Recently,
researchers have shown an increased interest in Environmental Education (EE) and what it can do
for children in the education sectors. This critique will focus on a journal by
Larson, Castleberry and Green (2010) the “Effects
of an Environmental Education Program on the Environmental Orientation of Children
from Different Gender, Age and Ethnic Groups”. The main objectives during
this study were to look at baseline differences in the three key points made in
the title: gender, age and ethnic background, the study was sponsored by the
State Botanical Garden of Georgia who wanted to see children’s eco-affinity,
eco-awareness and their environmental knowledge. During this study 133 children
aged between six to thirteen years old took part. The researchers also wanted
to examine the effects of them taking part in a one week EE program at a summer
camp. The responses from the program would be compared to a control group who
were a group of students who were enrolled in an after school program. By
looking at these areas the researchers believed that it would give them
effective strategies for improving EE programs.
Background literature on
the three points made in the title suggested that most studies done on
environmental orientation are usually focused on adults and that research had
found that women were more inclined to support protection of nature and express
their concerns about environmental issues than men (Milfont & Duckitt,
2004). However, other research carried out on the area of gender suggests that
there is a “gender gap” that advocates women are less knowledgeable about the
environment (Coyle, 2005). When reading the information given about age and
environmental orientations Whittaker, Sagura and Bowler (2005) said that willingness
to self-identify as environmentalists declined when becoming young adults. Background
reading on ethnicity suggested that African Americans and Hispanic children had
fewer opportunities to access natural resources, parks ect (Bullard, 2006).
From the results there
showed no significant difference in gender across the children’s
eco-affinity, eco-awareness and their environmental knowledge scores. In age of
children ages 9 or below and 10 and above showed significant difference in
eco-affinity with it being lower in older children. Eco-awareness was not
observed as being significantly different in the age groups and the
environmental knowledge did not show statically evidence for being
significantly different, however the mean scores were slightly higher in the
older age group. Ethnicity showed significant difference in eco-awareness and
knowledge. With African American children scoring considerably lower in both fields.
However, eco-affinity was virtually the same in both ethnic backgrounds so
showed no significant difference.
From these results you’re
able to come to the conclusion that environmental orientation can be affected by
a multiple of factors. Age suggested that the older children’s knowledge about
the environment was better but their drive to liking and understanding
something (eco-affinity) was lower than the younger children which concur with
Whittaker etal. (2005) statement. The main factor that showed the biggest
significance was ethnicity. During the short interviews one African American
child says,
“I don’t go outside at my house because it’s like a bad, you
know, environment to
go out in. So my mom takes me to the park and we go play
basketball, go on the
swings, slide down the slide, and sometimes we walk.”
One
of the main points you should take away from this journal is that all children
should be given the same opportunity to experience the outdoors. However, they
are not, so environmental orientation will be most different in ethnicity than
the other fields.
Most
of the children enjoyed the activities that had some form of physical activity,
they enjoyed learning about plants and animals but what the researchers really
got from the interviews was that it was “fun!”
It
is said that out of school activities can spark an interest in nature and have
a deep impact on effective development (Uitto, Juuti, Lavonen & Meisalo,
2006). This suggests that non-formal EE programs can play and important role in
connecting children with nature and making more environmental literate people
for the future.
This
reading is a good source that informs the reader about the difference aspects
that affect an individual’s environmental orientation. It also informs you
about how informal EE sessions can benefit children’s developments and help
them in later life be more environmentally literate people. The paper gets
first hand data from the children and what they think and know of the
environment. Limitations of the study are the amount of participants and that
many had to drop out due to a number of reasons leaving them with 133,
resulting in maybe not being as accurate in the display of children’s
environmental orientation over a general population.
Overall the paper has its positives and negatives but is an enjoyable informative
read.
References
Bullard,
R. D. (2006). Anatomy of environmental
racism and the environmental justice
movement.
In Bullard, R. D., Confronting
environmental racism: Voices from
the grassroots.
Boston, MA: South End Press.
Coyle,
K. (2005). Environmental literacy in
America: What ten years of NEETF/Roper
research and related
studies say about environmental literacy in the U.S.
Washington,
D.C.:
The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation.
Milfont,
T.L. & Duckitt, J. (2004). The structure of environmental attitudes: A
first- and
second-order
confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 24,
289-303.
Uitto,
A. Juuti, K. Lavonen, J. & Meisalo, V. (2006). Students’ interest in
biology and
their
out-of-school experiences. Journal of
Biological Education, 40, 124-129.
Whittaker,
M. Segura, G. M. & Bowler, S. (2005). Racial/ethnic group attitudes
toward
environmental protection in California: Is “environmentalism” still a white
phenomenon?
Political Research Quarterly, 58,
435-447.
