Research in Science Education

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 259–279 | Cite as

Empirical studies on environmental education in Germany: Contributions by the institute for science education

  • Rachael Dempsey
  • Christiane Gresele
  • Susanne Bögeholz
  • Thomas Martens
  • Jürgen Mayer
  • Horst Rode
  • Jürgen Rost
Article

Abstract

The Institute for Science Education (IPN) in Kiel, Germany, has a long tradition in environmental education research, material and instruction development, and teacher education. This paper presents its research program on “Factors of Environmental Activity” consisting, at present, of three empirical research studies. These projects share a common theoretical model, the Integrated Action Model, describing the environmental action generating process. Study 1 evaluates the validity of this model; Study 2 applies it to evaluate the effects of school environmental instruction; Study 3 applies it to evaluate the effects of nature experience. As this research pertains to Germany, a description of the school system and institutionalisation of environmental instruction is included.

Keywords

Coping Style Environmental Education Nature Experience Latent Class Analysis Environmental Action 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change.Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, M. H. (1974).The health belief model and personal health behaviour. Thorofare, NJ: Slack.Google Scholar
  3. Beer, W., & de Haan, G. (1984).Ököpädagogik, Aufstehen gegen den Untergang der Natur [Ecopedagogy uprising against nature destruction]. Weinheim: Beltz-Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Berck, K.-H., & Klee, R. (1992).Interesse an Tier- und Pflanzenarten und Handeln im Natur-Umweltschutz [Interests in animal and plant species and activities in nature and environmental conservation], Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  5. Bölts, H. (1995).Umwelterziehung: Grundlagen, Kritik, Modelle für die Praxis [Environmental Education: Basics, criticism, models for practice]. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  6. De Young, R. (1986). Some psychological aspects of recycling: The structure of conservation satisfactions.Environment and Behaviour, 18, 435–449.Google Scholar
  7. Eagles, P. F. J., & Muffitt, S. (1990). An analysis of children's attitudes toward animals.Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 41–44.Google Scholar
  8. Eulefeld, G. (1991). Ziele der umwelterziehung (Goals for Environmental Education). In Deutsche Gesellschaft für Umwelterziehung (DGU) e.V und Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften an der Universität Kiel (Eds.),Modelle zur Umwelterziehung. Bd. 3: Umwelterziehung im Ballungsraum (pp. 40–43) [Models of environmental education: Environmental education in crowded regions]. Kiel: DGU (German Association for Environmental Education) and IPN (Institute for Science Education).Google Scholar
  9. Eulefeld, G., Bolscho, D., Puls, W. W., & Seybold, H. (1980).Unterricht in der Bundersrepublik Deutschland 1980. Stand im Primarbereich und in der Sekundarstufe, I [Teaching in the Federal Republic of Germany 1980. Status quo in primary and secondary I level]. Köln: Aulis.Google Scholar
  10. Euefeld, G., Bolscho, D., Rode, H., Rost, J., & Seybold, H. (1993).Entwicklung der Praxis schulischer Umwelterziehung in Deutschland (Vol. 138) [Development of environmental education in school practice in Germany]. Kiel: IPN (Institute for Science Education).Google Scholar
  11. Eulefeld, G., Bolscho, D., Rost, J., & Seybold, H. (1988).Praxis der Umwelterziehung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Vol. 115) [Practice of environmental education in Germany]. Kiel: IPN (Institute for Science Education).Google Scholar
  12. Eulefeld, G., Bolscho, D., & Seybold, H. (1981).Umwelterziehung in Europa (IPN—Arbeitsberichte 62) [Environmental education in Europe (IPN-Work Report 62)]. Kiel: IPN (Institute for Science Education).Google Scholar
  13. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975).Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  14. Flade, A. (Ed.). (1994).Mobilitätsverhalten—Bedingungen und Veränderungsmöglichkeiten aus umweltpsychologischer Sicht [Traffic behaviour—conditions and modification possibilities from an environmental psychological point of view]. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
  15. Frey, D., Stahlberg, D., & Wortmann, K. (1990). Energieverbrauch und Energiesparen (Energy consumption and energy saving). In L. Kruse, C.-F. Graumann, & E.-D. Lantermann (Eds.),Ökologische psychologie (pp. 680–690) [Ecological psychology]. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
  16. Gollwitzer, P. (1993). The intention-to-behaviour process. In M. Hewstone, & W. Stroebe (Eds.),European Review of Social Psychology 4, Chichester: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  17. Göpfert, H. (1988).Naturbezogene Pädagogik [Nature-related Pedagogy]. Weinheim: Deutscher Studienverlag.Google Scholar
  18. Harvey, M. R. (1989). Children's experiences with vegetation.Children Environments Quarterly, 6, 36–43.Google Scholar
  19. Heckhausen, H. (1989).Motivation und handeln [Motivation and action]. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986/87). Analysis and synthesis of research on environmental behaviour: A meta-analysis.Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behaviour through environmental education.The Journal of Environmental Education, 21, 8–21.Google Scholar
  22. Kals, E. (1996).Verantwortliches Umweltverhalten. Umweltschützende Entscheidungen erklären und fördern (Responsible environmental behaviour. Explaining and supporting environmentally friendly decisions). Weinheim: Beltz, Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
  23. Kellert, S. R. (1985). Attitudes toward animals: Age-related development among children.Journal of Environmental Education, 16, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Killermann, W. (1996). Biology education in Germany: Research into the effectiveness of different teaching methods.International Journal of Science Education, 18, 333–346.Google Scholar
  25. Klautke, S., & Köhler, K. (1991). Umwelterziehung—Ein didaktisches Konzept und seine Konkretisierung (Environmental education—A didactical concept and its operationalisation).Unterricht Biologie, 164, 48–51.Google Scholar
  26. KMK (Kultusministerkonferenz). (1980, October).Beschluß der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland vom 17.10.1980: “Umwelt und Unterricht”. (Proceedings of the conference of the Ministries of the Federal States, Germany, “Environment and teaching”).Google Scholar
  27. Krampen, G. (1987).Handlungstheoretische Persönlichkeitspsychologie. Konzeptuelle und empirische Beiträge zur Konstrukterhellung (Action theoretical personality psychology. Conceptional and empirical contributions for clarification of the construct). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  28. Krohne, H. W. (1991). Das Konstrukt Repression und Sensitization und seine Weiterentwicklungen (The construct repression/sensitization and its elaboration).Enzyklopädie der Psychologie-Differentielle Psychologie, Bd. 2: Psychologie interindividueller Differenzen II (Ecyclopedia of psychology—Personality psychology (Vol. 2). Psychology of interindividual differences II). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  29. Langeheine, R., & Lehmann, J. (1986). Forschungsnotiz. Ein neuer Blick auf die soziale Basis des Umweltbewußtseins (Research notice. A new view on the social basis of environmental consciousness).Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 15, 378–384.Google Scholar
  30. Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Henry, N. W. (1968).Latent structure analysis. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.Google Scholar
  31. Leal Filho, W. D. S. (1996). An overview of current trends in European environmental education.The Journal of Environmental Education, 28(1), 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lounsbury, J., & Tornatzky, L. G. (1977). A scale for assessing attitudes toward environmental quality.Journal of Social Psychology, 101, 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lucas, A. M. (1980). Science and environmental education: Pious hopes, self praise and disciplinary chauvinism.Studies in Science Education, 7, 1–26.Google Scholar
  34. Maloney, M. P., Ward, M. P., & Braucht, G. N. (1975). Psychology in action: A revised scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge.American Psychologist, 30, 787–790.Google Scholar
  35. Mayer, J. (1994). Formenkunde als themenübergreifende Aufgabe des Biologieunterrichts (Knowledge of species as an overall issues task for biology instruction). In H. Bayrhuber, K. Etschenberg, K.-H. Gehlhaar, O. Grönke, R. Klee, H. Kühnemund, & J. Mayer (Eds.),Interdisziplinäre Themenbereiche und Projekte im Biologieunterricht (pp. 283–287) (Interdisciplinary issues and projects in biology instruction). Kiel: IPN (Institute for Science Education).Google Scholar
  36. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualising situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure.Psychological Review, 102, 246–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ramsey, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. (1989). A technique for analysing environmental issues.Journal of Environmental Education, 21, 26–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rode, H. (1996).Schuleffekte in der Umwelterziehung (Effects of environmental education in school). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  39. Rode, H., & Seybold, H. (1992). Zur Bedeutung von Modellversuchen in der schulischen Umwelterziehung (The significance of investigations in environmental education in schools). In G. Eulefeld (Ed.),Empirische Studien im Bereich Umwelterziehung (pp. 205–216) (Empirical studies in environmental education). Kiel: IPN (Institute for Science Education).Google Scholar
  40. Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In J. R. Cacioppo, & R. E. Petty (Eds.).Social Psychology: A sourcebook (pp. 153–176). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  41. Rost, J. (1996). Theorien menschlichen Handelns (Theories of human actions). In G. Michelsen (Ed.),Handbuch zur Umweltberatung (Handbook of environmental counselling). Bonn: Economica.Google Scholar
  42. Rost, J., & Langeheine, R. (Eds.), (1997).Applications of latent trait and latent class models in the social sciences. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  43. Schahn, J. (1995). Psychologische Forschung zur Mülltrennung und Müllvermeidung (Psychological research for waste separation and avoidance).Psychologische Rundschau, 46, 104–114.Google Scholar
  44. Schmidt, F. N., & Gifford, R. (1989). A dispositional approach to hazard perception: Preliminary development of the environmental appraisal inventory.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1981). A normative decision-making model of altruism. In J. P. Rushton & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.),Altruism and helping behaviour: Social personality, and development perspectives (pp. 189–211). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Schwarzer, R. (1992).Psychologie des Gesundheitsverhaltens (Psychology of health behaviour). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  47. Seel, H.-J., Sichler, R., & Fischerlehner, B. (Eds.). (1993).Mensch-Natur. Zur Psychologie einer problematischen Beziehung (Human-nature. The psychology of problematical relations). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  48. Spada, H. (1990). Umweltbewußtsein: Einstellung und Verhalten (Environmental consciousness: Attitudes and behaviour). In L. Kruse, C.-F. Graumann, & E.-D. Lantermann (Eds.),Ökologische Psychologie. Ein Handbuch in Schlüsselbegriffen. (pp. 623–631) (Ecological psychology: A handbook in key-words). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
  49. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientation, gender, and environmental concern.Environment and Behaviour, 25, 322–348.Google Scholar
  50. Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence.Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1990). What makes a recycler A comparison of recyclers and non-recyclers.Environmental and Behaviour, 22, 55–73.Google Scholar
  52. von Davier, M., & Rost, J. (1996). Die Erfassung transsituativer Copingstile durch Stimulus-Response Inventare (Assessment of transsituational coping-styles by stimulus-response inventories).Diagnostica, 42, 313–332.Google Scholar
  53. Westervelt, M. O. (1984). A provocative look at people's perception of animals.Childrens Environments Quarterly, 1(3), 4–7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australian Science Research Association 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachael Dempsey
    • 1
  • Christiane Gresele
    • 1
  • Susanne Bögeholz
    • 1
  • Thomas Martens
    • 1
  • Jürgen Mayer
    • 1
  • Horst Rode
    • 1
  • Jürgen Rost
    • 1
  1. 1.IPN-Institute for Science EducationUniversity of KielKiel

Personalised recommendations