything. New York: Vintage.

Gruenewald, D.A., & Smith, G.A. (Eds.). (2008). Place-based education in the global age. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Jenkins, M. (2006). Supporting students in e-learning. In A. Martin & D. Madigan (Eds.), Digital literacies for learning (pp. 162-171). London: Facet Publishing.

Kennelly, J., & Taylor, N. (2007). Education for sustainability for the K-6 Curriculum: A unit of work for pre-service primary teachers in NSW. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 23, 3-12.

Knapp, C.E. (2008). Place-based curricular and pedagogical models. In D.A. Gruenewald and G.A. Smith (Eds.), Place-based education in the global age (pp. 5-27). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2006). Listening to students' voices on learning with information technologies in a rich technology-based classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 281-317.

Lopez, B. (1989). Arctic dreams: Imagination and desire in a northern landscape. New York: Bantam Books.

Mayes, J.T. (2001). Learning technology and learning relationships. In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and learning online: Pedagogies for new technologies (pp. 16-26). London: Kogan page.

Mayes, J.T., & Fowler, C.J.H. (2006). Learners, learning literacy and the pedagogy of e-learning. In A. Martin & D. Madigan (Eds.), Digital literacies for learning (pp. 26-33). London: Facet Publishing.

McKibben, B. (2004). Enough: Staying human in an engineered age. New York: Henry Holt & Company.

Miles, R., Harrison, L., & Cutter Mackenzie, A. (2006). Teacher education: A diluted environmental education experience. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 29(1), 49-59.

Orr, D. (1999). Education for globalisation. The Ecologist, 29(3), 166-170.

Orr, D. (2002). Political economy and the ecology of childhood. In P.H. Khan & S.R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, socio-cultural and evolutionary investigations (pp. 279-304). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Owen, S., & Moyle, K. (2008). Students' expectations about learning with technologies: A literature review. Canberra. Australian Information and Communications Technology in Education Committee. Retrieved October 30, 2008, from http://www. aictec.edu.au/aictec/webdav/shared/Learner_Research_Literature_Review.pdf

Ross, A., Siepen, G., & O'Connor, S. (2003). Making distance learning E.R.O.T.I.C.: Applying interpretation principles to distance learning. Environmental Education Research, 9(4), 479-495.

Simon, S. (2002). Participatory online environmental education at the Open University, UK. In W.D. Filho, (Ed.), Teaching sustainability: Towards curriculum greening (Chapter 7). Bern: Peter Lang.

Sutton, C. (2006). Literacy, e-literacy and multiliteracies: Meeting the challenges of teaching online. In A. Martin & D. Madigan (Eds.), Digital literacies for learning (pp. 110-122). London: Facet Publishing.

Tilbury, D., Coleman, V., & Garlick, D. (2005). A national review of environmental education and its contribution to sustainability in Australia: School education. Canberra: Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage and Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability (ARIES).

Tilbury, D., & Henderson, K. (2003). Education for intercultural understanding in Australian schools. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 19, 81-95.

Thomas, A. (2008). Community, Culture And Citizenship In Cyberspace. In D. Leu, C. Lankshear, J. Coiro, J., & M. Knobel (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Van Petegem, P., Blieck, A., Imbrecht, I., & Van Hout, T. (2005). Implementing environmental education in pre-service teacher training. Environmental Education Research, 11(2), 161-171.

Whitehouse, H. (2000). Talking up country: The discursive production of environmental meanings in tropical Australia. Unpublished PhD thesis. James Cook University, Cairns.

Hilary Whitehouse ([dagger])

James Cook University

([dagger]) Address for correspondence: Dr Hilary Whitehouse, School of Education, James Cook University, PO Box 6811, Cairns, Queensland 4870, Australia. Email: Hilary. Whitehouse@jcu.edu.au