Skip to main content

Blog Article

Environmentalism in the K–12 Science Classroom

Advocacy or science? A recent forum sponsored by The New York Academy of Sciences emphasizes challenges teachers face when teaching environmental science.

Published October 1, 2001

By Fred Moreno, Jill Stolarik, and Jennifer Tang
Academy Contributors

Educating young people about global warming, biodiversity, the importance of conservation and other matters has become a major issue in K–12 education. Students are taught sensitivity to the natural environment, the potential impact of human activities and the value of conservation. However, ecological science is difficult and complex, and many questions remain open on how we might best understand the diverse factors—geological, biological, economic, societal—involved in natural systems and man-nature interactions.

Some fear that science education is being shortchanged in favor of advocacy, with the promotion of specific policies or practices (e.g., recycling and composting) substituting for a deeper education in the sciences that promotes scientific literacy. In the wake of studies such as the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) that show America’s high school seniors’ math and science skills are superior to their peers only in Cyprus and South Africa, some educators and scientists are concerned that environmental education is yet another field in which students are not learning enough science.

Advocacy or Science?

Is there a way to bring environmental issues into the science classroom while maintaining a strong focus on the underlying science? How does learning ecological science relate to traditional biology, chemistry, and physics?

These questions and more prompted the NYC Science EduNetWork and The New York Academy of Sciences (the Academy’s) Science Education Section to sponsor a forum entitled “Environmentalism in the K-12 Science Classroom: Advocacy or Science?” Featured panelists were: Dr. Paul R. Gross, professor emeritus of biology at the University of Virginia, and coauthor of Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science; Dr. William F. Schuster, executive director of the Black Rock Forest Consortium, and Mr. Don S. Cook, director of the Tiorati Workshop for Environmental Learning at New York’s Bank Street College.

Environmental Education

No one disputes that K-12 education should offer courses on the environment. The Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming, the energy blackouts in California and other high-profile events attest to the importance of understanding environmental issues. Currently, there are more registered specialists in environmental education in American public schools (26,000) than there are in physical science. Most state K–12 science frameworks and science standards documents place some major emphasis upon environmental science.

Environmental education often covers a wide range of areas including: the workings of ecosystems and threats to ecosystem viability; pollution prevention; conservation; waste and recycling; human health; the economics of electric power grids; and the thermodynamics of planetary atmospheres. However, while some stress the importance of teaching environmental stewardship, others are more concerned that fundamental scientific concepts are being omitted or given less classroom time in environmental education.

Gross espoused the latter view. “The fraction of our population with even minimal comprehension of scientific inquiry and scientific claims is dangerously small and the same holds true, on the whole, for our schoolchildren,” he said. “Are those children, in environmental education, learning the basic science whose classroom and fieldwork time has been preempted by it? From what I have seen and heard, the answer is no.”

Preach Rather Than Teach?

From left: Paul Gross, William Schuster, Don Cook

Gross highlighted two factors affecting the quality of environmental education: the quality of the textbooks being used in schools and the level of teacher preparation in K–12 science education. In some textbooks, he observed, “The dominant tone is one of proud advocacy rather than science.” Although Gross agrees that the existence of serious environmental concerns warrant the inclusion of environmental science in the curriculum, he fears environmentalism in the science classroom may promote an activist mentality in students while failing to teach them the scientific complexity surrounding environmental issues.

He noted that only one out of five science teachers at the middle-school level have ever taken a college physical science course. For teachers who have not been adequately prepared to teach science education, it may be easier for them to “preach rather than teach.”

In addition, Gross believes that environmental education should focus on environmental science. He defined environmental science as an applied science, that is grounded in facts, concepts, and techniques from basic sciences and mathematics. “You cannot have a useful, serious notion of the scientific or even the economic issues of global climate change, historical and current, without a reasonable background in the physics of heat and energy, the elementary thermodynamics of gases, and the elements of geology,” he said.

Environmental Stewardship

While Schuster agrees that advocacy should not replace basic science teaching, he believes environmental literacy should be an integral component of scientific literacy. “From scientific studies, we know we are substantially changing the makeup of our planet’s atmosphere. The quality and availability of water is severely compromised in many areas and human activities are causing one of the biggest episodes of extinction in our planet’s history. These are serious matters and ones that deserve to come under the microscope of scientific research and teaching,” he said.

As executive director of the Black Rock Forest Consortium, an organization that operates a nature preserve 50 miles north of New York City, he has led and overseen outdoor forest experiences for thousands of pre-college students. In his experience, most students enjoy nature field studies and seem to thrive in a classroom “without walls.” He noted that “interest in organisms and their environment often leads not just to knowledge but also to care, respect and even love for these ecosystems. These feelings may naturally engender what is typically considered environmentalism.”

Schuster believes there is more value in holistic science and nature studies than Gross, however, and sees it as a valid way to introduce K–12 students to the scientific world. “Science education should put an emphasis on an active process of inquiry as opposed to an inert body of information to be memorized,” he added. However, he cautioned that classroom lessons and field experiences complement each other and are both necessary to give students “a well-rounded education that includes scientific and environmental understanding, as well as knowledge about human social systems so that they will have the tools they need to make informed, responsible decisions on the environment.”

Experiential Learning

While Cook agreed with Gross’ assessment that science education in the U.S. needs to be improved, his focus was on making science more accessible to students and the importance of experiential learning. He believes that students need to actively engage in subject matter in order to understand it. In order to give students a basis for learning more complex concepts, scientific experiences should begin with phenomena described in everyday language before introducing terminology used by scientists. “We need to rethink the roles of language and experience in the education of non-scientists,” he said.

Also read: From the Lab to the Classroom


Author

Image
Contributing Author