When it comes to environmental education, assessment is important: educators want to know whether, and in what ways, their programs are effective. Based on this information, educators have the ability to adapt programming to better meet participants' needs. Yet, it can be challenging to make traditional evaluation measures, such as surveys, engaging for participants, especially children, and design them in a way that does not detract from the overall program. In addition, the data can be cumbersome and time-intensive to analyze. Therefore, considering creative, embedded ways to assess an activity has been at the forefront of many researchers' minds. Researchers have found art, for example, to be an interactive evaluation tool that is age appropriate for young participants, as it requires no language fluency and additionally it can transcend linguistic, socio-economic, and/or cultural barriers. Some argue, alternatively, that using children's drawings to evaluate educational experiences is subjective and, therefore, invalid. To counter that notion, this study's authors used a quantitative scoring rubric to assess the drawings of children between the ages of 6 and 12. The authors investigated what the children's drawings expressed about their environmental awareness and attitudes.
The study sample included 285 children who attended a one-week summer camp in Athens, Georgia. The children ranged from 6- to 12-years old and were from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, including African- American, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, and White. The authors instructed the students to “Draw (and label) a habitat or ecosystem that you see or play in almost every day.” The authors then created a scoring rubric with elements such as the presence or absence of humans, as well as nature-related elements (e.g., plants, animals, trees, mountains, and rivers). The authors also noted how the children's drawings depicted interactions between human and nonhuman elements. The drawings received higher scores when they included explicit interactions between humans and nonhuman elements of nature.
After scoring the drawings, the researchers compared the results of the quantitative rubric with a traditional evaluation tool: a survey adapted for children. After several rounds of calibrating the scores, the authors were able to obtain reliability among evaluators; in other words, they reached a point where the various researchers independently scored drawings similarly.
The authors found that children more often drew pictures of the ecosystems' biotic elements, such as plants and animals, than of abiotic elements, such as rocks, soil, and water systems. They also found that it was more common for the children to draw nature scenes without humans. The authors interpreted this to mean that the children were depicting a separation of humans and nature. The most common habitat that children drew was their own backyard; for animals, the children most frequently drew mammals.
When comparing the traditional assessment tool (in this case, the survey) with the art-based assessment tool, the authors found that the two tools measured somewhat different environmental concepts and skills. This finding suggests that using only one of the assessment tools (either the survey or the art-based tool) in isolation might result in an incomplete understanding of children's environmental awareness and attitudes. The authors did find, however, that high correlations existed among certain constructs within each of the assessment tools. Eco-affinity (children's attitudes toward and personal interest in “natural settings”) and eco-awareness (children's understanding of environmental aspects and relationships) scores, for example, were highly correlated within the survey; within the art assessment, art appreciation was correlated with eco-affinity and eco-awareness.
The study offers a possible alternative structure for environmental education assessment with young participants. In the art-appreciation section of the survey, moreover, the children expressed preference for the art-based evaluation measures. This suggests that the art assessment may offer children a low-stress, creative option for expressing their opinions.
The authors point out that although there were no statistically significant similarities between the drawing and the survey, using both tools might help educators develop a broader understanding of children's learning. In future work, the authors suggest using a mixed-methods approach that employs traditional tools, such as surveys, with non-traditional tools, such as the arts-based practices implemented in this study. This combination might help in clarifying the exact concepts measured by the arts assessment, limiting misinterpretation, triangulating assessment results, and engaging students.
The Bottom Line
Although art-based assessments might not align perfectly with more traditional survey assessment measures, they can be enjoyable activities that assess certain environmental attitudes in nontraditional ways. When coupled with other more traditional and structured assessment methods, art-based assessments may provide a more holistic evaluation of learning. In this way, when measuring their students' learning, environmental educators might consider combining an enjoyable, language-free activity—such as an art assessment—with other tools—such as a survey—to gain a more complete picture of student comprehension.