Identifying areas and approaches for improving evaluation processes in environmental education in the United States of America

Abstract

Evaluation has not been used to its fullest potential in environmental education (EE). Pressures from external stakeholders can cause organizations to focus on reporting requirements at the expense of conducting evaluations that support programmatic improvement. Understanding practitioners’ satisfaction with their evaluation processes and the drivers of this satisfaction may reveal strategies for improving evaluation processes in the field of EE. We administered an online survey to EE practitioners in the United States via email and social media. Our results indicate low satisfaction with evaluation processes overall, but greater satisfaction from organizations engaged in systematic formal evaluation, particularly processes focused on adaptive management and programmatic improvement, when compared to evaluations focused on satisfying external accountabilities or using informal evaluation processes based on nonsystematic observation and reflection. Our results also highlight current gaps in using evaluation for adaptive management and for furthering diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the field.

Keywords:

• evaluation
• adaptive management
• satisfaction
• practitioners
• diversity

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE) and the Association of Nature Center Administrators for distributing this survey to its members and also the environmental education practitioners who spent their valuable time in the midst of a global pandemic to respond to the survey. We would also like to thank the Pisces Foundation and NAAEE for funding this work as well as the efforts of Charlotte Clark, Judy Braus, Karyl Askew, Libby McCann, Liz DeMattia, Jean Kayira, and Noelle Wyman Roth who provided feedback on the survey.

Notes

1 The results did not differ when these responses were removed from the data set.

2 An eta-squared value of 0.01-0.08 indicates a small effect, 0.09-0.24 indicates a medium effect, and 0.25+ indicates a large effect.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Pisces Foundation and the North American Association for Environmental Education. This work was also supported in part by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, McIntire Stennis project 7001451.