There is tremendous potential for technology to enhance students' experiences with nonformal environmental education. Instructional technology tools may tie local investigations to global issues, provide access to otherwise inaccessible locations, extend typically brief environmental education programs, and support the intellectual and emotional connections that foster the development of environmental identity and sense of place. Despite this potential, and research in K–12 science education that suggests the effectiveness of innovative educational technologies, little is known about the extent of technology use by nonformal environmental education professionals (NFEEPs). This study attempted to catalogue what technology tools are currently used and how prevalent they are in nonformal environmental education. It also surveyed what influences NFEEPs' choices to incorporate technology.
To study the use of technology in nonformal environmental education, the authors used an online survey to poll NFEEPs, whom they defined as “professionals who support K–12 and lifelong learning efforts outside of the formal K–12 classroom.” The survey included four sections: (1) demographic information about the NFEEPs and their programs; (2) description of the structure of the NFEEPs' program, as well as factors that influence technology integration; (3) NFEEPs' current technology use and training; and (4) a Technology Attitudes, Perception, and Support (TAPS) scale, which explored NFEEPs' views, abilities, and reservations about technology integration.
The 406 NFEEPs who participated in the survey included respondents from almost every state in the United States, as well as Canada, Australia, Japan, South Africa, and Turkey. The participating NFEEPs ranged in experience from under 10 years in the field to over 20 years, and about a third held a formal teaching certificate.
Despite a historical and somewhat persistent technophobia in the environmental education community, survey results revealed that many NFEEPs now recognize the potential of technology to support learning. Despite this philosophical acceptance, many have yet to actually incorporate learning technologies into their programming. The most widespread use of technology by NFEEPs was for productivity (such as for e-mail and word processing) and presentation purposes (PowerPoint). These uses are fairly minimal when compared with the broad range and potential of learning technologies that are currently available.
The authors identified a lack of exposure to effective learning technologies and successful integration of such technologies in the classroom. In particular, the authors identified several factors that may contribute to NFEEPs' avoidance of technology use in programming. These include the beliefs that integrating technology takes more planning time and that technology may hinder students' connection to the environment. Other factors included the lack of technological skills among teachers and a limited understanding of the magnitude of the benefit learning technologies could provide. The authors suggest that technology-based professional development may help increase NFEEPs' technological pedagogical content knowledge and self-efficacy to integrate learning technologies.
The Bottom Line
Learning technologies have tremendous potential to create more meaningful environmental education experiences for students. Although there is a growing philosophical acceptance of these technologies by informal environmental education professionals, the actual implementation of these tools is limited. Professional development opportunities to gain technological and pedagogical skills may be a necessary step toward incorporating more learning technologies into EE programming.