[ draft version comments appreciated] Catherine Kavassalis Return to Contents Return to BioMuncie
last revision: 01/21/2003
Both the assembling and the distribution of knowledge in the world at present are extremely ineffective, and thinkers of the forward-looking type whose ideas we are now considering, are beginning to realize that the most hopeful line for the development of our racial intelligence lies rather in the direction of creating a new world organ for the collection, indexing, summarizing and release of knowledge, than in any further tinkering with the highly conservative and resistant university system, local, national and traditional in texture, which already exists. These innovators, who may be dreamers today, but who hope to become very active organizers tomorrow, project a unified, if not a centralized, world organ to "pull the mind of the world together", which will be not so much a rival to the universities, as a supplementary and co-ordinating addition to their educational activities - on a planetary scale. (Wells, 1938, p. 85)
In 1937, Wells conception of a permanent world encyclopedia was merely a dream. With the development of the Defense Department’s ARPANET (Advanced Research Project Agency’s network) in the early sixties, that dream took unexpected form. Although originally conceived to allow the sharing of supercomputers amongst researchers in the United States, the Internet now allows for the sharing of resources and knowledge across the globe, (Leiner, et al., 2000). Although the Internet is hardly likely to “[dissolve] human conflict into unity,” as Wells hoped, it does offer hope for democratizing learning. Educators and learners alike can search for information; create and share collections of resources; provide or access on-line lessons; and initiate communication with distant specialists, teachers or learners. Both a mechanism for disseminating information and a medium for community building, the Internet is a powerful educational tool.
The Internet is also a powerful tool for activism. Environmental activists have learned to use the Internet to share information, mobilize and coordinate action, and shape public policy. Unfortunately, such advocacy has become something to be shunned by educators and politicians who believe that education should not be advocacy-oriented. If considered carefully the distinction between education and advocacy is not that clear. What is clear is the need to critically assess information on the Web for quality and accuracy. There is no code of conduct on the Internet, (Trio, 1997), no editors or boards of approval to ensure what is published meets certain standards. Such assessment is up to the user or the educator who directs learners on their Web journeys.
The power of the Internet to store knowledge, to promote dialogue and continuous learning is vast. However that power is limited to those who have access to the medium. Even if individuals have the physical means to access the Internet, they may not have the inclination or skills to make use of this tool. The infamous Digital Divide separates users from nonusers. Individuals with a low level of education or low family income are among those most likely not to have the equipment, inclination or skills necessary to access the Web and educators must make a conscious effort to make the resources of the Internet available to them. For those interested in online environmental education, issues of advocacy, quality and access require careful consideration.
When asked to consider Education, most of us think of traditional classrooms and teachers – formal education. However, four walls and an instructor can’t define the domain of Education. Education can occur in formal school settings, on a neighbourhood street, or in front of a home computer. It has become a somewhat nebulous concept covering any process intended to promote learning. Intention is the key. What is the intention of education? Behind any educational process lies the belief that certain knowledge, values, behaviour patterns should be acquired for the benefit of the individual and or society.
John Dewey observed, “When we have the outcome of the process in mind, we speak of education as shaping, forming, molding activity -- that is, a shaping into the standard form of social activity,” (Dewey, 1916, “Chapter 2,” ¶1). Molding students into ‘standard form’ is the intention of most formal education systems, although this form tends to change over time. “Formal education in any society promotes standardization and homogenization of … thinking and feeling… Such efforts are based on ideologies…. Different ideologies, of course, can be oriented towards different goals; hence issues of education within a given society are easy targets for public political disputes, (Valsiner, 2000, pp.257).
What can be said for formal education can also be said for nonformal education, the kind that occurs and science centres or on the web. These endeavors are also based on the belief that people would benefit from access to specific knowledge or experience. Issues of advocacy arise when issue-based education is presented. Pedretti describes the situation with respect to issues-based installations within a science centres and museums.
Should science centres or museums advocate particular positions? Should they remain unbiased, carefully presenting multiple viewpoints? Which viewpoints? Can a balanced exhibition really exist? What is the relationship between the development of an exhibition and uncritical endorsements espoused by funders? …balance is not easy to achieve, and indeed some would argue that balance is impossible. (Pedretti, 2002, p.24)
The questions Pedretti raises are critical to environmental education. Environmental education is often issue-based education and the subject of political dispute. Many environmental educators are advocating for change, change in the desired ‘standard form’ as well as more general changes in educational structures. How is this behaviour viewed?
Senator James Inhofe shared his perspective on environmental advocacy in his Senate Floor Statement regarding legislation to reauthorize the National Environment Education Act in 1996.
Over the last few years environmental education has been criticized for being one-sided and heavy-handed. People have accused environmental advocates of trying to brainwash children... The personal values and prejudices of the educators should not be instilled in our children. (Inhofe, 1996, “June 14th Floor Statement”)
It is unfortunate that the senator does not recognize that all teachers have personal values and predilections that influence what they teach, how they teach, how they assess, etc. All teachers defend or maintain a particular educational platform by their choices and actions. They are all advocates of a kind. This is not an issue when teachers advocate or support the status quo. It is only when advocacy contravenes community norms, that it is viewed as a negative or even a subversive process, which in fact it may at times be. The problem lies not in advocacy then. The problem is in the underlying intent of the advocate and the methods used to support a particular educational platform or environmental cause.
A look through a Web directory like the Amazing Environmental Organization Web Directory provides an indication of the enormous array of environmental advocates using the Web. Site-developers range from individuals or small non-profit environmental groups like International Wildlife Education and Conservation (IWEC ) to large membership supported organizations like the National Wildlife Federation (NWF). Educational centres, scientific organizations, governmental agencies and industrial organizations also develop environmental sites. There are numerous sites and directories specifically dedicated to environmental education, (Meisner, 2001). Both IWEC and NWF, for instance, consider education as a critical component of their online activities. In addition, governmental agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provide online EE resources. Environmental advocates run the gamut from those who wish to educate and enculturate using factually supported argument to those who wish to win their fight at any cost and promote their cause using fear, unsubstantiated claims or propaganda.
Many stress that environmental education materials must be supported by the facts or by science, (Inhofe, 1996). Yet which facts and which science are to be considered? And how does the framework in which those facts are placed affect their interpretation? The developer’s intent colour these choices. Consider, for instance, online resources produced by Ducks Unlimited, (DU), a conservation organization whose explicit mission is to protect and restore wetlands for the implicit purpose of hunting. It is only by reading their About pages that the implicit purpose is clarified, although even there, the language is chosen in such as way as to mitigate the impact of hunting: “Ducks Unlimited supports the sustainable use and harvest of renewable resources based on sound science,’ (DU Canada, 1996, “About Ducks Unlimited,” ¶ 2). The sound science that supports ‘sustainable use and harvest’ is based on fundamental beliefs and assumptions about the appropriateness of population management through hunting. In one online article, DU describes the problem of overpopulation among Canadian Geese and identifies hunting as the key to population management, (DU USA, 2002). Although they support their conclusions with scientific fact, they omit equally valid information about alternative solutions. These alternatives include : discontinued feeding, landscape modification, overhead lines, hazing or harassing the geese, chemical repellents, removal of nesting material, egg destruction, and relocation, (DNR, n.d.b). By selecting which facts and which scientific research is reported or stressed, developers strongly influence the message contained within educational materials. Use of language, illustrations, and myriad other subtle factors also influence how an environmental issue is understood. Duck’s Unlimited intends to put a positive spin on hunting and aligns their goals with those of other environmental organizations.
Michelle Cole, a journalist for the Oregonian, observed that a student’s answer to a question like: "Are pesticides necessary to feed the world's growing population or can they do more harm than good?” will depend on who developed the environmental resources used to learn about the issue.
For some students, it depends on whether they learned their lessons from the Monsanto Co. or the National Wildlife Federation. … businesses and environmental groups spend millions of dollars to take their message to the children. And some of the material they generate has been judged to be incomplete, biased or just plain wrong. (2000, ¶ 1)
Recognizing that developer intent can have a significant effect on educational material is the first step in appraising Web material.
What would an ideal educational environmental source look like? The EPA cites the objectives presented in the Tbilisi declaration as criteria for selecting organizations to receive federal monies for the production of educational material. However, they add the proviso that funded organizations should not advocate a particular viewpoint or course of action, (EPA Office of Environmental Education, 2001). For reasons already discussed, this particular criterion is unquestionably problematic and a quick look at EPA funded organizations (EPA OEE, 1992-2000) indicates that “not advocating a particular viewpoint” has been a matter of broad interpretation. All groups advocate for various causes and distinct understandings of environmentalism. No matter how circumspect they try to be, the materials they develop will reflect their underlying values and beliefs. Thus avoiding advocacy does not seem to be a valid criterion for excluding developers or their resources.
Just what criteria should be used? After reviewing criteria created by a number of individuals and organizations (NEEAC 1996, National Project for Excellence in Environmental Education, n.d.; NAAEE, 1999; Gross; 2001) the following criteria for an ideal resource was developed.
Ideal Criteria for Environmental Education Resources |
|
In the real world, most resources are far from ideal. This is no reason to reject them. An excellent resource may reflect only one point of view and advocate for one course of action. An excellent resource may not reflect the full complexity of an issue but still offer valuable information. No single resource is likely to provide everything. It is up to the learner or educator to use a variety of resources and to critically assess the material they provide.
Whereas books go through a development and publishing process that includes numerous feedback loops to ensure a modicum of quality, anyone can publish online. It is up to users to develop the skills to assess whether Internet materials are appropriate for their particular purposes. The following heuristic tool to assist Web users in selecting appropriate environmental sites was developed.
A Decision Tree:
|
|
This heuristic should help an individual to identify resources that meet their learning or teaching needs. Accessing numerous resources on a given topic is generally the best way to ensure an overall 'ideal' collection. The NAAEE recommends Web users use such collections of resources. Their prototype, the Biodiversity Collection points users to 47 Web sites and offers other supporting material to provide a balanced program. (Of course fundamental to this collection is the belief that it is important to learn about biodiversity. It is up to the educators reviewing the collection to determine whether such advocacy- for it is advocacy -is consistent with their beliefs or curricular requirements). For individuals with access to the Internet, resources such as these can be invaluable. However not everyone has either the access or the skills to utilize such resources.
In order for an environmental education site or any site for that matter to be effective, it must be accessible. According to the 2000 census results, about 42% of households in the United States have Internet access, (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). In Indiana the access rates appear slightly lower than national averages, (Gartner Report, 2000). Although Internet access and computer ownership has been growing across the states, the distribution is uneven. Those with access to the Internet are generally wealthier and have higher education than those without. Blacks and Hispanics lag other groups by around 17%, and people with disabilities by 21.6%. Those without a home connection may be able to access the Internet from work, school, libraries or other public venues. However, the Internet Divide or Digital Divide is a national problem and one that must be considered when using the Internet to disseminate educational material.
Of the population with Internet access, most people use it for e-mail, followed by online shopping and bill paying. To a lesser extent they access healthcare sites and government sites. There are no statistics on how many people access environmental education sites, but the percentage of the population is undoubtedly low. Even if they have the means, most people are not inclined to look at and use environmental education websites. Who is the most likely to access them?
Most environmental sites target environmentalists and those directly impacted by environmental issues and or actions, e.g. citizens with health concerns, politicians being emailed as part of an action campaign, etc., (Benton Foundation, 2001). Teachers and students would also be likely to access such sites for lesson planning and research purposes. However, NetDay, a national organization working to provide Internet access across America states, “currently, less than half of teachers use the Internet when building new lessons or engaging in classroom projects (42%), and an even greater number (62%) do not update lesson plans with material found online,” (2001, ¶ 4).Most teachers say they don’t have the time needed to use the Internet and integrate it into their classroom activities.
In Indiana, for instance, the majority of K-12 schools have Internet connections and both teachers and students have some access. However, when asked, “What is the level of technology-curriculum integration that is most common in the majority of your classrooms?” Only about one quarter of schools responding said that, “Student technology use involves information gathering, organizing, and publishing in a variety of media,” (Huffman, 2001, part 2:2D). The majority of teachers used the Internet as a supplementary tool or as a reward for work completion.That, in conjunction with the fact that most curricula do not directly support environmental education suggests that only a small percentage of teachers and students currently use environmental websites in Indiana.
Internet usage is growing across the United States. Although there are no national statistics concerning usage of environmental education sites, we can assume the percentage of the population both able and interested in accessing such sites is relatively low. However, as the Internet becomes more integrated into the daily lives of Americans, usage of these sites will undoubtedly increase.
Just as users need to be attentive to issues of quality so do developers. EE developers should strive to meet ideal standards by making their agendas clear, presenting accurate information; reflecting depth and breadth; providing opportunities for skill-building; and encouraging responsible actions. In addition, developers should target the audience most likely to benefit from the site and those most able to make its resources accessible to others. Environmentalists, educators and local leaders would be among those most interested and most able to distribute information and activate the public.
The Internet cannot resolve human conflict, but it has the potential to be a "world organ to pull the mind of the world together." By making available information to all concerned over great distances, the Internet provides a forum for dialogue and problem solving. Pedretti (2002) noted that nearly half of the science centres in North America have now established websites and “through the web, exploration of issues-based science . . . across communities is possible,” (p.29). Such websites can provide learners with information about the environment and about environmental issues. They can engage learners across the globe in discussions and exchanges and allow them to share information, ideas and potential solutions. Environmental websites can also invite individuals to get involved in local or global actions to protect or improve the environment, thereby building partnerships and communities of shared concern. Together the minds of the world can find solutions to our environmental dilemmas.