This article was downloaded by: [University of Iowa Libraries]On: 05 October 2014, At: 07:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Childhood EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uced20

Raising a Generation of Environmentally Literate Children:Are Preservice Teachers Ready?Blanche Desjean-Perrotta aa Teacher Education, College of Education and Human Development, University of Texas at SanAntonioPublished online: 20 Jun 2013.

To cite this article: Blanche Desjean-Perrotta (2013) Raising a Generation of Environmentally Literate Children: Are PreserviceTeachers Ready?, Childhood Education, 89:4, 260-267, DOI: 10.1080/00094056.2013.815556

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2013.815556

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

260 \ Childhood Education260 \ Childhood Education

Raising a Generation of Environmentally Literate Children: Are Preservice Teachers Ready?

Conservation movements of the 1960s stemming from environmental concerns and public activism have greatly infl uenced the projected educational objectives of the 21st century. Environmental education aiming to develop an environmentally literate citizenry has gained prominence resulting in a demand for environmentally conscious teachers. When education policies do not clarify governmental stance on environmental education, the onus often falls upon teacher preparation programs to bridge the gap. This study, comparing the levels of environmental awareness of 4th-grade students and that of preservice teachers, has implications for shaping teacher education programs of the 21st century. The objective is to develop an environmentally literate teacher workforce that will subsequently infl uence the earth’s future by helping to prepare the upcoming generation of environmentally literate citizens.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:56

05

Oct

ober

201

4

July/August 2013 / 261

The Guidelines for the Preparation and Professional Development of Environmental Educators (re-ferred to subsequently as the Guidelines) devel-oped by the North American Association for

Environmental Education (NAAEE, 2004) state that “the ultimate goal of environmental education is the develop-ment of an environmentally literate citizenry” (p. 3). Th e Guidelines further explain that an environmentally literate citizenry is expected to be well informed about the issues and capable of making complex decisions that will aff ect every-one’s life. Th ese statements presuppose teachers who possess “the understanding, skills and attitudes associated with envi-ronmental literacy,” and who understand that “environmental literacy hinges on understanding the processes and systems that comprise the environment, including human systems and their infl uence” (NAAEE, 2004, p. 7). Th is statement is particularly important given the research that shows children acquire environmental literacy fi rst and foremost from the media, and then through their schooling (Rickinson, 2001). But what if teachers’ knowledge of and understanding of the environment is only on par with or even below that of their students? How will they be able to develop in their students the skills and knowledge that will ensure environmental qual-ity and quality of life for all if they themselves do not have an accurate understanding of the environment and environmen-tal systems theory? Th is is why the role of teacher educators is crucial. Teacher preparation programs have the capacity to develop and strengthen the environmental literacy of their teacher candidates. For the last several years, my colleagues and I have been engaged in research with our teacher education candidates in the area of environmental education (EE) (Desjean-Perrotta, Moseley, & Cantu, 2007; Moseley, Desjean-Perrotta, & Utley, 2010). What we have uncovered about our students’ understanding about the environment and their relationship as humans to the earth has been troublesome. From the data, we suspect their perceptions of the environment may actually be on par with those of the children they will teach. I decided to test this assumption by conducting a pilot study compar-ing the mental models of the environment of 4th-grade stu-dents with those of our preservice teachers.

BackgroundfortheStudyTh e purpose of this qualitative study was to compare the environmental literacy of 4th-grade students to that of preservice teachers. Environmental literacy hinges on un-derstanding the processes and systems that comprise the environment, including human systems and their infl uence. Studies investigating preservice teachers’ perceptions about the environment, including studies conducted with my col-leagues, provided a catalyst for this 4th-grade study (Desjean-Perrotta et al., 2007; Groves & Pugh, 1999; Moseley et al., 2010; Papadimitriou, 2004; Shepardson, Wee, Priddy, & Harbor, 2007). Th e results of previous studies generated concern about

the mental models elementary preservice teachers maintain about the environment. Th ese studies suggest preservice teachers’ understanding of environmental systems theory (defi ned here as the interrelationships among the various components of the environment, including the relationship between humans and the environment) may be on level with the elementary students they would be teaching. Th us, con-cern was raised about their ability to develop environmental literacy in students.

Th eoretical ConsiderationsAlthough there is no one accepted defi nition of environmen-tal education (EE) in the fi eld of science, most could agree that the generally accepted purpose of EE today is to provide individuals with enough information and knowledge about the environment in order to live compatibly with nature, and to develop in individuals the skills and attitudes necessary to protect and improve the environment (NAAEE, 2004). In order to accomplish this, it is important that teachers under-stand the factors that shape their own beliefs and understand-ings of the environment as well as those of the children they teach. A critical analysis of these understandings about the environment, what researchers refer to as mental models, is an important fi rst step in developing environmental literacy in teachers and their students (Robertson, 1993; Shepardson et al., 2007; Wals, 1992). Research in cognitive psychology and science education on mental models indicates that humans’ internal understand-ings of the external world are based on their prior experiences and knowledge. Th ese mental models help individuals make sense of their world, and have a strong infl uence in how in-dividuals organize, defi ne, and address tasks and problems (Coll & Treagust, 2003; Libarkin, Beifuss, & Kurdziel, 2003; Nespor, 1987; Norman, 1983). In his extensive review of the literature on EE, Rickinson (2001) found that children’s mental models of the environment are greatly infl uenced by the media as well as their formal schooling. As a result, chil-dren’s mental models of the environment may not be accurate or complete, and the same can be said of adults as well. However, the research on mental models also indicates that mental models are not fi xed, but rather are continually evolving as new information and experiences are acquired (Johnson-Laird, 1983; Libarkin et al., 2003). Th is fact is relevant to research in EE because it provides the impetus for researching children’s and teachers’ mental models of the envi-ronment. If individuals interpret knowledge and experiences through their belief systems or their mental models, and these mental models can be altered or changed, then it is impera-

by Blanche Desjean-PerrottaBlanche Desjean-Perrotta is Professor and

Associate Dean, Teacher Education, College ofEducationandHumanDevelopment,

University of Texas at San Antonio.

© f

ore

stp

ath

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:56

05

Oct

ober

201

4

262 \ Childhood Education

tive that teachers be made aware of those mental models regarding the environment, especially if they are based on misconceptions or inaccurate informa-tion. Action can then be taken to influence change in their understandings of the environment, moving from what Larkin (1983) and diSessa (1983) de-scribe as intuitive, naïve mental models toward more precise, non-intuitive conceptual models of the envi-ronment (as cited in Libarkin et al., 2003). Based on this information, I decided to examine 4th-grade students’ mental models of the environ-ment and compare those data with the results of a previous study conducted with preservice teach-ers (Desjean-Perrotta, Moseley, & Crim, 2010; Moseley et al., 2010). I specifically investigated the following research question: Is there a difference between 4th-grade students’ and elementary preser-vice teachers’ level of environmental literacy as de-fined by the NAAEE Guidelines? The results of this data would then provide impetus for any changes that needed to be made in our teacher preparation program in the area of environmental education.

TheStudyProceduresIn the previous study, participants were a conve-nience sample of 118 undergraduate elementary preservice teachers from a large, Hispanic-serving, urban university who were enrolled in a senior level course integrating science and mathematics teaching methodologies (Moseley et al., 2010). They were asked to complete a two-part survey instrument that required them to respond to writ-ten prompts asking them to draw a picture of the environment and describe the environment in words. This method was chosen based on a review of the literature that described the use of drawings as representations of personal mental models or images to be a valid method of analyzing personal beliefs (Alerby, 2000; Arnheim, 1969; Barraza, 1999; Di Leo, 1983; Goodenough, 1926; Payne, 1998; Piaget & Inhelder, 1969; Shepardson, 2005; Shepardson et al., 2007; Van-Summers, 1984; Wee, Harbor, & Shepardson, 2006). The survey direc-tions are purposefully open-ended, allowing the respondents to draw their personal perceptions of the environment. This survey was also used with the children in-volved in the present study, a diverse population of 93 fourth-grade students from one multi-ethnic urban elementary school located in the same geo-graphic area as the university. Fourth-grade students were chosen because environmental education is part of the state-mandated curriculum for this grade level. These students were surveyed before begin-ning the state-mandated curriculum. The preservice

teachers also had not experienced any formal envi-ronmental education training at the university at the time their survey was administered.

Data AnalysisI chose to compare only the drawings of the two groups. I did not feel that it would be possible to do a fair comparison of the written portion of the survey, given the different levels of writing abil-ity of the two groups. (However, a review of the written portion of the survey supported what was found in the drawings for each group.) A content analysis of the drawings was done using the Draw-An-Environment Test Rubric (DAET-R), a scoring rubric for drawings developed by this author along with other colleagues (Moseley et al., 2010) (see Appendix). The four factors used in the DAET-R to analyze the drawings include human factors, non-human living or biotic factors (e.g., plants and ani-mals), non-living or abiotic factors (e.g., air, water, mountains), and human-built constructions. These factors were chosen based on four primary core concepts identified as elements in a systems view of the environment in the NAAEE Guidelines. The rubric determines whether any of the four environmental factors were drawn and the level of the participants’ understanding of environmental systems theory using a rating scale from 0-12. Participants’ surveys receive a higher score if the drawings indicate any kind of interaction among the factors that would indicate some understand-ing of the environmental systems theory. The rating scale assumes the higher the score, the higher the level of environmental literacy. In the preservice teacher study, each individual drawing was inde-pendently analyzed and scored by three reviewers using the DAET-R. Once the individual scores were tabulated and compared, rival scores were discussed until consensus was reached. Then the total scores were compiled and percentages calculated. The same analysis was done with the data from the 4th-grade student surveys and the group scores were compared.

WhattheStudyRevealed:ResultsoftheDrawingsResults of the DAET-R analysis for total scores for the 4th-graders and the preservice teachers indi-cated both groups lacked an understanding of envi-ronmental systems theory. In the study of the pre-service teachers, 80% merely drew and labeled their drawings without any indicators (arrows, diagrams, conceptual labels) demonstrating an understanding of the interdependence of the four factors in the en-vironment (Moseley et al., 2010). Only 2% of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:56

05

Oct

ober

201

4

July/August 2013 / 263

participants’ drawings evidenced any understanding of environmental systems theory showing interac-tions among one or more factors. Ninety percent of the 4th-grade participants drew one or more of the four factors in the environment, but did not indicate in any way a systems interac-tion among the factors. Factors were drawn in isola-tion. Nine percent of the 4th-graders evidenced a limited understanding of interaction among factors. These drawings included some conceptual labels, such as trash or water cycle labels on clouds. Or the drawings showed factors interacting with one another, such as a human boating on a river or cows grazing on a farm. The DAET-R also provides information about the frequency of each individual factor drawn (human, living, abiotic, and built). For example, how many participants included humans in their drawings, or living things? How many participants included abi-otic factors (e.g., clouds, sun) as part of their mental model of the environment? How many participants drew human-built objects as part of the environ-ment? This data also provide the researcher with an opportunity to see whether a pattern in mental models exists among the participants as a group. In the study with the preservice teachers, it appears they did not consider humans to be an integral component of the environmental system. Sixty percent of their drawings did not contain any drawn humans. Thirty-one percent drew humans, but did not indicate any obvious interaction with other factors in the environment; of the 31%, only 5% actually indicated any kind of systems approach in their drawings of humans (Moseley et al., 2010). The data suggest that two-thirds of the preservice teacher participants consider living and built factors as integral components of the environment, since they included these factors in their drawings. Yet there is little evidence suggesting they understood these components to be part of an environmental system. The factors were merely drawn without any apparent interaction with other factors. Less than 10% of the preservice teachers evidenced in their drawings a mental model of the environment that displayed an understanding of a systems approach to the environment and the influence of each envi-ronmental factor upon others. Similar to the data from the preservice teachers, 81% of the 4th-grade participants did not include humans in their drawings. Sixty-six percent of the 4th-graders also did not include built objects in their drawings. They did not indicate in their draw-ings any impact of humans on the environment, either positive or negative. Rather, the children’s drawings evidenced a more naturalistic mental

model of the environment that included plants, animals, grass, rivers, sunshine, and other living and abiotic factors, absent humans. Children drew pastoral scenes of animals living and enjoying green pastures or forests with the sun shining down on lakes and rivers. These drawings are consistent with other studies investigating children’s percep-tions of the environment as a place where animals and plants live and where abiotic elements provide resources for other living things (Alerby, 2000; Barraza, 1999; Littledyke, 2004; Shepardson et al., 2007). Roth (1992) refers to this level of envi-ronmental literacy as a nominal understanding of the environment rather than an operational one. However, 35% of the 4th-graders showed an under-standing of how living factors interact with other living and abiotic factors, compared to only 13% of the preservice teachers. One other interesting observation noted when comparing both samples was that participants in both groups identified living things as part of the environment more than any of the other three fac-tors. Also, in both groups, the factor least discussed in the definition of the environment was humans. Interestingly, when both data sets were placed side by side without identification, it was difficult to identify which group produced the drawings.

ImplicationsforTeacherEducatorsThe 1999 NAAEE guidelines for environmental curriculum K-12 (Excellence in Environmental Education: Guidelines for Learning [K-12]) explain that environmental literacy hinges on understand-ing the processes and systems that comprise the environment, including human systems and their influence. If this is so, then the results of this study are cause for concern. If children’s mental models and understandings about the environment are greatly influenced by their schooling (Rickinson, 2001), it is important that their teachers possess a mature level of environmental literacy themselves. The apparent lack of diversity between the preser-vice teachers’ and the 4th-grade students’ mental models of the environment underscores the need to examine how teachers are being prepared for EE. This is especially critical given the fact that an indi-vidual’s conception of the environment influences how he or she understands environmental issues and how they respond to these issues (Loughland, Reid, Walker, & Petocz, 2003). Preservice teachers who will be responsible for shaping their students’ understandings of the environment and environ-mental issues must themselves understand the social contexts that inform and shape their own beliefs and mental models of the environment.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:56

05

Oct

ober

201

4

264 \ Childhood Education

The dominance in this study of a mental model of the environment that excludes humans suggests that both preservice teachers and the students may be the products of their own environment and education. The conceptual model of environment portrayed in the media and in educational materi-als usually emphasizes such prototypical factors as mountains, trees, rivers, and animals—a pastoral scene with little human influence. Little emphasis in the media is placed on developing a conceptual model of the environment that shows an environ-mental systems approach to understanding the en-vironment. The message that is conveyed is that we need to maintain this pristine environment for hu-man consumption and benefit—an anthropocentric view of the environment, rather than a biocentric view that considers humans as one element in the whole environmental system. Environmental education is usually infused into school curriculums through existing science or so-cial studies curriculums to be studied as an isolated strand or unit, rather than taught as a core subject. The result is the continued proliferation of an eco-systems view of the environment that includes mis-conceptions about the role of humans in this mutu-ally sustaining system. This prevailing mental model of the environment in which humans are outside of the system, rather than within it, is evident in the drawings of this study. This is problematic because, as Shepardson et al. (2007) remind us

From this perspective, human behaviors do not negatively impact the environment. If one is not part of the environment, one’s ac-tions cannot impact the environment, and if the environment is there to support humans, the indiscriminate use of natural resources is merely a means to an end. (p. 344)

In addition, a recent push in the field of EE emphasizes the importance of developing in in-dividuals a strong sense of place; that is, the envi-ronment also encompasses where we live. It is not some remote idyllic spot on the globe (Connell, Fien, Lee, Sykes, & Yencken, 1998). The premise of this movement is that we need this local con-nection as a base for moving out into the larger systems and broader issues. The results of this study lend credence to the idea that we need to provide our students and preservice teachers with a more comprehensive view of the environment, one that includes all four environmental factors involved in an interactive system to maintain the environment, especially humans. When children and preservice teachers did include the human-built environment

in their drawings, they usually drew buildings in a negative light as purveyors of pollution and blight. They drew smokestacks and cars emitting clouds and smoke. They did not evidence through their drawings an understanding that human-designed landscapes could be a positive factor in the larger picture of environmental systems. This fact is even more surprising in the preservice teachers’ drawings, given their longer life experience. It speaks to the strong influence of the media and suggests a lack of comprehensive EE in their own schooling.

PreserviceTeacherEnvironmentalEducationFor many preservice teacher education programs, including my own, the challenge that presents itself with regard to environmental education is how to develop curricula within existing certification programs that provide adequate support for a high level of environmental literacy among preservice teachers. In the United States, most states do not have an environmental literacy degree, endorse-ment, or certification program. Therefore, it is left to the faculty in these programs to determine how EE can be infused effectively into existing teacher education programs that are already struggling to meet state teacher preparation guidelines within a limited number of credit hours. How can a teacher preparation program move preservice teachers from an anthropocentric view of the environment to a level of environmental literacy concomitant with that described in the NAAEE Guidelines? In order for preservice teachers to develop a high level of environmental literacy, they must first un-cover their own mental models of the environment. This can be done in the classroom using inventories like those used in this study and others, and having students discuss the results. I do this activity with my own students and they are always very surprised to see their scores on the DAET-R, which are usu-ally low. This provides a great opportunity for dis-cussion about the research in EE and their role as future teachers in environmental education. A study and discussion of the NAAE Guidelines for envi-ronmental education, as well as documents from other national organizations such as the Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993), would also help preservice teachers integrate new conceptual understandings into their present mental models. Preservice teachers can be made aware of how their conceptions of the environment and their role in the environment compares to these documents. More importantly, preservice teachers need the opportunity to experience the environment in such

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:56

05

Oct

ober

201

4

July/August 2013 / 265

a way that they can expand their conceptions of the environment through personal experience. Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons, and Howes (2005) suggest that understanding issues like environmental sustain-ability must involve making personal connections in some way. This can be accomplished by using authentic professional development experiences in a systematic way that includes opportunities for reflection and practice, such as course projects that examine their local environment through the lens of environmental issues. For example, students could study the impact of humans on the local wa-ter resources and how this affects the local animal and plant life. This would help preservice teachers expand their mental model to include humans in their understanding of the environment as they dis-cuss and analyze the issues. Considering the benefits of extended profes-sional development over time, teacher educators can initiate a sequence of EE experiences for preser-vice teachers throughout their program (Moseley, Desjean-Perrotta, & Crim, 2012). Environmental education can be integrated into their coursework at specific intervals in the teacher preparation pro-gram using inquiry-based activity guides, materials, and resources that preservice teachers can also use in their future classrooms (see Desjean-Perrotta, 2010, in reference section for syllabi examples). For example, in our teacher education program, the Global Learning and Observation to Benefit the Environment (2008) curriculum, a program developed by NASA, is introduced at the beginning of the preservice teacher education program as part of an Earth Systems course. This program is then followed in the remaining semesters with day-long training programs for our students using Wildlife in Learning Design (Project WILD, 2004) spon-sored by the Council for Environmental Education (2004), and Project Learning Tree (2008) sponsored by the American Forest Foundation. These programs offer preservice teachers and classroom teachers comprehensive materials, accurate information, well-planned lessons, and projects across grade levels, as well as the opportunity to explore the outdoors as a potential learning environment. These programs also encourage partnerships for program delivery between the teacher educator program and local community agents, such as a parks and wildlife department, forest service personnel, and parks and recreation departments (Crim, Desjean-Perrotta, & Moseley, 2008). The purpose of this type of infusion of EE into our teacher education program is to in-crease preservice teachers’ knowledge of, and interac-tion with, the local environment’s natural areas and to influence their perceptions of the environment.

Through EE activities integrated into their teacher education program, preservice teachers will begin to compare their mental models of the environment to scientifically based models. Raising doubt about their own mental models of the environment is the first step in creating substantive changes in their ex-isting mental models (Duffy, 2003).

ConclusionThe purpose of this study was to examine and com-pare the mental models of the environment held by 4th-grade students and their future teachers. A secondary purpose of this study was to determine if more environmental education was needed in our teacher preparation programs. The data presented here certainly provide a catalyst for more research in this area. For example, my colleagues and I are interested in exploring the specific factors influenc-ing preservice teachers’ environmental perceptions. Preservice teachers for this study were surveyed be-fore receiving any formal training in environmental education in their college courses. However, it was not determined what other kinds of environmental experiences they may have had previous to this survey. So what is the source of their limited en-vironmental literacy? Are their views stereotypical of what is portrayed in the media? If so, can these views be modified? Another related EE study that we conducted earlier (Desjean-Perrotta et al., 2007) asked the question: What influence does ethnicity or culture and the environment in which they [pre-service teachers] were raised have on their percep-tions of the environment? More studies need to be done in this area. If, as the data for this study presented here sug-gest, future elementary teachers are at the same de-velopmental level as their future students in under-standing the environment, this should be cause for concern among teacher educators. Those responsi-ble for preparing teachers for the workforce can de-velop a better understanding of the ways in which their preservice teachers develop their personal understandings of the environment using a survey such as the Draw an Environment Test. Results from these surveys then can be used as a catalyst for developing targeted intervention strategies, which can be researched as to their effectiveness in chang-ing people’s mental models of the environment. This understanding will enable teacher educators in the development of courses or programs that meet the stated goals of the NAAEE Guidelines. Our goal should be to develop an environmentally literate teacher workforce that will subsequently influence the future of our planet as they help to prepare the next generation of environmentally literate citizens.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:56

05

Oct

ober

201

4

266 \ Childhood Education

ReferencesAlerby, E. (2000). A way of visualizing children’s and young

people’s thoughts about the environment: A study of drawings. Environmental Education Research, 6, 205-222.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Barraza, L. (1999). Children’s drawings about the environment. Environmental Education Research, 5, 49-66.

Coll, R., & Treagust, D. (2003). Learners’ mental models of metal-lic bonding. Science Education, 87, 685-707.

Connell, S., Fien, J., Lee, J., Sykes, H., & Yencken, D. (1998). “If it doesn’t really affect you, you don’t think about it.” A qualitative study of young people’s environmental attitudes in two Australian cities. Environmental Education Research, 4(3), 95-113.

Crim, C. L., Desjean-Perrotta, B., & Moseley, C. (2008). Partnerships gone WILD: Preparing teachers of young children to teach about the natural world. Childhood Education, 85(1), 6-12.

Desjean-Perrotta, B. (2010). Contributing author and reviewer. Environmental education at UTSA. In A. Stenstrup (Ed.), Connecting Project Learning Tree to preservice education: Handbook for the National Project Learning Tree Program. Washington, DC: American Forestry Foundation.

Desjean-Perrotta, B., Moseley, C., & Cantu, L. (2007). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of the environment: Does ethnicity or dominant residential experience matter? Journal of Environmental Education, 39(2), 21-31.

Desjean-Perrotta, B., Moseley, C., & Crim, C. (2010). Raising a generation of environmentally literate children:  Assessing the impact of teacher knowledge. In J. Hoot & J. Szente (Eds.), The Earth is our home: Children caring for the environment. Olney, MD: Association for Childhood Education International.

Di Leo, J. (1983). Children’s drawings as diagnostic aids. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.

diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105-225.

Duffy, F. M. (2003). I think, therefore I am resistant to change. National Staff Development Council, 24, 30-36.

Global Learning and Observation to Benefit the Environment. (n.d.). The GLOBE program. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from www.globe.gov

Goodenough, F. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by drawings. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.

Groves, F. H., & Pugh, A. E. (1999). Elementary pre-service teacher perceptions of the greenhouse effect. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 75-81.

Johnson-Laird, P. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Larkin, J. (1983). The role of problem representations in physics. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Libarkin, J., Beifuss, M., & Kurdziel, J. (2003). Research meth-odologies in science education: Mental models and cognition in education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51, 121-125.

Littledyke, M. (2004). Primary children’s views on science and envi-ronmental issues: Examples of environmental cognitive and moral

development. Environmental Education Research, 10, 217-235.Loughland, T., Reid, A., Walker, K., & Petocz, P. (2003). Factors

influencing young people’s conceptions of the environment. Environmental Education Research, 9(1), 3-17.

Moseley, C., Desjean-Perrotta, B., & Crim, C. (2012). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of the environment: Infusing environmen-tal education into an elementary teacher preparation program. Journal of Interdisciplinary Education, 11(1), 1-14.

Moseley, C., Desjean-Perrotta, B., & Utley, J. (2010). The Draw-An-Environment-Test rubric: Exploring preservice teachers’ men-tal models of the environment. Environmental Education Research, 16(2), 173-192.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 317-328.

Norman, D. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In Genter and Stevens (Eds.), Mental models, 7-14. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

North American Association for Environmental Education. (1999). Excellence in environmental education: Guidelines for learning (K-12). Rock Springs, GA: Author.

North American Association for Environmental Education. (2004). Guidelines for the preparation and professional development of envi-ronmental educators. Washington, DC: Author.

Papadimitriou, V. (2004). Prospective primary teachers’ understand-ing of climate change, greenhouse effect, and ozone layer descrip-tion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 299-307.

Payne, P. (1998). Children’s conceptions of nature. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 14, 19-26.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Project Learning Tree. (2008). PreK-8 environmental education activ-ity guide. Washington, DC: American Forest Foundation.

Project WILD. (2004). Project WILD K-12 curriculum and activity guide. Houston, TX: Council for Environmental Education.

Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and learning in environmental edu-cation: A critical review of the evidence. Environmental Education Research, 7, 207-320.

Robertson, A. (1993). Eliciting students’ understandings: Necessary steps in environmental education. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 95-114.

Roth, C. (1992). Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution and di-rections in the 1990’s. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, mathematics, and Environmental Education.

Shepardson, D. P. (2005). Student ideas: What is an environment? The Journal of Environmental Education, 36, 49-48.

Shepardson, D., Wee, B., Priddy, M., & Harbor, J. (2007). Students’ mental models of the environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 327-348.

Van-Summers, P. (1984). Drawing and cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Wals, A. (1992). Young adolescents’ perceptions of environmental issues: Implications for environmental education in urban set-tings. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 8, 45-58.

Wee, B., Harbor, J., & Shepardson, D. (2006). Multiculturalism in environmental science: A snapshot of Singapore. Multicultural Perspectives, 8, 10-17.

Ziedler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscien-tific issues education. Science & Education, 89, 357-377.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:56

05

Oct

ober

201

4

July/August 2013 / 267

Appendix

Draw an Environment Test – Rubric (DAET-R)

Date: ID#:Factor NotPresent Present InteractionsWithOther

FactorsSystem Interactions

MadeExplicitScore

0 Points 1 Point 2 Points 3 Points

Human Drawing does not contain pictures of humans.

Human(s) drawn without any apparent interaction with other factors.

Human(s) drawn interacting with other humans and/or another factor (e.g., human fishing or walking on a bridge), but without special emphasis placed on the influence of the interaction on the environment.

Humans drawn with obvious deliberate emphasis placed on interaction with one or more factors and the influence of that interaction on the environment through the use of special indicators, such as conceptual labels and/or arrows.

Living Drawing does not contain pictures of living organisms.

Living organisms (e.g., plants and animals) drawn without any apparent interaction with other factors.

Living organisms drawn interacting with other living organisms and/or another factor (e.g., animals grazing), but without special emphasis placed on the influence of the interaction on the environment.

Living organisms drawn with obvious deliberate emphasis placed on interaction with one or more factors and the influence of that interaction on the environment through the use of special indicators, such as conceptual labels and/or arrows.

Abiotic Drawing does not contain pictures of abiotic factors.

Abiotic items (e.g., mountains, rivers, sun, or clouds) drawn without any apparent interaction with other factors.

Abiotic items drawn interacting with other abiotic items and/or another factor (e.g., wind blowing a palm tree), but without special emphasis placed on the influence of the interaction on the environment.

Abiotic items drawn with obvious deliberate emphasis placed on interaction with one or more factors and the influence of that interaction on the environment through the use of special indicators, such as conceptual labels and/or arrows.

Human-Built or Designed

Drawing does not contain pictures of human-built factors.

Human-built or designed items (e.g., buildings, automobiles, and bridges) drawn without any apparent interaction with other factors.

Human-built items drawn interacting with other human-built items and/or another factor (e.g., smokestack emitting smoke into the air), but without special emphasis placed on the influence of the interaction on the environment.

Human-built items drawn with obvious deliberate emphasis placed on interaction with one or more factors and the influence of that interaction on the environment through the use of special indicators, such as conceptual labels and/or arrows.

Total possible points: 12

Total Points

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Io

wa

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

7:56

05

Oct

ober

201

4