The 'Environmentally Educated Teacher': An Exploration of The Implications of UNESCO-UNEP's Ideas
The 'Environmentally Educated Teacher': An Exploration of The Implications of UNESCO-UNEP's Ideas
The 'Environmentally Educated Teacher': An Exploration of The Implications of UNESCO-UNEP's Ideas
University of Bath, UK
Version of record first published: 28 Jul 2006.
To cite this article: Christopher R. Oulton & William A. H. Scott (1995): The Environmentally
Educated Teacher: an exploration of the implications of UNESCOUNEP's ideas for preservice
teacher education programmes, Environmental Education Research, 1:2, 213-231
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350462950010207
213
University of
Introduction
The School of Education in the University of Bath has been involved in
environmental education (EE)[1] since the mid 1970s, when a subject didactics
group was formed as part of the one year Postgraduate Certificate in Education
(PGCE) for intending secondary school teachers of science. The reason for this
was a mixture of two factors. The first was an intense interest and optimism
arising from national and international developments (for example, the 1971
Swiss IUCN conference, which highlighted the importance of teacher education
to EE, and the 1975 international Belgrade workshop which went on to urge that
EE should form an obligatory part of pre and inservice teacher education).
Tilbury (1992) and Fien (1994) give useful commentaries on this development.
The second was hard-headed pragmatism arising from the advent of environ1350-4622/95/020213-19 1995 Journals Oxford Ltd
214
mentally focussed degree courses and the raised interest in secondary schools,
where discrete examination courses in environmental science and environmental
studies were being set up and where there was a shortage of suitably qualified
teachers. The University saw itself as being able to establish a key role in
providing a means whereby environmentally educated graduates could train as
teachers who would then, in their turn, contribute to EE in schools, thus
establishing a virtuous developmental cycle.
Within the School of Education, the past few years have seen three particular
approaches, each of which has had the purpose of broadening the impact of EE
within the PGCE course outwards from science to other subject areas. The first
of these involved revisions to the course itself, ensuring that all trainees have an
attempt to grapple with issues surrounding EE and have a chance to see how it
might affect their subject and how their subject might contribute to EE in schools.
The second has been through staff development activities with colleagues in the
School of Education who work on the PGCE course. This has involved working
with The Worldwide Fund for Nature and its Thinking Futures programme, the
report of which (Champain and Inman, 1995) includes our analysis of the
management of change issues which we encountered. The third has been
through work on the Environmental Education into Teacher Education in
Europe (EEITE) programme sponsored by DG XI of the Commission of the
European Union (EU). This programme has involved work with fellow teacher
educators in 11 of the 12 then EU countries, with the purpose of exploring the
opportunities for collaborative programmes and initiatives. The first publication
of the programme (Brinkman & Scott, 1994) explores EE issues in each country,
with a particular emphasis on preservice teacher education and a range of
common developmental issues. This programme continues.
The purpose of this paper is not to offer an evaluative commentary on any of
these initiatives, but to draw on them in order to consider what pre-service
programmes might, most effectively, be able to do to promote EE within schools
and, through them, within the wider community. In order to effect this, the
paper begins with a critique of UNESCO-UNEP's (1990) ideas on what constitutes an environmentally educated teacher, which are a distillation of the ideas
expressed in a number of publications in UNESCO-UNEP's International Environmental Education Programme (see Appendix).
If the EE dimension were to be removed from the text and each competence area
taken in isolation, a number of statements would be largely unexceptional, e.g.
... apply a knowledge of educational philosophy to the selection or
development of curricular programmes and strategies....
215
... develop and use effective means of planning for instruction ....
... effectively implement the following methodologies ... interdisciplinarity, ... values clarification, games and simulations, case study
approaches,....
... effectively evaluate the results of ... curricula and methods in both
cognitive and affective domains
Competences such as these are, to varying extents, demonstrated daily (either
consciously or as part of an internalised professional thinking and development
process) in schools by the teaching profession and in planning forums where
curriculum issues are debated and decided. They also, again to varying degrees,
are reassuringly familiar to tutors working in pre-service programmes. They do,
after all, focus on large parts of the heartland of ideas and practice upon which
most preservice courses would be built, even though the organization of such
programmes might differ considerably between institutions and across countries. There would, for example, be differences in the extent to which particular
competences were emphasised, but the focus on curriculum development based
around learning theory and on classroom planning based on moral development
theory is likely to be common ground.
The other competences found in this section are much more EE-specific and
are not likely to find a generic equivalent within programmes, e.g.
... apply the theory of transfer of learning in selecting, developing and
implementing curricular materials and strategies to ensure that learned
knowledge, attitudes and cognitive skills will be transferred to the
learner's choices and decision making concerning lifestyle and behaviour....
... effectively infuse EE curricular and methods into all disciplines to
which the teacher is assigned ...
unless topics such as 'health education', and to a lesser extent 'citizenship', are
the focus of study, where a broad equivalence to EE issues is found.
A Commentary on the Foundation Competences in Relation to Pre-service Courses
216
There are three issues here. Firstly, the amount of time which courses have to
spend on subject didactics and pedagogical issues tends to be short. Secondly,
the focus of such work tends to be on subject-specific issues, especially for
secondary training. Thirdly, EE tends not be part of the mainstream of activity
within pre-service programmes; the EEITE project (Scott, 1994) has, for example,
shown that there is immense diversity of practice and opportunity, even across
the small number of countries within the European Union. The problem with the
list is not its lack of desirability, but its lack of feasibility. It is a statement of a
long-term goal, which is overly ambitious given the present state of curriculum
and course development and the low level of awareness within institutions of
the need for such development.
Thus, the list is not helpful in showing colleagues see how such goals might
be realized. This is the kernel of the second issue, that of essential elements
missing from the list. These can be viewed in terms of: (i) an organizational
framework which would make such a list manageable for those who might be
charged with its implementation; (ii) additional professional competences which
would be required; (iii) the need for a rational and practical means whereby such
goals might be realized. Each of these issues is discussed in detail below.
Organisational framework. Firstly, there is no indication within the UNESCOUNEP text that the acquisition of such foundation competences might take a
considerable time and that some aspects might be appropriate for pre-service
courses and others for later, in-service support during induction programmes or
in later continuing professional development. Indeed the use of the word
foundation suggests, quite misleadingly, that all might be realisable through
pre-service courses; thus, such courses are given no limits for their ambition
limits which might reduce the rather daunting nature of the competence statements and help persuade people that they are indeed manageable and, therefore,
worth attempting.
Secondly, there is no discussion of whether and how differentiation might be
applied to ensure that teachers from particular phases of education, e.g. primary,
secondary and tertiary, might need different approaches and goals; this applies
with particular force to competences in EE content (see later).
Thirdly, there is no sense in which the case is made for an over-arching
rationale for these particular competences, the like of which might begin to
persuade colleagues in pre-service programmes that this is worth doing and that
they should be personally involved.
Additional competences. There is an implicit assumption in the UNESCO-UNEP
text that teachers act alone and have a large degree of influence or control over
curricula; it is far from clear that this is necessarily the case. It does follow,
however, that there is a need to develop team-building and team-working
competences during pre-service programmes.
The UNESCO-UNEP text also contains the implicit assumption that conditions are right in schools for EE to develop and blossom and that all that is
needed is for a teacher to come along with the requisite competences. There is
no suggestion that there might be considerable barriers to be overcome and that
serious management of change issues and processes are involved; thus there is
217
a need to introduce teachers and novice (student) teachers to the theory and
practice of the management of change in order to prepare them to take an active
role in the introduction and implementation of EE within schools. This needs, as
Wilke et al. (1987) note, to be an integral part of work on EE within pre-service
courses.
Rational and practical issues. The largest question of all which remains unaddressed, and which underpins the issue of how we get from where we are
currently to the desired end, is that of who is going to do this? The UNESCOUNEP paper does rather assume that the skills, resource and inclination required to effect these goals are ready and waiting to be harnessed. In terms of
pre-service courses, this is simply not the case. Universities and schools are not,
with a few notable exceptions, repositories of such expertise (For further details,
see Williams, 1992, and the studies discussed by Fien, 1994). Tutor competence
needs to be developed, but before this can happen, tutors need to become aware
that they need to do this; in other words, a vital step is a programme of activity
whereby experts work with teacher educators on exactly this area. Where is the
staff development for this to occur?
The Thinking Futures paper (Champain & Inman, 1995) discussed earlier
represents one small (national) step in such a process; the EEITE project is an
example of an international one. Without the development of a wide-ranging
programme of professional development aimed at teacher educators working
with teachers in schools, experience suggests that no matter how desirable the
ends, pre-service courses will not become the vehicle whereby an environmentally focused approach becomes, as Law (1986) puts it 'the way we do things
round here'. For a discussion of Law's ideas in the context of pre-service courses,
the management of change and EE, see Bullock et al. (1995).
The same argument applies with equal force to those trained and equipped to
work with teachers in an in-service capacity. In short, the UNESCO-UNEP
paper wishes some desirable ends, but not the means whereby they might
realistically be achieved, and the problems with this are deeper than might at
first appear. So unrealistic is the list that its impossibility and unattainability
exacerbates the problem and creates resistance within the very groups whom we
might wish to influence. To someone taking a first faltering step, the winning
post of a marathon is not something that it is realistic to strive for. These
deficiencies are serious enough to turn what might have been the beginnings of
a strategy into mere wishful thinking. The problem is further compounded by
difficulties with UNESCO-UNEP's list of competences in EE Content. These are
discussed below.
Competences in EE Content
The UNESCO-UNEP paper sets these out at four levels: (1) ecological foundations; (2) conceptual awareness; (3) investigation and evaluation; (4) environmental action skills. Each of these will briefly be examined.
In respect of ecological foundations, the UNESCO-UNEP paper enjoins teachers
to be able to:
218
219
reach two sections which might be seen as being at the heart of the necessary
competences of the effective environmentally educated teacher (from whatever
discipline or background) and to which all other UNESCO-UNEP competences,
foundation or ecological, might be seen subservient and very much secondary.
In other words, these two areas represent the ends to which an environmentally educated teacher might be aiming, with the other aspects of the UNESCOUNEP list representing, in some measure, a set of means of getting there.
The effective environmentally educated teacher should be competent to
investigate environmental issues and evaluate alternative solutions and
to develop, select and implement curricular materials and strategies
which will develop similar competencies in learners, including:
the knowledge and skills needed to identify and investigate issues ...;
the ability to analyze environmental issues and the associated value
perspectives ...;
the ability to identify alternative solutions for discrete issues and the
value perspectives associated with these solutions;
the ability to autonomously evaluate alternative solutions and associated value perspectives for discrete environmental issues ...;
the ability to identify and clarify their own value positions related to
discrete environmental issues and their associated solutions;
the ability to evaluate, clarify and change their own value positions
in the light of new information.
Once again, it would seem that these are essentially professional competences
which can only be practised through co-operation between teachers who bring
different skills, approaches, emphases and assumptions to the task. It follows
220
It will be clear from what has been written thus far that we believe the
UNESCO-UNEP analysis to be helpful, but not particularly useful in its present
form. Our main objections are that it is:
in some important regards, inappropriately conceptualized;
not specific enough for progress to be made;
too heavily focused on ecology, without acknowledging the vital role of other
disciplines;
orientated to ends at the expense of means;
lacking in reference to the management of change and the realities of how
innovation occurs;
insufficiently differentiated between the needs of:
in-service and pre-service programmes;
primary and secondary courses;
fundamental and subsidiary priorities;
essentially locked (through no fault of its own) into a pre-UNCED view of the
way forward.
(United Nations Conference on Environment and Development [UNCED]. For
further details, see UNESCO-UNEP, 1992)
Whilst any or all of these are in need of attention, we would wish to focus on
what we feel is the important question as far as pre-service programmes are
concerned, i.e. what limits do you realistically need to place on the focus and
ambitions of such programmes? What should the priorities be for pre-service
programmes in terms of organisation, content and approach, given the limited
state of EE within such programmes currently? (See Brinkman & Scott, 1994, and
Williams, 1992, for European Union and UK perspectives on this issue.)
Much has been written about the need for such programmes, by UNESCOUNEP, by national and supranational governments and by a number of writers
and researchers. Tilbury (1992), for example, has carefully, though at times
overly optimistically, charted such calls over a 20 year period. Tilbury suggests
that '... teacher training institutions in England and Wales will finally need to
respond to international calls for the inclusion of ... (EE) ... into preservice
training.' She bases this claim on the grounds that, because the UK government
has made it one minor aspect of the national accreditation process, it will not
only therefore happen, but actually happen in a way which would meet the
perceived need. As Fien (1994) has pointed out, if it were that simple, it would
be happeningparticularly in highly centralised education systems.
Doubts have also been cast on the efficacy of a number of pre-service
programmes at attaining desired goals; see, for example, Stapp et al. (1980) and
221
Wilke et al. (1987), both of whose works are discussed by Tilbury. Less has been
said, however, about the specifics of what might be provided, although Tilbury
also discusses a number of 'models' which have emerged in the 1980s and finds
them all wanting in some regard: including because they are overly content-focused (UNESCO-UNEP, 1990), too specialized (Marcinkowski et al, 1990),
insufficiently contextualized in the realities of the curriculum (Hungerford et ah,
1988) or much too limited in their appreciation of the need for a strategic
approach to change within teacher education institutions (Stapp et ah, 1980). Fien
(1994) discusses two initiatives in the Asia-Pacific region whose purpose is to
'address the imperatives of education for sustainable living within pre-service
teacher education' and goes into greater detail in an earlier paper (Fien, 1993)
about 'the challenges to teacher education' whilst discussing the Environmental
and Development Education Project for Teacher Education.
Tilbury ends her paper by calling for a 'realistic model' which can match up
the complexities of EE with the intricacies of teacher education programmes and
institutions and which is accompanied by '... sound strategies which will ensure
its development ...' within pre-service teacher education.
Priorities for Pre-service Programmesa tentative analysis
A Realistic Modelidentifying problems
What then might a 'realistic model' be? We have already noted that it will need
to be limited in nature and scope, but it is worth stressing here why we feel this
is necessary.
Our experience of our own pre-service programmes and that of colleagues
within the EEITE initiative suggests that any model needs to acknowledge that
in terms of the implementation of EE innovation, pre-service programmes tend
to be characterized by the features set out in Fig. 1.
Such a list appears daunting and conditions for the implementation of EE
within pre-service programmes are still far from perfect. But Law (1986) has
reminded us in his Critical Mass Theory of Innovation that this need not be
problematic. Law's theory has three propositions:
nothing is perfect and people who wait for perfect conditions to launch a new
initiative will wait forever;
there is always something that can be done;
perfection is not necessarywhen enough of the most-needed things have
been done, change will take place.
So, what might be 'the most needed things' with regard to the provision of EE
within pre-service programmes?
A Realistic Modelproposing some ways forward
222
1 * courses are short in duration and, because of this and because they are pre-experience courses, they tend to be
densely packed with content and timetabled activities; it is, therefore, likely to be difficult to find space in the
programme for new initiatives;
2 * the curriculum is already full of 'necessary' and fully 'justified' content which will be defended by special
interest groups whose motivation will be to increase the time allocated to their particular interests rather than
reduce it;
3 * EE is not seen as a real priority by curriculum planners and senior managers, even where they see it as
important; there are also initiatives whose claim to inclusion and preference will be seen by many groups as
being as valid as that of EE; Research does suggest that EE is much better placed in this regard than many other
would-be initiatives. See Bullock & Scott, (1991) p. 7.5;
4 * most tutors are currently not willing to incorporate EE within their specialist subject didactics programmes,
even if they could see some justification for doing so; nor are they able to because they lack the skills,
awareness and motivation to do so;
5 * novice teachers have their own sets of priorities which they bring with them from prior experience of diverse
lands; these tend not to put EE near the top of their own developmental agendas; they, therefore, tend not to
push institutions to provide EE programmes;
6 t novice teachers have not seen EE prioritized by their own educational experiences, and are motivated through
pre-service courses by the need to develop their own competence as a teacher, curriculum foci tend to come a
distant second to this need, particularly in the early stages of a course;
7 * institutional policies might exist, but are unlikely to be fully followed through into practice because the
motivation for and enthusiasm about policies is rarely developed or backed up by implementation strategies;
policies are, by and large, cheaper than practice;
8 courses tend to be reliant on experience in schools to further and nurture the professional development of the
novice teacher, where EE is firmly and positively located within a school curriculum, novices can tap into that
experience and learn through contributing to programmes. Unfortunately, not all schools are in this position
and even where they are, schools need to see such experience as being of formative and seminal experience for
the novice.
223
adopt policies and generally validate, monitor and evaluate courses and programmes because of internal and external (statutory) requirements are also open
to persuasion. Unlike, an approach to senior management, this is likely to need
a formal approach through position papers and the like. Such boards, however,
are also susceptible to the push of external persuasion, particularly where
membership is not wholly confined to the higher education institution. Their
influence is due, in large part, to the fact that their approval of an initiative can
confer considerable respectability and status on an initiative.
The course team and course management. These are significant 'gatekeepers' to
any innovation and any internal push will need to persuade this group. It is here
that battles are likely to be fought (and lost) over the allocation and prioritisation
of curriculum time and where arguments must be won if EE is to be seen as an
entitlement for all novices teachers. For success here, there needs to be clarity in
the defining of purposes and practice, precision in the timetabling and organizational requirements and, critically, a shared understanding gained through
co-operative endeavours.
Individual subject didactics tutors. It is here that most flexibility exists. Wherever
individual tutors are both willing and able to deliver EE goals through their
particular programmes, there are few logistical or other reasons why this is not
possible. Tilbury (1993) has researched and written in some detail about such
issues and in particular about the roles of tutors in innovation relating to EE
within pre-service programmes.
In terms of innovation, the analysis in Fig. 2 shows the extent of the changes
which are needed. As most tutors begin in Al (indifferent and unaware), there
is a need to shift to B2 (interested and aware). There is, therefore, a need for a
diagonal shift, implying an emphasis on both cognitive and affective issues in any
development strategy. Further movement upwards or rightwards is unnecessary
and potentially wasteful. The imperative, for the use of scarce resources, is to
increase the number of tutors in the B2 position and then to support their
growing expertise and interest through appropriate staff development.
The significant question here is, how might this transition most appropriately
be effected? The research report in Thinking Futures: making space for environmental education in ITEa handbook for educators (Bullock et al, 1995) points one route
224
specialist
A
3
888888888888888
888888888888889
888888S88888888
888888888888888
888888888888888
888888888888888
TV
a
r
e
n
e
s
aware
1
unaware
indifference
interest
enthusiasm
C o m m i t m e n t
>
FIG. 2. An analysis of the innovation limits in terms of tutor awareness and commitment.
forward. Bullock and her co-workers report and comment on a staff development initiative where a number of subject didactics tutors from varying disciplines worked together with experts and resource support from the Worldwide
Fund for Nature in a conscious attempt to make the diagonal shift discussed
above.
The outcomes of this development suggest that resources and conditions
needed for such a shift are eight-fold and need to be organised in three phases.
This is shown in Fig. 3.
Phase 1 itself might usefully occur in more than one stage and could be
integrated with the beginnings of Phase 2, rather than requiring a strict sequence. This model is very flexible and adaptable. Where an internal expert
consultant is available, it can also be relatively cheap.
Partnership schools. Given that the prime purpose of having environmentally
educated teachers is to further EE in schools, it seems appropriate to involve
schools and teachers in the practice of EE within pre-service courses. Where
particular expertise resides in a school, that should be drawn upon, and where
EE courses are run in schools, every opportunity should be taken to involve
novice teachers.
Even where none of this is found, every school affords the interested novice
the opportunity of experimenting and trying out approaches in their own subject
areas, subject only to the acquiescence of the school or subject department in this
process. However, where such approval is not found, or where the idea is
dismissed, very strong negative messages are given to novices. The argument
here, of course, is for EE developments within pre- and in-service work to be
concerted around IT-INSET work in partnership schools.
Novice teachers. Novice teachers are obviously a key focus of this work, but are
also crucial participants in the innovation. There are two issues here. Firstly, part
Phase
225
tutors willing to come together and explore ideas time for working together as a group on EE
the initiative
appropriate resources; some of these will be EEspecialist materials; others will be subject- or
phase-specific
Phase
2
consultant
consultant
Phase
Aims and outcomes. In terms of aims and outcomes, we need to consider what the
desired outcomes of our limited ambitions for EE within pre-service programmes ought to be and to ask what might environmentally educated teachers
have done and what skills or awareness might they have by the end of, say, a
one year course? The answers to questions such as these will determine what
limits the pre-service course should realistically set itself.
Finding responses to these questions has been at the heart of the EEITE project
(Brinkman & Scott, 1994). Project members have drawn up a series of organisational principles which they feel should underpin the work of pre-service
courses in this regard. These are set out in the following case study.
226
This case study sets out a number of organisational principles which are
explicated in the form of course aims, programme elements and didactics characteristics which might inform the work of pre-service teacher education.
The course aims are:
as a result of pre-service teacher education programmes novice teachers
should be both willing and able to make a contribution to environmental
education through their own work with learners;
willing in a sense that they understand the importance of environmental
education and have a personal commitment to it which is both practical
and intellectual;
able in a sense that they have a repertoire of management of change and
curriculum innovation strategies upon which they can draw in co-operation with others.
The EEITE project recognises that these are ambitious aims and in order to
achieve them, preservice programmes will need to contain two elements. For the
sake of clarity these elements are listed here separately. This should not be taken
to mean that these will necessarily be separate in practice; rather, tutors will
have the responsibility of deciding the inter-relationships between these (and
other) elements for themselvesand for determining patterns of organization
and support their development work will have. Rather than stifle innovation
here, it will be necessary to encourage diversity and to monitor practice in order
to gain insights into the transferability of particular approaches and programme
designs between institutions.
The two programme elements are:
(I) aims and practice
a consideration of the aims and practice of environmental education, particularly as it relates to compulsory schooling;
an examination of curriculum practice and extra-curriculum opportunities and
the desired learning outcomes associated with these;
the identification of these characteristics which mark out curriculum activity
as contributing to environmental education;
an exploration of particular strategies and approaches which can be employed
in environmental education;
(II) personal experience in environmental education
working with teachers and children in schools on suitably small-scale activities;
evaluating this practice and building on the foundations laid through
reflection and systematic planning;
in particular, evaluating the effects of this practice on both their own and
children's awareness of the possibilities and priorities of environmental education.
It is necessary to emphasise the incremental and iterative nature of such
developments and the consequent necessity of taking a small-step approach,
coupled with a focus on the management of intervention and change.
227
228
also Chair of the Association for Teacher Education in Europe (ATEE) Working
Group on Environmental Education and Initial Teacher Education. Correspondence: University of Bath, School of Education, Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY,
UK.
NOTE
[1] This paper uses the term 'environmental education' because its focus is on late 1980s/early
1990s UNESCO-UNEP literature, where the term is consistently found. The authors are
aware, however, that were such literature to be generated today, a term such as the IUCN's
'education for sustainable living' might well be used in place of environmental education,
but have chosen to keep the original terminology to avoid unnecessary confusion. The
issues which the paper addresses remain pertinent, whatever the term used.
REFERENCES
BRINKMAN, F.G. & SCOTT, W.A.H. (Eds) (1994) Environmental Education into Initial Teacher
Education in Europe (EEITE) 'The State of the Art', ATEE Cahiers no. 8 (Brussels, Association
of Teacher Education in Europe).
BULLOCK, K.M. & SCOTT, W.A.H. (Eds) (1991) Student Primary Teachers: their economic and
industrial background, understanding and attitudesan investigation (Halifax, EATE).
BULLOCK, K.M., ENGLISH, T., OULTON, C.R. & SCOTT, W.A.H. (1995) Reflections on an environmen-
tal education staff development initiative for teacher educators, in: P. CHAMPAIN & S. INMAN
(Eds) Thinking Futures: making space for environmental education in ITEa handbook for educators, in press (Godalming, Worldwide Fund for Nature).
CHAMPAIN, P. & INMAN, S. (Eds) (1995) Thinking Futures: making space for environmental education
in ITEa handbook for educators, in press (Godalming, Worldwide Fund for Nature).
FIEN, J. (1993) Sustainable development challenges for teacher education: an Australian case
study, paper presented to a Unesco-SEAMES Seminar, Penang.
FIEN, J. (1994) Learning to teach for a sustainable world: two Asia-Pacific projects in environmental education for teacher education, paper presented to the ATEE Annual Conference,
Prague.
HUNGERFORD, H.R., VOLK, T.L., DIXON, B.G., MARCINKOWSKI, T.J. & ARCHIBALD, P.C. (1988) An
environmental education approach to the training of elementary teachers: a teacher education programme, International Environmental Education Programme; environmental education
series no. 17 (Paris, UNESCO-UNEP).
KANTER, R.M. (1983) The Change Masters (London, Allen & Unwin).
LAW, B. (1986) The Pre-vocational Franchise: organizing community linked education for adult and
working life (London, Harper and Row).
MARCINKOWSKI, T.J., VOLK, T.L. & HUNGERFORD, H.R. (1990) An environmental education ap-
education of teachers in Europe and an instructional model for furthering this education,
Journal of Environmental Education, 12, pp. 3-10.
229
TILBURY, D. (1992) Environmental education within pre-service teacher education: the priority of
priorities, International Journal of Environmental Education and Information, 11, pp. 267-280.
TILBURY, D. (1993) Environmental education: developing a model for initial teacher education,
PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.
UNESCO-UNEP (1990) Environmentally educated teachers the priority of priorities? Connect,
XV(1), pp. 1-3.
UNESCO-UNEP (1992) UNCED: the Earth summit, Connect, XVII(2), pp. 1-7.
WILKE, R.J., PEYTON, R.B. & HUNGERFORD, H.R. (1987) Strategies for the training of teachers in
environmental education, International Environmental Education Programme; environmental education series no. 15 (Paris, UNESCO-UNEP).
WILLIAMS, R. (1992) Report of a survey of the provision for environmental education in initial
teacher training, Environmental Education and Teacher educationpreparing for change and
participation (Sussex University, Education Network for Environment and Development).
Appendix
Foundational Competencies in Professional Education
230
231