Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Integration of Environmental Education into Two Elementary Preservice Science Methods Courses: A Content-Based and a Method-Based Approach

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

To examine the notion of environmental education (EE) as context for integrating the elementary curricula, we engaged in a multi-case study analysis (Yin 2009) of two preservice elementary science methods courses that utilized an experiential reflective approach—case one (University A) through a science content focus (i.e., sustainability) and case two (University B) through a method focus (i.e., problem-based learning). We examined preservice teachers’ understandings of EE, their ideas to incorporate EE into their future teaching, and their conceptions of EE as a context for integration. Results indicate that both foci (content and method) were successful in building EE content, helping preservice teachers to envision EE in their future classrooms, and promoting EE as a context for integrating their instruction. Based on these results, we offer recommendations for the incorporation of EE as a context for integration into the elementary science methods course.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(16), 2161–2184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abell, S., & Bryan, L. (1997). Reconceptualizing the elementary science methods course using a reflection orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(3), 153–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V., Weiland, I., Park Rogers, M., & Pongsanon, K. (in review). Exploring elementary science methods course contexts for improving Nature of Science conceptions and understandings of NOS teaching strategies.

  • Amirshokoohi, A. (2010). Elementary preservice teachers’ environmental literacy and views toward science, technology, and society (STS) issues. Science Educator, 19(1), 56–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appleton, K. (2007). Elementary science teaching. In S. Abell & L. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 493–535). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodzin, A. M., Klein, B. S., & Weaver, S. (Eds.). (2010). The inclusion of environmental education in science teacher education. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boss, S. (Fall, 2001). Schoolyard science takes root. Northwest Teacher, 13–15.

  • Chard, S. C., & Flockhart, M. E. (2002). Learning in the park. Educational Leadership, 60, 53–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culen, G. R. (2005). The status of environmental education with respect to the goal of responsible citizenship behavior. In H. Hungerford, W. Bluhm, T. Volk, & J. Ramsey (Eds.), Essential readings in environmental education (pp. 37–45). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing L.L.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielowich, R. (2012). Looking through different lenses: How preservice science teachers use practice-oriented reflections to negotiate more reform-minded identities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(4), 323–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, S., Stepien, W., Sher, B., & Workman, D. (1995). Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 95(3), 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haney, J., Wang, J., Kiel, C., & Zoffel, J. (2007). Enhancing teachers’ beliefs and practices through problem-based learning focused on pertinent issues of environmental health science. Journal of Environmental Education, 38(4), 25–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howitt, C. (2007). Preservice elementary teachers’ perceptions of factors in an holistic methods course influencing their confidence in teaching science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hug, J. W. (2010). “Eeew! There’s dew on my toes”: Common characteristics of preservice elementary teacher learning in environmental education and instructional strategies for science teacher educators. In A. M. Bodzin, B. S. Klein, & S. Weaver (Eds.), The inclusion of environmental education in science teacher education (pp. 127–142). Dordrecht, NL: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastrilli, T. (2005). Environmental education in Pennsylvania’s elementary teacher education programs: A statewide report. Journal of Environmental Education, 36(3), 22–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J. T., & Dominquez, L. A. (2010). Professional preparation for science teachers in environmental education. In A. M. Bodzin (Ed.), The inclusion of environmental education in science teacher education (pp. 17–30). Dordrecht, NL: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McKeown-Ice, R. (2000). Environmental education in the United States: A survey of preservice teacher education programs. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(1), 4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J. (2005). Reflections in learning and professional development. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, T. (2012). Classroom talk, conceptual change, and teacher reflection in bilingual science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 28(1), 101–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academy Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165.

  • North American Association for Environmental Education. (2004). Guidelines for the preparation and professional development of environmental educators. Washington, D.C.: North American Association for Environmental Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2010). Sustainability design project teachers’ guide, version 2.0, http://www.k12.wa.us/EnvironmentSustainability/default.aspx.

  • Park Rogers, M. A., & Abell, S. K. (2007). Connecting with other disciplines (Perspectives Column). Science and Children, 44(6), 58–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pederson, J., & McCurdy, D. (1992). The effects of hands-on minds-on teaching experiences on the attitudes of preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 76(2), 441–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R., & Treagust, D. (1998). Learning to teach primary science through problem-based learning. Science Education, 82(2), 215–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Project Learning Tree. (2007). PreK-8 environmental education activity guide. Washington, D.C.: American Forest Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Project Learning Tree Secondary Environmental Education Program. (2006). Exploring environmental issues: Places we live. Washington, D.C.: American Forest Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickenson, M. (2001). Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical review of the evidence. Journal of Environmental Education, 7(3), 207–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley, J. (1979). Research papers: The influence of hands-on science process training on preservice teachers’ acquisition of process skills and attitude toward science and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16(5), 373–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schepige, A., Morrell, P., Smith-Walters, C., Sadler, K., Munck, M., & Rainboth, D. (2010). Using environmental education Project curricula with elementary preservice teachers. In A. M. Bodzin, B. S. Klein, & S. Weaver (Eds.), The inclusion of environmental education in science teacher education (pp. 281–296). Dordrecht, NL: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siry, C., & Lara, J. (2012). “I didn’t know water could be so messy”: Co-teaching in elementary teacher education and the production of identity for a new teacher of science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Sebasto, N., & Cavern, L. (2006). Effects of pre- and posttrip activities associated with a residential environmental education experience on students’ attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Education, 37(4), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, M., Powell, R., & Ardoin, N. (2008). What difference does it make? Assessing outcomes from participation in residential environmental education program. Journal of Environmental Education, 39(4), 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO-UNEP. (2005). The Tbilisi Declaration, 1977. In H. Hungerford, W. Bluhm, T. Volk, & J. Ramsey (Eds.), Essential Readings in Environmental Education (pp. 13–16). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing L.L.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiland, I. (2011). Where does our food come from? Third graders become investigators in this problem-based learning unit. Science & Children, 48(5), 40–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiland, I., & Carman, S. (2011). The status of environmental education in Indiana K-12 schools. The Hoosier Science Teacher, 35(4), 101–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research designs and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, M., Parker, J., Eberhardt, J., & Passalacqua, S. (2011). “What’s so terrible about swallowing an apple seed?” Problem-based learning in kindergarten. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 468–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education and Human Development, University of Louisville, 1905 S. 1st Street, #273, Louisville, KY, 40292, USA

    Ingrid S. Weiland

  2. Washington State University, Tri-Cities, Richland, WA, USA

    Judith A. Morrison

Authors
  1. Ingrid S. Weiland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Judith A. Morrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ingrid S. Weiland.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Sample Work

Examples of Sustainability Design Projects (From OSPI 2010)

System

Example elementary sustainable design projects

Food & nutrition

Conduct a nutrition audit of school lunches; compare school-provided and home-provided lunches; and then plant a vegetable garden on the school campus

Consumer products

Design a child’s toy that is safe, non-toxic, made from environmentally-friendly materials, and educational

Parks & natural areas

Design and construct a wildlife habitat area on your school campus using the principles of the Backyard Wildlife Program

System

Example middle school sustainable design projects

Energy

Analyze the costs and benefits of switching school buses to biofuels, considering the economic, environmental, and health impacts (including asthma)

 

Conduct an energy audit in your school and design an energy system that relies on renewable sources such as solar and wind

Built environment

Design a playground or school campus that increases social interaction and green spaces

Environmental health & justice

Create educational materials to help low-income parents understand the risks of childhood lead poisoning

Example of Problem-Based Learning Mini-Unit By “Erin”

Grade Level: 4

State Standards Addressed: English and English Language Arts (ELA) 4.4: Writing Processes and Features, English and ELA 4.5: Writing Applications, Mathematics 4.7: Problem Solving, Science 4.1: The Nature of Science and Technology, Science 4.2: Scientific Thinking.

Problem: Senior citizens at the Happy Living Senior Living Community have complained that there is not enough greenery on the grounds. How can you design a lush landscape for this community given a budget of only $15,000? Each group is given a location: Illinois, Florida, Arizona, and Washington.

Lesson Matrix

 

PLT (2007)

Lesson title

Connection to unit

Standard

Lesson 1

Get in Touch with Trees

Explore the sense of touch

All

Lesson 2

Picture This!

Discuss species and environment

4.1, 4.2, 4.7

Lesson 3

Charting Diversity

Research/identify animals that would benefit from landscape

4.1, 4.2

Lesson 4

Invasive Species

Characteristics and prevention

4.1, 4.2, 4.7

Lesson 5

Tale of the Sun

Natural beauty and climate

4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.7

Please provide a short description of the lessons chosen, how you will transition from lesson to lesson, and why you chose these lessons: The first lesson allows students to explore nature in their own environment. They will look at the textures, smells, and beauty of the environment (observation and inference). The next lesson will discuss what plant species are located in what environments (adaptations). This will allow students to think about what plants would be appropriate for their assigned location. The third lesson discusses wildlife diversity. This lesson would be somewhat altered in order to research and identify plants that may be different form the ones the student encounters in their local environment. The invasive species lesson will allow students to learn the danger plants and animals cause their environment if they are new to the environment. This will urge student to think carefully when selecting plants for their landscape. The last lesson discusses natural beauty and climate that has affected different cultures that live in these environments. Students will then design a landscape appropriate for their location (that will thrive in the climate) that includes a diversity of plant life. They will research the price of these plants and the labor it will take to create it, staying within the $15,000 budget.

Assessment (either formative or summative, or both): Students will be asked to draw, write, and discuss their developed landscape. Students will draw their plot of land in order to show the importance of where each plant has been placed. Next students will explain in a formal paper what plants were chosen and why. Also students will discuss possible problems with the area or landscape. Students will then present their findings with the entire class in order for every student to understand the differences between each location given (Illinois, Florida, Arizona, and Washington).

Appendix 2: Pre and Post Survey and Interview Questions

Pre and Post EE Survey University A: Content Focus

Environmental and Sustainability Education (ESE)

  1. 1.

    How would you define the following terms:

    Environmental Education

    Sustainability

  1. 2.

    Describe any experiences you have had in the past (either teaching or learning) regarding environmental education:

  2. 3.

    When you have your own classroom, how do you plan to incorporate environmental education into your teaching of science?

  3. 4.

    What type of activities do you plan to have your students participate into improve their understanding of the environment and sustainable living?

  4. 5.

    What are the benefits (for students, society as whole, etc.) to including environmental education in science education?

Pre and Post EE Survey University B: Method Focus

Problem-Based Learning

  1. 1.

    How would you define environmental education?

  2. 2.

    How could you integrate environmental education into a K-3 science lesson?

  3. 1.

    How could you integrate environmental education into a 4-6 science lesson?

  4. 2.

    Do you think it is important to integrate EE into your classroom? Why or why not?

  5. 3.

    Do you think it is realistic to integrate EE into your classroom? Why or why not?

Pre and Post Interview Questions, University B: Method Focus

Problem-Based Learning

Pre-Interview

  1. 1.

    How would you define environmental education?

a. What is Problem-Based Learning?

  1. 2.

    How could you integrate environmental education into a K-3 science lesson?

  2. 3.

    How could you integrate environmental education into a 4-6 science lesson?

a. Can you integrate EE into any lesson? How?

  1. 4.

    Do you think it is important to integrate EE into your classroom?

  2. 5.

    Do you think it is realistic to integrate EE into your classroom?

  3. 6.

    Do you think there should be environmental education standards that teachers are required to teach and assess?

Post-Interview

  1. 1.

    How would you define environmental education?

  2. 2.

    How could you integrate environmental education into a K-3 science lesson?

  3. 3.

    How could you integrate environmental education into a 4-6 science lesson?

  4. 4.

    How prepared are you to adapt a lesson from an EE curriculum guide like Project Learning Tree to meet the needs of your students?

  5. 5.

    In what are you most confident about integrating EE into your classroom?

  6. 6.

    What concerns you about integrating EE into your classroom?

  7. 7.

    Do you think it is important to integrate EE into your classroom?

  8. 8.

    Do you think it is realistic to integrate EE into your classroom?

About this article

Cite this article

Weiland, I.S., Morrison, J.A. The Integration of Environmental Education into Two Elementary Preservice Science Methods Courses: A Content-Based and a Method-Based Approach. J Sci Teacher Educ 24, 1023–1047 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9336-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9336-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation