Investigation on environmental information in schools

Report produced by Feedback Research and Consulting
for the Ministry of the Environment

***

Contents

1. Background for the investigation
2. Technical comments and methodology
3. About the sample
4. Subjects that include environmental elements
5. Environmental issues in instruction
6. Information channels
7. Co-operating partners at the municipal/regional level
8. Local Agenda 21
9. Co-operation with non-government organisations (NGOs)
10. Access to information
11. Access to Internet
12. Internet in environmental instruction
13. Knowledge and use of websites
14. Printed vs. electronic information
15. Knowledge and use of printed information materials
16. Environmental status
17. System for communicating/storing environmental information
18. The role of the library in collecting environmental information
19. Advice to the authorities

Background for the investigation

The Ministry of the Environment wished to survey the degree to which schools have access to environmental information which is appropriately presented and quality controlled, and which is relevant to work with the curriculum plans. Feedback AS has been asked to assist the Ministry in this survey.

Technical comments and methodology

• Target groups
• The target group for the investigation has been principals or teachers who instruct in subjects in which environment is an element.
• Methods of data collection
• The investigation has been carried out by mail, by distributing questionnaires to all primary, lower secondary and secondary schools in Norway.
• Number of interviews completed
• At the deadline, a total of 1729 questionnaires had come in, constituting a response percent of about 40. Systematic bias thus can be found related to who has answered and who hasn't answered. We nevertheless consider the sample to be large enough that it is meaningful to make statements about the target group as a whole.
• Time period
• The investigation was carried out from September 6-17, 1999.
• Reference
• The reference number in Feedback AS is MIL 14549
• Analyst responsible
• Tora Mellbye, Consultant
• Translation
• Faye Benedict

About the sample

• Position
• 48% principal
• 43% subject teachers
• 9% other (of these, most are inspectors/teaching inspectors)

• School type
• 42% primary, grade 1-4
• 52% primary, grade 5-7
• 29% lower secondary school, grade 8-10
• 11% secondary school, basic course
• 9% secondary school, second year course (VK1)
• 8% secondary school, third year course (VK 2)
• 7% other
• Some respondents have given more than one answer

• Number of pupils at the school
• 21% under 50 pupils
• 15% 51-100
• 24% 101-200
• 16% 201-300
• 13% 301-400
• 6% 401-500
• 5% over 500

• County
• 3% Finnmark 4% Troms
• 8% Nordland 3% Nord-Trøndelag
• 6% Sør-Trøndelag 9% Møre and Romsdal
• 4% Sogn and Fjordane 11% Hordaland
• 8% Rogaland 3% Vest-Agder
• 3% Aust-Agder 5% Telemark
• 4% Vestfold 5% Buskerud
• 6% Akershus 3% Oslo
• 4% Østfold 4% Hedmark
• 6% Oppland

Subjects that include environmental elements

• Main results
• At the primary and lower secondary school level, the environmental element seems to be most apparent in the subject nature and environment, but a large percent of the respondents also answer that environment is part of the instruction in the subjects mathematics, social studies and Norwegian. Among those who have answered "other," English and arts and crafts are primarily the subjects mentioned.
• In secondary schools, environmental elements appear primarily in mathematics and natural sciences. Among those who answer "other," chemistry is the subject most commonly mentioned.
• In the vocational lines of study the subjects were not specified, but the open answers indicate that here as well, natural sciences is the subject that to the greatest extent includes an element of environment.

Environmental issues in instruction

• Main results
• Environmental issues appear to be included to a large degree in instruction, both as part of ordinary instruction in the teacher's particular subjects, in thematic or project work in one subject, and in interdisciplinary project work.
• Only 6-10% state that environmental issues are not included in any of the instruction forms mentioned.
• Differences among groups
• Teachers in the secondary school respond to a greater degree than those in the primary and lower secondary school, that they include environmental issues in their instruction "to a very great degree" as part of the ordinary instruction in their particular subjects (18% vs. 6%).
• The proportion responding that they take up environmental issues as part of the ordinary instruction in their particular subjects increases with the number of pupils in the school. 39% of the employees in schools having fewer than 50 pupils answer "very great" or "great" degree to this question, compared to 56% among the employees of schools having more than 400 pupils.

Information channels

• Main results
• Environmental information is acquired primarily through school books and subject textbooks, but there also seem to be a number of other information channels, such as the municipality, the national authorities and environmental organisations.
• Among those who say that they get information from environmental organisations, the most commonly mentioned channels for information are the Norwegian Society for the Conservation/Friends of the Earth Norway, Bellona, The Environmental Home Guard (Miljøheimevernet) and Inky Arms Eco-detectives (Blekkulf).
• Those who state that they use brochures or teaching packages name primarily "Learn with the forest" and "Blekkulf" as their sources of information. However, many also state that it is coincidental what brochures or packages they use and that it depends on what they are sent.
• Among other information channels, Internet is primarily the channel mentioned.
• Differences among groups
• Principals respond to a greater degree than teachers that they acquire information from the municipality (59% vs. 45%) and regional education authorities (13% vs. 5%), while they to a lesser extent than teachers get information through the County governor's environmental department (18% vs. 23%), national authorities (39% vs. 35%) and schoolbooks/subject textbooks (92% vs. 97%).
• Employees in the primary and lower secondary school respond to a greater degree than those in secondary schools that they get information from the municipality (55% vs. 36%), while they get information to a lesser degree from the national authorities (30% vs. 48%).
• There are some major regional differences regarding sources of environmental information.
• Employees at large schools seem to use more information channels than employees at small schools.

Co-operating partners at the municipal/regional level

Question 8:

• Main results
• Regarding whom the school co-operates with on environmental issues at the municipal or regional level, slightly less than half respond that they co-operate primarily with the education sector and the technical sector.
• Between 1/3 and 1/4 also state that they co-operate with the environmental authorities, the agriculture and forestry sector and the health sector.
• Differences among groups
• Principals respond to a greater degree than teachers that the school co-operates with the health sector (29% vs. 20%), the technical sector (47% vs. 38%), the cultural sector (18% vs. 12%), the education sector (56% vs. 36%) and the agriculture and forestry sector (33% vs. 23%).
• Employees in primary and lower secondary schools respond to a greater degree than those in secondary schools that they co-operate with the technical sector (45% vs. 27%), the cultural sector (16% vs. 8%), the education sector (49% vs. 21%) and the agriculture and forestry sector (29% vs. 16%).
• There are some local variations in whom the school co-operates with at the municipal/regional level regarding environmental issues.

Local Agenda 21

• Main results
• About 6 of 10 are not familiar with their municipality's work with Local Agenda 21.
• Differences among groups
• Principals answer to a greater degree than teachers that they know about Local Agenda 21 (46% vs. 35%).
• Knowledge of Local Agenda 21 is greatest in schools with the largest number of pupils (42% in schools with more than 400 pupils vs. 34% in schools with fewer than 51 pupils).
• Nord-Trøndelag (66%), Vestfold (66%), Østfold (63%) and Telemark (59%) are counties in which there is a notably greater knowledge of Local Agenda 21.

Co-operation with non-government organisations (NGOs)

Question 10:

• Main results
• About 8 of 10 state that their school does not co-operate with NGOs regarding environmental issues.
• Among those who respond that they do have a co-operation with NGOs, the co-operative partners mentioned are primarily the Norwegian Hunter's and Angler's Association, the Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature/Friends of the Earth Norway, and Nature and Youth.

Access to information

Question 11:

How good do you consider the school's access to information to be on the following themes:

• Main results
• The schools appear to have good access to information about waste and recycling, outdoor recreation and pollution of air and water.
• About half also answer that they have good access to information about cultural heritage sites and cultural protection, and about climate issues.
• Information access seems to be poorest on topics such as the Plan- and Building Act, development of towns and cities, and genetic issues. Here about half reply that they get poor information.
• Differences among groups
• Employees in secondary schools respond to a greater degree than those in primary and lower secondary schools that they have good access to information on all of the thematic areas, with the exception of waste and recycling, outdoor recreation and cultural heritage and –protection.
• Principals respond to a greater degree than teachers that they have good access to information about waste and recycling (85% vs. 79%), outdoor recreation (85% vs. 73%) and cultural heritage and –protection (58% vs. 53%).
• Access to information about development of cities and towns is best among schools with the highest number of pupils (26% among schools with more than 400 pupils vs. 12% among those with fewer than 51). This may be related to the largest schools being located in towns and cities. The largest schools also seem to have better access to information about chemicals threatening to health and the environment (59% vs. 41%), climate issues (65% vs. 50%) and genetic issues (40% vs. 11%).
• There are also some local variations in access to information. For example, school employees in Nord-Trøndelag, Hedmark and Oppland respond to a greater degree than in the other counties that they have good access to information about predator management. This is most likely the result of the current predator debate in these counties.

Access to Internet

• Main results
• ¾ of school employees respond that all pupils at their schools have access to Internet, or will get access to it in the near future.
• About half of these respond that the computers pupils have access to are in the library, while about ¼ respond that they are located in the classroom or the teachers' room.
• Among the 50% who respond that the computers are located elsewhere, the "other" responses show that the great majority of these are located in separate rooms or computer rooms.
• Here it has been possible for the respondents to cross off more than one alternative.
• Differences among groups
• The employees in secondary schools respond to a greater degree than those in primary and lower secondary schools that all pupils have access to Internet (95% vs. 71%).
• Employees in schools in Finnmark and Sogn and Fjordane respond to a greater degree than those in other counties that all pupils have access to Internet (91% and 89% respectively, vs. 75% total).

Internet in environmental instruction

• Main results
• About 2/3 respond that Internet is used in environmental instruction to a great extent or to some extent, but only 1% respond that Internet is used to a very great extent.
• Only 7% respond that Internet is not used at all in this kind of instruction.
• Differences among groups
• Teachers respond to a greater degree than principals that Internet is used to a slight extent or not at all in environmental instruction (40% vs. 32%).
• The employees in secondary schools respond to a greater degree than those in the primary and lower secondary schools that they use Internet to a great extent in environmental instruction (22% vs. 12%).

Question 15:

• Main results
• A clear majority state that Internet is used in instruction by pupils themselves finding information on the web, while about half respond that the teachers themselves find ideas for instruction at familiar websites.
• Only a minority (4-7%) state that the pupils store their own information and that pupils exchange experiences with other schools using the Internet.
• Differences among groups
• The principals believe that teachers use the Internet to find ideas for instruction to a greater degree than the teachers themselves report (57% vs. 48%).
• Employees in secondary schools respond to a greater degree than those in primary and lower secondary schools, that the pupils themselves find information on the Internet (93% vs. 83%).

Knowledge and use of websites

Questions 16a and 16b:

• Main results
• Regarding knowledge of various websites, a source of error here may be that many appear to have jumped over this question. If we interpret the results in hand, however, the knowledge of the websites for the Ministry of the Environment and Network for Environmental Education seems to be the greatest.
• None of the websites are used to a great extent in environmental instruction. About half respond, however, that the websites of the Ministry of the Environment and the Network for Environmental Education are used to a great extent or to some extent.
• Least known and least used are the websites of GRID Arendal, NORSAS and GRIP.
• Differences among groups
• Employees in secondary schools consistently respond to a greater degree than those in the primary and lower secondary schools that they know about the websites and use the websites mentioned to a great extent.
• Employees at large schools consistently respond to a greater degree than those at small schools that they use the websites to a great extent.
• Both knowledge of and use of GRID Arendal's website is greater in Aust-Agder than in the other counties. This is natural considering its geographic proximity.

Printed vs. electronic information

• Main results
• Only a minority state that they prefer either printed or electronic information, while as many as 83% percent state that they wish to receive both.

Knowledge and use of printed information materials

• Main results
• As regards knowledge of printed materials, a source of error for this question may be that many seem to have jumped over this question. If we interpret the results in hand, however, the respondents seem to have the greatest familiarity with the printed materials "Learn with the forest" and "Network for environmental education."
• About ¾ of the teachers respond that they use "Learn with the forest" to a great extent or some extent in environmental instruction.
• About half also respond that they to a great extent or some extent use "Network for environmental education."
• The least-used materials are "Living school" and "SOLIS."
• Common for most of the materials is that a relatively small proportion of the respondents state that they use it to a very great or great extent.
• Differences among groups
• The employees of secondary schools have, with the exception of "Learn with the forest," consistently greater knowledge of the information materials mentioned than employees in primary and lower secondary schools.
• "Learn with the forest" is clearly more heavily utilised in primary and lower secondary schools than in secondary schools. 44% respond that it is used to a very great or great extent, compared to 6% in secondary schools.
• There are a few variations among counties in knowledge of the various kinds of information materials. MEIS, for example, is most widely known in Vestfold, Nord-Trøndelag and Møre and Romsdal (75-80% vs. 56% total). MEIS is also most used in instruction in Nord-Trøndelag and Møre and Romsdal.
• Employees in schools having more than 400 pupils respond to a greater extent than those at small schools that they have knowledge of Network for environmental education, MEIS and SOLIS.

Environmental status

• Main results
• About 2/3 of the teachers are not familiar with "Environmental status in the county." It is natural to presume that this is because not all counties have come equally far in developing these reviews yet. The large variation in knowledge of this from county to county strengthens this supposition.
• Among those who are familiar with "Environmental status in the county," about half respond that it is used in environmental instruction.
• Differences among groups
• Employees in secondary schools respond to a greater degree than those in primary and lower secondary schools that they know of "environmental status" (44% vs. 22%), and they also use it to a greater extent in teaching (66% vs. 49%).
• Knowledge of "Environmental status in the county" is greatest in Vestfold, Sogn and Fjordane and Akershus (42-58% vs. 26% total).
• "Environmental status in the county" is more well-known among the employees of larger schools than those of small schools. While 33% of respondents from schools having more than 400 pupils were familiar with it, only 20% of those from schools with fewer than 50 pupils knew about it. It is also the large schools that seem to utilise "environmental status" to the greatest extent in environmental instruction (71% vs. 34%).

System for communicating/storing environmental information

• Main results
• About half the schools have a system for communicating and storing environmental information. About 2/3 respond further that the librarian has responsibility for this system, while 1/3 respond that the teachers have responsibility for it.
• Regarding the type of system used to communicate and store environmental information, the open answers suggest that they are not all equally systematic. Among the most common responses are Micromarc, notebooks/archives, collection in a separate shelf or cabinet, and Dewey.
• Differences among groups
• The principals respond to a greater degree than the teachers that the school does not have such systems (65% vs. 47%).
• Secondary schools seem to have systems for communicating and storing environmental information to a greater extent than primary and lower secondary schools (72% vs. 41%).
• The largest schools appear to have systems for communicating/storing to a greater extent than the smaller schools (45% in schools with more than 400 pupils vs. 25% in schools with fewer than 51 pupils). While the librarian is primarily responsible for this system in the larger schools, it is the teachers who have the main responsibility for it in smaller schools.
• Akershus is the county in which the most respondents state that they have a system for storing and communicating environmental information (63% vs. 45% total).

• Main results
• Among those who respond that the school has a system for communicating and storing environmental information, 2/3 of these experience that this functions very or rather satisfactorily. Only a minority (8%) respond that the system functions unsatisfactorily.
• Differences among groups
• Employees in secondary schools seem to be more satisfied with their systems for communicating and storing environmental information than employees in primary and lower secondary schools (74% state that their systems function very/rather satisfactorily, compared to 62% in primary and lower secondary schools).
• The satisfaction with the systems for communicating and storing environmental information is greatest in the largest schools.

The role of the library in collecting environmental information

• Main results
• Slightly less than half of the employees in schools respond that the school library collects and systematises environmental information.
• Differences among groups
• The principals respond to a greater degree than the teachers that the library does not have a role in collecting and systematising environmental information (65% vs. 53%).
• Employees in secondary schools respond to a greater degree than those in primary and lower secondary schools that the library collects and systematises information (78% vs. 34%).
• Employees at larger schools respond to a greater degree than those at smaller schools that the library collects and systematises environmental information (75% at schools with more than 400 pupils vs. 29% at schools with fewer than 51 pupils).

Advice to the authorities

• At the end of the questionnaire the school personnel were asked to give advice to the authorities about:
• what the authorities can do to make the school's or teachers' access to environmental information easier
• how they can present environmental information better, for use in schools?
• The next pages summarise the most important comments. For a fuller version of the replies in the open answers, see the appendix to the main report.

Advice about what the authorities can do to make the school's or teachers' access to environmental information easier
Produce both printed and electronic information

• Printed: brochures, "environmental newspapers," books, catalogues, reviews, etc.
• Electronic: Training and follow-up in use of Internet (data systems)
• Free information materials (printed and electronic)
• Quality rather than quantity when providing information
• Tailor the information to specific target groups (pedagogically correct adaptation)
• The information should include the following elements:
• What information can be found (categorised by topic with pictures and description of the contents)
• Where and how to access the information (information channels/availability)
• For what age groups/target groups the information is produced and is relevant
• Popularisation and simplification of the contents, without sacrificing the "factual content"
• Hold courses about both printed and electronic information
• Continually produce and update overviews of available information and databanks
• Allocation of resources
• Time: Teachers, pupils and the library services
• Funds: Computer equipment, access to and use of Internet, improvement of library services, further education and in-service education, updated textbooks, excursions and activities
• Have a contact person at each school who has special responsibility for informing colleagues and co-ordinating the information flow.

• Advice to the authorities about how they can better adapt
  and present information, for use in schools?
  Produce information in printed and electronic (Internet) form
• Inexpensive, preferably free, information material
• The information should be presented in both language forms (nynorsk and bokmål)
• All information should include references to literature as well as being categorised by topic
• The information/teaching material should include:
• Clear and easily understood language
• More graphics and illustrations, but less text
• Less use of foreign terms and specialised terminology
• Practical exercises that clarify the reading materials
• The information or teaching material should be:
• Systematised and adapted, practically and theoretically, to the various school levels
• To the point and objective (not propaganda intended to scare)
• Visually and pedagogically well-adapted for the target groups
• The information/teaching material should consist of/be presented in the form of:
• Slides, videos, illustrations and tape cassettes
• Internet, professional journals, "thematic packages," textbooks, brochures and CD-ROMs
• Lectures and coursing of teaching personnel and other possible users
• An advisory role in relation to schools
• Allocation of more resources (professional literature, computers, diverse equipment, excursions, activities)

Last update: 12.11.2004 13:34