Research in Science Education

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 1665–1687 | Cite as

Activity and Action: Bridging Environmental Sciences and Environmental Education

  • Tali Tal
  • Anat Abramovitch


The main goal of this study was to examine the Environmental Workshop unit taught to Environmental Sciences majors in the high schools in Israel and learn if, and in what ways, this unit could become a model for environmental education throughout the high school curriculum. We studied the special characteristics of the Environmental Workshop (EW) unit, which is based on inquiry-based learning that takes place in and out of school, and includes an environmental action component as well. We describe three approaches to the EW we identified. After identifying teachers’ challenges in assessing their students, in addition to the phenomenographic study, we suggest and demonstrate assessing the EW students by relevant socio-scientific issues. Finally, we argue that the EW could be incorporated in the junior as well as the high school curriculum as a coherent unit that is in line with environmental education in its broader sense.


Environmental education Environmental science Socio-scientific issues Outdoor Environmental workshop 


  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (2005). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beller, M. (2009). Israel through the global education prism: policy implications. A Paper Presented at the Van Leer Education Conference, Jerusalem (May, 2009, in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  3. Birenbaum, M., Breuer, K., Cascallar, E., Dochy, F., Dori, Y., Ridgway, J., & Nickmans, G. (2006). A learning integrated assessment system. Educational Research Review, 1(1), 61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: putting it into practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bodzin, A. M. (2008). Integrating instructional technologies in a local watershed investigation with urban elementary learners. The Journal of Environmental Education, 39(2), 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bravo-Torija, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2012). Progression in complexity: contextualizing sustainable marine resources management in a 10th grade classroom. Research in Science Education, 1, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dewey, J. (2008). The school and society. Delhi: AAKAR Books.Google Scholar
  8. Dewey, J., & Boydston, J. A. (1985). Democracy and education 1916. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dillon, J. (2002). Perspectives on environmental education-related research in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1111–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dillon, J. (2003). On learners and learning in environmental education: missing theories, ignored communities. Environmental Education Research, 9, 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2006). The value of outdoor learning: Evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere. School Science Review, 87, 107–111.Google Scholar
  12. Dori, Y.J., Tal, R.T., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Learning and assessing biotechnology topics through case studies with built-in dilemmas. Science Education, 87(6), 767–793.Google Scholar
  13. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimor, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (1997). School field trips: assessing their long-term impact. Curator, 40, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frick, J., Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2004). Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1597–1613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glassman, M. (2001). Dewey and Vygotsky: society, experience, and inquiry in educational practice. Educational Researcher, 30(4), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gonzalez-Gaudiano, E. J. (2006). Environmental education: a field in tension or in transition? Environmental Education Research, 12, 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gottlieb, D., Vigoda-Gadot, E., Haim, A., & Kissinger, M. (2011). The ecological footprint as an educational tool for sustainability: a case study analysis in an Israeli public high school. International Journal of Educational Development. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.03.007.
  19. Gough, N. (2002a). Thinking/acting locally/globally: western science and environmental education in a global knowledge economy. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1217–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gough, A. (2002b). Mutualism: a different agenda for environmental and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1201–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gough, A. (2007). Beyond convergence: reconstructing science/environmental education for mutual benefit. Malmo, Sweden: European Research in Science Education Association (ESERA) Conference. 25–28 August.Google Scholar
  22. Hart, P. (2008). Ontological/epistemological pluralism within complex contested EE/ESD landscapes: beyond politics and mirrors. In E. Gonzalez-Gaudiano & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Environmental education: identity, politics and citizenship (pp. 25–38). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Hodson, D. (1994). Seeking directions for change: the personalization and politicisation of science education. Curriculum Studies, 2, 71–98.Google Scholar
  24. Hodson, D. (1999). Going beyond cultural pluralism: science education for sociopolitical action. Science Education, 83, 775–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Israeli Ministry of Education (2007). The Environmental Sciences Curriculum, in Hebrew. Available at: retreived at October 9th 2012.
  26. Jensen, B. B. (2002). Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. (1997). The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 3, 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaiser, F. G., & Fuhrer, U. (2003). Ecological behavior’s dependency on different forms of knowledge. Applied Psychology, 52, 598–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (2000). Instructional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In J.A. Minstrell, & E.H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry: Learning and teaching in science (pp. 283–315). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  30. Kubota, C., & Olstad, R. (1991). Effects of novelty-reducing preparation on exploratory behavior and cognitive learning in a science museum setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 296–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10(2), 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., & Tal, R. T. (2004). Inquiry–based science in the middle grades: assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Robottom, I., & Simonneaux, L. (2012). Editorial: socio-scientific issues and education for sustainability in contemporary education. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental literacy: its roots, evolution and directions in the 1990s. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
  39. Roth, W.-M., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting: a comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1137–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: teaching, learning and research. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sauvé, L. (2005). Currents in environmental education: mapping a complex and evolving pedagogical field. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 11–37.Google Scholar
  45. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., & Clay Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35, 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stevenson, R. B. (2007). Schooling and environmental education: contradictions in purpose and practice. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Suskie, L. (2000). Fair assessment practices: giving students equitable opportunities to demonstrate learning. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  48. Tal, T. (2012). Learning how to teach out of school: Action research in the outdoors. In D. B. Ash, J. Rahm, & L. Melber (Eds.), Putting theory into practice: tools for research in informal settings. (pp.76–93). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Tal, T., & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socioscientific issues: Classroom culture and students’ performances. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(4), 615–644.Google Scholar
  50. Tal, T., & Morag, O. (2009). Reflective practice as a means for preparing to teach outdoors in an ecological garden. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 245–262.Google Scholar
  51. Tal, T., Kali, Y., Magid, S., & Madhok, J. J. (2011). Enhancing the authenticity of a Web-based module for teaching simple inheritance. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom (pp. 11–38). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Tan, M., & Pedretti, E. (2010). Negotiating the complexities of environmental education: a study of Ontario teachers. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10(1), 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tilbury, D. (1995). Environmental education for sustainability: defining the new focus of environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 1, 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tytler, R. (2012). Socioscientific issues, sustainability and science education. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 155–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wals, A. (1994). Action research and community problem–solving: environmental education in an inner–city. Educational Action Research, 2(2), 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wals, A., & van der Leij, T. (1997). Alternatives to national standards for environmental education: process based quality assessment. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 2, 7–27.Google Scholar
  57. Woodhouse, J. L., & Knapp, C. E. (2000). Place-based curriculum and instruction: outdoor and environmental education approaches. ERIC Digest. Charleston: ERIC/CRESS. ED448012.Google Scholar
  58. Zion, M., Cohen, S., & Amir, R. (2007). The spectrum of dynamic inquiry teaching practices. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 423–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zoller, U. (1991). Problem solving and the “problem solving paradox” in decision-making-oriented environmental education. In S. Keiny & U. Zoller (Eds.), Conceptual issues in environmental education (pp. 71–88). New York: Peter Lang pub.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education in Technology and ScienceTechnion—Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations