to what extent should human/environment … what extent should human/environment interactions be...

ABSTRACT

Research and education about the Earth andenvironment can be considered as a cascade ofinformation flows, from the Earth, into sensors, then todata, then to insights in the minds of scientists,curriculum materials, teachers, and finally to insights inthe minds of learners. In at least some cases, the insightsin the minds of learners feed back to the Earth as learnerssend a message to the Earth in the form of modificationsto their actions and decisions. This paper asks: To whatextent does, or should, science education seek to changehow individual human beings and human societyinteract with the Earth and environment? We explorethis question by examining the outcomes of 49 separatedeliberative processes, the state science educationstandards. We find that there is serious disagreementacross the nation as to whether science classes shouldconsider human/environment interactions at all. Thereis more support for teaching about how human societyimpacts the environment than for teaching about howthe environment impacts humans and human society. Inmost states, there is minimal or no support, in thestandards, for teaching about how individuals can anddo impact the environment.

INTRODUCTION

Earth System Education as a System - As systemsthinkers engaged in Geoscience research, we areaccustomed to think about Earth processes in terms ofreservoirs, fluxes and feedbacks (e.g. Boumans et al.,2002). We can also think of Earth research and educationitself as a system of reservoirs linked by informationflows (Figure 1).

Information flows from the Earth into sensors,including both electromechanical sensors and the humansenses. From there, it is organized into "Data andObservations," which in turn contribute to"Understandings and Knowledge in the Minds ofScientists." From the minds of scientists, a subset ofunderstanding and knowledge flows into curriculummaterials. From "Curriculum Materials," someinformation flows into the "Minds of Learners" and intothe "Minds of Teachers"; in both places, it contributes tothe construction of new understandings and knowledge.Information also flows from the understandings andknowledge in the minds of teachers towards theconstruction of knowledge and understanding in theminds of learners without going via curriculummaterials. Figure 1 is a very high-level representation ofthis system, and one could drill down into any one ofthese arrows to reveal enormous complexity. Forexample, the first arrow, from "Earth" to "Sensors andSenses" summarizes an intricate system of research

ships, satellites, oceanographic buoys, stream gauges,weather stations, sampling programs in atmosphere,ocean and solid earth, field observations by geologistsand ecologists, and many other human andelectromechanical senses and sensors. Other arrowssummarize equally complicated subsystems (Chayes,2001).

There is loss and distortion of information at everyarrow in this diagram. Humanity pushes to reduce thatloss and distortion. Engineers apply their ingenuity toreducing loss and distortion at the arrow from "TheEarth" to "Sensors and Senses." Scientists struggle toextract more complete and less distorted understandingsfrom their data and observations. Instructional materialsdevelopers and reviewers seek to minimize loss anddistortion at the arrow from the “Minds of Scientists” tocurriculum materials. Educational researchers andevaluators seek to understand and ameliorate the lossesand distortions that occur during the steps from“Curriculum Material” and the “Minds of Teachers” andthe “Minds of Learners”.

Beyond "Knowledge and Understanding in the Mindsof Students"? - The end goal of education is usually castas the far right-hand reservoir of the flowchart:Knowledge and Understanding in the minds of learners.In Geoscience education, though, there is potentially amore profound goal, which is indicated by the feedbackarrow inserted leftward across the diagram from thelearners back to the Earth. As they grow up to be votersor consumers or decision-makers or policy-makers, wehope that learners will make wiser decisions aboutindividual and societal interactions with natural systemsthan they would have without their Geoscienceeducation. In the idiomatic sense of "actions speak louderthan words," students' changed behaviors towards theEarth complete the information flow back to the Earthitself.

Consider an example of a flow of informationaround the entire Earth-research-education-Earth loopof figure 1: In 1958, a carbon dioxide sensor was placedon the island of Mauna Loa in Hawaii. This generated adata set showing the seasonal rise and fall of atmosphericCO2, and also a secular rise over time. From this dataset,scientists concluded that atmospheric CO2 was risingover time as a result of burning of fossil fuels (Keeling, etal., 1976), and formed a hypothesis that the CO2 risewould lead to an increase in atmospheric temperaturevia the greenhouse effect, with consequent changes inglobal climate (IPCC, 1990). These insights were thenincorporated into curriculum materials (e.g. Stute, 2006),and from there they have gone on to become "knowledgeand understandings in the minds of learners." If a learnerthen draws on this understanding and decides to come tocampus by bus or bicycle rather than by car, we wouldconsider that the loop of figure 1 has been completed,that the learner's understanding has fed back to the Earth

422 Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 54, n. 3, May, 2006, p. 422-436

To What Extent Should Human/Environment Interactions BeIncluded in Science Education?

Kim A. Kastens Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Department of Earth and EnvironmentalSciences, Columbia University, [email protected]

Margaret Turrin Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University,[email protected]

in the form of changed behavior. Note that this exampletraced only one tendril of an enormously complex andintertwined system of research, education, and informalinfluences. If we could somehow view the entire system,we would see numerous data sets from numeroussources feeding into the scientists' understanding,numerous influences from numerous sources feedinginto the learner's decision, and so on. But this tendril isillustrative of the kind of feedback process that we wishto focus on in this paper.

Who is Responsible for Closing the Loop? - Above,we identified professions or organizations that are takingresponsibility for minimizing the loss of information atmost of the arrows in the flowchart: engineers for thearrow from Earth to sensors, and so on. But who does, orshould, take responsibility for closing the feedback loopfrom Earth through research to education and back to

impact on the Earth? Specifically, who is responsible forensuring that knowledge and understanding in theminds of students do, in fact, flow back to the Earth in theform of better informed and more insightful actionsupon the Earth?

Surely this is a shared responsibility, with families,peers, environmental journalists, scouts, summer camps, nature centers, clergy and advocacy groups playing arole. The question posed by this paper is to what extentdoes, or should, science education assume responsibilityfor shaping children's own interactions with naturalsystems, above and beyond helping them constructaccurate knowledge and understanding? In other words,to what extent does, or should, science educationcontribute to closing the feedback loop?

To what extent is science education responsible forclosing the loop? - It seems that thoughtful educators of

Kastens and Turrin - Should Human/Environment Interactions Be Included in Science Education? 423

Figure 1. A high-level systems depiction of the Earth, research about the Earth and education about theEarth. The process of research and education about the Earth can be conceived as a cascade of informationflows, 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. Insome cases, knowledge and understanding in the minds of learners may contribute to changing their behaviortowards the Earth, as represented by the leftward flow closing the loop across the bottom of the diagram. Thequestion posed by this paper is: to what extent does, or should, science education assume responsibility forshaping students’ own interactions with natural systems, above and beyond helping them construct accurateknowledge and understanding? Or, in other words, for closing the loop in this diagram?

The case for why science educators should NOT takeresponsibility for "closing the loop"

The case for why science educators SHOULD takeresponsibility for "closing the loop"

We are science teachers. Our limited time with these studentsis completely full, more than full, just trying to help thembuild a reasonably accurate and complete understanding ofEarth processes and phenomena. No one expects ourcolleagues teaching Chemistry or Math to affect a lifelongchange in their students' values and behavior, so why shouldanyone expect this of us?

Telling students that they or their families should changetheir behavior is environmental activism, not science. Oncewe start down the activist pathway, we undermine ourcredibility as a source of accurate, objective information(Kavassalis, 2003).

Students' families have widely varying opinions aboutenvironmental issues as they impact lifestyle choices, localeconomic development, and politics. It's better to steer clearof topics that could cause conflict with parents or communityleaders (Pederson and Totten, 2001).

If we don't do it, then who will? As Earth Science educators,we probably have a better understanding of Earth processesand phenomena than 99+ percent of the people that ourstudents will come in contact with, both as young people andas adults. If don't seize this opportunity to help themunderstand the long-term implications of their decisions, andlearn to act and choose in ways that will have minimumdestructive impact on the Earth and environment, then whenand where are they going to learn this?

Table 1. Should science educators take responsibility for "closing the loop" between students' understandingof the Earth System and their actions and decisions regarding the Earth?

good intent could come to opposite conclusions on thisquestion (Table 1). Even if we confine the question toteachers of Earth and Environmental Science, one couldstill make a case on either side. On the one hand, we arescience teachers, not teachers of ethics or civics. We don'twant to stray into advocacy or loose our credibility as asource of objective, accurate information. We want to berespectful of the values of all of our students' families. Onthe other hand, humanity is facing serious problems atthe intersection between society and the environment.As Earth Science educators, we have a much betterunderstanding of Earth processes, including human/environment interactions, than most otheropinion-shapers our students encounter. If we don'tseize the opportunity to help them learn to act andchoose in ways that will have minimum destructiveimpact on the Earth and environment, then when andwhere are they going to learn this?

In other words, the answer to the question posed inthe title to this paper is far from self-evident. Perhaps themost important message of this paper is that a nationalconversation on this topic is needed.

Since we haven't been able to answer this question byreasoning from first principles, we take an empiricalapproach in this paper. Going out to the "laboratory ofdemocracy" (Brandeis, 1932), we ask what has been theoutcome with respect to this question in the separatedeliberative processes of the 49 states that have stateeducation standards? What guidance or directives are

the states giving to their K-12 science teachers on thistopic?

Note that this approach allows us to investigate thequestion of intentions: to what extent does the educationestablishment think that science education shouldcontribute to learners' understandings of and actionsregarding human/ environment interactions? Theoutcomes question is much harder: to what extent, on anational scale, does science education contribute tolearners' understanding and actions regardinghuman/environment interactions? We do no more thanpose this as an important question at this time, and notethat if it is not one's intention to achieve a certain learningoutcome then it is likely not being achieved.

METHODS

Materials - We obtained copies of relevant portions ofthe education standards for each of the states from theWorld Wide Web (Appendix 1). We used the version ofeach state's standards that was posted as in effect as ofsummer 2005. We looked at science standards forelementary, middle and high school, for 49 states (Iowahas no education standards). Our study covered onlyinformation embedded within documents that were putforward as the official state "standards," or "framework,"or "curriculum" or "grade level expectations" document,not ancillary information that some states posted withtheir standards.


Category Criteria

E→H

Standard states or implies that Earth & environment influence or affect humanity OR standard states orimplies 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."

H→E

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 energyconsumption," "solve environmental problems," "management [of waste, of natural resources]."

• Phrases and concepts that imply humanity affecting the Earth and environment in a negative or possiblynegative way include "pollute" or "pollution," "environmental impact [e.g. of a technology]," "environmentaldegradation," "consequences of exploration and/or development of natural resources," "depletion of ozonein 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).

I→E

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, eithernow or when they become adults.

• Actions or decisions taken by individuals in a professional capacity (e.g. farmer, scientist, governmentemployee) are categorized as H→E rather than I→E, because these are not actions that will be accessible toall or most students, even after they become adults.

Table 2. Coding Scheme for Interactions between Humans and the Earth System.

For elementary and middle schools, we examinedthe entire science standard. Some high school standardsare organized into thematic or disciplinary strands thatrun across the high school years, in much the same wayas the elementary and middle school standards. For suchstates, we examined the entire high school sciencestandard. In other states, the high school standards arepresented as individual courses, not all of which wouldbe taken by any given student. For such states, weexamined the courses required for high schoolgraduation. Because our goal was to examine thestandards that guide the science coursework taken by allyoung Americans, we did not quantify standards forupper level elective courses, honors courses, vocationalcourses, or other courses that would only be taken by aminority of students. A few states (including Alabama,Indiana, Louisiana, Tennessee and Texas) presentstandards for a high school elective in EnvironmentalScience; these are rich in human/environmentinteractions but are only taken by a minority of studentsand thus not quantified.

In states where Technology was included within thesame Standard as Science, we counted it; whereTechnology fell outside of what the state itself declaredto be its "Science Standards," we did not include it in thequantitative part of the study. We also examined selectedexamples of non-science standards (e.g. "consumereducation," "character education") where we thoughtthere might be relevant material, but as these wereoutside the domain of science we did not quantify ourfindings.

Note that our methodology deals with only the "ideal"curricula recommended or required by educational

authorities. As McComas (2003) reminds us, there aremany filters in operation between the "ideal" curriculum,and the "enacted curriculum" that is delivered byteachers, and then the "received curriculum" that islearned and remembered by students.

Coding - The goal of our coding scheme was to assesshow, and in what manner, K-12 educators are being toldby their state standards to direct students' attention andconcern to issues of human interactions with the EarthSystem.

After some experimentation, we arrived at athree-category coding scheme (further detail in Table 2and examples in Table 3).

E→H Earth and environment affect Humanity. Astandard states or implies that some aspect of anatural system affects or impacts people, or thathumanity is dependent on some aspect of theEarth or environment.

H→E Humanity affects the Earth and environment. Astandard states or implies that the actions ordecisions of society influence or change the Earthand environment, for better or for worse.

I→E Individuals affect the Earth and environment. Astandard states or implies that the actions ordecisions of individuals, in their private capacity,influence or change the Earth and environment,for better or for worse.


Category Examples

E→H

Earth & Environment impact HumanityNebraska: Earth & Space Science 4.4.3. by the end of fourth grade, students will develop an understanding of the characteristics of earthmaterials.

• 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).

H→E

Humanity impacts Earth & EnvironmentDelaware: Standard 8 - EcologyGrades K-3: Changes in Environments

• Pollution and human activities can change the environment and adversely the health and survival ofhumans and other species. Careful planning and safe practices are required in waste disposal, recyclingand waste management, pest control, and use of resources to ensure the well being of humans and theenvironment.

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 speciesplant crop and debate the pros and cons of using these technologies.

I→E

Individuals impact Earth & EnvironmentArkansas: Strand 2: Life Science SystemsContent Standard 3: Students will demonstrate an understanding of the connections and applications in lifesciences.

• Grade 2: Students can write about ways to save the rain forests of the world. Students can develop plansfor 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 SciencesStudents 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 athreatened species.

Table 3. Examples from each of the Coding Categories

Each state's science standards were color-coded by one ofthe two authors to highlight sentences or phrases that fellinto one of these three categories.

Next, we tallied how many individual "elements"from each state fell into each of the three categories. Theother author, who had not done the initial coding, thenreviewed the coding and tallies, and noteddisagreements. Disagreements were resolved throughdiscussion, until a consensus coding could be agreedupon. Inter-rater consistency was approximately 90% ifcalculated as a fraction of coded elements, or better than99% if calculated as a fraction of examined elements.

Our division of each document into individual"elements" usually followed that of the state documentitself, where an "element" corresponds to a bullet or aparagraph in the state document. In general, we tallieditems at the finest level of granularity contained in thestandards document itself, although occasionally wewould include an element from a higher-leveloverarching statement if the concept did not reappear inthe lower-level statements. In a few cases, adjoiningbullets for the same grade in a state standard were sonearly identical or so minor in scope that we combinedtwo or more into one "element." If part of a bullet orparagraph fell into one category and part fell intoanother category, the state was credited with an elementin each category. If an identically-worded elementrecurred at multiple grade levels or in multipledisciplinary strands, we counted it multiple times,reasoning that revisiting the same concept in successivegrades should lead to more lasting learning. We did not

tally assessments or suggested activities that wereembedded within the standards, although we referred tothem to better discern the intended meaning of thestandards.

Finally, we identified which grades were classifiedas elementary, middle or high school for each state. Weused the state's own classification scheme when that wasdetectable from the standards document; in a fewambiguous states we imposed the National ScienceEducation Standards divisions of K-4, 5-8 and 9-12. Foreach state, we then divided the number of codedelements in each grade cluster by the number of years inthat grade cluster in that state. This gave us anelements/year statistic for elementary, middle, and highschool for each state. We also calculated total meanelements/year for each state by dividing the totalnumber of coded elements by 12 or 13 years (dependingwhether that state's standards included kindergarten.)

States' standards differ drastically in their length,format, degree of detail into which they parse individualconcepts, and whether they present grade-by-gradestandards or standards that span multiple grades. All ofthese factors influence the number of "elements" and"elements per year" recorded for a given state. For thisreason, we focused our quantitative analysis on the mostextreme state-to-state variations and on ratios withinindividual states. For the same reason, we have notpublished a state-by-state comparison table. We wish tofocus attention on the consensus, or lack of consensus,emerging from the nation's 49 independent deliberativeprocesses, rather than set up rivalries between states.


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 consensusabout whether or not this material is appropriate for inclusion in science courses.

Codings for individual states are available upon requestfrom the authors.

We note that even the most detailed standardsnecessarily leave some judgments to the teacher ordistrict, and that some standards are worded in such away that a teacher could either include or excludehuman/environment interactions. For example, thePersonal and Social Perspectives component of the Idahoscience standards states that in grade 3 and grade 4students should "understand the effect of technologicaldevelopment and human population growth on localtowns and/or Idaho" and then in grades 5 and 6"understand the effect of technological and humanpopulation growth on the United States and/or theworld." Would this standard lead to a discussion ofenvironmental effects of technological development andpopulation growth? Probably, but not necessarily. Suchambiguous wordings are a small minority of thematerials examined, and in such cases we used our bestjudgment about how we thought a majority of teacherswould interpret the standard.

OBSERVATIONS

Over all em pha sis on hu man/en vi ron ment in ter ac-tions in sci ence stan dards -The to tal num ber of codedel e ments per state ranges from a low of 1 to a high of 75,

with a mean of 25 (fig ure 2). Even mak ing ev ery al low-ance for state-to-state for mat ting dif fer ences, there is avery wide range in how much at ten tion is paid to hu-man/en vi ron ment in ter ac tions (fig ure 3). Oklahoma, forex am ple, out lines de tailed stan dards for ev ery in di vid-ual K-8 grade level and each high school course, and yethas only two men tions of hu man-environment in ter ac-tions in the en tire cor pus. South Carolina and Del a warehave more than 65 men tions of hu man-environment in -ter ac tions, av er ag ing 5 or more ex po sures to hu man/en-vi ron ment in ter ac tions per school year.

Balance among H→E, E→H, and I→H - In all but fourstates, we found more emphasis on how people andsociety affect the environment (H→E) than on how theenvironment affects people and society (E→H) (figure 4,upper). The mean number of elements coded as H→E is14.0 per state summed across all grades, as contrastedwith 8.8 elements coded as E→H (figure 2).

In every state, without exception, we found lessemphasis on how individuals impact the environment (I→Η) then on how humanity collectively impacts theenvironment (Ε→H) (figure 4, lower). The mean numberof elements coded as I→H is only 2.0 per state summedacross all grades (figure 2). For 21 states, we found noI→H elements at all.


Figure 3. Tendency to emphasize or de-emphasize human/environment interactions in state sciencestandards 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.

Variation across grade level - Recall from the methodssection that, for each state, we calculated anelements/year statistic for elementary, middle, and highschool, as well as a mean for the entire K-12 trajectory. Toexplore whether the coverage of human/environmentinteractions 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/yearfor that state. If any grade cluster (elementary, middle orhigh school) scored 150% or higher, we considered thatthat state had loaded its coverage of human/environment interactions preferentially into that gradecluster.

By this metric, seventeen states spread their teachingand learning fairly evenly across the elementary, middleand high school years. Two states load teaching andlearning about human/environment interactions intothe 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 tounderstand human-environment interactions at variouslevels of sophistication. States have recognized this intwo ways. The first approach is to articulate variouslevels of insight as different proficiency levels within thesame course or grade, for example, Hawaii's rubric forthe performance standard "Explain the impact ofhumans on the Earth system" (Table 5, top). The secondapproach is to revisit a concept several times atsuccessively older grades. For example, Delawarerevisits production/consumption of energy inelementary, middle and high school, deepening theexpected level of insight each time (Table 5, bottom).Arkansas revisits "assess current world issues applyingscientific themes (e.g. global change in climate, ozonedepletion, natural resources)" three times, from theperspectives of Physical Systems, Life Systems, andEarth/Space Systems. The former approach seems toimply that only a subset of students will achieve the moresophisticated understanding, whereas the latterapproach seems to imply that the more sophisticatedunderstanding should be accessible to all students if theconcept is built up over time as the student matures.

Human/environment interactions in non-sciencestandards - We found numerous instances wherehuman/environment interactions were included in stateeducation standards other than science standards.Although our study of such occurrences was notcomprehensive, it is clear that human-environmentinteractions are being taught in venues other than scienceclassrooms. Some examples:

Char ac ter ed u ca tion - Al a bama in cludes a stan dard for"Char ac ter Ed u ca tion" in grades 7-12: "For all grades, notless than 10 min utes of in struc tion per day shall fo cusupon the stu dent de vel op ment of the fol low ing char ac tertraits: Cour age, pa tri o tism, cit i zen ship, hon esty, fair ness,re spect for oth ers, kind ness, co op er a tion, self-respect,self-control, cour tesy, com pas sion, tol er ance, dil i gence,gen er os ity, punc tu al ity, clean li ness, cheer ful ness, schoolpride, re spect for the en vi ron ment, pa tience, cre ativ ity,sports man ship, loy alty, and per se ver ance" [em pha sisadded]. Ver mont in cludes a "Per sonal De vel op ment"stan dard for all ages, which in cludes a "Sustainability"com po nent with el e ments such as "de sign a plan to mon -i tor per sonal re source con sump tion" and "Con duct alife-cycle anal y sis (pro duc tion, dis tri bu tion, con sump-


Figure 4. Each state appears as one data point onthese scatterplots, indicating how many elements inour coding categories were found in that state’sstandards. The solid line is a 1:1 line, and the dashedline is a regression line constrained to go through theorigin. (Top) All but four states fall below the 1:1 linein this scatterplot, indicating that almost all statesplace more emphasis on how humanity impacts theenvironment (H→E) than on how the environmentimpacts humanity (H→E). The regression lineequation y=0.6x, R2=0.68 shows that, regardless ofwhether states are laconic or detailed in explicatingtheir standards, they tend to have only 60% as manyE→H elements as H→E elements. (Bottom) All statesfall well below the 1:1 line in this scatterplot,indicating that all states place more emphasis on howhumanity in the aggregate impacts the environment(H→E) than on how individuals can or do impact theenvironment (I→E).

tion and dis posal) for both syn thetic and nat u ral prod-ucts (tooth brush, ma ple syrup, au to mo bile) in clud ingthe ef fects of these life-cycles on a nat u ral and hu mancom mu nity."

Technology standard independent of science standards- Some states explore the interface between technologyand environment in a Technology Standard that isoutside of the Science Standard. Connecticut'sTechnology Standards cover impacts of technology onthe social, cultural and environmental aspects of people's lives, including how technology "can affect theenvironment" at the K-4 grade level, and "societal andindustrial responsibilities for using proper hazardouswaste disposal techniques" at the 9-12 grade level(Connecticut Content Standard 2). Oklahoma'sTechnology Education Standard includes considerationof both the environmental costs associated with usingtechnologies and the potential use of technology to repairenvironmental damage. In both Connecticut andOklahoma, the Technology standards are integratedacross all grades and are aimed at all students (i.e. theydo not refer to specialized vocational courses.)

Health - New York has a set of three standards for"Health, Physical Education, Family and ConsumerSciences," including "Students will acquire theknowledge and ability necessary to create and maintain asafe and healthy environment." The Health Educationstrand of this standard includes grade-appropriatevariations on "understand the need for personalinvolvement in improving the environment" at all threelevels (elementary, intermediate and commencement.)

Consumer Sciences - Wisconsin's "Family andConsumer Education Standards" includes an element on"what should be done to …conserve natural resources."Indiana's "Family and Consumer Sciences Program ofStudy" includes a section on "Caring for theenvironment" (M-FLR-4) covering "Product Selection"and "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle." In several other states(New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania) we found

Consumer and Family Science standards that lack anymention of the environment.

Free-standing "en vi ron ment" stan dard - Penn syl va niahas "Ac a demic Stan dards on En vi ron ment and Ecol ogy"that are com pletely in de pend ent of the Sci ence and Tech-nol ogy stan dards. This free-standing set of stan dards in -cludes strong sec tions on wa ter sheds, re new able andnon-renewable re sources, pol lu tion, pes ti cides, en dan-gered spe cies, and hu man im pacts on the en vi ron ments,with de tailed benchmarks at grade 4, 7, 10 and 12. The in-tro duc tion pro vides a ra tio nale for mak ing this afree-standing stan dard: "En vi ron ment and Ecol ogy ex-am ines the world with re spect to the eco nomic, cul tural,po lit i cal and so cial struc ture as well as nat u ral pro cessesand sys tems. This in te gra tion across sys tems is what setsthis ac a demic area apart from all oth ers." The doc u mentdoes not spec ify which teach ers or which courses shouldcover this ma te rial.

Geography standards - The introduction to Colorado'sGeography standards notes the intent to focus on theinterrelationship of the human and physical system.Standard 5 reads "Students understand the effects ofinteractions between human and physical systems andthe changes in meaning, use, distribution, andimportance of resources." The rationale statement for thestandard begins with the observation that human use ofresources can have both positive and negative impactsand moves on to discuss in further detail some of theseimpacts. There are detailed benchmarks for grades K-4,5-8 and 9-12 on how the Earth's physical systems affecthumans (E→H), as well as benchmarks on how humansimpact the Earth (H→E) in obtaining and usingresources.

DISCUSSION

Over all em pha sis on hu man/en vi ron ment in ter ac-tions in sci ence stan dards - The wide vari a tion fromstate to state in the de gree of em pha sis on hu man/en vi-ron ment in ter ac tions sug gests that no na tional con sen-


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 spreadacross all grade clusters

IllinoisMississippi

Arkansas GeorgiaLouisianaMaineNorth CarolinaSouth CarolinaWashingtonWest Virginia

AlaskaColoradoKansasMarylandMichiganNew MexicoNew YorkNorth DakotaOhioPennsylvaniaRhode Island

AlabamaConnecticutDelawareFloridaIdahoIndianaMassachusettsMissouriNebraskaNew JerseySouth DakotaTennesseeTexasVermontVirginiaWisconsinWyoming

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. Utahwas equally weighted toward middle and high school.

Table 4. At what grade level are human/environment interactions stressed?

sus has been reached on the ques tion of whether thesetop ics be long in sci ence class.

In the fifteen lowest-emphasis states, scienceteachers are only required to offer students, on average,less than one exposure per year of instruction to anyaspect of human/environment interactions. We thinkthis is too low to adequately encompass the importantpositive impacts of the Earth on humanity (e.g., air,water, energy resources, mineral resources, soil), plus thenegative impacts of the Earth on humanity (e.g.,earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis), plus the positiveimpacts of individuals and societies on the Earth (e.g.,recycling, design and use of more energy efficienttechnologies, protection of endangered species), plus the

negative impacts of individuals and societies on theEarth (e.g. pollution, habitat destruction, resourcedepletion), not to mention the interactions and feedbacksamong these processes.

At the other extreme, in some casesstandards-writers seem to have stretched so far toshowcase human interactions that fundamentalknowledge about natural systems could be shortchanged(Table 6).

Balance between H→E and E→H - All but a smallhandful of states place more emphasis how humans andsociety impact the Earth and environment (H→E) than


Strategy 1: Articulate proficiency levels within a grade/standard.Example: Hawaii Benchmark ES.2.3: Explain the impact of humans on the Earth SystemSample Performance Assessment: The student explains how humans have affected the Earth system (e.g. renewable vsnonrenewable resources, water and air pollution).

Advanced Proficient Partially Proficient Novice

Analyze and proposesolutions to reduce thehuman impact on the Earthsystem.

Explain the impact ofhumans on the Earthsystem.

Provide examples of howhumans impact the Earthsystem.

Recognize that humansimpact the Earth 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,light, and electricity usesnatural resources; therefore,careful attention should bepaid to turning off machinesand lights when not inuse…"

"… List a variety of energy sources which providealternatives to the use of fossil fuels, compare their relativeease of renewability, and explain their advantages anddisadvantages…"

"… explore theenvironmental impact ofenergy sources….proposeapproaches to reduce theenvironmental impact ofcurrent energy productiontechnologies…"

Table 5. How to acknowledge that a concept can be understood at different levels of sophistication?

National Standard State Standard

NSES Content Standard 5-8. Earth & Space Science. Structure of the Earth System

The atmosphere is a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, and tracegases that include water vapor. The atmosphere hasdifferent properties at different elevations.

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 theenvironment.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

NSES Content Standard 5-8. Earth & Space Science. Earth inthe Solar System.

The sun is the major source of energy for phenomena on theearth's surface, such as growth of plants, winds, oceancurrents, and the water cycle….

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 theEarth's surface. Energy is transferred in many ways.a. Analyze the greenhouse effect and its consequences.b. Describe ways that humans may be influencing orcontributing to global warming.

NSES Content Standard 9-12: Physical Science. Conservation of Energy and the increase in disorder.

Everything tends to become less organized and less orderlyover time. Thus, in all energy transfers, the overall effect isthat the energy is spread out uniformly. Examples are thetransfer of energy from hotter to cooler objects byconduction, radiation, or convection and their warming ofour surroundings when we burn fuels.

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 lessorderly over time. Thus, in all energy transfers, the overalleffect is that the energy is spread out uniformly. Examplesare the transfer of energy from hotter to cooler objects byconduction, radiation, or convection and their warming ofour surroundings when we burn fuels.a. Compare and contrast the environmental impact of power plants that use fossil fuels, water, or nuclear energy toproduce electricity.

Table 6. Examples where explication of National Standards added Human/Environmental Interactions.

on how the Earth and environment impact humans andsociety (E→H) (figure 4, upper).

Why is this? We offer two speculative hypotheses forthis choice of emphasis. First, the important concept ofquantifiable "ecosystem services" (Costanza et al, 1997) is a relatively new concept, which has not yet trickleddown into most education standards. Secondly, thisemphasis may reflect a worldview in which humans arethe prime actors, with power to influence or control otherliving and non-living things.

Is this the optimal balance? It seems plausible that astronger emphasis on the ways in which human systemsdepend on natural systems (E→H) would lead studentsto value natural systems more; one protects what onevalues. This is a question that could be approachedempirically, researching student outcomes in acurriculum with equal emphasis on E→H and H→Eversus one dominated by H→E.

Individuals→environment - There is little supportamong state standards developers for the notion thatscience lessons or science teachers should proactivelyencourage students to change the nature of their owninteractions with the environment, or to seek to bringabout such changes in their own family, school or localcommunity. Twenty-one states have no bullets that wecoded as I→E. The average number of I→E codedelements across all 49 states was only 2.0, far fewer thanin our other two coding categories (figures 2 and 4).

Moore and Huber (2001, their table 1) examined thecongruence between the goals of environmentaleducation, in particular the "promotion ofenvironmentally sound behaviors," and the NationalScience Education Standards (National ResearchCouncil, 1996). They found support for environmentaleducation at the highest level of the NSES: the Overviewand Introduction. However, as we have dug deeper intohow science education standards have been explicated atthe state level, we find little attention given to the"promotion of environmentally sound behaviors," therough equivalent of our category I→E. In some cases, itseems that the wording has been purposefully crafted toavoid stating or implying that individuals should changetheir values or behavior. For example, in Idaho,standards for grades kindergarten, 1, 2, 3, and 4 eachrepeat that students should "Understand the concept ofrecycling"; the wording feels carefully cognitive andabstract rather than conative and concrete.

A recently released multimedia "EnvironmentalEthics Curriculum" (Goldman Environmental Prize,2005) has as its explicit goal helping middle and highschool students learn "how people should act to use,protect, and improve the natural world in which we live"(emphasis added) (Finnegan et al., 2005, p. 5). TheTeachers Guide for this curriculum provides a detailedalignment to education standards, in this case aconsensus set of content standards assembled bydrawing on U.S. and international standards documents(Mid-continent Research in Education and Learning,2004). They find a small area of alignment with LifeSciences but none with Earth Sciences. Their strongestalignment is with the Language Arts and Geographystandards.

Variation by grade level - It is not obvious that coverageof human/environment interactions "belongs"preferentially in one or another part of the K-12trajectory. One could argue that interdisciplinary topics

are easier to fit into the undepartmentalized elementaryschool format, or that environmental topics are wellsuited to the project-based learning common in middleschool, or that high schoolers are best able to understandthe complex interactions of the Earth system. Seventeenof the states spread their coverage of human/environment interactions fairly evenly across theelementary, middle and high school years (Table 4).

In a meta-analysis of environmental educationinterventions, Zelezny (1999) found that "improvedenvironmental behaviors" are most likely to result whenthe intervention targets young participants. Those statesthat have chosen to concentrate their coverage ofhuman/environment interactions have, collectively,elected exactly the opposite strategy: eleven states stresshuman/environment interactions most strongly in highschool and only two states most strongly in elementaryschool (Table 4). Note that had we include advancedelectives in the high school tally this imbalance wouldhave been even more extreme.

Nuances in levels of understanding - We haveidentified two ways in which standards canacknowledge the fact that it is possible to understand anaspect of human-environment interaction at variouslevels of sophistication: standards can articulate a rangeof proficiency standards within a grade, or can revisit thesame concept in a more sophisticated fashion atsuccessively older grades (Table 5).

For environmental topics, we prefer the latterapproach, with its implication that the moresophisticated understanding is accessible to all students.Every student will grow up to become an adult whomakes personal decisions that affect the environment.Many students, not just the academically inclined ones,will become adults whose professional actions affect theenvironment; truck drivers, home health aids, automechanics, farm workers, artists, food service workers,pest control applicators, all affect the environmentthrough their actions.

Concerning decentralized control of curriculum -Many aspects of science are universal, such as thosegrounded in the invariant laws of physics. For thoseaspects of the curriculum, one could argue that a uniformnational curriculum would be advantageous. But in acontinent-spanning nation like the U.S., there truly aremajor local and regional differences in how societyinteracts with the environment, driven by differences inclimate, physiography, ecology, and cultural history.This project has given us a new appreciation of how thestate-by-state control of curriculum has enabledstandards-writers in some states to stress the specifichuman-environment interactions that occur in theirstudents' communities.

Some examples: In Alaska, eighth graders must"...conduct research to learn how the local environment isused by a variety of competing interests (e.g. competitionfor habitat/resources, tourism, oil and miningcompanies, hunting groups)" (Alaska standard[8]SA3.1.) Nevada middle school students must "knowthe characteristics, abundances, and location ofrenewable and nonrenewable resources found inNevada" (Nevada standard E.8.C.7). In Virginia, the highschool Earth Science standard has students "investigateand understand that oceans are complex, interactivephysical, chemical, and biological systems" taking intoaccount "economic and public policy issues concerning


the oceans and the coastal zone including theChesapeake Bay" (Virginia standard ES.11).

Human/environment interactions in non-sciencestandards - Although our analysis of non-sciencestandards was not comprehensive, we found enoughexamples to confirm that human-environmentinteractions are being taught in venues other than scienceclassrooms, including character education, technologyeducation, health, geography, consumer and familyscience, and environmental studies.

If science educators, individually or collectively,wish to contribute to "closing the loop" of figure 1, butlack the time or support to move beyond buildingstudents' knowledge and understanding of naturalprocesses, one powerful strategy may be to collaboratewith colleagues in these other disciplines. For example,Earth Science teachers in a given school, school district,or state could work to build students' understanding ofthe atmospheric processes by which carbon dioxidecontributes to natural and anthropogenic greenhousewarming, and then Consumer Sciences teachers in thatsame school, school district or state could take thosesame students through the process of using emissiondata as a factor in selecting an automobile. In order to bemost effective, such articulations between science andother curricula must be purposefully developed, ratherthan left to chance.

In considering whether human/environmentinteractions are already sufficiently covered outside ofscience, we need to keep in mind that science occupies aprivileged position in the K-12 curriculum: every states'standards cover science, almost every child studiesscience in almost every grade, and states regularly assesstheir children's performance in science. In contrast, onlytwenty states have useable geography standards(according to Munroe and Smith, 1998) and only threestates require consumer science (Weiner, 2005). Inclusionof human/environment interactions in science standardsthus sends a message about the importance of this topicthat may not be conveyed by inclusion in other contentdomains.

Another group of potential collaboratorsself-identify as "environmental educators" rather thanscience educators, and often work through informaleducation venues rather than school systems (Simmons,1991). In the inaugural issue of the Journal ofEnvironmental Education, Stapp et al. (1969) proposedthat environmental education should develop a citizenry that "is knowledgeable concerning the biophysicalenvironment and its associated problems, aware of howto help solve these problems, and motivated to worktoward their solution." Subsequent statements of thegoals of environmental education (Jeske, 1978;Hungerford et al., 1980; Simmons, 1991) also combineknowledge of natural systems, knowledge ofenvironmental issues, problem-solving skills, and themotivation/attitude/commitment to engage in"environmentally sound behaviors" (term fromSimmons, 1991). In other words, this group of educatorsexplicitly sets as their goal to close the loop of figure 1.There has been a historic divide between theenvironmental education community and the scienceeducation community (Kavassalis, 2003), but Carlsen(2001) makes a compelling case that there is much thatscience educators can learn from environmentaleducation.

Isn't knowledge and understanding of natural EarthSystems enough? - It is tempting to reason that surely ifwe science educators could only succeed in our foremostagenda of helping children construct deep, broad, andaccurate understandings of natural Earth andenvironmental processes, that of course those childrenand the adults they become would see the importance ofmaking environmentally-sound choices and wouldmodify their behavior accordingly. Research suggeststhat is not the case. Some knowledge of natural processesis a necessary precursor of a shift towardsenvironmentally-responsible behavior, but additionalfactors must be present as well (Ramsey andHungerford, 2002; Hungerford and Volk, 1990; andSimmons, 1991). Proposed factors include knowledge ofenvironmental issues, knowledge of action strategiesand skills, psychological factors such as sense of efficacy(feeling that one is capable of producing desired results),and "environmental sensitivity" (attributes that providean individual with an emphathic view of theenvironment.) Ramsey and Hungerford (2002, p. 157)point out that "…many educators firmly believe that'teaching about something' will influence behavior. Ifthis were absolutely true, then everyone would vote; noone would contract a venereal disease; …no teenagerwould have an unwanted pregnancy; …and peoplewould not smoke. The same is probably true forcitizenship responsibility regarding the environment."Penn (2003) makes the case that deep evolutionary rootsunderlie Homo sapiens' tendency to overpopulate,overconsume, exhaust common-pool resources, discountthe future and respond maladaptively to modernenvironmental hazards, and that therefore educatorsshould not expect that merely explaining to anindividual that such behavior adversely impacts thecommon good and future generations will overcome theevolutionary programming that prompts us to maximizeour fertility and consumption.

What should we do about this? - Hungerford and Volk(1990) wrote that: "The ultimate aim of education isshaping human behavior. Societies throughout theworld establish educational systems in order to developcitizens who will behave in desirable ways." Do we, earthsystem educators, agree with this position? And if so,what behaviors do we wish to foster? Munroe and Smith(1998) pointed out that "the call for [educational]standards… has challenged each field to examine itsfundamental tenets and accustomed values in thecontext of a high profile nationwide debate." The lack ofconsensus on whether human/environment interactionsshould be included in science standards suggests thatEarth Science and Life Science education communitieshave either not yet examined their "tenets and values" onthis point, or fundamentally disagree on what thosetenets and values are. Perhaps the most importantmessage of this paper is that a national conversation onthis topic is needed.

We envision three possible outcomes of such aconversation:

(1) Helping students develop the knowledge, skills, andmotivation to improve how humanity interacts withthe Earth and environment is important, and shouldbe done in science classes.

(2) Helping students develop the knowledge, skills, andmotivation to improve how humanity interacts with


the Earth and environment is important, and shouldbe done in school. Science classes can do their part bydeveloping students' knowledge of natural Earthsystems, but many aspects of human/environmentinteractions are more appropriate for other parts ofthe curriculum, including Geography, ConsumerScience, and Technology.

(3) Changing how humanity interacts with the Earthand environment is not an appropriate goal forpublic schools, either in science or elsewhere in thecurriculum.

We would favor a combination of answers one andtwo. The next challenges in implementing thescience-based approach will be to develop appropriatecurriculum materials and professional developmentopportunities that are grounded in science but informedby educational research on what fostersenvironmentally-responsible behavior (Ramsey andHungerford, 2002). The next challenges in thecollaborative approach will be to develop intentional andexplicit articulations between science courses thatdevelop understandings of natural earth systems, andparallel or subsequent courses in other fields that buildcomplementary understandings of how individual orsocietal actions impact and are impacted by those samesystems. This would require that we broaden ourconversation beyond science educators to includegeography/social studies educators, technologyeducators, and Family and Consumer Science educators.In the meantime, in anticipation of this nationalconversation, each individual educator can ask himselfor herself: am I giving my students the tools they willneed to understand the consequences of their personaland professional actions towards the Earth andenvironment? am I actually changing my students'actions and decisions (i.e. behavior) towards the Earththrough my teaching? Am I trying to change mystudents' actions and decisions towards the Earth?Should I be trying to change my students' actions anddecisions towards the Earth? Referring back to Table 1,we expect that the answers will differ amongconscientious teachers of good will, but at least we willbe addressing the issue.

CONCLUSIONS

There is wide variation among states in how muchattention they think should be included in science classon the interaction of humans with natural Earth systems.

The lowest-emphasis states call for less than oneelement per instructional year, pertaining to any aspectof human/environment interactions, averaged acrossthe K-12 years.

The overwhelming majority of state sciencestandards place more emphasis on how humans affectthe environment (H→E) than on how the environmentaffects humans (E→H).

Many states think that how individuals impact theenvironment (I→H) should be taught in science classminimally or not at all.

Although at least some research suggests thatenvironmental education is most likely to result in"improved environmental behaviors" when participantsare younger, many states load their coverage ofhuman-environment interactions into the middle schoolor high school years.

Research suggests that knowledge of naturalsystems alone is insufficient to cause behavioral changeswith respect to personal actions or choices that impactthe environment. In other words, if science educatorsbring our students to the far right hand edge of theflowchart in figure 1, successfully achieving "Knowledgeand Understanding in the Minds of Learners," we cannotassume that they will then close the loop themselves bymaking choices and decisions that impact favorablyupon the Earth.

Coverage of human-environment interactions isscattered across the K-12 curriculum, in standardscovering technology, geography, health, consumereducation, character education, and environmentalstudies, as well as science. Lack of ownership of this issueby any one discipline leaves an opportunity for states tonot include it at all. The self-identified "environmentaleducation" community is also deeply committed toteaching this material, but that community seems weaklyrepresented in the standards development process inmany states

The Earth Science and Life Science educationcommunities need to grapple explicitly with the questionof whether or not we wish to "close the loop" of figure 1and change the behaviors of future citizens towardsmore environmentally-sustainable choices and actions.If we do wish to "close the loop," there are two possiblecourses of action:

incorporate greater emphasis on human/environment interactions into our own courses,and/or

create intentional and explicit articulations betweenscience courses that develop understandings ofnatural earth systems, and parallel or subsequentcourses in other fields that build complementaryunderstandings of how individual or societal actions impact and are impacted by those same systems.

We need a national-scale discussion on the urgentquestion of how does society educate young people sothat they will understand interactions between humansand the environment and then use this understanding tocraft an environmentally-sustainable civilization.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Holly Chayes for web research and wordprocessing of state standards elements, and LindaPistolesi for graphics design. Discussions withcolleagues in the Society of Environmental Journalistsand the Digital Library for Earth System Education(DLESE) helped us to become aware of the overlap andtensions between environmental education,environmental advocacy, and science education. TomReeves first drew my (KK) attention to theunderappreciated conative domain of learningoutcomes, learning which results in changes to students'desires and actions. Discussions with DLESE colleaguesand participants in the RODES workshop on use ofmid-ocean ridge data in education helped to clarify theideas embodied in Figure 1. The manuscript was greatlyimproved by the comments of the three anonymousreviewers provided by the journal. The thinking thatunderlies this paper was partially supported throughNational Science Foundation grants number


GEO01-20207, EAR03-05092, and OCE03-28117.Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Contribution #6908.

REFERENCES

Brandeis, L. 1932, New State Ice Company v. Liebman,285 U.S. 262, U.S. Supreme Court.

Boumans, R., Costanza, R., Farley, J., Wilson, M.A.,Portela, R., Rotmans, J., Villa, F., and Grasso, M.,2002, Modeling the dynamics of the integrated earthsystem and the value of global ecosystem servicesusing the GUMBO model: Ecological Economics, v.41, p. 529-560.

Carlsen, W., 2001, The sociological context ofenvironmental science and its use in rethinkingscientific inquiry, in Meichtry, Y.a.M.Z., ed.,Relations between Science Education andEnvironmental (Science) Education: Report on aSymposium of the National Association of Researchon Science Teaching, Strand 08 (History, Philosophy,Epistemology), p. 3-7.

Chayes, D, 2001, Bits to Data, Retrieved April 29, 2006,http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~dale/dataflow.

Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso,M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Niell, R.,Paruelo, J., Raskin, R., Sutton, P., and van den Belt,M., 1997, The value of the world's ecosystem servicesand natural capital: Nature, v. 387, p. 253-259.

Finnegan, W., Allison, E., and Ardoin, N., 2005,Environmental Ethics: Examining Your Connectionto the Environment and Your Community: EducatorGuide, The Goldman Environmental Prize.

Goldman Environmental Prize, 2005, EnvironmentalEthics: Examining your connection to theEnvironment and your Community, GoldmanEnvironmental Prize.

Hungerford, H., Peyton, R., and Wilke, R., 1980, Goals forcurriculum development in environmentaleducation: Journal of Environmental Education, v.11, p. 42-47.

Hungerford, H., and Volk, T., 1990, Changing learnerbehavior through environmental education: Journalof Environmental Education, v. 21, p. 8-21.

IPPC, 1990, First Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Jeske, W., 1978, Toward an action plan: a report on theTbilsi conference on environnmental education:Washington, D.C., Federal Interagency Committeeon Education, U. S. Department of Health, Educationand Welfare.

Kavassalis, C., 2003, Creating a Community-SpecificEnvironmental Education Website [Masters of Artsthesis]: Toronto, Canada, University of Toronto.

Keeling, C.D., R. B. Bacastow, A. E. Bainbridge, C. E.Ekdahl, P. R. Guenther, L. S. Waterman, and J. F. S.Chin, 1976, Atmospheric carbon dioxide variationsat Muana Loa observatory, Hawaii: Telles, v. 28, p.538-551.

McComas, W.F., 2003, The Ideal Environmental ScienceCurriculum: Part 2, Advocates, Textbooks, andConclusions: The American Biology Teacher, v. 65, p.171-178.

Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning,2004, Content Knowledge, 4th Edition.

Moore, C., and Huber, R.A., 2001, Support for EE fromthe Nation Science Education Standards and theInternet: Journal of Environmental Education, v. 32,p. 21-25.

Munroe, S., and Smith, T., 1998, State GeographyStandards: An Appraisal of Geography Standards in38 States and the District of Columbia.

National Research Council, 1996, National ScienceEducation Standards: Washington, DC, NationalAcademy Press, 262 p.

Pedersen, J.E., and Totten, S., 2001, Beliefs of scienceteachers toward the teaching ofscience/technological/social issues: Are weaddressing the national standards?: Bulletin ofScience, Technology and Society, v. 21, p. 376-393.

Penn, D.J., 2003, The evolutionary roots of ourenvironmental problems: Toward a DarwinianEcology: Quarterly Review of Biology, v. 78, p.275-301.

Ramsey, J., and Hungerford, H.R., 2002, Perspectives onEnvironmental Education in the United States, NewTools for Environmental Protection: Education,Information and Voluntary Measures: Washington,D.C., National Academy Press, p. 147-160.

Simmons, D., 1991, Are we meeting the goal ofresponsible environmental behavior: Anexamination of nature and environmental educationcenter goals: The Journal of EnvironmentalEducation, v. 22, p. 16-21.

Stapp, W., Bennett, D., Bryan, W., Fulton, J., MacGregor,J., Nowak, P., Swan, J., Wall, R., and Havlick, S., 1969,The Concept of Environmental Education: TheJournal of Environmental Education, v. 1, p. 30-31.

Stute, M., 2006, The Climate System: Greenhouse Gases,Volume 2006.

Weiner, R., 2005, Home ec as life skills, The JournalNews: Rockland, p. 1A.

Zelezny, L.C., 1999, Educational interventions thatimprove environmental behaviors: a meta-analysis:Journal of Environmental Education, v. fall, p. 5.

Appendix 1State Documents Examined

Standards documents were downloaded from the following urls insummer 2005. For states that did not use "strands" at the high schoollevel, we have included their high school graduation requirements for science and what courses we coded for this study.

ALABAMAAlabama High School Graduation Requirements - ScienceAdopted 1997/1998http://www.alsde.edu/html/sections/doc_download.asp?section=54&id=829Alabama Grades Science Requirementshttp://www.alsde.edu/html/sections/document.asp?section=54&sort=7&footer=sectionso Alabama requires a Biology and Physical sciences core for highschool graduation so these were the courses we coded.

ALASKAAlaska Standards: Content and Performance Standards for AlaskaStudentsScienceRevised June 2005 (Third Edition)http://www.eed.state.ak.us/standards/pdf/standards/pdf

ARIZONAArizona Department of Education Science StandardsAdopted 6/23/1997http://www.ade.state.az.us/standards/science/rationale.asp

ARKANSASScience Curriculum FrameworkArkansas Department of EducationRevised 1999http://arkedu.state.ar.us/curriculum/benchmarks.html#Science


CALIFORNIAScience Content Standards for California Public SchoolsReprinted 2003http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fd/documents/sci-stnd.pdfCalifornia requires Biology and a Physical science for high schoolgraduation so we coded Biology and Earth Science.

COLORADOColorado Model Content StandardsAdopted 5/10/95; Amended 11/9/95http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/standards/pdf/science.pdf

CONNECTICUTScience Curriculum FrameworkFor this study we used Connecticut State Department of EducationMarch 1998*http://www.state.ct.us/sde/dtl/curriculum/currkey3.htm

* September 12, 2005 Connecticut issued a revised science curriculumentitled"Core Science Curriculum Framework" available athttp://www.state.ct.us/sde/dtl/curriculum/currsci.htm

DELEWAREState of Delaware Science Curriculum FrameworkJune 1995http://www.doe.state.de.us/Standards/Science/science_toc.html

FLORIDAGrade Level Expectations for the Sunshine State Standards (Science)Florida Department of Education1996*http://www.myfloridaeducation.com

*The state standards are undergoing review during 2005 for aplanned review and adoption by the school district 12/05

GEORGIAGeorgia Performance StandardsGeorgia Department of EducationApril 1, 2005http://www.georgiastandards.org/science.aspx

HAWAIIHawaii Content and Performance StandardsIssued 8/99http://doe.k12.hi.us/standards/hcps/index.htmHawaii requires three sciences for high school graduation. We foundstandards for Biology, Physical Sciences and Earth Sciences, so wecoded these.

IDAHOIdaho Administrative Code, State Board of Education, IDAPA08.02.03, Rules Governing ThoroughnessScience Standards 515-525Dated 3/15/02http://www.ifep.net/images/Standards/080203scienceonly.pdf

ILLINOISIllinois Learning Standards for Science2000/2001http://www.isbe.net/ils/science/capd.htm

INDIANAIndiana's Academic Standards & ResourcesIndiana Department of EducationAdopted 2000, Updated 8/6/04http://www.doe.state.in.us/standards/standards2000_science.htmlhttp://www.doe.state.in.us/standards/welcome2.htmlIndiana requires two science courses. We coded Earth Sciences andBiology.

IOWANo Standards

KANSASKansas Science Education StandardsMarch 9, 2005http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/science.html

KENTUCKYCore Content for Science AssessmentSeptember 1999

http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Instructional+Resources/Curriculum+Documents+and+Resources/Core+Content+for+Assessment/default.htmKentucky requires Earth and Space Science, Life Science, and Physical Science for high school graduation so we coded all of these.

LOUISIANALouisiana Science FrameworkMay 22, 1997http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/2911.pdfhttp://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/saa/1842.html#PreKStudent Standards and Assessments April 2005http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/ssa/2108.htmlLouisiana requires Biology, Physical Science, and either Biology II,Earth Science or Environmental Science as a third choice. We codedBiology, Physical Science and Earth Science.

MAINEMaine's Curriculum Framework for Mathematics and ScienceMathematic and Science Curriculum StandardsRevised June 1997http://www.state.me.us/education/lres/st.htm

MARYLANDMaryland Science Content StandardsJune 6, 2000http://www.mcps.k12md.us/curriculum/science/forms/mdscicntstnds.pdf

MASSACHUSETTSMassachusetts Science and Technology/Engineering CurriculumFrameworkMassachusetts Department of EducationMay 2001http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/2001/

MICHIGANMichigan Curriculum Framework (Science)Michigan Department of Education1996http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MichiganCurriculumFramework_8172_7.pdf

MINNESOTAMinnesota Academic Standards CommitteeMinnesota Department of EducationDecember 19, 2003http://education.state.mn.us/mde/static/000282.pdf

MISSISSIPPI2001 Mississippi Science FrameworkIssued 2001http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/ACAD/ID/Curriculum/Science/science_curr.htmMississippi requires subject based tests for graduation. The onlyscience test is in Biology so we coded Biology.

MISSOURIMissouri's Framework for Curriculum Development in Science K-12Issued 1996http://www.dese.mo.gov/divimprove/curriculum/frameworks/science.html

MONTANAMontana Standards for ScienceOctober 1999http://www.opi.state.mt.us/pdf/standards/ContStds-Science.pdf

NEBRASKANebraska Science Standards Grades K-12Adopted by the State Board of Education May 9, 1998http://www.nde.state.ne.us/ndestandards/documents/ScienceStandards.pdf

NEVADANevada K-12 Science StandardsEstablished by January 15, 2000http://www.doe.nv.gov/standards/standscience.htmlnevada

NEW HAMPSHIRENew Hampshire Department of Education Curriculum FrameworkUndated documenthttp://www.ed.state.nh.us/education/doe/organization/curriculum/CurriculumFrameworks/ScienceFrameworks.htm


NEW JERSEYNew Jersey Core Curriculum Standards for ScienceReviewed/Revised winter 2000-2001http://www.state.nj.us/njded/cccs/s5_science.htm

NEW MEXICONew Mexico Content Standards, Benchmarks, and PerformanceStandardsApproved 2003http://www.nmlites.org/standards/science/index.html

NEW YORKNew York State Core Curriculum Undated Documenthttp://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/mst.htmlNew York requires 1 Life Science, 1 Physical Science and a thirdscience. We coded Living Environment, Earth Science and Chemistry.

NORTH CAROLINAScience: Standard Course of Study and Grade Level CompetenciesDraft Revision December 2004http://www.ncpublicschools.org/curriculum/science/scos/2004/12kindergarten

NORTH DAKOTA North Dakota Standards and Benchmarks: Content Standards ScienceNovember 2002http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/standard/content.shtm

OHIOAcademic Content Standards K-12 Science: Philosophy and PrinciplesAdopted 12/10/02http://www.ode.state.oh.us/academic_content_standards/acsscience.asp#Science_Academic_Content_Standards

OKLAHOMAPriority Academic Student Skills: Science StandardsReviewed August 22, 2002http://www.sde.state.ok.us/home/home01_test.html?http://sde.state.ok.us/publ/pass.html!Oklahoma requires Biology, and two additional sciences in the areasof Life Science, Physical Science, or Earth Science, and includes anextensive list of courses including Natural Resource andEnvironmental Science. Many of the courses did not have postedstandards, We used Biology, Physical Science and Chemistry.

OREGONOregon Common Science Curriculum Goals and Content StandardsAdopted April 26, 2001http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/subjects/science/curriculum/whatstudentsneedtoknow.aspx

PENNSYLVANIAPennsylvania Academic Standards for Science and Technology January 5, 2002http://www.pde.state.pa.us/k12/lib/k12/scitech.pdf

examined but not tallied:Pennsylvania Standards for Environment and EcologyJanuary 5, 2002http://www.pde.state.pa.us/k12/lib/k12/envec.pdf

RHODE ISLANDThe Rhode Island Science FrameworkStandards not datedhttp://www.ridoe.net/standards/frameworks/science/default.htm

SOUTH CAROLINAScience Curriculum StandardsAdopted January 12, 2000http://www.myscschools.com/offices/cso/standards/science/default.cfm

SOUTH DAKOTAScience Content StandardsBoard Approved March 22, 2005http://doe.sd.gov/contentstandards/science/newstandards.asp

TENNESSEEScience Curriculum StandardsAugust 31, 2001http://www.state.tn.us/education/ci/cistandards2001/sci/ciscience.htm

Tennessee requires three sciences for high school graduation toinclude Biology, or an integrated science curriculum. We codedBiology, Earth Science and Physical Science.

TEXASTexas Essential Knowledge and Skills for ScienceSeptember 1, 1998http://www.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter112/ch112a.htmlTexas requires two science courses for graduation, Biology andIntegrated Physics and Chemistry. These were the courses we coded.It should be noted that Texas offers a wide array of additional sciencecourses with posted standards which included a much stronger Earthto Human interaction that the ones coded. However, we codedcourses that every student would be participating in.

UTAHUtah State Department of Education Science Content Standards Adopted 2003http://www.uen.org/core/science/index.shtmlo Utah requires any two science courses for high school graduationfrom the areas of Earth Science, Biology, and Physics. We coded Earth Science, Biology and Chemistry.

VERMONTGrade Expectations for Vermont's Framework of Standards andLearning OpportunitiesSummer 2004 (Science)http://www.state.vt.us/educ/new/pdfdoc/pubs/grade_expectations/science.pdfNote: The Vermont State Board of Education adjusted the sciencestandards 9/20/05. The new standard is entitled "Natural Resourcesand Agriculture" replacing the previous section which had beenentitled "Natural Resources". The overarching theme shifted from"Students understand how natural resources are extracted,distributed, processed, and disposed of" to "Students demonstrate anunderstanding of natural resources and agricultural systems and why and how they are managed."

VIRGINIAScience Standards of Learning for Virginia Public SchoolsJanuary 2003http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/Science/sciCF.htmlVirginia requires three science courses for graduation. We codedEarth Science, Biology and Chemistry.

WASHINGTONWashington State's Essential Academic Learning Requirements:SciencePublished 2005http://www.k12.wa.us/curriculumInstruct/science/pubdocs/ScienceEALR-GLE.pdf

WEST VIRGINIAScience Content Standards and Objectives for West Virginia SchoolsJuly 1, 2003http://wvde.state.wv.us/csos/

WISCONSINWisconsin Model Academic StandardsStandards Undatedhttp://www.dpi.state.wi.us/standards/sciintro.html

WYOMINGWyoming Science Content and Performance StandardsAdopted July 7, 2003http://www.k12.wy.us/sa/pubs/standards/science.pdf.
