EEI17(3): Education and envinmmentalbebavBnir among racal dwellers is Nigeria: A (faeoretkal amfliysis. Evaluation of the programme, both during and after, will help the developer to determine whether he is realizing his goals or not. The feedback from such evaluation must be used to improve the programme or in the designing of a new one. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Attempts have been made in this paper to highlight the fact that a considerable amount of environmental consciousness has been created by the government of Nigeria. However, it is also emphasized that the government has clearly not been successful when it comes to changing people's behaviour. It has been observed that, from our experience in this country, moral appeal, sanctions and the establishment of various agencies such as the National Orientation and the War Against Indiscipline (WAI) brigade have only shown temporary effects on behaviour. Therefore, the major argument in the paper is that moral appeal and sanctions can only be effective on a lasting basis if they are backed up by a powerful system of education. It has also been argued in the paper that rural people's ignorance about the correct perception of the political process and the government is a major contributing factor to their low participation in government and community development programmes. In order to arrest this situation, an acceptable living culture in the case of the environmental protection programme must be introduced. This will involve a change of attitude on the part of rural people. It is against this background that a powerful system of education and a Normative Training Model are suggested in our attempt to increase rural people's participation and in an attempt to create an acceptable environmental behaviour among rural dwellers in Nigeria. REFERENCES AWOLOLA, M.D. 1991. Adult education: An agent of environmental awareness. International Journal of Environmental Education and Information, 10(3), 175-182. AWOLOLA, M.D. 1996. Factors associated with environmental destablisation in Nigeria: With particular reference to firewood consumption in Kwara State. International Journal of Environmental Education and Information, 15(4), 423-430. EASTON, D. 1957. Analysis of Political Systems. World Politics, 9(3) (April) cited in H.W. Wiseman (1966) Political Systems (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London), p. 120. LASSWELL, H. and KAPLAN, A. 1950. Power and Society (Yale University Press, New Haven). OLUYITAN, F. 1987. Education and training: The tools for providing the needed manpower in national development. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual Conference of the Professors' World Peace Academy of Nigeria, Kaduna (3-6 June). PENNOCK, J.R. and SMITH, G.S. 1967. Political Science: An Introduction (Collier Macmilian Ltd., London). SECORD, P.F. and BACKMAN, C.W. 1964. Social Psychology (McGraw Hill Book Co.). 274 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND INFORMATION* Volume 17, Number 3 (1998), pp.27S-2S6 (submitted 7/97) IS OUTDOOR EDUCATION ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION? by Danny Parkin Department of Natural and Rural Systems Management University of Queensland Gatton College QUEENSLAND 4345 AUSTRALIA ABSTRACT Outdoor education and environmental education are often linked. This is understandable because outdoor education has its emphasis on the use of the natural environment for direct learning experiences. However, a survey of members from three organisations in Queensland, Australia involved in the field of outdoor education suggest that the link between outdoor education and environmental education may only exist in theory. This is because data analysis revealed that in most instances the natural environment was only used as a setting for outdoor education programmes. This paper draws on current literature and survey analysis in an attempt to qualify the relationship between outdoor education and environmental education in theory and practice. A process for incorporating education for the environment during the conduct of outdoor education programmes is aiso detailed. Int. J. Env. Educ and Inf. (published by Department of EsmroBmeatal Mesoarces, University off SaSford, Aäíerčois Braiding, Frederick Road, Salfoni, M6 6PU, U.K.) 275 BEI 17(3): Is outdoor education environmental education? INTRODUCTION Is outdoor education environmental education? Should outdoor education and environmental education be linked? Are they overlapping philosophies that draw on each other, or are they disciplines in their own right? Or does outdoor education alienate participants from the natural environment by promoting a humankind against nature ethic? While many practitioners will acknowledge that in theory outdoor education should endorse and incorporate an environmental component, current research suggests otherwise. Unfortunately, this practice is often overlooked in programme design. Research findings also suggest that the use of natural settings for some programmes does not contribute to programme success. It appears that personal and activity-focused objectives are more important. So then, what is the relationship between outdoor education and environmental education? And how can outdoor educators incorporate environmental education into their programmes? The aim of this paper is to provide an answer to these questions. This is achieved by reviewing current literature and by discussing the results of a survey (conducted in November 1994) of a sample proportion of outdoor educators from three outdoor associations in Queensland, Australia (the Outdoor Educators' Association of Queensland (OEAQ), the Rockclimbing instructors' Association of Queensland (RIAQ), and the Queensland Camping Association (QCA)). In answering the questions posed, I will examine the broad nature of outdoor education first. This will then be followed by a discussion on whether outdoor education and environmental education are overlapping philosophies or separate methods of instruction. In finishing, I will outline a process for promoting environmental education during outdoor education. For the purpose of this paper and ensuing debate, outdoor education includes: "Any programme or activity conducted in the out-of-doors, whether it is conducted as an outdoor pursuit, for purposes of outdoor recreation, as part of an environmental education programme, or a programme which aims to develop the personal and social characteristics of an individual." Parkin (1995 (p. 1)) THE NATURE OF OUTDOOR EDUCATION The term outdoor education has been defined and used in many ways (Priest, 1988a). It is a general term which is frequently applied to programmes or activities that can be, and usually are, conducted in the out-of-doors. Outdoor education is often synonymous with environmental education and outdoor recreation (Priest, 1988a). The term outdoor education has also been used to describe a variety of subjective learning experiences, which include personal and social development programmes for clients as widely diverse as "youth at risk" and corporate managers (see McRae, 1990; Priest, 1988b; Ford, 1981; Hammerman and Hammerman, 1973). However, 276 EEI 17(3): Is outdoor education environmental education? Nichols (1982) identifies and describes six essential characteristics of outdoor education: (i) it occurs outside in the out-of-doors; (ii) it has its participants directly involved in the activity; (iii) it involves the interpretation of original objects; (iv) it defines relationships rather than reciting individual, apparently isolated facts; (v) it involves as many senses as possible; and (vi) it invites participation because the activity is perceived as being interesting, challenging or even fun. (Nichols, 1982 (pp. 1-3)) Thus, outdoor education will mean different things to many people, depending on the nature of its application and the context in which the outdoors is used. While many survey participants acknowledged that outdoor education encompasses the six essential characteristics described by Nichols, much debate centred around the concept that outdoor education occurs outside in the "out-of-doors". In fact, 56 per cent of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with this notion (Figure 1). Only 31 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement that outdoor education can only be done in the out-of-doors. ütsamiigly agree O stmogiy disagree FIGURE 1: Response (%) to statement that outdoor education can only be done in the out-of-doors Much of the planning of an outdoor education programme and some of the instruction, such as learning how to use a map and compass prior to an expedition, can be completed "indoors". However, the actual doing of the programme is conducted "outdoors". This is because outdoor education implies an interaction between the participant and the outdoor environment (Priest, 1986). If a programme 11111111 i* ------------------1-----------------1— 277 EEI 17(3): Is outdoor educatkta environmental education? is not conducted in the "out-of-doors", then it cannot be termed outdoor education in light of current assumptions. However, disagreement with this statement may stem from the individual's perception of what constitutes the "out-of-doors". For example, one respondent disagreed with this statement on the basis that, while she conducted outdoor education programmes for large groups on school ovals and in developed parks, this kept such groups out of wilderness areas. Thus, she stated, "the programme was not being conducted in the out-of-doors." For this person, the "out-of-doors" may imply a significant degree of naturalness. Admittedly, one person's reason for disagreeing with this statement does not explain why so many respondents opposed this concept. The nature of outdoor education is clearly defined in the literature. Or is it? Survey results show that many practitioners disagree that outdoor education can only be conducted in the "out-of-doors". Therefore, the "out-of-doors" may need further investigation. Investigation may well focus on what constitutes the "out-of-doors", and the level of naturalness which is required. OVERLAPPING PHILOSOPHIES OR SEPARATE METHODS OF INSTRUCTION? According to Ford (1981), outdoor education aims to: "produce environmentally conscious citizens that develop lifelong knowledge, skills and attitudes for using, understanding and appreciating natural resources and for developing a sense of stewardship for the land." (Ford, 1981 (p. 18)) This philosophy of outdoor education is not unlike the aims of environmental education, established by the Tbilisi Declaration, which recommended that environmental education should prepare individuals for life through the understanding and knowledge of our human society and the natural environment (UNESCO-UNEP, 1978). Data analysis confirmed that a link between outdoor education and environmental education should exist. Eighty-three per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that outdoor education and environmental education should be interrelated (Figure 2). Many respondents also provided additional comment on the association between outdoor education and environmental education. For example, one respondent commented that outdoor education and environmental education should be inextricably linked because, while it was important for participants to experience natural areas, it was equally important to preserve the natural areas in which these experiences so often occur. 278 EEI 17(3): Is outdoor education environmental education? FIGURE 2: Response (%) to statement that outdoor education and environmental education should be interrelated While it is evident that respondente believed outdoor education and environmental education should be linked, do these two areas of education overlap and draw on each other? Generally, outdoor education programmes may have a range of objectives. These objectives may focus on academic, social or physical outcomes, or any combination of these aims depending upon programme goals. Environmental education programmes may also have a similar range of objectives, except that an outdoor education programme does not have to teach participants about the environment or about environmental concepts. In fact, 55 per cent of respondents were in agreement with this assumption (Figure 3). However, this admission by respondents strongly contrasts with their view that the two disciplines should be interrelated. 46 S3 A 18 Sa I c p.—,-----,-----■ 0 20 40 6« FIGURE 3: Response (%) to statement that outdoor education does not always teach participants about the environment Only 27 per cent of respondents opposed this statement by indicating that outdoor education should teach participants about the environment. This suggests that at least a small group of outdoor educators incorporate environmental education practices in 279 3 --------------------i------------------j------------------1 0 20 40 SO EEI 17(3): their outdoor education programmes. The other 18 per cent of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the context of the statement. Although the majority of respondents felt that outdoor education did not always teach participants about the environment, they were strongly against the suggestion that outdoor education promoted the concept of humans against nature. Eighty-eight per cent of respondents opposed this concept (Figure 4). However, 2 per cent of respondents felt such was the case, while a further 9 per cent were undecided on this matter. feil =4- i \_—i o FIGURE 4: Response (%) to statement that outdoor education promotes the concept of man against nature Not so clear were respondents' viewpoints on whether outdoor education places perceived benefits ahead of environmental well-being. Although 42 per cent of respondents opposed this point of view, 28 per cent either agreed or strongly agreed that this in fact was occurring (Figure 5). Interestingly, nearly a third of the participants (30 per cent) could not decide whether outdoor education placed perceived benefits ahead of environmental well-being or not. SQUSĚL5: Response (%) to statement that outdoor education places perceived benefits ahead of environmental well-being 280 EEI 17(3): Is outdoor education environmental education? Positive programme outcomes and environmental well-being should go hand-in-hand, as the use of inappropriate settings may lead to the occurrence of negative social and physical impacts. In natural settings these impacts may affect other users, vegetation, soil, water and wildlife (Batt, 1990). While the majority of respondents were uncertain or disagreed with the notion that outdoor education placed perceived benefits ahead of environmental well-being, they admitted that outdoor education sometimes uses inappropriate settings in an attempt to achieve programme objectives. Fifty-four per cent of respondents thought that this occurred (Figure 6). Only 15 per cent of respondents opposed this statement. The remaining 31 per cent neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement. u -------------1---------- FIGURE 6: Response (%) to statement that outdoor education sometimes uses inappropriate settings in an attempt to achieve programme objectives Outdoor educators have a moral responsibility in protecting the environments which they use (Parkin and Bauchop, 1997). This responsibility extends to the maintenance of the setting quality for continued outdoor education use. However, the use of an inappropriate setting may also arise from outdoor educators' lack of knowledge of suitable venues or because of circumstances outside of their control. For example, one respondent commented on the fact that many outdoor educators, including himself, will lower their standard of instruction, environmental ethic and choice of setting to appease external forces, especially if these outside pressures affected his ability to earn a living. It is also acknowledged that it is unlikely that participants will develop an environmental ethic during a single short-term trip or camping programme in a natural setting or wilderness area (McRae, 1986; Simpson, 1985). However, outdoor educators need to be committed to protecting natural environments and to the implementation of sound outdoor practices (McRae, 1990). This may include outdoor educators directing their programmes to more appropriate settings. This will minimise the occurrence of undesirable ecological impacts during programme conduct. It may also lessen ethical dilemmas experienced by outdoor educators in earning a living. 281 E£I17(3): Is outdoor edocatiosi environmental education? It is evident from these results that, while in theory many outdoor educators believe that outdoor education and environmental education should be linked, this in fact does not often occur. This raises the question "what is the relationship between outdoor education and environmental education?" Many practitioners may argue that outdoor education and environmental education are separate disciplines or disciplines of a sequential nature. However, they are neither. They are methods for achieving goals (Oliver, 1990). This is because outdoor education and environmental education are two methods of a process which aims to facilitate change in the individual through learning (Figure 7). OUTDOOR EDUCATION Is a method of structuring the outdoor setting and educational process to affect change in the individual in line with programme goals. E N V I R 0 N M , E ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION M Is a method of structuring the educational process and the environment to affect change in the way the individual relates to the E N T natural environment. FIGURE 7: The relationship between outdoor education and environmental education methodologies (Source: Oliver, 1990 (p.25)) Whilst it can be seen that both outdoor education and environmental education aim to facilitate change in the individual, outdoor education lacks the focus of environmental education. However, as a process, outdoor education offers more than the traditional lecture approach to learning, where the flow of information is unidirectional and controlled by the instructor. The learning process is experiential as it helps develop feelings, skills, attitudes and problem-solving abilities compatible with society's current view of the world around us (Cooper, 1991; Hammerman and Hammerman, 1985). It is through the outdoors and the relationship between people, the environment and their activities that our values are developed (Yaffey, 1993). Our values of fulfilment, morality and self-responsibility are best provided through meaningful activity, experience and knowledge in the outdoors. This is because the out-of-doors is an unpolluted source of values which is free of human needs and desires (Yaffey, 1993). However, unlike environmental education, these values are not necessarily focused on the natural environment. An outdoor education programme may seek to develop values relating to group work, leadership or self-esteem. 282 EEI 17(3): Is outdoor education environmental education? EDUCATION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Environmental education aims to produce an environmentally literate citizen with basic skills of awareness, knowledge and concerns for the environment (Fien, 1988; Ford, 1981; UNESCO-UNEP, 1978). The ability to recognise issues and initiate solutions, and be motivated and committed to environmental matters are further traits of an environmentally literate citizen. However, the achievement of these goals involves the integration of three approaches: educating in, about and for the environment (Fien, 1988 (p.6)). This approach to environmental education is similar in context to the emphasis placed on outdoor education by Donaldson and Donaldson (1958 (p.7)) and Priest (1988a (p.9)). That is, outdoor education is learning in, about and for the outdoors. Both approaches emphasise in, about and for. However, the argument presented in this paper suggests that outdoor education currently lacks the education for the outdoors emphasis. This means that many outdoor education programmes may be operating contrary to recognised recommendations (see McRae, 1990 (pp. 165-170)). This lack of emphasis implies that participants are not being helped to develop the appropriate environmental values, ethics, morals, motivations, behaviours and skills necessary to act constructively for the environment. Outdoor education can play an important role in providing experiences that contribute to educating for the environment. This can be achieved by incorporating environmental objectives which address the key concepts of awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills and participation (UNESCO-UNEP, 1978) (Table 1). Outdoor education has an enormous potential to promote action and participation for the environment because of its strong experiential base. Incorporating the key concepts of environmental education into outdoor education will allow outdoor educators to promote a range of experiences which promote environmental consciousness. This will contribute to the development of the knowledge, skills and attitudes considered desirable in our contemporary society (McRae, 1990 (p. 180)). If outdoor education programmes fail to address the ideologies of environmentalism, then the conduct of programmes in natural settings will be incongruous in terms of the setting, the activity and the objectives. Admittedly, natural environments differ in their degree of resistance and resilience to outdoor education induced impacts. Programme participants' behaviour and their potential to impact on the natural environment also differ. However, the interaction of environmental conditions and programme participants' behaviour creates predictable patterns of resource impact (Hammitt and Cole, 1987). This includes trampling of vegetation, loss of ground cover and soil erosion. EEI 17(3): Is outdoor education environmental education? TABLE 1: Key environmental concepts for outdoor education (Source: UNESCO-UNEP, 1978 (p.3)) Awareness: by encouraging participants to acquire an awareness of and sensitivity to the environment through firsthand experience in the out-of-doors. Knowledge: by encouraging participants to gain experience and understanding of the environment from programmes conducted in natural settings. Attitudes: by encouraging participants to acquire values and feelings of concern for the environment by promoting an environmental ethic through structured learning experiences. Skills: by encouraging participants to acquire the skills for identifying and understanding environmental impacts and for developing methods for minimising such impacts. Participation: by providing participants with the opportunity to act constructively for the environment during present and future outdoor activities. CONCLUSION This paper has described the nature of outdoor education and detailed that it is used as a vehicle to enhance the social and physical growth of participants. This paper has also shown that the majority of outdoor educators believed that outdoor education and environmental education should be linked. However, many outdoor educators admitted that outdoor education does not always teach participants about the environment. This was because outdoor education had a range of objectives which may or may not incorporate environmental considerations. While respondents were adamant that outdoor education does not promote a man against nature philosophy, opinions were equally divided on whether outdoor education places perceived benefits ahead of environmental well-being. However, this was in contrast to their belief that outdoor education sometimes uses inappropriate settings in an attempt to achieve programme objectives. Yet, many outdoor educators prefer to take their clients to settings which display a degree of naturalness. Therefore, these settings may or may not be the most appropriate location for their programme of instruction. The ability of the outdoor educator to give participants a rewarding and satisfying experience while minimising ecological impacts will be determined by programme objectives and the programme setting. By conducting programmes in appropriate 284 EEI 17(3): Is outdoor education environmental education? settings and through the promotion of an environmental ethic, practitioners will significantly contribute to the development of the knowledge, skills and attitudes considered desirable for environmental consciousness. It is through the outdoors that participants' (and our) values, knowledge and experience can be developed. However, skills are not enough nor are good attitudes, without implementation. REFERENCES B ATT, D. 1990. Outdoor education - management of social and ecological impacts, Proceedings of the Inaugural State Conference of the Outdoor Educators' Association of Queensland held at the Girls' Grammar School Memorial Outdoor Education Centre at Imbil, September 24-26, pp.4-22. COOPER, G. 1991. The role of outdoor and field study centres in educating for the environment. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership, 8(2), 10-11. DONALDSON, G.E. and DONALDSON, L.E. 1958. Outdoor education: A definition. Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 29(17), 63. FEN, J. 1988. Education for the Australian Environment. Bicentennial Australian Series Schools Project Bulletin 6 (Curriculum Development Centre, Canberra). FORD, P.M. 1981. Principles and Practices of Outdoor/Environmental Education (John Wiley & Sons, USA). HAMMERMAN, E. and HAMMERMAN, D. 1985. What basic needs are met through outdoor education? The Outdoor Communicator, pp.28-31 (Fall-Winter). HAMMERMAN, D.R. and HAMMERMAN, W.M. 1973. Outdoor Education - A Book of Readings (second edition, Burgess Publishing Company, USA). HAMMITT, W.E. and COLE, D.N. 1987. Wildland Recreation - Ecology and Management (John Wiley & Sons, USA). McRAE, K. (ed.) 1990. Outdoor Environmental Education - Diverse Purposes and Practices (Macmillan Publishing Co., Sydney). McRAE, K. 1986. Developing an environmental ethic in outdoor programmes. Journal of Experiential Education, 9(3), 31-35. NICHOLS, D.R. 1982. Outdoor educators: The need to become credible. Journal of Environmental Education, 14(1), 1-3. OLIVER, P. 1990. Action research: Community problem solving - environmental education and what it means to a teacher up the creek. Proceedings of the Inaugural State Conference of the Outdoor Educators' Association of Queensland held at the Girls' Grammar School Memorial Outdoor Education Centre at Imbil, September 24-26, pp.23-29. 285 EEI 17(3): Is outdoor education environmental education? PARKIN, D.R. and BAUCHOP, D.A. 1997. Minimal Impact: Has it succeeded? Proceedings of the 10th National Outdoor Education Conference, Collaroy Beach, NSW, January 20-24. PARKIN, D.R. 1995. Outdoor Education and the Natural Environment (unpublished Master of Environmental Education dissertation, Faculty of Environmental Science, Griffith University, Brisbane, Qld.). PRIEST, S. 1988a. Outdoor leadership around the world: A matter of semantics. Journal of Adventure Education, 5(1), 9-12. PRIEST, S. 1988b. The ladder of environmental learning. Journal of Adventure Education, 5(2), 23-25. PRIEST, S. 1986. Redefining outdoor education. Journal of Environmental Education, 17(3), 13-15. SIMPSON, S. 1985. Short-term wilderness experiences and environmental ethics. Journal of Experiential Education, 8(3), 25-28. UNESCO-UNEP. 1978. The Tbilisi Declaration. Connect, 3(1), 1-8. YAFFEY, D. 1993. The value base of activity experience in the outdoors. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Leadership, 10(3), 9-11. 286 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND INFORMATION* Volume 17, Number 3 (199S),pp.2S7-29S (sahmUted9/97» APPLICABILITY, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION IN UGANDA'S PRIMARY SCHOOLS by Joseph C. Oonyu Department of Science & Technical Education Makerere University P.O. Box 7062 KAMPALA UGANDA ABSTRACT This paper argues that the effective implementation of environmental education in Uganda's primary schools is crucial for laying a firm foundation for future generations. The paper identifies some of the key constraints to be the elitist nature of the present education system, teacher preparation, materials development and the existence of curricula -with little relevance to the local communities from which the pupils come. Recommendations that are made include strengthening teacher training and methods that encourage experiential learning, rewarding the "practical" job sector more than the "white-collar" jobs, making the curriculum more relevant, by integrating indigenous environmental knowledge and education paths into the present western system, and the development of appropriate materials. Environmental clubs and research into environmental education in primary schools should also be strongly supported. * Im. J. Em>. Ethsc- & Inf. (published by Bßpartaeur of EíivšroomeHiĚ&l Resources, ÜMverxiiy of SaMbrd, Aierioii BmläiBg, Frederick Road, Saiforf, M6 6PÜ, U.K) 287