To What Extent Should Human/Environment Interactions Be
Included in Science Education?
Kim A. Kastens
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Department of Earth and Environmental
Sciences, Columbia University, [email protected]
Margaret Turrin
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University,
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
Research and education about the Earth and
environment can be considered as a cascade of
information flows, from the Earth, into sensors, then to
data, then to insights in the minds of scientists,
curriculum materials, teachers, and finally to insights in
the minds of learners. In at least some cases, the insights
in the minds of learners feed back to the Earth as learners
send a message to the Earth in the form of modifications
to their actions and decisions. This paper asks: To what
extent does, or should, science education seek to change
how individual human beings and human society
interact with the Earth and environment? We explore
this question by examining the outcomes of 49 separate
deliberative processes, the state science education
standards. We find that there is serious disagreement
across the nation as to whether science classes should
consider human/environment interactions at all. There
is more support for teaching about how human society
impacts the environment than for teaching about how
the environment impacts humans and human society. In
most states, there is minimal or no support, in the
standards, for teaching about how individuals can and
do impact the environment.
INTRODUCTION
Earth System Education as a System - As systems
thinkers engaged in Geoscience research, we are
accustomed to think about Earth processes in terms of
reservoirs, fluxes and feedbacks (e.g. Boumans et al.,
2002). We can also think of Earth research and education
itself as a system of reservoirs linked by information
flows (Figure 1).
Information flows from the Earth into sensors,
including both electromechanical sensors and the human
senses. From there, it is organized into "Data and
Observations," which in turn contribute to
"Understandings and Knowledge in the Minds of
Scientists." From the minds of scientists, a subset of
understanding and knowledge flows into curriculum
materials. From "Curriculum Materials," some
information flows into the "Minds of Learners" and into
the "Minds of Teachers"; in both places, it contributes to
the construction of new understandings and knowledge.
Information also flows from the understandings and
knowledge in the minds of teachers towards the
construction of knowledge and understanding in the
minds of learners without going via curriculum
materials. Figure 1 is a very high-level representation of
this system, and one could drill down into any one of
these arrows to reveal enormous complexity. For
example, the first arrow, from "Earth" to "Sensors and
Senses" summarizes an intricate system of research
422
ships, satellites, oceanographic buoys, stream gauges,
weather stations, sampling programs in atmosphere,
ocean and solid earth, field observations by geologists
and ecologists, and many other human and
electromechanical senses and sensors. Other arrows
summarize equally complicated subsystems (Chayes,
2001).
There is loss and distortion of information at every
arrow in this diagram. Humanity pushes to reduce that
loss and distortion. Engineers apply their ingenuity to
reducing loss and distortion at the arrow from "The
Earth" to "Sensors and Senses." Scientists struggle to
extract more complete and less distorted understandings
from their data and observations. Instructional materials
developers and reviewers seek to minimize loss and
distortion at the arrow from the “Minds of Scientists” to
curriculum materials. Educational researchers and
evaluators seek to understand and ameliorate the losses
and distortions that occur during the steps from
“Curriculum Material” and the “Minds of Teachers” and
the “Minds of Learners”.
Beyond "Knowledge and Understanding in the Minds
of Students"? - The end goal of education is usually cast
as the far right-hand reservoir of the flowchart:
Knowledge and Understanding in the minds of learners.
In Geoscience education, though, there is potentially a
more profound goal, which is indicated by the feedback
arrow inserted leftward across the diagram from the
learners back to the Earth. As they grow up to be voters
or consumers or decision-makers or policy-makers, we
hope that learners will make wiser decisions about
individual and societal interactions with natural systems
than they would have without their Geoscience
education. In the idiomatic sense of "actions speak louder
than words," students' changed behaviors towards the
Earth complete the information flow back to the Earth
itself.
Consider an example of a flow of information
around the entire Earth-research-education-Earth loop
of figure 1: In 1958, a carbon dioxide sensor was placed
on the island of Mauna Loa in Hawaii. This generated a
data set showing the seasonal rise and fall of atmospheric
CO2, and also a secular rise over time. From this dataset,
scientists concluded that atmospheric CO2 was rising
over time as a result of burning of fossil fuels (Keeling, et
al., 1976), and formed a hypothesis that the CO2 rise
would lead to an increase in atmospheric temperature
via the greenhouse effect, with consequent changes in
global climate (IPCC, 1990). These insights were then
incorporated into curriculum materials (e.g. Stute, 2006),
and from there they have gone on to become "knowledge
and understandings in the minds of learners." If a learner
then draws on this understanding and decides to come to
campus by bus or bicycle rather than by car, we would
consider that the loop of figure 1 has been completed,
that the learner's understanding has fed back to the Earth
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 3, May, 2006, p. 422-436
Figure 1. A high-level systems depiction of the Earth, research about the Earth and education about the
Earth. The process of research and education about the Earth can be conceived as a cascade of information
flows, from the Earth, to sensors, to data, to knowledge and understandings in the minds of scientists,
through teachers and curriculum materials, to knowledge and understandings in the minds of learners. In
some cases, knowledge and understanding in the minds of learners may contribute to changing their behavior
towards the Earth, as represented by the leftward flow closing the loop across the bottom of the diagram. The
question posed by this paper is: to what extent does, or should, science education assume responsibility for
shaping students’ own interactions with natural systems, above and beyond helping them construct accurate
knowledge and understanding? Or, in other words, for closing the loop in this diagram?
The case for why science educators should NOT take
responsibility for "closing the loop"
We are science teachers. Our limited time with these students
is completely full, more than full, just trying to help them
build a reasonably accurate and complete understanding of
Earth processes and phenomena. No one expects our
colleagues teaching Chemistry or Math to affect a lifelong
change in their students' values and behavior, so why should
anyone expect this of us?
Telling students that they or their families should change
their behavior is environmental activism, not science. Once
we start down the activist pathway, we undermine our
credibility as a source of accurate, objective information
(Kavassalis, 2003).
Students' families have widely varying opinions about
environmental issues as they impact lifestyle choices, local
economic development, and politics. It's better to steer clear
of topics that could cause conflict with parents or community
leaders (Pederson and Totten, 2001).
The case for why science educators SHOULD take
responsibility for "closing the loop"
If we don't do it, then who will? As Earth Science educators,
we probably have a better understanding of Earth processes
and phenomena than 99+ percent of the people that our
students will come in contact with, both as young people and
as adults. If don't seize this opportunity to help them
understand the long-term implications of their decisions, and
learn to act and choose in ways that will have minimum
destructive impact on the Earth and environment, then when
and where are they going to learn this?
Table 1. Should science educators take responsibility for "closing the loop" between students' understanding
of the Earth System and their actions and decisions regarding the Earth?
in the form of changed behavior. Note that this example
traced only one tendril of an enormously complex and
intertwined system of research, education, and informal
influences. If we could somehow view the entire system,
we would see numerous data sets from numerous
sources feeding into the scientists' understanding,
numerous influences from numerous sources feeding
into the learner's decision, and so on. But this tendril is
illustrative of the kind of feedback process that we wish
to focus on in this paper.
impact on the Earth? Specifically, who is responsible for
ensuring that knowledge and understanding in the
minds of students do, in fact, flow back to the Earth in the
form of better informed and more insightful actions
upon the Earth?
Surely this is a shared responsibility, with families,
peers, environmental journalists, scouts, summer camps,
nature centers, clergy and advocacy groups playing a
role. The question posed by this paper is to what extent
does, or should, science education assume responsibility
for shaping children's own interactions with natural
systems, above and beyond helping them construct
accurate knowledge and understanding? In other words,
to what extent does, or should, science education
contribute to closing the feedback loop?
Who is Responsible for Closing the Loop? - Above,
we identified professions or organizations that are taking
responsibility for minimizing the loss of information at
most of the arrows in the flowchart: engineers for the
arrow from Earth to sensors, and so on. But who does, or
should, take responsibility for closing the feedback loop To what extent is science education responsible for
from Earth through research to education and back to closing the loop? - It seems that thoughtful educators of
Kastens and Turrin - Should Human/Environment Interactions Be Included in Science Education?
423
Category
E→H
H→E
I→E
Criteria
Standard states or implies that Earth & environment influence or affect humanity OR standard states or
implies that humanity is dependent on natural systems.
• The standard refers to "humans," "human beings," "humanity," "society" or "societal," "economy," "people,"
"community," or "family" and also mentions an object, phenomenon or process of the Earth or environment.
• Other key words that connote humans being impacted by Earth processes include "damage" or "hazard."
• Other key phrases that connote humans depending on the Earth include "natural resource," "renewable
resource," "non renewable resource," "fossil fuel."
• The standard mentions a specific natural resource (e.g. water) that humans use or depend on, in a context
where use by humans is clearly implied.
• The standard mentions a specific human or societal use of a resource, e.g. "drinking," "washing,"
"irrigating."
Standard states or implies that human society influences/affects/changes the Earth or environment.
• The standard refers to "humans," "human beings," "humanity," "society" or "societal," "people," or
"community," and also mentions an object, phenomenon or process of the Earth or environment.
• Words or phrases that imply humanity affecting the Earth and environment in a positive way include
"preserve/protect/conserve [e.g. biological diversity, natural resources]," "reduction of energy
consumption," "solve environmental problems," "management [of waste, of natural resources]."
• Phrases and concepts that imply humanity affecting the Earth and environment in a negative or possibly
negative way include "pollute" or "pollution," "environmental impact [e.g. of a technology]," "environmental
degradation," "consequences of exploration and/or development of natural resources," "depletion of ozone
in the atmosphere," "global warming," "deforestation."
• This category refers to actions or decisions of humanity acting collectively (organizations, institutions,
governments, communities, corporations, society as a whole).
Standard states or implies that the actions of individuals influence/affect/change the Earth or environment.
• This category differs from the previous in that it refers to actions or decisions made by individual adults or
children in their private capacity in their daily lives (e.g. as they purchase, consume, conserve or waste,
dispose of).
• The individual actions/decisions can be good for environment (e.g. conserving water, conserving energy) or
bad for environment (e.g. littering).
• The focus of this category is on actions or decisions that could be achieved by all or most students, either
now or when they become adults.
• Actions or decisions taken by individuals in a professional capacity (e.g. farmer, scientist, government
employee) are categorized as H→E rather than I→E, because these are not actions that will be accessible to
all or most students, even after they become adults.
Table 2. Coding Scheme for Interactions between Humans and the Earth System.
good intent could come to opposite conclusions on this
question (Table 1). Even if we confine the question to
teachers of Earth and Environmental Science, one could
still make a case on either side. On the one hand, we are
science teachers, not teachers of ethics or civics. We don't
want to stray into advocacy or loose our credibility as a
source of objective, accurate information. We want to be
respectful of the values of all of our students' families. On
the other hand, humanity is facing serious problems at
the intersection between society and the environment.
As Earth Science educators, we have a much better
understanding of Earth processes, including human/
environment
interactions,
than
most
other
opinion-shapers our students encounter. If we don't
seize the opportunity to help them learn to act and
choose in ways that will have minimum destructive
impact on the Earth and environment, then when and
where are they going to learn this?
In other words, the answer to the question posed in
the title to this paper is far from self-evident. Perhaps the
most important message of this paper is that a national
conversation on this topic is needed.
Since we haven't been able to answer this question by
reasoning from first principles, we take an empirical
approach in this paper. Going out to the "laboratory of
democracy" (Brandeis, 1932), we ask what has been the
outcome with respect to this question in the separate
deliberative processes of the 49 states that have state
education standards? What guidance or directives are
424
the states giving to their K-12 science teachers on this
topic?
Note that this approach allows us to investigate the
question of intentions: to what extent does the education
establishment think that science education should
contribute to learners' understandings of and actions
regarding human/ environment interactions? The
outcomes question is much harder: to what extent, on a
national scale, does science education contribute to
learners' understanding and actions regarding
human/environment interactions? We do no more than
pose this as an important question at this time, and note
that if it is not one's intention to achieve a certain learning
outcome then it is likely not being achieved.
METHODS
Materials - We obtained copies of relevant portions of
the education standards for each of the states from the
World Wide Web (Appendix 1). We used the version of
each state's standards that was posted as in effect as of
summer 2005. We looked at science standards for
elementary, middle and high school, for 49 states (Iowa
has no education standards). Our study covered only
information embedded within documents that were put
forward as the official state "standards," or "framework,"
or "curriculum" or "grade level expectations" document,
not ancillary information that some states posted with
their standards.
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 3, May, 2006, p. 422-436
Category
E→H
H→E
I→E
Examples
Earth & Environment impact Humanity
Nebraska: Earth & Space Science
4.4.3. by the end of fourth grade, students will develop an understanding of the characteristics of earth
materials.
• List earth materials that are used by humans (e.g., water, fossil fuels, ores, soils).
• Select the best earth materials for a specific human use (e.g., marble-buildings, clay-pottery, coal-heat).
Nebraska: Science in Personal & Social Perspectives:
8.7.1. by the end of eighth grade, students will develop an understanding of personal health.
• Identify and research substances harmful to human beings in the natural environment (e.g., radon, lead,
and nitrates).
Humanity impacts Earth & Environment
Delaware: Standard 8 - Ecology
Grades K-3: Changes in Environments
• Pollution and human activities can change the environment and adversely the health and survival of
humans and other species. Careful planning and safe practices are required in waste disposal, recycling
and waste management, pest control, and use of resources to ensure the well being of humans and the
environment.
Grades 9-12: Technology and its Influence on the Environment.
• Identify environmental changes that result from converting a natural ecosystem to a monoculture
system. Investigate the agriculture and forestry technologies required to mass produce a single species
plant crop and debate the pros and cons of using these technologies.
Individuals impact Earth & Environment
Arkansas: Strand 2: Life Science Systems
Content Standard 3: Students will demonstrate an understanding of the connections and applications in life
sciences.
• Grade 2: Students can write about ways to save the rain forests of the world. Students can develop plans
for their homes that can save resources.
• Grade 3: Students can measure the amount of solid waste produced at their homes over a week's time.
Georgia: 7th Grade Life Sciences
Students will examine the dependence of organisms on one another and their environments.
• Research how human impact has affected organisms in Georgia. Design a campaign to help protect a
threatened species.
Table 3. Examples from each of the Coding Categories
For elementary and middle schools, we examined
the entire science standard. Some high school standards
are organized into thematic or disciplinary strands that
run across the high school years, in much the same way
as the elementary and middle school standards. For such
states, we examined the entire high school science
standard. In other states, the high school standards are
presented as individual courses, not all of which would
be taken by any given student. For such states, we
examined the courses required for high school
graduation. Because our goal was to examine the
standards that guide the science coursework taken by all
young Americans, we did not quantify standards for
upper level elective courses, honors courses, vocational
courses, or other courses that would only be taken by a
minority of students. A few states (including Alabama,
Indiana, Louisiana, Tennessee and Texas) present
standards for a high school elective in Environmental
Science; these are rich in human/environment
interactions but are only taken by a minority of students
and thus not quantified.
In states where Technology was included within the
same Standard as Science, we counted it; where
Technology fell outside of what the state itself declared
to be its "Science Standards," we did not include it in the
quantitative part of the study. We also examined selected
examples of non-science standards (e.g. "consumer
education," "character education") where we thought
there might be relevant material, but as these were
outside the domain of science we did not quantify our
findings.
Note that our methodology deals with only the "ideal"
curricula recommended or required by educational
authorities. As McComas (2003) reminds us, there are
many filters in operation between the "ideal" curriculum,
and the "enacted curriculum" that is delivered by
teachers, and then the "received curriculum" that is
learned and remembered by students.
Coding - The goal of our coding scheme was to assess
how, and in what manner, K-12 educators are being told
by their state standards to direct students' attention and
concern to issues of human interactions with the Earth
System.
After some experimentation, we arrived at a
three-category coding scheme (further detail in Table 2
and examples in Table 3).
E→H Earth and environment affect Humanity. A
standard states or implies that some aspect of a
natural system affects or impacts people, or that
humanity is dependent on some aspect of the
Earth or environment.
H→E Humanity affects the Earth and environment. A
standard states or implies that the actions or
decisions of society influence or change the Earth
and environment, for better or for worse.
I→E Individuals affect the Earth and environment. A
standard states or implies that the actions or
decisions of individuals, in their private capacity,
influence or change the Earth and environment,
for better or for worse.
Kastens and Turrin - Should Human/Environment Interactions Be Included in Science Education?
425
Figure 2. Histograms show that there is wide variation in how much attention state science standards pay
to human/environment interactions. Some of this scatter is due to differences in length and granularity of
the documents themselves. But much of the scatter seems to represent a true lack of national consensus
about whether or not this material is appropriate for inclusion in science courses.
Each state's science standards were color-coded by one of
the two authors to highlight sentences or phrases that fell
into one of these three categories.
Next, we tallied how many individual "elements"
from each state fell into each of the three categories. The
other author, who had not done the initial coding, then
reviewed the coding and tallies, and noted
disagreements. Disagreements were resolved through
discussion, until a consensus coding could be agreed
upon. Inter-rater consistency was approximately 90% if
calculated as a fraction of coded elements, or better than
99% if calculated as a fraction of examined elements.
Our division of each document into individual
"elements" usually followed that of the state document
itself, where an "element" corresponds to a bullet or a
paragraph in the state document. In general, we tallied
items at the finest level of granularity contained in the
standards document itself, although occasionally we
would include an element from a higher-level
overarching statement if the concept did not reappear in
the lower-level statements. In a few cases, adjoining
bullets for the same grade in a state standard were so
nearly identical or so minor in scope that we combined
two or more into one "element." If part of a bullet or
paragraph fell into one category and part fell into
another category, the state was credited with an element
in each category. If an identically-worded element
recurred at multiple grade levels or in multiple
disciplinary strands, we counted it multiple times,
reasoning that revisiting the same concept in successive
grades should lead to more lasting learning. We did not
426
tally assessments or suggested activities that were
embedded within the standards, although we referred to
them to better discern the intended meaning of the
standards.
Finally, we identified which grades were classified
as elementary, middle or high school for each state. We
used the state's own classification scheme when that was
detectable from the standards document; in a few
ambiguous states we imposed the National Science
Education Standards divisions of K-4, 5-8 and 9-12. For
each state, we then divided the number of coded
elements in each grade cluster by the number of years in
that grade cluster in that state. This gave us an
elements/year statistic for elementary, middle, and high
school for each state. We also calculated total mean
elements/year for each state by dividing the total
number of coded elements by 12 or 13 years (depending
whether that state's standards included kindergarten.)
States' standards differ drastically in their length,
format, degree of detail into which they parse individual
concepts, and whether they present grade-by-grade
standards or standards that span multiple grades. All of
these factors influence the number of "elements" and
"elements per year" recorded for a given state. For this
reason, we focused our quantitative analysis on the most
extreme state-to-state variations and on ratios within
individual states. For the same reason, we have not
published a state-by-state comparison table. We wish to
focus attention on the consensus, or lack of consensus,
emerging from the nation's 49 independent deliberative
processes, rather than set up rivalries between states.
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 3, May, 2006, p. 422-436
Figure 3. Tendency to emphasize or de-emphasize human/environment interactions in state science
standards does not fall into regional clusters, nor into the familiar red state/-blue state political pattern.
Across the nation, I→E topics get less attention in science standards than either H→E or E→H topics.
Codings for individual states are available upon request
from the authors.
We note that even the most detailed standards
necessarily leave some judgments to the teacher or
district, and that some standards are worded in such a
way that a teacher could either include or exclude
human/environment interactions. For example, the
Personal and Social Perspectives component of the Idaho
science standards states that in grade 3 and grade 4
students should "understand the effect of technological
development and human population growth on local
towns and/or Idaho" and then in grades 5 and 6
"understand the effect of technological and human
population growth on the United States and/or the
world." Would this standard lead to a discussion of
environmental effects of technological development and
population growth? Probably, but not necessarily. Such
ambiguous wordings are a small minority of the
materials examined, and in such cases we used our best
judgment about how we thought a majority of teachers
would interpret the standard.
with a mean of 25 (figure 2). Even making every allowance for state-to-state formatting differences, there is a
very wide range in how much attention is paid to human/environment interactions (figure 3). Oklahoma, for
example, outlines detailed standards for every individual K-8 grade level and each high school course, and yet
has only two mentions of human-environment interactions in the entire corpus. South Carolina and Delaware
have more than 65 mentions of human-environment interactions, averaging 5 or more exposures to human/environment interactions per school year.
Balance among H→E, E→H, and I→H - In all but four
states, we found more emphasis on how people and
society affect the environment (H→E) than on how the
environment affects people and society (E→H) (figure 4,
upper). The mean number of elements coded as H→E is
14.0 per state summed across all grades, as contrasted
with 8.8 elements coded as E→H (figure 2).
In every state, without exception, we found less
emphasis on how individuals impact the environment (I
→Η) then on how humanity collectively impacts the
OBSERVATIONS
environment (Ε→H) (figure 4, lower). The mean number
of elements coded as I→H is only 2.0 per state summed
Overall emphasis on human/environment interac- across all grades (figure 2). For 21 states, we found no
tions in science standards -The total number of coded I→H elements at all.
elements per state ranges from a low of 1 to a high of 75,
Kastens and Turrin - Should Human/Environment Interactions Be Included in Science Education?
427
Variation across grade level - Recall from the methods
section that, for each state, we calculated an
elements/year statistic for elementary, middle, and high
school, as well as a mean for the entire K-12 trajectory. To
explore whether the coverage of human/environment
interactions was evenly spread across the K-12 trajectory,
we divided the elements/year statistic for elementary,
middle and high school by the K-12 mean elements/year
for that state. If any grade cluster (elementary, middle or
high school) scored 150% or higher, we considered that
that state had loaded its coverage of human/
environment interactions preferentially into that grade
cluster.
By this metric, seventeen states spread their teaching
and learning fairly evenly across the elementary, middle
and high school years. Two states load teaching and
learning about human/environment interactions into
the elementary years, eight into the middle school years,
and eleven into the high school years (Table 4).
Nuances of levels of understanding - It is possible to
understand human-environment interactions at various
levels of sophistication. States have recognized this in
two ways. The first approach is to articulate various
levels of insight as different proficiency levels within the
same course or grade, for example, Hawaii's rubric for
the performance standard "Explain the impact of
humans on the Earth system" (Table 5, top). The second
approach is to revisit a concept several times at
successively older grades. For example, Delaware
revisits production/consumption of energy in
elementary, middle and high school, deepening the
expected level of insight each time (Table 5, bottom).
Arkansas revisits "assess current world issues applying
scientific themes (e.g. global change in climate, ozone
depletion, natural resources)" three times, from the
perspectives of Physical Systems, Life Systems, and
Earth/Space Systems. The former approach seems to
imply that only a subset of students will achieve the more
sophisticated understanding, whereas the latter
approach seems to imply that the more sophisticated
understanding should be accessible to all students if the
concept is built up over time as the student matures.
Figure 4. Each state appears as one data point on
these scatterplots, indicating how many elements in
our coding categories were found in that state’s
standards. The solid line is a 1:1 line, and the dashed
line is a regression line constrained to go through the
origin. (Top) All but four states fall below the 1:1 line
in this scatterplot, indicating that almost all states
place more emphasis on how humanity impacts the
environment (H→E) than on how the environment
impacts humanity (H→E). The regression line
equation y=0.6x, R2=0.68 shows that, regardless of
whether states are laconic or detailed in explicating
their standards, they tend to have only 60% as many
E→H elements as H→E elements. (Bottom) All states
fall well below the 1:1 line in this scatterplot,
indicating that all states place more emphasis on how
humanity in the aggregate impacts the environment
(H→E) than on how individuals can or do impact the
environment (I→E).
428
Human/environment interactions in non-science
standards - We found numerous instances where
human/environment interactions were included in state
education standards other than science standards.
Although our study of such occurrences was not
comprehensive, it is clear that human-environment
interactions are being taught in venues other than science
classrooms. Some examples:
Character education - Alabama includes a standard for
"Character Education" in grades 7-12: "For all grades, not
less than 10 minutes of instruction per day shall focus
upon the student development of the following character
traits: Courage, patriotism, citizenship, honesty, fairness,
respect for others, kindness, cooperation, self-respect,
self-control, courtesy, compassion, tolerance, diligence,
generosity, punctuality, cleanliness, cheerfulness, school
pride, respect for the environment, patience, creativity,
sportsmanship, loyalty, and perseverance" [emphasis
added]. Vermont includes a "Personal Development"
standard for all ages, which includes a "Sustainability"
component with elements such as "design a plan to monitor personal resource consumption" and "Conduct a
life-cycle analysis (production, distribution, consump-
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 3, May, 2006, p. 422-436
H/E interactions loaded into
elementary years
H/E interactions loaded into
middle school years
H/E interactions loaded into
high school years
H/E interactions spread
across all grade clusters
Alabama
Connecticut
Delaware
Alaska
Florida
Colorado
Idaho
Arkansas
Kansas
Indiana
Georgia
Maryland
Massachusetts
Louisiana
Michigan
Missouri
Illinois
Maine
New Mexico
Nebraska
Mississippi
North Carolina
New York
New Jersey
South Carolina
North Dakota
South Dakota
Washington
Ohio
Tennessee
West Virginia
Pennsylvania
Texas
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Notes: States with <9 elements total, excluded from this analysis: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Kentucky, Minnesota,
Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, State without middle school, excluded from this analysis: New Hampshire. Utah
was equally weighted toward middle and high school.
Table 4. At what grade level are human/environment interactions stressed?
tion and disposal) for both synthetic and natural prod- Consumer and Family Science standards that lack any
ucts (toothbrush, maple syrup, automobile) including mention of the environment.
the effects of these life-cycles on a natural and human
community."
Free-standing "environment" standard - Pennsylvania
has "Academic Standards on Environment and Ecology"
Technology standard independent of science standards that are completely independent of the Science and Tech- Some states explore the interface between technology nology standards. This free-standing set of standards inand environment in a Technology Standard that is cludes strong sections on watersheds, renewable and
outside of the Science Standard. Connecticut's non-renewable resources, pollution, pesticides, endanTechnology Standards cover impacts of technology on gered species, and human impacts on the environments,
the social, cultural and environmental aspects of people's with detailed benchmarks at grade 4, 7, 10 and 12. The inlives, including how technology "can affect the troduction provides a rationale for making this a
environment" at the K-4 grade level, and "societal and free-standing standard: "Environment and Ecology exindustrial responsibilities for using proper hazardous amines the world with respect to the economic, cultural,
waste disposal techniques" at the 9-12 grade level political and social structure as well as natural processes
(Connecticut Content Standard 2). Oklahoma's and systems. This integration across systems is what sets
Technology Education Standard includes consideration this academic area apart from all others." The document
of both the environmental costs associated with using does not specify which teachers or which courses should
technologies and the potential use of technology to repair cover this material.
environmental damage. In both Connecticut and
Oklahoma, the Technology standards are integrated Geography standards - The introduction to Colorado's
across all grades and are aimed at all students (i.e. they Geography standards notes the intent to focus on the
do not refer to specialized vocational courses.)
interrelationship of the human and physical system.
Standard 5 reads "Students understand the effects of
Health - New York has a set of three standards for interactions between human and physical systems and
"Health, Physical Education, Family and Consumer the changes in meaning, use, distribution, and
Sciences," including "Students will acquire the importance of resources." The rationale statement for the
knowledge and ability necessary to create and maintain a standard begins with the observation that human use of
safe and healthy environment." The Health Education resources can have both positive and negative impacts
strand of this standard includes grade-appropriate and moves on to discuss in further detail some of these
variations on "understand the need for personal impacts. There are detailed benchmarks for grades K-4,
involvement in improving the environment" at all three 5-8 and 9-12 on how the Earth's physical systems affect
levels (elementary, intermediate and commencement.)
humans (E→H), as well as benchmarks on how humans
impact the Earth (H→E) in obtaining and using
Consumer Sciences - Wisconsin's "Family and resources.
Consumer Education Standards" includes an element on
"what should be done to …conserve natural resources." DISCUSSION
Indiana's "Family and Consumer Sciences Program of
Study" includes a section on "Caring for the Overall emphasis on human/environment interacenvironment" (M-FLR-4) covering "Product Selection" tions in science standards - The wide variation from
and "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle." In several other states state to state in the degree of emphasis on human/envi(New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania) we found ronment interactions suggests that no national consen-
Kastens and Turrin - Should Human/Environment Interactions Be Included in Science Education?
429
Strategy 1: Articulate proficiency levels within a grade/standard.
Example: Hawaii Benchmark ES.2.3: Explain the impact of humans on the Earth System
Sample Performance Assessment: The student explains how humans have affected the Earth system (e.g. renewable vs
nonrenewable resources, water and air pollution).
Advanced
Proficient
Partially Proficient
Novice
Analyze and propose
Explain the impact of
Provide examples of how
solutions to reduce the
Recognize that humans
humans on the Earth
humans impact the Earth
human impact on the Earth
impact the Earth system.
system.
system.
system.
Strategy 2: Revisit concept several times at successively older grades:
Example: Delaware Standard 3 "Energy and Its Effects," "Production/Consumption/Application of Energy"
Grades K-3
Grades 6-8
Grades 9-12
"…The production of heat,
"… explore the
light, and electricity uses
environmental impact of
"… List a variety of energy sources which provide
natural resources; therefore,
energy sources….propose
alternatives to the use of fossil fuels, compare their relative
careful attention should be
approaches to reduce the
ease of renewability, and explain their advantages and
paid to turning off machines disadvantages…"
environmental impact of
and lights when not in
current energy production
use…"
technologies…"
Table 5. How to acknowledge that a concept can be understood at different levels of sophistication?
National Standard
NSES Content Standard 5-8. Earth & Space Science.
Structure of the Earth System
The atmosphere is a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, and trace
gases that include water vapor. The atmosphere has
different properties at different elevations.
NSES Content Standard 5-8. Earth & Space Science. Earth in
the Solar System.
The sun is the major source of energy for phenomena on the
earth's surface, such as growth of plants, winds, ocean
currents, and the water cycle….
NSES Content Standard 9-12: Physical Science. Conservation
of Energy and the increase in disorder.
Everything tends to become less organized and less orderly
over time. Thus, in all energy transfers, the overall effect is
that the energy is spread out uniformly. Examples are the
transfer of energy from hotter to cooler objects by
conduction, radiation, or convection and their warming of
our surroundings when we burn fuels.
State Standard
South Carolina Grade 7. III Earth Science. A. Structure of the
Earth System.
4. The atmosphere is a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, and trace
gases that include water vapor:
a. Infer how air pollution affects people and the
environment.
b. Infer how air pollution affects the human body.
c. Analyze ways air pollution can be reduced.
d. Analyze how chemical hazards (pollutants in air, water,
soil, and food) affect populations and ecological succession
South Carolina Grade 7. III Earth Science. A. Structure of the
Earth System.
5. The sun is a major source of energy for changes on the
Earth's surface. Energy is transferred in many ways.
a. Analyze the greenhouse effect and its consequences.
b. Describe ways that humans may be influencing or
contributing to global warming.
South Carolina Grades 9-12. IV Physical Sciences (Physics).
C. Conservation of Energy and the Increase in Disorder.
4. Everything tends to become less organized and less
orderly over time. Thus, in all energy transfers, the overall
effect is that the energy is spread out uniformly. Examples
are the transfer of energy from hotter to cooler objects by
conduction, radiation, or convection and their warming of
our surroundings when we burn fuels.
a. Compare and contrast the environmental impact of power
plants that use fossil fuels, water, or nuclear energy to
produce electricity.
Table 6. Examples where explication of National Standards added Human/Environmental Interactions.
sus has been reached on the question of whether these
topics belong in science class.
In the fifteen lowest-emphasis states, science
teachers are only required to offer students, on average,
less than one exposure per year of instruction to any
aspect of human/environment interactions. We think
this is too low to adequately encompass the important
positive impacts of the Earth on humanity (e.g., air,
water, energy resources, mineral resources, soil), plus the
negative impacts of the Earth on humanity (e.g.,
earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis), plus the positive
impacts of individuals and societies on the Earth (e.g.,
recycling, design and use of more energy efficient
technologies, protection of endangered species), plus the
430
negative impacts of individuals and societies on the
Earth (e.g. pollution, habitat destruction, resource
depletion), not to mention the interactions and feedbacks
among these processes.
At the other extreme, in some cases
standards-writers seem to have stretched so far to
showcase human interactions that fundamental
knowledge about natural systems could be shortchanged
(Table 6).
Balance between H→E and E→H - All but a small
handful of states place more emphasis how humans and
society impact the Earth and environment (H→E) than
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 3, May, 2006, p. 422-436
on how the Earth and environment impact humans and
society (E→H) (figure 4, upper).
Why is this? We offer two speculative hypotheses for
this choice of emphasis. First, the important concept of
quantifiable "ecosystem services" (Costanza et al, 1997) is
a relatively new concept, which has not yet trickled
down into most education standards. Secondly, this
emphasis may reflect a worldview in which humans are
the prime actors, with power to influence or control other
living and non-living things.
Is this the optimal balance? It seems plausible that a
stronger emphasis on the ways in which human systems
depend on natural systems (E→H) would lead students
to value natural systems more; one protects what one
values. This is a question that could be approached
empirically, researching student outcomes in a
curriculum with equal emphasis on E→H and H→E
versus one dominated by H→E.
are easier to fit into the undepartmentalized elementary
school format, or that environmental topics are well
suited to the project-based learning common in middle
school, or that high schoolers are best able to understand
the complex interactions of the Earth system. Seventeen
of the states spread their coverage of human/
environment interactions fairly evenly across the
elementary, middle and high school years (Table 4).
In a meta-analysis of environmental education
interventions, Zelezny (1999) found that "improved
environmental behaviors" are most likely to result when
the intervention targets young participants. Those states
that have chosen to concentrate their coverage of
human/environment interactions have, collectively,
elected exactly the opposite strategy: eleven states stress
human/environment interactions most strongly in high
school and only two states most strongly in elementary
school (Table 4). Note that had we include advanced
electives in the high school tally this imbalance would
Individuals→environment - There is little support have been even more extreme.
among state standards developers for the notion that
science lessons or science teachers should proactively Nuances in levels of understanding - We have
encourage students to change the nature of their own identified two ways in which standards can
interactions with the environment, or to seek to bring acknowledge the fact that it is possible to understand an
about such changes in their own family, school or local aspect of human-environment interaction at various
community. Twenty-one states have no bullets that we levels of sophistication: standards can articulate a range
coded as I→E. The average number of I→E coded of proficiency standards within a grade, or can revisit the
elements across all 49 states was only 2.0, far fewer than same concept in a more sophisticated fashion at
successively older grades (Table 5).
in our other two coding categories (figures 2 and 4).
For environmental topics, we prefer the latter
Moore and Huber (2001, their table 1) examined the
congruence between the goals of environmental approach, with its implication that the more
education,
in
particular
the
"promotion
of sophisticated understanding is accessible to all students.
environmentally sound behaviors," and the National Every student will grow up to become an adult who
Science Education Standards (National Research makes personal decisions that affect the environment.
Council, 1996). They found support for environmental Many students, not just the academically inclined ones,
education at the highest level of the NSES: the Overview will become adults whose professional actions affect the
and Introduction. However, as we have dug deeper into environment; truck drivers, home health aids, auto
how science education standards have been explicated at mechanics, farm workers, artists, food service workers,
the state level, we find little attention given to the pest control applicators, all affect the environment
"promotion of environmentally sound behaviors," the through their actions.
rough equivalent of our category I→E. In some cases, it
seems that the wording has been purposefully crafted to Concerning decentralized control of curriculum avoid stating or implying that individuals should change Many aspects of science are universal, such as those
their values or behavior. For example, in Idaho, grounded in the invariant laws of physics. For those
standards for grades kindergarten, 1, 2, 3, and 4 each aspects of the curriculum, one could argue that a uniform
repeat that students should "Understand the concept of national curriculum would be advantageous. But in a
recycling"; the wording feels carefully cognitive and continent-spanning nation like the U.S., there truly are
major local and regional differences in how society
abstract rather than conative and concrete.
A recently released multimedia "Environmental interacts with the environment, driven by differences in
Ethics Curriculum" (Goldman Environmental Prize, climate, physiography, ecology, and cultural history.
2005) has as its explicit goal helping middle and high This project has given us a new appreciation of how the
school students learn "how people should act to use, state-by-state control of curriculum has enabled
protect, and improve the natural world in which we live" standards-writers in some states to stress the specific
(emphasis added) (Finnegan et al., 2005, p. 5). The human-environment interactions that occur in their
Teachers Guide for this curriculum provides a detailed students' communities.
Some examples: In Alaska, eighth graders must
alignment to education standards, in this case a
consensus set of content standards assembled by "...conduct research to learn how the local environment is
drawing on U.S. and international standards documents used by a variety of competing interests (e.g. competition
(Mid-continent Research in Education and Learning, for habitat/resources, tourism, oil and mining
2004). They find a small area of alignment with Life companies, hunting groups)" (Alaska standard
Sciences but none with Earth Sciences. Their strongest [8]SA3.1.) Nevada middle school students must "know
alignment is with the Language Arts and Geography the characteristics, abundances, and location of
renewable and nonrenewable resources found in
standards.
Nevada" (Nevada standard E.8.C.7). In Virginia, the high
Variation by grade level - It is not obvious that coverage school Earth Science standard has students "investigate
of
human/environment
interactions
"belongs" and understand that oceans are complex, interactive
preferentially in one or another part of the K-12 physical, chemical, and biological systems" taking into
trajectory. One could argue that interdisciplinary topics account "economic and public policy issues concerning
Kastens and Turrin - Should Human/Environment Interactions Be Included in Science Education?
431
the oceans and the coastal zone including the Isn't knowledge and understanding of natural Earth
Chesapeake Bay" (Virginia standard ES.11).
Systems enough? - It is tempting to reason that surely if
we science educators could only succeed in our foremost
Human/environment interactions in non-science agenda of helping children construct deep, broad, and
standards - Although our analysis of non-science accurate understandings of natural Earth and
standards was not comprehensive, we found enough environmental processes, that of course those children
examples to confirm that human-environment and the adults they become would see the importance of
interactions are being taught in venues other than science making environmentally-sound choices and would
classrooms, including character education, technology modify their behavior accordingly. Research suggests
education, health, geography, consumer and family that is not the case. Some knowledge of natural processes
science, and environmental studies.
is a necessary precursor of a shift towards
If science educators, individually or collectively, environmentally-responsible behavior, but additional
wish to contribute to "closing the loop" of figure 1, but factors must be present as well (Ramsey and
lack the time or support to move beyond building Hungerford, 2002; Hungerford and Volk, 1990; and
students' knowledge and understanding of natural Simmons, 1991). Proposed factors include knowledge of
processes, one powerful strategy may be to collaborate environmental issues, knowledge of action strategies
with colleagues in these other disciplines. For example, and skills, psychological factors such as sense of efficacy
Earth Science teachers in a given school, school district, (feeling that one is capable of producing desired results),
or state could work to build students' understanding of and "environmental sensitivity" (attributes that provide
the atmospheric processes by which carbon dioxide an individual with an emphathic view of the
contributes to natural and anthropogenic greenhouse environment.) Ramsey and Hungerford (2002, p. 157)
warming, and then Consumer Sciences teachers in that point out that "…many educators firmly believe that
same school, school district or state could take those 'teaching about something' will influence behavior. If
same students through the process of using emission this were absolutely true, then everyone would vote; no
data as a factor in selecting an automobile. In order to be one would contract a venereal disease; …no teenager
most effective, such articulations between science and would have an unwanted pregnancy; …and people
other curricula must be purposefully developed, rather would not smoke. The same is probably true for
than left to chance.
citizenship responsibility regarding the environment."
In considering whether human/environment Penn (2003) makes the case that deep evolutionary roots
interactions are already sufficiently covered outside of underlie Homo sapiens' tendency to overpopulate,
science, we need to keep in mind that science occupies a overconsume, exhaust common-pool resources, discount
privileged position in the K-12 curriculum: every states' the future and respond maladaptively to modern
standards cover science, almost every child studies environmental hazards, and that therefore educators
science in almost every grade, and states regularly assess should not expect that merely explaining to an
their children's performance in science. In contrast, only individual that such behavior adversely impacts the
twenty states have useable geography standards common good and future generations will overcome the
(according to Munroe and Smith, 1998) and only three evolutionary programming that prompts us to maximize
states require consumer science (Weiner, 2005). Inclusion our fertility and consumption.
of human/environment interactions in science standards
thus sends a message about the importance of this topic What should we do about this? - Hungerford and Volk
that may not be conveyed by inclusion in other content (1990) wrote that: "The ultimate aim of education is
domains.
shaping human behavior. Societies throughout the
Another
group
of
potential
collaborators world establish educational systems in order to develop
self-identify as "environmental educators" rather than citizens who will behave in desirable ways." Do we, earth
science educators, and often work through informal system educators, agree with this position? And if so,
education venues rather than school systems (Simmons, what behaviors do we wish to foster? Munroe and Smith
1991). In the inaugural issue of the Journal of (1998) pointed out that "the call for [educational]
Environmental Education, Stapp et al. (1969) proposed standards… has challenged each field to examine its
that environmental education should develop a citizenry fundamental tenets and accustomed values in the
that "is knowledgeable concerning the biophysical context of a high profile nationwide debate." The lack of
environment and its associated problems, aware of how consensus on whether human/environment interactions
to help solve these problems, and motivated to work should be included in science standards suggests that
toward their solution." Subsequent statements of the Earth Science and Life Science education communities
goals of environmental education (Jeske, 1978; have either not yet examined their "tenets and values" on
Hungerford et al., 1980; Simmons, 1991) also combine this point, or fundamentally disagree on what those
knowledge of natural systems, knowledge of tenets and values are. Perhaps the most important
environmental issues, problem-solving skills, and the message of this paper is that a national conversation on
motivation/attitude/commitment
to
engage
in this topic is needed.
"environmentally sound behaviors" (term from
We envision three possible outcomes of such a
Simmons, 1991). In other words, this group of educators conversation:
explicitly sets as their goal to close the loop of figure 1.
There has been a historic divide between the (1) Helping students develop the knowledge, skills, and
environmental education community and the science
motivation to improve how humanity interacts with
education community (Kavassalis, 2003), but Carlsen
the Earth and environment is important, and should
(2001) makes a compelling case that there is much that
be done in science classes.
science educators can learn from environmental
education.
(2) Helping students develop the knowledge, skills, and
motivation to improve how humanity interacts with
432
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 3, May, 2006, p. 422-436
the Earth and environment is important, and should
be done in school. Science classes can do their part by
developing students' knowledge of natural Earth
systems, but many aspects of human/environment
interactions are more appropriate for other parts of
the curriculum, including Geography, Consumer
Science, and Technology.
(3) Changing how humanity interacts with the Earth
and environment is not an appropriate goal for
public schools, either in science or elsewhere in the
curriculum.
We would favor a combination of answers one and
two. The next challenges in implementing the
science-based approach will be to develop appropriate
curriculum materials and professional development
opportunities that are grounded in science but informed
by
educational
research
on
what
fosters
environmentally-responsible behavior (Ramsey and
Hungerford, 2002). The next challenges in the
collaborative approach will be to develop intentional and
explicit articulations between science courses that
develop understandings of natural earth systems, and
parallel or subsequent courses in other fields that build
complementary understandings of how individual or
societal actions impact and are impacted by those same
systems. This would require that we broaden our
conversation beyond science educators to include
geography/social studies educators, technology
educators, and Family and Consumer Science educators.
In the meantime, in anticipation of this national
conversation, each individual educator can ask himself
or herself: am I giving my students the tools they will
need to understand the consequences of their personal
and professional actions towards the Earth and
environment? am I actually changing my students'
actions and decisions (i.e. behavior) towards the Earth
through my teaching? Am I trying to change my
students' actions and decisions towards the Earth?
Should I be trying to change my students' actions and
decisions towards the Earth? Referring back to Table 1,
we expect that the answers will differ among
conscientious teachers of good will, but at least we will
be addressing the issue.
Research suggests that knowledge of natural
systems alone is insufficient to cause behavioral changes
with respect to personal actions or choices that impact
the environment. In other words, if science educators
bring our students to the far right hand edge of the
flowchart in figure 1, successfully achieving "Knowledge
and Understanding in the Minds of Learners," we cannot
assume that they will then close the loop themselves by
making choices and decisions that impact favorably
upon the Earth.
Coverage of human-environment interactions is
scattered across the K-12 curriculum, in standards
covering technology, geography, health, consumer
education, character education, and environmental
studies, as well as science. Lack of ownership of this issue
by any one discipline leaves an opportunity for states to
not include it at all. The self-identified "environmental
education" community is also deeply committed to
teaching this material, but that community seems weakly
represented in the standards development process in
many states
The Earth Science and Life Science education
communities need to grapple explicitly with the question
of whether or not we wish to "close the loop" of figure 1
and change the behaviors of future citizens towards
more environmentally-sustainable choices and actions.
If we do wish to "close the loop," there are two possible
courses of action:
incorporate greater emphasis on human/
environment interactions into our own courses,
and/or
create intentional and explicit articulations between
science courses that develop understandings of
natural earth systems, and parallel or subsequent
courses in other fields that build complementary
understandings of how individual or societal actions
impact and are impacted by those same systems.
We need a national-scale discussion on the urgent
question of how does society educate young people so
that they will understand interactions between humans
and the environment and then use this understanding to
craft an environmentally-sustainable civilization.
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There is wide variation among states in how much
attention they think should be included in science class
on the interaction of humans with natural Earth systems.
The lowest-emphasis states call for less than one
element per instructional year, pertaining to any aspect
of human/environment interactions, averaged across
the K-12 years.
The overwhelming majority of state science
standards place more emphasis on how humans affect
the environment (H→E) than on how the environment
affects humans (E→H).
Many states think that how individuals impact the
environment (I→H) should be taught in science class
minimally or not at all.
Although at least some research suggests that
environmental education is most likely to result in
"improved environmental behaviors" when participants
are younger, many states load their coverage of
human-environment interactions into the middle school
or high school years.
We thank Holly Chayes for web research and word
processing of state standards elements, and Linda
Pistolesi for graphics design. Discussions with
colleagues in the Society of Environmental Journalists
and the Digital Library for Earth System Education
(DLESE) helped us to become aware of the overlap and
tensions
between
environmental
education,
environmental advocacy, and science education. Tom
Reeves first drew my (KK) attention to the
underappreciated conative domain of learning
outcomes, learning which results in changes to students'
desires and actions. Discussions with DLESE colleagues
and participants in the RODES workshop on use of
mid-ocean ridge data in education helped to clarify the
ideas embodied in Figure 1. The manuscript was greatly
improved by the comments of the three anonymous
reviewers provided by the journal. The thinking that
underlies this paper was partially supported through
National
Science
Foundation
grants
number
Kastens and Turrin - Should Human/Environment Interactions Be Included in Science Education?
433
GEO01-20207,
EAR03-05092,
and
OCE03-28117. Munroe, S., and Smith, T., 1998, State Geography
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Contribution #6908.
Standards: An Appraisal of Geography Standards in
38 States and the District of Columbia.
National Research Council, 1996, National Science
REFERENCES
Education Standards: Washington, DC, National
Academy Press, 262 p.
Brandeis, L. 1932, New State Ice Company v. Liebman,
Pedersen, J.E., and Totten, S., 2001, Beliefs of science
285 U.S. 262, U.S. Supreme Court.
teachers
toward
the
teaching
of
Boumans, R., Costanza, R., Farley, J., Wilson, M.A.,
science/technological/social issues:
Are we
Portela, R., Rotmans, J., Villa, F., and Grasso, M.,
addressing the national standards?: Bulletin of
2002, Modeling the dynamics of the integrated earth
Science, Technology and Society, v. 21, p. 376-393.
system and the value of global ecosystem services
using the GUMBO model: Ecological Economics, v. Penn, D.J., 2003, The evolutionary roots of our
environmental problems: Toward a Darwinian
41, p. 529-560.
Ecology: Quarterly Review of Biology, v. 78, p.
Carlsen, W., 2001, The sociological context of
275-301.
environmental science and its use in rethinking
scientific inquiry, in Meichtry, Y.a.M.Z., ed., Ramsey, J., and Hungerford, H.R., 2002, Perspectives on
Environmental Education in the United States, New
Relations between Science Education and
Tools for Environmental Protection: Education,
Environmental (Science) Education: Report on a
Information and Voluntary Measures: Washington,
Symposium of the National Association of Research
D.C., National Academy Press, p. 147-160.
on Science Teaching, Strand 08 (History, Philosophy,
Simmons, D., 1991, Are we meeting the goal of
Epistemology), p. 3-7.
responsible environmental behavior:
An
Chayes, D, 2001, Bits to Data, Retrieved April 29, 2006,
examination of nature and environmental education
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~dale/dataflow.
center goals: The Journal of Environmental
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso,
Education, v. 22, p. 16-21.
M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Niell, R.,
Paruelo, J., Raskin, R., Sutton, P., and van den Belt, Stapp, W., Bennett, D., Bryan, W., Fulton, J., MacGregor,
J., Nowak, P., Swan, J., Wall, R., and Havlick, S., 1969,
M., 1997, The value of the world's ecosystem services
The Concept of Environmental Education: The
and natural capital: Nature, v. 387, p. 253-259.
Journal of Environmental Education, v. 1, p. 30-31.
Finnegan, W., Allison, E., and Ardoin, N., 2005,
Environmental Ethics: Examining Your Connection Stute, M., 2006, The Climate System: Greenhouse Gases,
Volume 2006.
to the Environment and Your Community: Educator
Weiner, R., 2005, Home ec as life skills, The Journal
Guide, The Goldman Environmental Prize.
News: Rockland, p. 1A.
Goldman Environmental Prize, 2005, Environmental
Ethics:
Examining your connection to the Zelezny, L.C., 1999, Educational interventions that
improve environmental behaviors: a meta-analysis:
Environment and your Community, Goldman
Journal of Environmental Education, v. fall, p. 5.
Environmental Prize.
Hungerford, H., Peyton, R., and Wilke, R., 1980, Goals for
curriculum
development
in
environmental
Appendix 1
education: Journal of Environmental Education, v.
State Documents Examined
11, p. 42-47.
Hungerford, H., and Volk, T., 1990, Changing learner Standards documents were downloaded from the following urls in
behavior through environmental education: Journal summer 2005. For states that did not use "strands" at the high school
level, we have included their high school graduation requirements for
of Environmental Education, v. 21, p. 8-21.
science and what courses we coded for this study.
IPPC, 1990, First Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
ALABAMA
Jeske, W., 1978, Toward an action plan: a report on the Alabama High School Graduation Requirements - Science
1997/1998
Tbilsi conference on environnmental education: Adopted
http://www.alsde.edu/html/sections/doc_download.asp?section=5
Washington, D.C., Federal Interagency Committee 4&id=829
on Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education Alabama Grades Science Requirements
http://www.alsde.edu/html/sections/document.asp?section=54&so
and Welfare.
Kavassalis, C., 2003, Creating a Community-Specific rt=7&footer=sections
o Alabama requires a Biology and Physical sciences core for high
Environmental Education Website [Masters of Arts school graduation so these were the courses we coded.
thesis]: Toronto, Canada, University of Toronto.
Keeling, C.D., R. B. Bacastow, A. E. Bainbridge, C. E. ALASKA
Standards: Content and Performance Standards for Alaska
Ekdahl, P. R. Guenther, L. S. Waterman, and J. F. S. Alaska
Students
Chin, 1976, Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations Science
at Muana Loa observatory, Hawaii: Telles, v. 28, p. Revised June 2005 (Third Edition)
http://www.eed.state.ak.us/standards/pdf/standards/pdf
538-551.
McComas, W.F., 2003, The Ideal Environmental Science ARIZONA
Curriculum: Part 2, Advocates, Textbooks, and Arizona Department of Education Science Standards
Conclusions: The American Biology Teacher, v. 65, p. Adopted 6/23/1997
http://www.ade.state.az.us/standards/science/rationale.asp
171-178.
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning, ARKANSAS
2004, Content Knowledge, 4th Edition.
Science Curriculum Framework
Moore, C., and Huber, R.A., 2001, Support for EE from Arkansas Department of Education
the Nation Science Education Standards and the Revised 1999
Internet: Journal of Environmental Education, v. 32, http://arkedu.state.ar.us/curriculum/benchmarks.html#Science
p. 21-25.
434
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 3, May, 2006, p. 422-436
CALIFORNIA
Science Content Standards for California Public Schools
Reprinted 2003
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fd/documents/sci-stnd.pdf
California requires Biology and a Physical science for high school
graduation so we coded Biology and Earth Science.
COLORADO
Colorado Model Content Standards
Adopted 5/10/95; Amended 11/9/95
http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/standards/pdf/science.pdf
CONNECTICUT
Science Curriculum Framework
For this study we used Connecticut State Department of Education
March 1998*
http://www.state.ct.us/sde/dtl/curriculum/currkey3.htm
* September 12, 2005 Connecticut issued a revised science curriculum
entitled
"Core Science Curriculum Framework" available at
http://www.state.ct.us/sde/dtl/curriculum/currsci.htm
DELEWARE
State of Delaware Science Curriculum Framework
June 1995
http://www.doe.state.de.us/Standards/Science/science_toc.html
FLORIDA
Grade Level Expectations for the Sunshine State Standards (Science)
Florida Department of Education
1996*
http://www.myfloridaeducation.com
*The state standards are undergoing review during 2005 for a
planned review and adoption by the school district 12/05
GEORGIA
Georgia Performance Standards
Georgia Department of Education
April 1, 2005
http://www.georgiastandards.org/science.aspx
HAWAII
Hawaii Content and Performance Standards
Issued 8/99
http://doe.k12.hi.us/standards/hcps/index.htm
Hawaii requires three sciences for high school graduation. We found
standards for Biology, Physical Sciences and Earth Sciences, so we
coded these.
IDAHO
Idaho Administrative Code, State Board of Education, IDAPA
08.02.03, Rules Governing Thoroughness
Science Standards 515-525
Dated 3/15/02
http://www.ifep.net/images/Standards/080203scienceonly.pdf
ILLINOIS
Illinois Learning Standards for Science
2000/2001
http://www.isbe.net/ils/science/capd.htm
INDIANA
Indiana's Academic Standards & Resources
Indiana Department of Education
Adopted 2000, Updated 8/6/04
http://www.doe.state.in.us/standards/standards2000_science.html
http://www.doe.state.in.us/standards/welcome2.html
Indiana requires two science courses. We coded Earth Sciences and
Biology.
http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Instructional+Resources/Curri
culum+Documents+and+Resources/Core+Content+for+Assessment
/default.htm
Kentucky requires Earth and Space Science, Life Science, and Physical
Science for high school graduation so we coded all of these.
LOUISIANA
Louisiana Science Framework
May 22, 1997
http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/2911.pdf
http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/saa/1842.html#PreK
Student Standards and Assessments
April 2005
http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/ssa/2108.html
Louisiana requires Biology, Physical Science, and either Biology II,
Earth Science or Environmental Science as a third choice. We coded
Biology, Physical Science and Earth Science.
MAINE
Maine's Curriculum Framework for Mathematics and Science
Mathematic and Science Curriculum Standards
Revised June 1997
http://www.state.me.us/education/lres/st.htm
MARYLAND
Maryland Science Content Standards
June 6, 2000
http://www.mcps.k12md.us/curriculum/science/forms/mdscicntst
nds.pdf
MASSACHUSETTS
Massachusetts Science and Technology/Engineering Curriculum
Framework
Massachusetts Department of Education
May 2001
http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/2001/
MICHIGAN
Michigan Curriculum Framework (Science)
Michigan Department of Education
1996
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MichiganCurriculumFrame
work_8172_7.pdf
MINNESOTA
Minnesota Academic Standards Committee
Minnesota Department of Education
December 19, 2003
http://education.state.mn.us/mde/static/000282.pdf
MISSISSIPPI
2001 Mississippi Science Framework
Issued 2001
http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/ACAD/ID/Curriculum/Science/scienc
e_curr.htm
Mississippi requires subject based tests for graduation. The only
science test is in Biology so we coded Biology.
MISSOURI
Missouri's Framework for Curriculum Development in Science K-12
Issued 1996
http://www.dese.mo.gov/divimprove/curriculum/frameworks/sci
ence.html
MONTANA
Montana Standards for Science
October 1999
http://www.opi.state.mt.us/pdf/standards/ContStds-Science.pdf
IOWA
No Standards
NEBRASKA
Nebraska Science Standards Grades K-12
Adopted by the State Board of Education May 9, 1998
http://www.nde.state.ne.us/ndestandards/documents/ScienceStan
dards.pdf
KANSAS
Kansas Science Education Standards
March 9, 2005
http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/science.html
NEVADA
Nevada K-12 Science Standards
Established by January 15, 2000
http://www.doe.nv.gov/standards/standscience.htmlnevada
KENTUCKY
Core Content for Science Assessment
September 1999
NEW HAMPSHIRE
New Hampshire Department of Education Curriculum Framework
Undated document
http://www.ed.state.nh.us/education/doe/organization/curriculu
m/CurriculumFrameworks/ScienceFrameworks.htm
Kastens and Turrin - Should Human/Environment Interactions Be Included in Science Education?
435
Tennessee requires three sciences for high school graduation to
include Biology, or an integrated science curriculum. We coded
Biology, Earth Science and Physical Science.
NEW JERSEY
New Jersey Core Curriculum Standards for Science
Reviewed/Revised winter 2000-2001
http://www.state.nj.us/njded/cccs/s5_science.htm
NEW MEXICO
New Mexico Content Standards, Benchmarks, and Performance
Standards
Approved 2003
http://www.nmlites.org/standards/science/index.html
NEW YORK
New York State Core Curriculum
Undated Document
http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/mst.html
New York requires 1 Life Science, 1 Physical Science and a third
science. We coded Living Environment, Earth Science and Chemistry.
NORTH CAROLINA
Science: Standard Course of Study and Grade Level Competencies
Draft Revision December 2004
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/curriculum/science/scos/2004/12
kindergarten
NORTH DAKOTA
North Dakota Standards and Benchmarks: Content Standards Science
November 2002
http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/standard/content.shtm
OHIO
Academic Content Standards K-12 Science: Philosophy and Principles
Adopted 12/10/02
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/academic_content_standards/acsscienc
e.asp#Science_Academic_Content_Standards
OKLAHOMA
Priority Academic Student Skills: Science Standards
Reviewed August 22, 2002
http://www.sde.state.ok.us/home/home01_test.html?http://sde.sta
te.ok.us/publ/pass.html!
Oklahoma requires Biology, and two additional sciences in the areas
of Life Science, Physical Science, or Earth Science, and includes an
extensive list of courses including Natural Resource and
Environmental Science. Many of the courses did not have posted
standards, We used Biology, Physical Science and Chemistry.
OREGON
Oregon Common Science Curriculum Goals and Content Standards
Adopted April 26, 2001
http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/subjects/science/curriculu
m/whatstudentsneedtoknow.aspx
PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania Academic Standards for Science and Technology
January 5, 2002
http://www.pde.state.pa.us/k12/lib/k12/scitech.pdf
TEXAS
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science
September 1, 1998
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter112/ch112a.html
Texas requires two science courses for graduation, Biology and
Integrated Physics and Chemistry. These were the courses we coded.
It should be noted that Texas offers a wide array of additional science
courses with posted standards which included a much stronger Earth
to Human interaction that the ones coded. However, we coded
courses that every student would be participating in.
UTAH
Utah State Department of Education Science Content
Standards Adopted 2003
http://www.uen.org/core/science/index.shtml
o Utah requires any two science courses for high school graduation
from the areas of Earth Science, Biology, and Physics. We coded Earth
Science, Biology and Chemistry.
VERMONT
Grade Expectations for Vermont's Framework of Standards and
Learning Opportunities
Summer 2004 (Science)
http://www.state.vt.us/educ/new/pdfdoc/pubs/grade_expectatio
ns/science.pdf
Note: The Vermont State Board of Education adjusted the science
standards 9/20/05. The new standard is entitled "Natural Resources
and Agriculture" replacing the previous section which had been
entitled "Natural Resources". The overarching theme shifted from
"Students understand how natural resources are extracted,
distributed, processed, and disposed of" to "Students demonstrate an
understanding of natural resources and agricultural systems and why
and how they are managed."
VIRGINIA
Science Standards of Learning for Virginia Public Schools
January 2003
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/Science/sciCF.html
Virginia requires three science courses for graduation. We coded
Earth Science, Biology and Chemistry.
WASHINGTON
Washington State's Essential Academic Learning Requirements:
Science
Published 2005
http://www.k12.wa.us/curriculumInstruct/science/pubdocs/Scienc
eEALR-GLE.pdf
WEST VIRGINIA
Science Content Standards and Objectives for West Virginia Schools
July 1, 2003
http://wvde.state.wv.us/csos/
WISCONSIN
Wisconsin Model Academic Standards
Standards Undated
http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/standards/sciintro.html
examined but not tallied:
Pennsylvania Standards for Environment and Ecology
January 5, 2002
http://www.pde.state.pa.us/k12/lib/k12/envec.pdf
RHODE ISLAND
The Rhode Island Science Framework
Standards not dated
http://www.ridoe.net/standards/frameworks/science/default.htm
WYOMING
Wyoming Science Content and Performance Standards
Adopted July 7, 2003
http://www.k12.wy.us/sa/pubs/standards/science.pdf
.
SOUTH CAROLINA
Science Curriculum Standards
Adopted January 12, 2000
http://www.myscschools.com/offices/cso/standards/science/defa
ult.cfm
SOUTH DAKOTA
Science Content Standards
Board Approved March 22, 2005
http://doe.sd.gov/contentstandards/science/newstandards.asp
TENNESSEE
Science Curriculum Standards
August 31, 2001
http://www.state.tn.us/education/ci/cistandards2001/sci/ciscience
.htm
436
Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 3, May, 2006, p. 422-436