Effects of three teaching approaches on elementary student's environmental values

Environmental education is a key component in fostering environmentally friendly behavior in children. These educational experiences can occur over a long time period in classroom or non-traditional settings, as a one-day program with a lasting impact, or anywhere in between. Research has shown that learning settings and teaching approaches can have an impact on the environmental values of students. This study aimed to determine whether a guided learning or teacher-centered approach was more effective at conveying an environmental message, and whether the setting of the program, either a wildlife park or a classroom, affected children's environmental values.

The study occurred during 2013-2014 school year at the Klaushof wildlife park and a nearby elementary school in Germany. A total of 441 students between the ages of 8 and 11 years old participated in the study. The 441 students were randomly assigned a group: 141 participated in the teacher-centered approach at the wildlife park, 163 in the student-centered guided learning approach at the wildlife park, and 137 in the student-centered guided learning approach in their school classrooms. In all three groups, students were presented with information about wildcats and asked to complete an activity about wildcat habitats. With the teacher-centered approach, the teacher served as a lecturer and walked the students through the scenario and various work-stations to complete the activity. The teacher's role switched from lecturer to facilitator in the student-centered approach, where students were provided with the materials to complete the activity and had to work self-sufficiently with minimal teacher involvement. At the wildlife park, students were presented with a live wildcat as motivation for participation, while students in the classroom were shown pictures and taxidermized specimens.

To measure changes in environmental values, researchers used the 2-Major Environmental Values model (2-MEV) to develop a survey for the participants. Preservation and utilization of nature were the measured values—preservation represents a high valuation of nature and preservation of natural resources, while utilization represents human use of and rule over nature. Researchers also measured students' emotions by having students answer three short scales using a scale of “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Emotions were evaluated once, just after the program, and the 2-MEV surveys were used twice: one week prior to the program and six to eight weeks after the program.

The researchers found that there were no significant differences in values between the forms of instruction or the venue. Surveys results showed that between the two wildlife park groups, the guided approach was more influential, but by a negligible amount. When comparing the preservation values from the pre-survey to the post-survey, the researchers found that the students had lower preservation values after their experiences. This negative change in preservation values was surprising to the researchers, though they hypothesized it showed students' actual understanding of their own environmental responsibilities, which they may not have been ready to commit to yet. Venue did not affect preservation values.

Regarding emotions after the program, the researchers found that interest and wellbeing were high and boredom was low. No differences in emotions were found between settings or instructional approaches. The researchers thought this was because the type of instruction was changed at the wildlife park and in the classroom, leading to engagement and interest across both venues. In addition, higher wellbeing and interest aligned with better preservation values; thus, it was concluded that students who were more interested in the topic leaned towards preservation of nature regardless of the venue. Overall, the researchers concluded that, regardless of instruction style or venue, a one-day environmental education program can have a positive effect on elementary school students.

This study had limitations. First, the study only evaluated elementary school students. The teaching strategies used may impact other ages of students in different ways. The researchers did note that their opinions regarding the malleability of young students' environmental perceptions differed from those of other researchers in the field. Also, because the study took place in Germany, its ability to be generalized to other countries is limited.