Barriers to environmental education: How do teachers

Environmental Education Research

ISSN: 1350-4622 (Print) 1469-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20

Barriers to environmental education: How do teachers’ perceptions in rural Ecuador fit into a global analysis? Chloe Anderson & Susan Jacobson To cite this article: Chloe Anderson & Susan Jacobson (2018): Barriers to environmental education: How do teachers’ perceptions in rural Ecuador fit into a global analysis?, Environmental Education Research, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2018.1477120 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1477120

Published online: 22 May 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 74

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceer20

Environmental Education Research, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1477120

Barriers to environmental education: How do teachers’ perceptions in rural Ecuador fit into a global analysis? Chloe Andersona

and Susan Jacobsonb

a Center for Latin American Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; bDepartment of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

ABSTRACT

We identified 48 barriers to teaching environmental education reported by teachers in global literature and compared frequency to empirical data we collected from rural Ecuador, part of an understudied region and continent. We utilized Q methodology and interviews with 25 (78%) teachers at 6 schools to identify and categorize barriers. Perceptions of barriers ranked by Ecuadorian teachers were statistically classified into three factors: logistical (associated with fieldtrips, time, and money); training and lack of government support; and attitudinal (associated with student disinterest). In contrast, barriers related to student testing and controversial topics were only reported in more developed countries. Results enable region-specific recommendations.

ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 11 December 2017 Accepted 10 May 2018 KEYWORDS

Teaching barriers; Q methodology; Ecuador; Comparative review

Introduction Environmental education (EE) emerged with specific goals in the late 1960s to promote the environmental knowledge, awareness, attitudes, skills and participation needed to address highly visible, global environmental problems such as biodiversity loss, food shortages, pollution, and health issues. The first intergovernmental conference on EE (UNESCO 1977) produced 12 guiding principles, 3 goals, and 5 categories of EE objectives, which form a framework that still influences EE today. More recent guidelines for learning and excellence in EE were published by the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE 2010). EE efforts range in scope, origin, and level of formality including but not limited to nonprofit education programs for youth and teachers, fieldtrips, fieldwork, greening school grounds, government mandates for school-based curricular requirements, and the United Nations guidelines (Fisher 2001; Penwell et al. 2002; Zint et al. 2002; Dyment 2005; González-Gaudiano 2007; Kinder et al. 2015). Despite the existence of viable guidelines for effective EE, such as those produced in the first intergovernmental conference and by NAAEE, and well-intentioned efforts at local, regional, and global scales, barriers to successful EE still remain. Barriers to EE teaching and learning have been studied in a number of ways, including teacher interviews, surveys, and focus groups; with the common goal of understanding and overcoming present barriers to improve and facilitate EE instruction (Ham and Sewing 1988; Monroe, Scollo, and Bowers 2002). Despite a large body of research, barriers to EE in developing countries have been significantly understudied, and a synthesis of existing global research on barriers to EE is lacking. Our study makes a

CONTACT Chloe Anderson

[email protected]

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2

C. ANDERSON AND S. JACOBSON

contribution by comparing research across geographic regions, and providing in-depth empirical data for school-based EE in an ignored region using innovative methodology to help understand suites of barriers and stimulate new investigations.

Literature review Teachers want to be effective, but multiple factors –curricular, financial, cultural, and environmental– can impede efforts (Cantrell, Young, and Moore 2003; DaRosa et al. 2011). Delineating barriers to successful teaching and learning can help in understanding appropriate interventions (DaRosa et al. 2011). Barriers to EE differ based on a number of specific contextual variables, working at different scales to ultimately affect teachers’ perceptions and behaviors. The majority of studies on EE barriers have been conducted in developed countries such as the US, UK, Canada, and Australia. Common barriers range from training and curricula issues to financial and safety constraints, as delineated in the results section (Monroe, Scollo, and Bowers 2002; Ernst 2007). Few studies have been conducted in less-developed countries. A study in China found lack of support from the community and government, and a lack of time, materials, and funding were all barriers (Lee, Au, and Ma 2009), while misconceptions about EE and a lack of field trip resources were emphasized as barriers in Botswana (Ketlhoilwe 2007). We found only 3 studies from Latin America, which refer to the region as a whole and do not investigate individual countries (Penwell et al. 2002; Cronin-Jones et al. 2003; González-Gaudiano 2007). Cronin-Jones et al. (2003) and Penwell et al. (2002) focus on a survey of American and International schools in Latin America and cite common logistical barriers such as lack of teaching time, lack or preparation time, and instructional materials as well as other barriers including lack of natural environment, curriculum issues, teacher turnover, lack of content knowledge, teacher confidence, and lack of comfort in the outdoors. González-Gaudiano (2007) discusses the current state of environmental education in primary schools in Latin America, suggesting insight on factors affecting implementation such as curriculum and school management, EE’s inferior curricular position, and teacher training. Flaws in teacher training may include the separation of theory from practice, reliance on traditional techniques, lack of continuous support, and learning strategies that fail to incorporate local contexts and the varied challenges that arise with newer fields like EE (Amaral 2004; González-Gaudiano 2007). None of the previously mentioned studies concentrating on EE in Latin America take an empirical case study approach in public schools or use in person interviews. This paucity of research results in a lack of understanding of crucial barriers in countries whose citizens and environments could benefit greatly from solid answers. Investigating barriers at smaller scales is important because barriers differ based on numerous contextual variables that operate at different scales to ultimately affect teachers’ perceptions and behaviors. Studies that focus on the complexity of factors that determine teacher commitment to EE call understanding these influences ‘vital’ (Sosu, McWilliam, and Gray 2008). Investigating barriers in specific contexts will make critical contributions to the underlying constructs used in models that predict EE commitment and environmental behavior, such as the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991; Sosu, McWilliam, and Gray 2008). Understanding barriers also plays an important role in identifying gaps between environmental concern and action or behavior (Blake 2007; Kollmuss and Agyeman 2010). In our effort to expand research on barriers to EE to previously neglected regions, the local environmental and socio-economic contexts are necessary to consider (Gray 1999; González-Gaudiano 2007; Campbell et al. 2010). Across Latin America, the configuration of EE as a cross-curricular, discipline-bridging subject limits it to more informal, peripheral curricular spaces (González-Gaudiano 2007; Campbell et al. 2010). Wider educational problems are also present in Latin America, including rigid and closed school structures, discipline-focused curricula, systems resistant to change, and a teaching body uninterested in new approaches (González-Gaudiano 2007). Exporting United States EE models to countries with vast differences in educational context may also exacerbate existing barriers. This occurred in Honduras when implementation of an EE model was

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH

3

prohibited by unexpected differences in context, such as dropout rates, access to resources, teacher education, and number of grades taught together (Ham and Castillo 1990). Outside of descriptive and theoretical studies, little research has been conducted on barriers to EE in Latin America. Within the diverse Latin American countries, EE and general education differ greatly by quality (Campbell et al. 2010) and quantity (Viteri, Clarebout, and Crauwels 2012). EE emerged in Ecuador from traditional nature-study programs that began in 1979 (MEC-MAE 2006). In the 1990s, curricular reforms promoted EE infusion, although the current EE plan (2006–2016) lacks implementation and acknowledges a lack of evaluation, especially in rural, resource-poor areas (MEC-MAE 2006; Viteri, Clarebout, and Crauwels 2012). No national or case study research on barriers to EE in Ecuador has previously been conducted. Studying EE barriers in Ecuador will contribute to understanding and mitigating constraints to EE in Latin America. Our methodology provides an analysis of suites of barriers that are problematic and could be mitigated collectively. It also provides a comparison of individual barriers across geographic regions with a needed global synthesis.

Research questions Categorizing barriers to EE helps in understanding appropriate interventions (Robertson and KruglySmolska 1997; Simmons 1998; Dyment 2005). One of the first studies on EE barriers classified barriers into the following 4 themes (Ham and Sewing 1988). Logistical barriers include time, money, or sociopolitical issues. Educational barriers include perceptions of teacher ability and training. Conceptual barriers include perceived definitional variations of EE and its place in the curriculum. Attitudinal barriers relate to teachers’ perceptions of the value of EE (Ham and Sewing 1988). To address current gaps in research, we used this classification system to focus on two research questions. (1) How do rural Ecuadorean teachers perceive conceptual, logistical, educational, and attitudinal barriers to EE; and how are these barriers associated? (2) How do perceived barriers to EE in rural Ecuador compare to teachers’ perceptions reported across the globe?

Methods Global literature review The completion of a systematic, global literature review on barriers to school-based EE served as a point of comparison for the current study’s results, as well assisted in the development of one of the current study’s research instruments. Protocol for the literature review used the Google scholar database and included studies published from 1988 to 2016 in English in peer-reviewed journals, books, or conference papers that focused on barriers to K-12 or primary EE, and included key search words ‘barriers’‘environment’‘education’‘teacher’ or ‘Ham and Sewing 1988’. A broad definition of school-based EE was adopted, including traditional classroom instruction, field trips or fieldwork, and environmental activities as well as approaches that promote more interdisciplinary learning such as environment-based education and education for sustainability (Ernst 2007; Evans, Whitehouse, and Gooch 2012). Because few studies focus explicitly on barriers to EE, studies that met all inclusion criteria and used similar terminology to describe barriers, such as constraints, factors, issues, or limitations, were also included. Studies that did not report empirical results or focused on secondary education were excluded. Thirty-two studies met this protocol. Reported barriers were categorized into logistical, conceptual, educational, and attitudinal themes following the framework of Ham and Sewing (1988) and coding protocols of Neuman (2006). Results were separated into less developed and more developed country studies to determine frequency of citation. Forty-eight barriers to EE reported by researchers and practitioners were identified.

4


Ecuador study site and participants Jama parish was selected due to its ecological sensitivity and rural location within a country and continent previously neglected by barriers research. Jama lies in the northern, coastal province of Manabí and contains some of Ecuador’s last remaining tropical dry forest, fragmented by agriculture and shrimp aquaculture. Water contamination and illness are common problems (Levy et al. 2009). Almost 75% of Jama’s inhabitants live in rural areas, higher than the national average of 37% (CPV-INEC 2010). Provincially, rural Manabí residents obtain an average of 6.2 years of education and urban Manabí residents obtain 10.2, both lower than the national averages of 7.2 and 10.9 (CPV-INEC 2010). We conducted in depth interviews with 25 grade 1–7 teachers at 6 schools in Jama parish. Schools were selected based on their proximity to the nonprofit Ceiba Foundation, headquartered near Tabuga, Ecuador. High school, kindergarten, and preschool teachers were excluded. Attempts were made to interview all teachers at each school, but participation depended upon availability, and 78% of teachers were available at the time of this study. Seven males and 18 females were interviewed, with a mean age of 39.84 (SD = ±10.88 years), mean teaching experience (SD = 12.48 ± 8.94 years), and mean years at their current school (SD = 8.09 ± 10.40 years).

Q methodology and Q set Q methodology research aims to reveal a participant group’s existing perspectives about a topic through qualitative interpretation (Watts and Stenner 2012). Q methodology first defines the Q set, or set of statements about a topic. Each statement is written on a card, and these cards are sorted or arranged by the participants according to their personal beliefs about the importance of each item. The completed sorts are analyzed and grouped in the Q Methodology analysis program called PQMethod to reveal participants’ belief patterns and understand dominant social discourses. These groupings are called factors, and enable targeted, appropriate interventions (Watts and Stenner 2012; Fraser, Gupta, and Krasny 2014). This study used a 25-card Q set, or set of statements, to provide an adequate and reliable interpretation in a reasonable amount of time (Watts and Stenner 2012). Q sets can contain fewer items or up to 80 items, depending on context and accommodating participant time constraints. This Q set was based on our global literature review. Of the 48 barriers to EE identified, we selected 21 to include in the 25-statement Q-set based on frequency of citation by other studies, relevance to previous lesser developed country studies, and pilot testing with 7 local educators who refined the content and wording of the Q set. Four additional barriers with specific cultural context also emerged from pilot tests. The development of the Q set was also supported by approximately 30 h of classroom observations by the primary author. The categorical breakdown of the 25-barrier Q set also reflects the approximate proportions of logistical, educational, attitudinal, and conceptual barriers identified in the literature review. Participants were not aware of these categories and the cards were shuffled and distributed randomly. All 25 statements fit Ham and Sewing (1988) categories, including several logistical barriers related to geographic location and sociopolitical issues.

Instruments: Q sorts and interviews The Q methodology sorts were conducted in personal, open-ended, semi-structured interviews from May-August 2015. The interviews were arranged in advance with each school director and with the assistance of the regional education director. All interviews were conducted at the schools, which allowed for observations of the school setting, classroom facilities, and teaching resources present. The interviews lasted an average of 35 min (range = 16–90 min). Before the Q sort was introduced, participants answered open-ended questions about their reasons for teaching, understanding of EE and the curricula, previous training, sources of environmental


5

information, and environmental problems discussed or taught in class. Basic demographic information was collected to provide context. The Q sort was introduced by asking about barriers that teachers may encounter when teaching or thinking about teaching EE. Detailed procedural instructions were explained. The Q sorts followed a normal distribution, with teachers sorting statements from −4 (very unimportant barriers) to 4 (very important barriers): No. of statement cards Rank

1 −4

2 −3

3 −2

4 −1

5 0

4 1

3 2

2 3

1 4

Following the Q sort, participants answered additional questions about card placement, personal experiences with certain barriers, additional barriers, and ideas for diminishing barriers.

Factor interpretation Factor analysis using PQMethod (2.35) identified and grouped similar sorts into factors. Each factor represented a different view of teachers’ perceptions about barriers to EE. Three factors were extracted based on guidelines such as variance, defining sorts, and factor eigenvalues (Watts and Stenner 2012). Interview responses were recorded, transcribed, translated, and analyzed through qualitative content analysis (Saldaña 2015), then combined with demographic data to provide context for PQMethod results.

Study limitations Q methodology produces significant results, yet does not facilitate statistical comparison with other studies using varied methods in different situational and educational contexts. The lack of research on barriers to EE in lesser-developed countries also limited statistical comparison.

Results Global literature review The literature review identified 5 studies conducted in less developed countries and 27 studies in developed countries. Forty-eight common barriers were identified, consisting of 22 logistical barriers, 7 educational barriers, 13 attitudinal barriers, and 6 conceptual barriers (Table 1).

Factor interpretation The three-factor analysis explained 44% of the total variance and included 20 of 25 participants as defining sorts. Table 2 describes participant demographic information by factor. All study participants perceived student safety issues as a barrier but did not indicate large class size, a lack of relevancy to classroom subjects, or the fear of being controversial as barriers. The Q sorts revealed 3 unique factors, or suites of barriers (Table 3).

Factor 1: logistical barriers associated with field trips, time, and money Seven participants, all females teaching upper elementary grades with lower than average years spent at their current school, were significantly associated with Factor 1 (Table 2). These teachers identified logistical barriers related to taking students outside on fieldtrips, lack of class time and money, and issues with student safety and permissions. A teacher explained this issue: It’s hard to bring them [the students] to the countryside or the forest because the government is so difficult. We have to have permission. We have to transport the kids. We have total responsibility if something happens, someone falls, or gets sick. It’s hard! And I have 30 students.

6


Table 1. Global analysis of literature and current study results, comparing barriers to EE in 4 categories and between less developed and more developed country studies. Citation* Less developed

Barrier Logistical

Educational

Attitudinal

Conceptual

Citation* More developed

Total (%)

Lack of teaching time Lack of preparation time Instructional materials Financial Technology No natural environment Safety, liability, and classroom mgmt. Lack of transportation Lack of field trip resources Setting not appropriate External outdoor forces Lack of administrative support Lack of parent support Lack of community interest/partners Lack of government support Curriculum issues Emphasis on testing Emphasis on standards Class size too large Class size too small Permission not certain Teacher turnover

(A)DF (A)CF (A)CDF (A)F (A) DF (A) E (A) (A) F (A)F BC B F (A) (A) D

GKLMNOPRSUVYZA’E’F’ GIJKLNOPRVY GMNOPSTUYZ GIJKNOPRZD’F’ GIJNRZA’ GHIJZA’B’D’ GIJZ ZB’ HD’ D’ GIJMNTY IJN IJ NRSXA’C’E’ IJKMRTA’B’ IJMSU G G Y

61 42 42 39 3 27 27 12 9 6 3 21 12 9 6 27 24 18 6 6 6 3

Lack of content knowledge Lack of training Lack of pedagogical knowledge Lack of other knowledge Lack of training in particular setting Wider educational barriers

(A)CF (A) F B

GIJNOUWC’G’ HIJOTWG’ GIJB’ NB’C’ HX X

36 24 15 9 6 6

Previous training ineffective

(A)

3

Lack of teacher interest or commitment Teacher confidence Desire to be uncontroversial/traditional Lack of comfort in the outdoors Does not promote career advancement Lack of student interest or commitment Students don’t understand May overwhelm/scare students Not appropriate for students Counter to school climate Other concepts are more important Lofty social and political goals of EE Lack of convincing evidence

BC C D (A) (A) (A)

NA’D’E’ HXZ IJZB’F’ JKL A’ NA’E’ A’ A’ A’ IJXF’ OB’ Y J

18 12 15 12 3 12 6 6 3 12 6 3 3

Not relevant to what I teach Not relevant to grade I teach Issues with discipline-focused curricula Definitional problems/ misconceptions Conflicting ideas/lack of consensus Hard to actually understand goal of EE

(A) B (A)E

GIJOB’ IJB’ KRF’ QYF’ HYA’

18 9 3 15 9 9

Citation code*: (A), current study; B, González-Gaudiano (2007); C, Cronin-Jones et al. (2003); D, Penwell et al. (2002); E, Ketlhoilwe (2007); F, Lee, Au, and Ma (2009); G, Ham and Sewing (1988); H, Simmons (1998); I, Ernst (2007); J, Ernst (2009); K, Monroe, Scollo, and Bowers (2002); L, Lane et al. (1994); M, Easton and Monroe (2002); N, Zint et al. (2002); O, Smith-Sebasto and Smith (1997); P, Moseley, Huss, and Utley (2010); Q, Talsma (2001); R, Bruyere, Wesson, and Teel (2012); S, Carrier, Tugurian, and Thomson (2013); T, Ernst (2010); U, Stevenson, Carrier, and Peterson (2014); V, Christenson (2004); W, Kinder et al. (2015); X, Dyment (2005); Y, Robertson and Krugly-Smolska (1997); Z, Hanna (1992); A’, Fisher (2001); B’, Lemmey (1999); C’, Sosu, McWilliam, and Gray (2008); D’, Waite (2009); E’, Cutter-Mackenzie (2010); F’, Evans, Whitehouse, and Gooch (2012); G’, Cutter-Mackenzie and Smith (2003).


7

Table 2. Comparison of teachers’ demographic information by factor. Number of participants associated with factora % Femalesb Mean age (SD) Mean years teacher (SD) Mean years current school (SD) % schools represented % teaching 1 grade level % teaching 2 grade levels % teaching 3 grade levels % teaching > 3 grade levels % teaching grade 1–3 % teaching grade 4–7

Factor 1 7 100 37.71 (7.74) 11.43 (3.69) 4.14 (1.68) 83 86 0 0 14 0 100

Factor 2 7 86 35.57 (11.37) 11.57 (9.85) 8.06 (10.62) 83 43 57 0 0 86 14

Factor 3 6 67 43.83 (10.11) 14.83 (11.82) 12.10 (13.94) 50 100 0 0 0 33 67

a

All percentages were calculated using this value. Remainder of participants were male.

b

Table 3. Factor array, displaying all barrier statement scores and indicating significant statements. Factor No. Logistical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Conceptual 13 14 15 Educational 16 17 18 19 Attitudinal 20 21 22 23 24 25

# Defining sorts Eigenvalue % Variance explained Statement

1 7 3.75 15

2 7 4 16

3 6 3.25 13

Lack of preparation time Lack of teaching time Lack of resources Lack of money Issues of permission with authority Lack of attention from government Class size too large Class size too small Students of diff ages/levels in same classroom Regrouping of various grades Student safety issues Difficult to maintain order

1* 2* 1 2 3 2* 0 −1 0 −1* 4 −4*

−4 −2** 0* −3* 1* 4* 0 −1 2* 3* 3 0**

−2 −4** 2 1 2 −1* −2 1* 0 2* 3 1**

Not relevant to what I teach Don’t understand what EE is Not a part of the curriculum

−2 −3** 1

−1 −2 1

0 −2 1*

Lack of content knowledge Lack of EE training Lack of pedagogical knowledge Previous training ineffective

−2 −2** −1 3*

1** 0 −3** 2

0 0 0 1

Fear of being controversial More important subjects exist Students aren’t interested Students don’t understand I can’t choose what I teach EE could scare the students

0 −1** −3* 0 0 1*

−2 0** −1* 2* 1 −1*

−1 −3* 4* −1 −3* 3*

*

Distinguishing statement significant at p