At worst, arts-based environmental education is just as good as conventional environmental educationThis article explored the potential of arts-based instruction and evaluation in environmental education summer day camps in Georgia. The researchers randomly assigned summer day camps to three different conditions: programs that (1) conducted summer camp as normal, (2) integrated environmental education into traditional camp activities, and (3) integrated arts-based environmental education into camp activities, including drawing, coloring, sculpting, and creating puppets and posters. They hypothesized that both interventions would improve children’s environmental attitudes, awareness, and ecological knowledge, but the arts-based environmental education group would demonstrate the biggest gains. To test this assumption, the study used pre- and post-camp surveys and drawing-based metrics to evaluate the environmental orientations of diverse youth age 6-12 who were placed in each of the three different groups.
The study assessed children’s environmental orientations using two quantitative methods. The researchers administered a 16-item Children’s Environmental Perceptions Survey before and after the week-long camps to measure changes in children’s interest in nature, environmental stewardship behavior, and eco-awareness. They also administered a Draw-An-Ecosystem Test and Draw-An-Animal Test before and after camp to measure changes in children’s ecological knowledge and awareness using rubric-based scores. Finally, they conducted statistical analyses of these survey scores and drawing scores to examine the effects of the environmental education and arts-based environmental interventions for 285 participating children, including breakdowns for specific demographics (gender, race, income).
Analysis of pre-test results indicated pre-existing differences in children’s environmental orientations related to their age, race/ethnicity, and income. Baseline data indicated that younger children reported higher levels of eco-affinity than older children; youth from Latino families reported the highest levels of eco-affinity while older males who identified as minorities had the lowest levels of eco-affinity. For eco-awareness, older children and children who identified as white had the highest baseline scores. These pre-test patterns highlight the need for environmental education programs with an explicit focus on African American youth since they reported the lowest connections to nature and knowledge about nature. Participant demographics also varied by camp setting, which potentially influenced the post-test results.
Analysis of post-test results showed that program effects were similar for all youth demographics. That is, no demographic group benefited more or less from the interventions than other groups. Both the environmental education and arts-based environmental education interventions led to significant gains in eco-awareness and ecological knowledge. However, neither of these interventions significantly improved children’s eco-affinity. Likewise, comparing pre- and post-test scores for the environmental education group and arts-based environmental group showed that both approaches were effective but not significantly different in their effectiveness. Finally, when comparing the results of the study’s two types of measures, the arts-based assessments showed larger gains between pre- and post-tests than the survey measures, but these differences were not statistically significant.
Compared with children who attended traditional summer camps, the children who attended camps that also integrated environmental education or arts-based environmental education demonstrated more eco-awareness and environmental knowledge. However, neither intervention had a significant impact on eco-affinity. The authors speculate that one week at camp is not enough time to alter eco-affinity, especially for youth who came in with higher levels of eco-affinity. The results also suggest that arts-based environmental education was not significantly better than conventional environmental education. At worst, arts-based environmental programs may be just as good as conventional environmental education programs—that is, integrating art does not get in the way of environmental learning. However, only anecdotal evidence—not statistical evidence—suggested that youth who were less connected to nature responded well to arts-based programming at camp. The study also suggests that arts-based assessments can supplement and complement survey-based assessments. The arts-based instruments both mirrored survey results and potentially pointed toward different interpretations of program outcomes. Although the study found that arts-based environmental programming is not significantly better than traditional environmental education programs, the authors continue to see value in integrating arts-based environmental education into camps and other settings.
The Bottom Line