Impact and Outcomes

In the 1980s and 1990s, there were several small-scale research projects involving earth education programs. Most were qualitative in nature, done as master’s theses and not published. However, two were published: Greenall Gough (1990) conducted case study of an Earthkeepers program. Keen (1991) conducted a mixed methods study of a Sunship Earth program. In the last 20  years, more research has been conducted and published. Some studies have examined the implementation and effects of the Earthkeeper program (Činčera & Johnson, 2013; Manoli et al., 2014) and Sunship Earth program (Johnson & Manoli, 2008). These studies found significant increases in student understanding of ecological concepts, pre-environmental attitudes and values, and self-reported pro-environmental behaviour. Felix and Johnson (2013) investigated the classroom follow-through portion of the Earthkeepers program. Baierl et  al. (2021, 2022) found consistent increases in both knowledge and attitude, and well as interesting relationships between the two, for participants in the Earthkeepers, Sunship Earth, and Sunship III programs. As part of a mixed methods, longitudinal study of students who participated in three consecutive earth education programs (Earthkeepers, Sunship Earth, and Sunship III) over a four-year period, Johnson and Činčera (2019) reported on how participants’ understandings of ecological concepts developed over time. Other recent studies of earth education programs have investigated the relationships between attitudes and behaviour (Johnson & Činčera, 2015), issues related to the use of frameworks in programs (Činčera et al., 2020b), values (Činčera et al., B. Johnson 131 2020c), empowerment (Činčera et al., 2020d), leaders views and implementation of experiential learning (Činčera et al., 2020a), the relationship between program characteristics and participants’ values and behaviours (Johnson & Činčera, 2021), and the relationship between instructional strategies and program outcomes (Johnson & Činčera, 2022).

Try giving any material you analyse 100 points, then subtract up to five points for each of the following questions depending how well each one is addressed.

• Who paid for the materials or funded the developers, and are their messages hidden in the products?

• Are the leaders encouraged to build complete programs with specific learning outcomes or just to sprinkle around whatever catches their fancy?

• Can the leaders see the big picture they are working on and do they know how to go about fitting all the pieces together?

• Does the introduction include a lot of lofty aspirations and high-sounding objectives, while the materials fall short in achieving those goals?

• Do the learning experiences really address underlying environmental concerns, or are they superficial, external treatments requiring little or no change in their participants?

• Are there specific models and schedules for the leaders to consider in how they will use the materials?

• Do the activities really accomplish what they claim, or does the leader have to talk them into doing their job?

• Are the activities tacked on just to get some doing in there somewhere, or are they integral parts of a learning model?

• Do the activities captivate and motivate the learners, or do they involve a lot of tiring and uninspired paperwork assignments?

• Do a lot of activities end up with “discussion’ or “follow-up” lists that look good, but for which there is no built-in motivation or mechanism to insure they they are actually carried out?

• Do the activities deal with basic ecological processes and their meaning in people’s lives, or do many of them focus on secondary concepts and concerns?

• When they are participating in activities, do the learners know where they are going and why?

• After they are finished with the activities, do the learners know what they can do next, and are they encouraged and supported in doing that?

• Are the essential activities mostly classroom-based exercises that require little or no contact with natural places and processes?

• Do the activities fire the learners up about our environmental problems but fail to address how they are part of them?

By the way, we analysed some of our earth education materials using this checklist, and we fell short on a couple of the items ourselves. The important thing is to use these questions to evaluate what you need to do with the materials you are examining.

(Van Matre, 1990)

• Directors and staff clearly model environmentally-sound practices and lifestyles (or there is evidence that they are working on them).

• Programs are designed with specific outcomes in mind and ese stimulating educational techniques and tools to pull instead of pushing the learners.

• Everything works together and the visitors and participants are oriented to the sequential and cumulative ways in which they can proceed.

• Programs and exhibits focus on major ecological concepts such as, energy flows and cycling, and connect these processes to the daily lives of the participants and the visitors.

• Facilities are environmentally-sound in design and operation (or are being retrofitted to become more so).

• Programs and exhibits challenge participants and visitors to make changes in their own lives and model possible choices for them to consider.

• Overall atmosphere conveys great care and concern about the earth’s places and processes, while promoting a sense of wonder and adventure for natural areas (emphasising magic and meaning instead of names and numbers).

• Programs serve as carefully crafted and focussed “springboard” experiences (in ecological understanding and feeling) that must be completed later back at home and school.

• Regular workshops or courses are offered in crafting more harmonious lifestyles (organic gardening, environmentally-responsible investing, modifying homes, etc.).

• The characteristics described above dominate the overall feel of the place (from entrance to exit) and there are few, if any, discordant notes (unnecessarily caged animals, environmentally-unsound materials and practices, racks of trinkets for sale, etc.).

Each item is worth ten points. Rate your local centre and see if it makes the grade. Be sure to share your results.

Baierl, T.-M., Johnson, B., & Bogner, F. X. (2021). Assessing environmental attitudes and cognitive achievement within 9 years of informal earth education. Sustainability, 13, 3622. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su13073622

Baierl, T.-M., Johnson, B., & Bogner, F. X. (2022). Informal earth education: Significant shifts for environmental attitude and knowledge. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 819899. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.819899

Činčera, J., & Johnson, B. (2013). Earthkeepers in the Czech Republic: Experience from the implementation process. Envigogika, 8(4), 1–14.

Činčera, J., Johnson, B., & Kroufek, R. (2020a). Outdoor environmental program leaders’ theories of experiential learning. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50, 729–745. https://doi.org/10.108 0/0305764X.2020.1770693

Činčera, J., Johnson, B., Kroufek, R., Kolenaty, M., & Simonova, P. (2020b). Frames in outdoor environmental education programs: What we communicate and why we think it matters. Sustainability, 12, 4451. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114451

Činčera, J., Johnson, B., Kroufek, R., & Simonova, P. (2020c). Values education in outdoor environmental education programs from the perspective of practitioners. Sustainability, 12, 4700. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114700

Činčera, J., Simonova, P., Kroufek, R., & Johnson, B. (2020d). Empowerment in outdoor environmental education: Who shapes the programs? Environmental Education Research, 26, 1690–1706. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1814205

Felix, L., & Johnson, B. (2013). Back in the classroom: Teacher follow-through after an earth education program. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 12(3), 187–196.

Greenall Gough, A. (1990). Red and green: Two case studies in learning through ecopolitical action. Curriculum Perspectives,10(2), 60–65.

Johnson, B. (2023). Earth Education: Magical Learning Adventures for Living More Lightly. In: Činčera, J., Johnson, B., Goldman, D., Alkaher, I., Medek, M. (eds) Outdoor Environmental Education in the Contemporary World. International Explorations in Outdoor and Environmental Education, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29257-6_8

Johnson, B., & Činčera, J. (2015). Examining the relationship between environmental attitudes and behaviour in education programmes. Socialni Studia, 12(3), 97–111.

Johnson, B., & Činčera, J. (2019). Development of the ecological concepts of energy flow and materials cycling in middle school students participating in earth education programs. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 63, 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.08.003

Johnson, B., & Činčera, J. (2021). Relationships between outdoor environmental education pro[1]gram characteristics and children’s environmental values and behaviors. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2021.2001756

Johnson, B., & Činčera, J. (2022). Earthkeepers: The relationship between instructional strategies and program outcomes. Envigogika, 17, 1. https://doi.org/10.14712/18023061.636

Johnson, B., & Manoli, C. (2008). Using Bogner and Wiseman’s model of ecological values to measure the impact of an earth education program on children’s environmental perceptions. Environmental Education Research, 14(2), 115–127.

Keen, M. (1991). The effect of the Sunship earth program on knowledge and attitude development. Journal of Environmental Education, 22(3), 28–32.

Manoli, C. C., Johnson, B., Hadjichambis, A. C., Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, D., Georgiou, Y., & Ioannou, H. (2014). Evaluating the impact of the Earthkeepers earth education program on children’s ecological understandings, values and attitudes, and behaviour in Cyprus. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 41, 29–37.

Van Matre, S. (1972). Acclimatization. American Camping Association.

Van Matre, S. (1979). Sunship earth. Institute for Earth Education.

Van Matre, S. (1990). Earth education: A new beginning. Institute for Earth Education.

Van Matre, S. (2019). Earthwalks: An alternative nature experience. Institute for Earth Education.

Van Matre, S., & Farber, L. (2005). Rangers of the earth. Institute for Earth Education.

Van Matre, S., & Johnson, B. (1988). Earthkeepers: Four keys for helping young people live in harmony with the earth. The Institute for Earth Education.

Van Matre, S., & Johnson, B. (1997). SUNSHIP III: Perception and choice for the journey ahead. The Institute for Earth Education.