The Journal of Environmental Education, 2000,Vol. 32 No.

1 4-11

Environmental Education
in the United States:
A Survey of Preservice T eacher
Education Programs
ROSALYN MCKEOWN-ICE

ABSTRACT: The status of the environmental education component of preservice

teacher education programs is unknown nationally. This study surveyed 715 institu-
tions of teacher education using a mail questionnaire. The response rate was approx-
imately 63%. The results indicate that most schools have few requirements related to
environmental education, and in the majority of schools environmental education is
not institutionalized.

L ittle quantitative information is available concerning the

environmental education component of teacher-prepara-
tion programs. While many institutions of higher education
are involved in environmental education, the extent of their
involvement has not been documented, especially at the
preservice level. Although national surveys have been
undertaken in other disciplines (e.g., science education,
computer education, and health education), a literature
search revealed that no systematic national or regional sur-
vey has been carried out that focuses on environmental edu-
cation as a component of teacher preparation in colleges,
schools, and departments of education. Nevertheless, envi-
ronmental educators have observed that “. . . teacher educa-
tion programs in environmental education remain relatively
scarce and poorly developed” (Disinger & Howe, 1990).
Rosalyn McKeown-Ice is the director of the Center for
Geography and Environmental Education, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville.
4
At the international level, the Center for Education
Research and Innovation of the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) undertook an in-
depth study of environmental education policy development
in five OECD countries—Australia, Austria, Finland, Ger-
many, and Norway. The study found that teacher training in
environmental education is the weakest point in the envi-
ronmental education programs in all five countries. The
study also stated that “Few teachers, or anyone else for that
matter, think that teachers are well prepared for teaching
environmental issues . . . the traditional disciplinary struc-
ture and pedagogical practice of higher education serve as
impediments to environmental education, and higher educa-
tion institutions are located in a critical place to both pro-
duce and legitimise knowledge” (OECD, 1995).
The purpose of this study was to assess the status of envi-
ronmental education in preservice teacher education pro-
grams in the United States. A mail survey was sent to 715
institutions of higher education that are members of the
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
(AACTE). Sixty-three percent of the institutions responded.
 McKeown-Ice
Method
Survey Development
Three major considerations affected the design of the sur-
vey. First, the survey was designed to reflect a wide variety
of teacher education programs in the United States. Second,
it was designed to elicit responses that could be transformed
into numeric form for use in a database. Third, the survey
reflected the environmental literacy framework used by the
Environmental Literacy Assessment Consortium (Sim-
mons, 1995).
The survey was developed and refined in three stages:
(a) the objectives and questions were written, (b) the sur-
vey was reviewed internally and externally, and (c) face-to-
face pilot testing was done. After each stage, the instrument
was revised. In the first stage, the research team wrote a list
of objectives for the survey and then wrote questions to
correspond to each objective. Subsequently, experts from
the University of Tennessee–Knoxville campus, members
of the Environmental Literacy Assessment Consortium,
and staff of the National Consortium for Environmental
Education were invited to review the instrument. Review-
ers included environmental educat o rs , educational
researchers, survey designers, and social scientists. Next,
the survey was revised to reflect comments from the
reviewers. Finally, face-to-face pilot testing was conducted
with teacher educators. In these pilots, a respondent was
given a survey and asked to verbalize her or his thought
processes while completing the survey. A researcher
observed the respondent completing the survey and noted
remarks, ambiguities, time for completing each section,
and resources that were consulted. This approach proved to
be the most valuable technique for soliciting feedback in
the development process.
The final version of the survey consisted of three parts:
General Information, Preservice Elementary Education, and
Preservice Secondary Education. Part I, General Informa-
tion, included 19 questions that covered student exposure to
environmental education; number of faculty involved in
environmental education; interest of faculty, administration,
and preservice students in environmental education; state
certification requirements related to environmental educa-
tion; factors influencing the environmental education com-
ponent of the teacher education program; barriers to envi-
ronmental education; self-rating of the overall program, and
institutional data. Comments were also requested.
Parts II and III of the survey questions covered five
themes: programmatic requirements, institutionalization of
environmental education, incorporation of environmental
education into the teacher education curriculum, depth of
environmental education in teacher education program, and
self-rating of effectiveness. Part II, Preservice Elementary
Education, and Part III, Preservice Secondary Education,
asked the same 15 questions referring to elementary and
secondary teacher-pr eparation programs, respectively. The
questions inquired about specialization options, number of
5
students specializing in environmental education, course-
work and field requirements in environmental education,
the advising of students interested in teaching environmen-
tal education, minimum requirements in the natural sci-
ences,social sciences, and environmental issues,integration
of environmental education in the teacher-preparation pro-
gram, presentation of the goals of environmental education
(i.e., awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills, and participa-
tion), presentation of environmental action strategies (e.g.,
consumer/economic actions, ecomanagement, legal action,
persuasion, political action), environmental education
resources introduced to students, instructional methods
related to environmental education taught to preservice
teachers, and self-rating of the program. Comments were
also requested.
Six types of questions were used in the survey. General-
ly the respondents were required to (a) answer yes-or-no
questions, (b) rank items, (c) rate on a scale, (d) provide a
short answer, (e) check appropriate items from a list, and (f)
provide comments. A 5-point scale (ranging from 1 = no
interest to 5 = great interest ) was used to rate interest in
environmental education, and a 4-point scale (ranging from
1 = poor to 4 = excellent) was used to evaluate program
effectiveness.
Survey Distribution
The mail survey was directed to member institutions of
the AACTE. The AACTE was chosen because it is the
largest professional organization of institutions involved in
teacher preparation. A review of the literature revealed that
surveys of member institutions of educational organizations
such as AACTE or the National Council for the Accredita-
tion of Teacher Education produce high return rates com-
pared with return rates for mail surveys in general (Thomp-
son, 1983; Rieck, 1992; Dillman, 1978). Also, mailing
labels could be purchased at a reasonable cost from the
AACTE.
The research team sent the survey to the chief officer of
each institution (e.g., dean or department chair) listed in
the AACTE database and directory. The survey packet
included a letter to the chief officer, a return postcard, a let-
ter to the person completing the survey, an explanation of
the survey and collaborating institutions, the survey (three
color-coded parts), and a postage-paid, self-addressed
return envelope. The letter to the chief officer requested
that she or he give the survey to the person who is most
active in environmental education in their teacher-prepara-
tion program. The chief officer was also requested to write
the name and address of the person given the survey on the
postage-paid, self-addressed postcard and mail it to the
University of Tennessee–Knoxville. Great efforts were
made to personalize the letters that were then sent to des-
ignated persons. The cover letters were personally
addressed and handsigned. Surveys were mailed in early
August. A reminder postcard was mailed 10 days later.
Non-respondents were mailed another survey in early Sep-
6 The Journal of Environmental Education

tember. This method was adapted from the Dillman method

(Dillman, 1978). TABLE 1. Description of Institutions Responding to
Survey
Data Entry and Tabulation
Data from the surveys were entered into a database using n %
Fox Pro®. The database was visually scanned for entry
errors and checked for accuracy with a random sampling Institution
technique. Twenty surveys were selected from each part. Public 240 54
Private 189 43
Eight errors were noted out of 4,720 data cells. The error Unknown 13 3
rate (0.17%) was not considered sufficient to take remedia- Institutional enrollment
tion measures. < 999 32 7
Results were tabulated and analyzed using the count and 1,000–4,999 173 39
average functions of Fox Pro®. Results of the study are 5,000–9,999 83 19
10,000–14,999 56 13
expressed primarily as percentages. Note that the percent- 15,000–19,000 26 6
ages are based on the total number of respondents, which > 19,000 55 12
differ for each section of the survey—442 for Part I, 424 for Unknown 17 4
Part II, and 417 for Part III. Teacher preparation program enrollment
< 50 6 1
Results 50–99 23 5
100–499 194 44
Four-hundred-forty-six institutions returned question- 500–999 78 18
naires. Three institutions from U.S. territories also complet- 1,000–1,999 75 17
ed the survey. In addition, 8 institutions responded that no > 2,000 31 7
one would complete the survey citing reasons such as they Unknown 35 8
Geographic region
no longer have a teacher education program or no environ- Midwest 158 36
mental education is taught. Approximately 63% of the insti- Northeast 56 13
tutions responded. South 174 39
Many types of institutions responded—public and pri- West 52 12
vate, those with large and small enrollment. The enroll- Unidentified 2 —
Job title of respondents
ments in teacher preparation programs at participating Full Professors 87 20
schools ranged from less than 50 per year to more than Associate Professors 59 13
2,000. The responses came from all geographic r egions in Assistant Professors 85 19
the United States. (see Table 1). The respondents were most Department Heads/Chairs 64 14
often professors, department heads or chairs, and deans (see Deans 23 5
Other/Unknown 124 28
Table 1). Only job title information was collected from the
respondents.
The survey revealed that about half of the students in pre-
service teacher-pr eparation programs are exposed to envi- TABLE 2. Factors Influencing the Environmental
ronmental education. The nature and extent of the exposure Education Component of the Preservice Education
Program
varied from institution to institution.

Factors Influencing Preservice Environmental Rank

Education 1st 2nd 3rd
Respondents were requested to rank the three most influ- Factor n n n
ential factors in determining the nature of the environmen-
tal education component of the preservice education pro- Budget 29 34 46
Faculty interest/knowledge 177 71 60
gram (see Table 2). Faculty interest or knowledge and state Institutional tradition 21 44 50
certification guidelines were the two factors that were Professional association guidelines
ranked as the most influential. The respondents were also and standards 14 71 43
asked to rank the barriers to environmental education at State certification guidelines 109 59 47
their institution at the preservice level (see Table 3). Limit- Student interest/demand 9 75 66
Other 0 0 1
ed course time conflicting with mandated course content
was the major barrier.
The respondents evaluated their institution’s effective- asked to rate the overall effectiveness of the elementary and
ness in five areas related to environmental education. About secondary programs for preparing students to teach envi-
two-thirds of the respondents rated their institutions as poor ronmental education. These results also showed that institu-
to adequate (see Table 4). In addition, respondents were tions generally rate their programs as poor or adequate.
 McKeown-Ice 7

A major question among environmental educators is

TABLE 3. Barriers to Environmental Education whether environmental education should be integrated into
the curriculum or taught as a separate course. The survey
Rank revealed that preservice environmental education was usu-
1st 2nd 3rd ally integrated into coursework, primarily into science
Factor n n n methods (see Table 5).
Another objective of the survey was to determine the
Limited course time, conflicts with depth of the environmental education component taught to
mandated course content 271 41 27 preservice teachers at the elementary and secondary levels.
Limited faculty interest in or To evaluate depth, we asked if the goals of environmental
commitment to environmental
education 24 55 26 education were presented to increase awareness in the ele-
Limited faculty knowledge of mentary and secondary teacher preservice programs. Gen-
environmental education methods erally, there is a decrease in the number of institutions pre-
and action strategies 10 35 37 senting goals of environmental education from awareness to
Limited faculty content knowledge participation (see Table 6). To further evaluate depth, we
related to the environment and
environmental issues 5 23 30 asked if environmental action strategies were presented. Far
Limited faculty preparation time 10 39 29 fewer institutions presented environmental action strategies
Limited access to substantive, up-to- than emphasized goals of environmental education. The
date environmental education results showed a decline in emphasis—from persuasion and
resources 2 12 26 ecomanagement to consumer and economic actions and
Limited administration interest in or
support for environmental education 13 25 37 then to political and legal action at both elementary and sec-
Limited funding 23 72 40 ondary preservice education levels.
Limited student interest in Several questions in the survey addressed the institution-
environmental education 6 15 21 alization of environmental education in the teacher prepara-
tion program. Few colleges and universities across the Unit-
ed States offered a major, minor, concentration,
Interest in and Depth of Environmental Education specialization, or even a course in environmental education
Instruction (see Table 7). Few institutions required environmental edu-
To determine the level of faculty, administrative, and stu- cation experience in their coursework or field experiences.
dent interest in environmental education, the respondents All schools required preservice teachers to take coursework
were asked to rate the interest of these three groups on a 5- in the natural and social sciences; however, fewer than one-
point scale. Preservice students and teacher-preparation fac- third of the responding institutions (31% elementary and
ulty were most interested (3.09 and 3.01, respectively) fol- 26% secondary) give students a background in environmen-
lowed by administration (2.7). tal issues.

TABLE 4. Self-Rating of Institutional Effectiveness

Poor Adequate Good Excellent

Effectiveness in (%) (%) (%) (%)

Conveying environmental content knowledge 33 33 16 6

Education about environmental issues 33 36 18 2
Conveying instructional methods related to
environmental education 33 32 18 5
Conveying environmental action strategies
related to environmental education 46 27 13 1
Environmental education overall 38 35 14 1
N = 442

Overall effectiveness of program for preparing

preservice teachers
Elementary (N = 424) 43 34 15 1
Secondary (N = 417) 50 25 9 2

Note: N = the number of respondents for Part 1 of the survey.

8 The Journal of Environmental Education

TABLE 5. Separation or Integration of Environmental TABLE 8. Institutions That Have Faculty Specializing
Education in Teacher Preparation Curriculum in Environmental Education

Elementary Secondary Full time Part time

(%) (%) Number of faculty members n % n %
Institutions that (N = 424) (N = 417)
None 123 28 117 26
Require a course in One 86 19 77 17
environmental education 14 13 Two 28 6 37 8
Integrate environmental Three 14 3 22 5
education in coursework 73 53 Four 4 1 6 1
General methods 28 17 Five 2 <1 3 <1
Science methods 61 49 More than 5 6 1 5 1
Social Studies methods 22 16

Faculty Interest and Instructional Methods

TABLE 6. Institutions That Present Goals of Environ- The number of faculty who specialize in environmental
mental Education and Environmental Action education was also an indicator of the institutionalization of
Strategies environmental education in the teacher preparation curricu-
lum. About one-third of responding institutions had one
Elementary Secondary full-time and/or part-time faculty member who specialized
(%) (%) in environmental education, whereas about half had none
Institutions that (N = 424) (N = 417) (see Table 8).
The instruction methods most frequently used for envi-
Present goals of environmental ronmental education are listed in Table 9. Discussion and
education problem solving/critical thinking led in secondary pro-
Awareness 71 49
Knowledge 64 45 grams, whereas integration across the curriculum, problem
Attitudes 66 44 solving/critical thinking, and cooperative learning led at the
Skills 50 36 elementary level. The survey also queried whether the stu-
Participation 42 32 dents were introduced to a variety of environmental educa-
Present environmental action tion resources (see Table 9). The resources most frequently
strategies
Persuasion 47 29 introduced on the elementary level were Project WILD,
Ecomanagement 45 31 Project Learning Tree, and state or U.S. government publi-
Consumer/economic actions 35 23 cations. At the secondary level the most frequently used
Political action 30 20 resources were local or regional materials and resources,
Legal action 17 17 Project Wild, and state or U.S. government publications.
Prior to the survey, the research team observed that advi-
sors at some institutions recommend that students interest-
TABLE 7. Summary of Degrees and Institutional ed in teaching about the environment enter science educa-
Requirements tion. To determine if this observation was true nationally,
the questionnaire asked, “if a student expresses an interest
Elementary Secondary in teaching about the environment . . . which program does
(%) (%) your institution advise that she or he enters?” The results
Institutions that (N = 424) (N = 417) showed a strong bias for science (see Table 10). Only 10%
of the institutions responding to the survey described the
Offer a major in environmental environmental education component of the preservice edu-
education 5 8 cation program in the academic advising literature.
Offer a minor/concentration/
specialization in environ- State Requirements
mental education 11 18
Require a course in environ- The survey also queried state requirements related to
mental education 14 13 environmental education. Respondents from 18 states indi-
Require environmental cated their state offered certification/licensure in environ-
education experience in mental education. The responses seemed contrary to what
Coursework 31 23
Practicum 9 7
the researchers knew about certification (see Discussion).
Student teaching/internship 5 5 The comments section of the survey revealed that a small
group of faculty work to incorporate environmental educa-
 McKeown-Ice 9

Most colleges and universities have not institutionalized

TABLE 9. Resources and Teaching Methods their commitment to environmental education in the ways
that they have to reading, science, and special education,
Elementary Secondary among others. This lack of institutionalization is apparent in
(%) (%) the small number of colleges and universities that offer
Institutions that (N = 424) (N = 417) majors, minors, specializations, or concentrations in envi-
ronmental education. It is also evident in the small number
Use the following instructional of institutions requiring environmental education courses,
methods related to environ-
mental education preparation in environmental issues, and other programmat-
Integrating across the ic requirements for teacher education. The large percentage
curriculum 59 28 of colleges and universities without a faculty member spe-
Problem solving/critical cializing in environmental education also illustrates the lack
thinking 54 37 of institutionalization.
Cooperative learning 54 35
Discussions 53 38 It appears that the environmental education component of
Discovery 51 33 the teacher-preparation program at many institutions is dri-
Field trips 48 33 ven by one person. We speculate that this one person teach-
Experiments 45 32 es a special course in environmental education or integrates
Introduce a variety of environmental education into his or her teaching load.
educational resources 61 41
Local or regional materials Because environmental education is not institutionalized,
and resources 41 29 its presence in the cur riculum is at the mercy of the contin-
Project Learning Tree 40 22 ued employment of one person. This leaves environmental
Project WILD 51 29 education in a precarious position. Other educational disci-
State or U.S. government plines are in stronger positions.
publications 29 26
Environmental education is often treated in a shallow
manner, dealing more with awareness, knowledge, and per-
suasion than with the goal of participation and the other
TABLE 10. Advising Trends environmental action strategies. We infer from responses to
questions about the presentation of environmental educa-
tion goals, environmental action strategies, and resource
Institutions that advise students
materials that the breadth of the environmental education
who express an interest in Elementary Secondary
teaching about the environment (%) (%) experience appears to be greater for students in preservice
to enter the following programs: (N = 424) (N = 417) elementary education programs. Also, a greater percentage
of students in elementary programs receive exposure to
General education 40 — environmental education than do students in secondary pro-
Specialty area 72 — grams. In many teacher training institutions, only students
Science 64 84 specializing in science education are introduced to environ-
Social studies 13 18 mental education at the secondary level. However, at the
Environmental education 10 6
Agriculture/conservation — 5 elementary level the majority of students are required to
take science or general methods that more frequently
include environmental education.
The trend to advise students interested in teaching about
tion into their classes whenever possible. Some respondents the environment to enter science education runs contrary to
cited team work, but many spoke of their own individual current trends in environmental education. One trend is to
efforts. Some professors use well-known curriculums (i.e., teach about the environment across the K–12 curriculum
Project WILD and Project Learning Tree) to introduce envi- (Wilke, 1993). Funneling students interested in teaching
ronmental education methods. A few rely on grants to pro- about the environment into science education will not help to
vide funding to offer environmental education. achieve the integration of environmental education across the
curriculum. Advisors are often students’ first contact with
Discussion colleges, schools, and departments of education; they have a
The large number of responses to the questionnaire help large influence on students’ decisions. If advisors perceive
to elucidate the status of environmental education for pre- that studying science and science methods is the only path-
service teachers across the United States. The results rein- way to teaching about the environment, then many students
force observations of trends noted by prominent environ- will be discouraged from entering environmental education
mental educators. The survey results contain few surprises, or will be steered away from other viable paths of study.
but add quantitative data to confirm previous general obser- The research team is skeptical about the accuracy of the
vations. responses related to states granting teacher certifi-
10 The Journal of Environmental Education
cation/licensure in environmental education. Respondents
from 18 states said that the state where their institution is
located granted teacher certification in environmental educa-
tion. This number appeared too high. A researcher checked
the database by state and discovered great intra-state incon-
sistency. For example, 1 of 5 respondents from California
and 5 of 17 from Indiana responded yes to state certification.
To check the validity of the responses the researcher queried
CHART™, a software resource guide to state teacher licens-
ing information by the Educational Testing Service.
CHART™ revealed that only two states, Nevada and Penn-
sylvania, offer licensure in environmental education. Appar-
ently this is a little known fact because only 8 of the 18
responses from Pennsylvania marked that certification in
environmental education was offered. This example illus-
trates the general confusion and lack of institutionalization
of environmental education observed across the United
States.
The majority of respondents know that their institutions
are not preparing preservice teachers to be effective envi-
ronmental educators. It remains to be seen if the colleges,
schools, and departments of education will respond to stu-
dent and public interest in the environment and whether
those responses will be temporary or permanent. It also
remains to be seen if the response will be at the preservice
or inservice level.
Conclusions
The following conclusions were drawn from the study:
(1) Generally, environmental education in preservice
teacher education programs is not institutionalized.
(2) Where it exists, implementation of the environmental
education component in preservice education programs
varies greatly across the United States.
(3) Preservice teacher education programs are not sys-
tematically preparing future teachers to effectively teach
about the environment.
Recommendations
To ameliorate the lack of preservice teacher preparation
in environmental education across the nation, we recom-
mend the following courses of action.
(1) National standards or guidelines for the environmental
education component of preservice teacher-preparation pro-
grams should be developed. These guidelines will bring
greater consensus and conformity to the environmental edu-
cation component of preservice teacher education programs
and will help to institutionalize environmental education in
colleges, schools, and departments of education across the
nation. Until such guidelines are developed and accepted,
colleges, schools, and departments of education will have
programs that are based on the interest and knowledge of
existing faculty members. Environmental education will con-
tinue to be squeezed out of the teacher-preparation curricu-
lum by mandated courses or content from other disciplines
that have stronger champions.
(2) Coalitions of environmental educators and teacher-
preparation faculty should work with their state teacher cer-
tification/licensure offices or committees to include envi-
ronmental education requirements in initial teacher
certification guidelines. Because state guidelines for teacher
certification have a major influence on preservice teacher
education requirements and conflict with mandated course
content is the major barrier to environmental education,
environmental education groups should work to change
teacher certification requirements in their state.
(3) The environmental education community should
actively promote the hiring of faculty with a specialization
or interest in environmental education. Faculty interest and
knowledge of environmental education have a strong influ-
ence on the environmental education component of teacher-
preparation programs. Interested faculty can change the
quantity and quality of environmental education that is inte-
grated into the teacher-preparation curriculum.
(4) The environmental education community should
develop and implement an awareness program for academ-
ic advisors associated with colleges, schools, and depart-
ments of education. The program should help academic
advisors understand that courses of study other than science
and science methods are appropriate to prepare future edu-
cators to teach about the environment.
(5) Further research should be conducted at the preser-
vice level to determine if correlations exist between envi-
ronmental literacy, environmental education teaching com-
petencies, and teacher-preparation program level of
involvement in environmental education. To accomplish
this goal, a valid and reliable environmental literacy/envi-
ronmental education teaching competency instrument must
be developed and administered to preservice teachers. The
resulting data could be statistically compared with the data
obtained from this survey of the environmental education
component of preservice teacher education programs. The
results from the new study could (a) provide insights for
recommendations and guidelines for teacher preparation
programs and certification; and (b) assist individual institu-
tions in modifying existing preservice teacher-preparation
programs by identifying programmatic strengths and weak-
nesses related to environmental education.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank the members of the Environmental Lit-
eracy Assessment Consortium for their input in the research design, review
of the survey instrument, and ongoing support throughout the project. I
especially acknowledge and appreciate the assistance of Ted May, who
worked extensively on data entry and summation phases of the project. The
following people were members of the Environmental Literacy Assess-
ment Consortium:
• Dr. William Bluhm, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale
• Dr. Randy Champeau, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
• Dr. Harold Hungerford, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale
• Dr. Tom Marcinkowski,Florida Institute of Technology
• Mr. Ted May, University of Wisconsin,Stevens Point
• Dr. Rosalyn McKeown-Ice, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
• Dr. Trudi Volk, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale
• Dr. Richard Wilke, University of Wisconsin,Stevens Point
 McKeown-Ice
NOTES
Funding for this research project was provided by the Office of Envi-
ronmental Education of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
a cooperative agreement with the Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Grant NT901935-01-2. The
content of this publication does not necessarily represent the views of the
Agency. The funding for this project was administered by the National
Consortium for Environmental Education and Training at the University of
Michigan. A copy of the summary of survey results can be obtained by
writing to the Center for Geography and Environmental Education, Uni-
versity of Tennessee, 311 Conference Center Building, Knoxville, TN
37996-4134.
REFERENCES
American Forest Foundation. (1993). Project learning tree:Environmental
Education pre-K–8 activity guide. Washington, DC: Author
Center for Education Research and Innovation of the Organisation for Eco-
11
nomic Cooper ation and Development. (1995). Environmental learning
for the 21st century. Paris, France: Author.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design
method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Disinger, J. F. & R. W. Howe. (1990). Trends and issues related to the
preparation of teachers for environmental education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 335233).
Rieck, W. A. (1992). A study of current practice on the preservice prepa -
ration of secondary school teacher. (ERIC Document Reproduction Ser-
vice No. ED 346054) .
Simmons, D. (1995). Papers on the development of environmental educa -
tion standards. Troy, OH:North American Association for Environmen-
tal Education.
Thompson, D. N. (1983). Sex education curriculum in teacher education
institutions:A survey. Journal of Research and Development in Educa -
tion, 16 (2), 41–44.
Western Regional Environmental Education Council, Inc. (1992). Project
WILD. Boulder, CO: Author.
Wilke, R. J. (Ed.). (1993). Environmental education teacher resource hand-
book. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.