Environmental education and K-12 student outcomes: A review and analysis of research

Figures & data

Figure 1. Elements of the review process.

Figure 2. Decision tree to determine inclusion/exclusion.

Table 1. Selected main codes.

Code
Abstract	Examples
Type of program or intervention	Classroom-based
	Extra-curricular
	Home/school
	School-wide
Length of program	One day
	One instructional unit
	School year
Age range of participants	6th grade
	15–17-year-olds
	1st–3rd grades
Geographic distribution	United States
	Australia
	China
Methods	Pre- and post-test
	Interviews
	Delayed follow-up
Research design	Quasi-experimental
	Case study
	Action research
Type of outcome measured	Environmental knowledge
	Action competence
	Cyclic thinking
Key findings	Positive^a
	Null
	Negative

^a As defined by the article authors; that is, we coded the articles as having “positive” findings if the article's authors stated an objective (or objectives) and had findings that they deemed in support of that objective.

Figure 3. Chronological distribution of the 119 articles.

Table 2. Research designs used in articles (n = 119).

Research design	Number of articles (% of overall sample)^a
Quasi-experimental	93 (78%)
Case study	8 (7%)
Comparative study	4 (3%)
Action research	3 (3%)
Ethnography	3 (3%)
Phenomenological	2 (2%)
Survey research	2 (2%)
Autoethnography	1 (1%)
Combination of pre-experimental and case study	1 (1%)
Correlational	1 (1%)
Descriptive	1 (1%)

^a Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Table 3. Method of data collection (n = 119).

Method of data collection	Examples	Number of articles (% of overall sample)^a
Structured instruments	Knowledge tests, attitudinal scales	97 (82%)
Interviews	Structured interviews, semi-structured interviews, in-depth conversations, informal discussions	35 (29%)
Observation	Participant observation, researcher interaction, video-recording of events	23 (19%)
Review of student work	Reviews of journals, reflective writing, portfolios	15 (13%)
Conceptual activities	Concept maps, word association, drawings, repertory grid	9 (8%)
Group discussions	Focus groups, informal group discussions	9 (8%)
Photovoice	N/A	1 (1%)
Computer logs	N/A	1 (1%)

^a The sum of articles is greater than 119 because a single article often reported on multiple methods of data collection.

Table 4. Length of follow-up in articles with delayed assessment (n = 34).

Length	Number of articles (% of overall sample)^a
Less than a month	5 (15%)
1 to 6 months	26 (76%)
7 months to 1 year	4 (12%)
2 to 3 years	2 (6%)

^a The sum of articles is greater than 34 because a single article may include follow-up in more than one category of length.

Figure 4. Age range of participants.

Table 5. Domain of outcome with all examples (n = 119).

Outcome domain	Number of articles measuring specified domain	Percentage of articles measuring specified domain
Knowledge^a	81	68%
Environmental knowledge, Environmental awareness, Environmental perceptions, Ecological knowledge, Perceived knowledge of action, Awareness of global connections, Awareness of social activism, Career knowledge, Chemistry knowledge, Conceptualizations of the environment, Environmental issue awareness, Geography content, Knowledge for action, Knowledge of citizen action skills, Knowledge of environmental actions, Knowledge of environmental issues, Knowledge of environmental action skills, Knowledge of health effects of inhalants, Knowledge of health effects of pollution, Risk knowledge, Science content, Skill knowledge, Understanding of science methods
Dispositions	73	61%
Environmental attitudes, Environmental behavioral intentions, Environmental concern, Locus of control, Connectedness with nature, Environmental sensitivity, Interest in science, Science attitudes, Self-confidence to act, Self-efficacy, Sense of place, Attitudes toward school, Attitudes toward computers, Attitudes toward experiential learning, Attitudes toward inhalants, Attitudes toward the Internet, Attitudes toward traditional teaching, Civic responsibility, Confidence in action skills, Connection to land, Disposition toward critical thinking, Ecological mindset, Empowerment, Environmental identity, Environmental responsibility, Environmental studies self-efficacy, Group locus of control, Interest in chemistry, Interest in environmental issue under study, Interest in fishing, Interest in gardening, Interest in geography, Interest in learning and discovery, Interest in natural world, Intrinsic motivation, Perceptions of control for managing risks to the environment, Personal commitment to aquatic environments, Personal responsibility to manage risks, Preservation values, Priorities for resource management, Reinforcing factors, Relationship to environment, Risk attitudes, Science self-efficacy, Sense of environmental stewardship, Task value, Utilization values, Value of nature
Competencies	31	26%
Decision-making skills, Environmental problem solving, Critical thinking, Perceived skill in use of action skills, Social skills, Fishing skills, Leadership, Problem-solving, Systems thinking, Action planning, Analytical skills, Career planning, Computer skills, Cyclic thinking, Gardening skills, Geography skills, Group work, Higher-order thinking skills, Internet skills, Issue analysis, Issue evaluation, Issue identification, Land subsistence skills, Metacognitive skills, Monitoring environmental problems, Oral communication, Outdoor skills, Participatory capacities, Reading skills, Research skills, Safety skills, Science process skills, Self-directed learning, Technology skills, Writing skills
Behavior	24	20%
Environmental behavior, Water conservation, Battery recycling, Energy savings and carbon emissions reduction, Fishing participation
Multi-domain outcomes	7	6%
Academic achievement, Action competence,^b Environmental stewardship, Mental models
Personal characteristics	3	3%
Self-esteem, Autonomy, Character development, Maturity, Poise

^a The knowledge domain includes cognitive aspects, as well as those that may have an action-orientation, such as knowledge for action and skill knowledge. Based on discussions in the literature of the multi-dimensionality of environmental knowledge (e.g., Frick, Kaiser, & Wilson, 2004; Jensen, 2002), we categorized all objectives related to knowledge—whether cognitive, affective, or skills-related—within the knowledge domain.

^b Although this term implies classification as a “competency,” we categorized action competence as a multi-domain outcome given its definition in the EE literature as a construct involving knowledge, skills, dispositions, and action (Mogensen, 1993, as cited in Fontes, 2004).

Table 6. Article findings for specified outcome domains.

Outcome domain	Positive (row %)	Null (row %)	Negative (row %)	Number of articles
Knowledge	79 (98%)	20 (25%)	1 (1%)	81^a
Competencies	28 (90%)	8 (25%)	0 (0%)	31^a
Dispositions	64 (86%)	36 (49%)	2 (3%)	73^a
Behavior	20 (83%)	11 (46%)	1 (4%)	24^a
Multi-domain	7 (100%)	1 (20%)	0 (0%)	7^a
Personal	3 (100%)	1 (33%)	0 (0%)	3^a

^a In each row, the sum of articles reporting each level of findings is greater than the total number of articles because researchers often reported more than one type of finding (positive, negative, or null) in each outcome domain.

Table 7. Article findings for environmentally related versus non-environmentally related outcomes.

Area of focus	Positive (row %)	Null (row %)	Negative (row %)	Number of articles
Environmental	102 (94%)	43 (40%)	4 (4%)	108^a
Non-environmental	39 (95%)	15 (37%)	1 (2%)	41^a
Academic	24 (96%)	9 (36%)	1 (4%)	25^a
Civic	12 (92%)	5 (38%)	0 (0%)	13^a
Social	5 (100%)	1 (20%)	0 (0%)	5^a
Personal	3 (75%)	2 (50%)	0 (0%)	4^a
Health	3 (100%)	1 (33%)	0 (0%)	3^a

^a In each row, the sum of articles reporting each level of findings is greater than the total number of articles because researchers often reported more than one type of finding (positive, negative, or null) for each outcome type.

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(8), 1597–1613.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jensen, B. B. (2002). Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 325–334.

 Google Scholar

Mogensen, F. (1993, October). Action competence: Some viewpoints and perspectives for the future environmental education. Paper presented at the Third International Workshop in the Project Children as Catalysts of Global Environmental Change, Skive, Denmark.

 Google Scholar