This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 11:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Environmental Education ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20

An empirical test of self-determinationtheory as a guide to fosteringenvironmental motivationRebekka Darner aa Department of Biology , University of Florida , Gainesville , FL ,USAPublished online: 04 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: Rebekka Darner (2012) An empirical test of self-determination theory as aguide to fostering environmental motivation, Environmental Education Research, 18:4, 463-472,DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2011.638739

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.638739

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

An empirical test of self-determination theory as a guide tofostering environmental motivation

Rebekka Darner*

Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

(Received 12 May 2009; final version received 28 October 2011)

A goal of most environmental education is to motivate students toward environ-mentally friendly behaviour change. This article describes a study that elucidateshow such motivation can be fostered in the classroom. It compared students’development of environmental motivation in a conventional post-secondary envi-ronmental biology course and a similar course guided by self-determination theory(SDT). Students in the SDT-guided course experienced less amotivation after thecourse than students in the comparison section. This article presents a preliminaryempirical examination of the utility of SDT in a formal environmental educationsetting.

Keywords: environmental motivation; proenvironmental behaviour; self-determination theory

Introduction

Background

Self-determination theory (SDT) is a macrotheory of human motivation used byresearchers practising in various fields (Deci 2008; Deci and Ryan 2000; Ryan andDeci 2002). SDT claims that behaviours are regulated in five different ways, result-ing in a continuum of motivational types that differ in quality (Figure 1; Ryan 1995;Ryan and Deci 2000a, 2002). An individual experiences amotivation when there isno impetus toward a behaviour. Behaviours arising from external regulation are per-formed to avoid a punishment or to procure a reward. Introjected regulation causes abehaviour to be linked to one’s self esteem, so such behaviours are performed toavoid guilt or shame. When an individual has identified behaviours that he wouldlike to integrate into his identity but has yet to completely do so, these behavioursarise through identified regulation. Integrated regulation results in behaviours thathave been successfully integrated into a person’s identity, so that she feels thebehaviours arise from the self. Finally, behaviours that are performed merely for thepleasure the behaviour provides are intrinsically regulated, and they arise withinthe self. Behaviours that result from either integrated or intrinsic regulation are saidto be self-determined, and these behaviours are most likely to be consistent, long-lasting and persistent if they become more difficult. When environmental educatorsattempt to foster motivation toward proenvironmental behaviours, such as recycling,

*Email: rdarner@ufl.edu

Environmental Education ResearchVol. 18, No. 4, August 2012, 463–472

ISSN 1350-4622 print/ISSN 1469-5871 online� 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.638739http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

27 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

integrated regulation of those behaviours is the goal, so that students feel they actproenvironmentally of their own volition, even when the behaviour is not particularlypleasurable. Theoretically, some proenvironmental behaviours may occur throughintrinsic regulation because the individual truly gains pleasure from the experience.When a person’s proenvironmental behaviours are either integrated or intrinsicallyregulated, she is said to be experiencing environmental self-determination, in whichshe feels her proenvironmental behaviours arise from and are an expression of the self.

According to SDT, behaviours come to be self-determined when they are valuedin a social context that fulfils an individual’s three basic psychological needs (Deciand Ryan 2000; Ryan 1995). Therefore, if an environmental education experience isto foster environmental self-determination, the educational context must fulfil stu-dents’ basic psychological needs, as defined within SDT. According to the theory,the three basic psychological needs are autonomy, competence and relatedness (Deciand Ryan 1990, 2000; Ryan and Deci 2000b). The need for autonomy refers to thehuman need to feel that the origin of the one’s behaviour exists within the self. Theneed for competence refers to the human need to control outcomes and feel effec-tive in bringing about desired outcomes. The need for relatedness refers to thehuman need to feel a sense of belonging in a social group.

Generally, social contexts that involve opportunities for choice, explanations fornecessary and reasonable rules and lack of hyper-surveillance tend to support auton-omy (Deci and Ryan 2000). A person is likely to feel effective toward accomplish-ing a goal when he is presented with an optimally challenging situation, or aproblem that both uses and extends one’s knowledge base. This supports his senseof competence (Ryan 1995). Relatedness is supported in social contexts in whichan individual feels welcomed, necessary and free to be oneself (Ryan and Deci2000b).

Consideration of students’ basic psychological needs implies that environmentaleducation should contain several elements if it is to be successful in fostering self-determined proenvironmental behaviours. Darner (2009) explores these elements ofinstruction extensively, but to summarize, to support students’ competence, studentsshould be engaged in action training in which they have opportunities in the curric-ulum to discuss how and why to perform certain behaviours and the likely effec-tiveness of those behaviours, based on scientific principles. Also, engaging studentsin authentic environmental problem-solving activities, in which the problems areoptimally challenging situations as defined above, are likely to support students’sense of competence. In other words, problems presented to students should be tai-lored to their conceptions about environmental issues, so that problems simulta-neously make use of students’ skill sets and extend their understanding of the issue.To support autonomy, instructors should avoid coercion and guilt, and let studentspropose and explain their own proenvironmental behaviours and then choose forthemselves how they should behave. Finally, students’ sense of relatedness should

Figure 1. SDT continuum of motivational, regulation and behaviour types.Source: Modified from Ryan and Deci (2002).

464 R. Darner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

27 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

be supported by a classroom culture that values every member’s input and wel-comes diverse perspectives.

Few studies have explored the utility of SDT in an environmental educationcontext. Legault and Pelletier (2000) investigated the effect of a year-long environ-mental education programme on students’ and parents’ extrinsic motivation towardproenvironmental behaviours. They found that students participating in the pro-gramme (and their parents) experienced less extrinsic motivation toward suchbehaviours than those of the control group who only learned about environmentalissues in the natural sciences context (Legault and Pelletier 2000). This indicatesenvironmental education certainly has a role to play in at least decreasing extrinsicmotivation toward proenvironmental behaviours. Covitt (2006) measured self-deter-mination as a predictor for attitudes toward service-learning and found that indeed,when students perceived greater choice of service learning projects, they had morefavourable attitudes toward service-learning. This supports the notion that studentchoice is an important aspect of students’ environmental self-determination, and thatit is certainly a component that should be included in environmental education cur-ricula. As discussed earlier, Darner (2009) proposes several elements of curriculathat, according to SDT, would likely foster environmental self-determination. Thisstudy documents the first empirical examination of these elements of environmentaleducation. However, this study is unique in that it provides an empirical test of theuse of SDT to inform environmental education curricular design.

Research setting

This study took place at a community college that serves approximately 15,000 stu-dents (San Diego City College [SDCC] 2004) in a large city in California, USA. Inthe college’s service area, 36.2% of the residents have earned a college degree. Thiscontrasts with 42.6% having earned a degree in the city as a whole (SDCC 2004)and 36% statewide (National Center for Higher Education Management Systems2005). Sixty-six per cent of the college’s students qualify for financial aid (SDCC2004). Forty-five per cent of the college’s students intend to transfer to a four-yearinstitution (SDCC 2004).

Data were collected from two sections of Biology 101: Issues in EnvironmentalBiology. One section served as a comparison group and will be referred to as thecomparison section. The other section, called the SDT-guided section, was taughtfrom an approach informed by SDT and will be fully described shortly.

Biology 101 is an introductory course for non-majors and is transferable to four-year institutions as a laboratory science credit. The course has both classroom andlaboratory components. In both sections of the course, students met twice a week for75min for the classroom portion and once a week for 185min for the laboratory por-tion. There are no science prerequisites for the course, although students must passtwo English courses with a C or better or obtain a satisfactory score on a writing skillsplacement exam. The course does not serve as a prerequisite for any other course. Thecourse catalogue states that this course addresses ‘contemporary issues in environmen-tal biology’ including ‘basic ecological principles, biodiversity, human populationdynamics, human resource management, and pollution’ (SDCC 2005/2006, 120). Thecourse emphasized local environmental issues and involved field trips. In order to besuccessful in the course, students were expected to spend 3–7 h per week outside ofclass completing assignments, reading and reviewing course material.

Environmental Education Research 465

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

27 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Both sections covered the same topics and spent approximately the sameamount of time on each topic. Both sections used the seventh edition of the text,Environmental Science: A Systems Approach to Sustainable Development by Chiras(2001), which was supplemented by a department-written guide entitled Biology101 Laboratory and Lecture Guide (Singer et al. 2005). Both sections involved fiveexams. Each instructor completed an instructor questionnaire describing theirinstruction. Generally, the two sections differed in how they made use of lecture,included community resources, included student choice and addressed environmen-tal problem solving (Table 1).

The comparison section was taught by the usual instructor of Biology 101 whohas been teaching the course for several years and consistently receives praise fromhis students on instructor/course evaluations. This section was taught primarilythrough lecture and whole class discussion, as indicated by the completed instructorquestionnaire (Table 1). Laboratory activities were predetermined and demonstratedthe phenomena addressed in lectures. The exams in the comparison section includedshort answer, matching and multiple-choice questions, concept-mapping and 5-part-analysis problems. This section also involved 15-min quizzes given each week inthe lecture portion of the course, except for weeks involving exams. Lab quizzeswere given at the end of each laboratory period with the exception of those labora-tory periods that were field trips guided by someone other than the instructor, inwhich case students were asked to write a thank-you letter to the guide explainingwhat was learned. Extra credit was offered in the comparison section.

The author taught the SDT-guided section of the course. The lecture portion ofthis section involved problem-solving activities, whole class and small group dis-cussions, and limited but student-guided lecture. In this section, three general phasescomprised each unit. In the first phase, the scientific and social aspects of a newcurricular topic were introduced by looking at the environmental issue through aneveryday resource, such as a local newspaper article, interviews of communitymembers, guest speakers from the community or a field trip. The introduction con-cluded with a summarizing whole class discussion. The introduction was followedby a problem set that highlighted a local environmental issue, which exemplifiedthe topic(s) addressed in the unit. For each problem set, student groups were givena prompt asking them to consider and discuss a situation and devise a solution orexplanation for the phenomenon being addressed by the problem. Student groupsthen shared their explanations with the class in a whole class discussion. This pro-cess was repeated several times, depending on the particular problem set; each sub-sequent prompt generated further exploration of the problem. To conclude eachunit, both scientific and social aspects of the problem were addressed in a lectureprimarily guided by Socratic questioning. Students were encouraged to reflect onthe problem-solving activity, ask related questions, use their everyday knowledge toconstruct solutions to the environmental issue addressed, and finally, answer reflec-tion questions in a journal.

Assessment in the SDT-guided section was accomplished through five exams,laboratory worksheets/homework, reflection writing, a group project and participa-tion in class discussions. Exams were composed of short-answer, multiple-choice,multiple-choice with explanation and essay questions. Students performed bothclassroom and laboratory activities in the same groups which were determined atthe beginning of the semester through the use of the 15-item new ecological para-digm (NEP; Dunlap et al. 2000), which measures proenvironmental orientation (or

466 R. Darner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

27 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table

1.Instructionalfeatures

oftheSDT-guided

andcomparisonsections,as

describedby

theinstructors.

Instructionalfeature

SDT-guided

instructor

Com

parisoninstructor

Purpose

oflecture

Givesciencecontentto

studentsin

response

tospecific

studentinquiries;addressstudents’misconceptio

nsabout

sciencecontent

Givesciencecontentto

students;addressstudents’

misconceptio

nsaboutsciencecontent;give

science

contentto

studentsin

response

toform

ativeassessment

errors

Use

ofoutsideresources

Field

tripsto

locatio

nsin

thecommunity

that

arerelevant

totopics

beingaddressedin

class;guestspeakers

who

hold

expertisethat

isrelevant

totopics

beingaddressedin

class;newspaper

articlesfrom

thelocalcommunity

that

addressrelevant

topics;interviewsof

students’family

mem

bers/friends/acquaintances

who

hold

expertisethat

isrelevant

totopics

addressedin

class

Field

tripsto

locatio

nsin

thecommunity

that

arerelevant

totopics

beingaddressedin

class;newspaper

articlesfrom

thelocalcommunity

that

addressrelevant

topics;outside

projectssuch

as‘the

vacant

lot’studyandservicelearning

Student

choice

Offer

studentschoice

onhow

tocompleteassignments

andhow

tosolvescientific/environm

entalproblems

Offer

studentschoice

onhow

tocompleteassignments

andtype

ofoutsideprojectsthey

complete

Emphasisof

proenvironmental

behaviours

Ask

studentsto

brainstorm

behaviours

that

may

bebeneficial

towardaparticular

environm

entalproblem;ask

studentsto

give

explanations

forwhy

certainbehaviours

may

bebeneficial

towardaparticular

environm

ental

problem

Tellstudentsbehaviours

andevidence

fortheconsequence

ofthosebehaviours

Environmentalproblem

solving

Introduceproblemsto

studentsandprom

ptthem

todevise

plausiblescientificexplanations/solutions

totheproblem

totheirclassm

ates,afterwhich

theclassdiscusses

students’explanations/solutions

Describeto

studentstheenvironm

entalproblem

andthe

scientificexplanation/solutio

nto

theproblem

Environmental Education Research 467

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

27 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

lack thereof). Heterogeneous groups of 3–4 students were formed according toresponses on the NEP. This was done to avoid having a group(s) that only con-tained students who do not care about the environment and the issues addressed inthe course.

Student groups were required to do a project in which they investigated boththe social and scientific aspects of an environmental issue of their choosing, con-struct an environmental action plan, share their findings and plan with the class,and develop and lead a classroom activity. At the beginning of the course, after stu-dent groups had been established, student groups were given time to review the syl-labus and decide which topic they wanted to investigate. Their presentation andactivity were worked into the course when the content was being addressed accord-ing to the syllabus.

Research question

I asked to what extent does an SDT-guided environmental biology course differfrom a non-SDT-guided course in the degree to which it fosters self-determinationtoward proenvironmental behaviours. The comparison and SDT-guided sectionsdescribed above were used to answer this question. The significant differencebetween the sections was not the absolute presence and absence of factors thoughtto support students’ basic psychological needs because the comparison sectionindeed contained elements, such as field trips and student choice, which likely sup-ported students’ basic psychological needs. The real difference lay in the instruc-tors’ explicit goals (Table 3). The comparison group’s instructor indeed valuedmotivation toward proenvironmental behaviour but did not explicitly attempt to sup-port students’ basic psychological needs, as defined by SDT. The SDT-guidedinstructor, however, attempted to support those needs while teaching the samecourse. It is quite likely that the instructor of the comparison group supported stu-dents’ basic psychological needs while not explicitly meaning to do so. For ethicalreasons it was not possible to expose the students in the comparison group to animpoverished learning environment by attempting to remove all factors hypothe-sized to support students’ basic psychological needs. It was assumed that anapproach informed by SDT and explicitly attempting to support students’ needscontained more of these factors than one not informed by SDT but was still effec-tive. I hypothesized that the SDT-guided approach would be more effective inincreasing environmental self-determined motivation, as measured by the motivationtoward the environment scale (MTES; Pelletier et al. 1998; Villacorta, Koestner,and Lekes 2003).

Methods

Design

This study utilizes a quasi-experimental design in which two sections of anenvironmental course receive two different curricular treatments. One section istaught relatively conventionally while the other attempts to foster environmentalself-determination by incorporating curricular elements suggested by Darner (2009).Both treatments are administered the MTES psychological instrument, to bedescribed shortly, at the beginning, end and six months following the course.

468 R. Darner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

27 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Instrument

The MTES is a 24-item questionnaire that measures an individual’s motivationtoward proenvironmental behaviours. The instrument consists of six subscales thatcorrespond to the regulation types posited by SDT: intrinsic motivation, integratedregulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation and amo-tivation (Pelletier et al. 1998). The instrument begins with participants listing behav-iours they do in favor of the environment. The 24 items consisted of reasons whythey do those listed behaviours. For example, an item on the intrinsic motivationsubscale is: ‘For the pleasure I experience while I am mastering new ways of help-ing the environment,’ which the participant would then rank the degree to whichshe agrees on a seven-point Likert scale. Four items correspond to each of the sixsubscales. Villacorta, Koestner, and Lekes (2003) further validated the MTES bydemonstrating environmental self-determination is distinct from self-determinationin other domains such as academics and politics.

Sample

The sample consisted of 27 Biology 101: Issues in Environmental Biology studentswho were non-randomly distributed among two sections of the course. TheSDT-guided section contained 20 students, 15 of whom participated in the study. Theconventional section contained 17 students, 12 of whom participated in the study. Inthe SDT-guided section, there were 7 males and 8 females, while the 12 participantsin the conventional section were evenly split according to sex. Finally, participantswere asked to self-identify ethnicity, indicating an ethnically diverse sample (Table 2).

In the SDT-guided section, two students were in the 30–39 age range, and allothers were in the 18–29 age range. In the comparison section, two students were inthe 30–39 age range; one student was in the 40–49 age range, and all others were inthe 18–29 age range. Ten of the 15 participants in the SDT-guided section were first-generation college students (i.e. first in their family to go to college). Eight of the 12participants in the comparison section were first-generation college students.

Data collection

I asked to what extent does an SDT-guided environmental biology course differfrom a non-SDT-guided course in the degree to which it fosters environmental self-determined motivation. This question was answered by administering the MTES(Pelletier et al. 1998; Villacorta, Koestner, and Lekes 2003) to participants in theSDT-guided and comparison sections at the beginning, end, and six monthsfollowing the course.

For the first two administrations of the MTES, a fellow educator distributed thequestionnaires, read the instructions aloud, gave students an opportunity to ask

Table 2. Demographic information for participants in the SDT-guided and comparisonsections.

Section Total Male Female Latino/a Asian Black White Multiracial

SDT-guided 15 7 8 6 3 1 3 3Comparison 12 6 6 5 0 1 5 1

Environmental Education Research 469

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

27 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

questions and collected the questionnaires when they were finished. Participants’addresses and email addresses were collected at the end of the course so that thefinal questionnaire could be mailed to the participants. A pre-stamped, addressedenvelope was included with the questionnaire so that participants could mail thequestionnaire back. Emails were used if mailed questionnaires were not returned inthe mail. The second administration (at the end of the course) also included basicdemographic items.

Data analysis

In order to ensure the SDT-guided and non-SDT-guided sections were comparable,pre-test scores on all six subscales of the MTES were compared to find no statisti-cally significant differences. Due to the small sample size, the normality assumptioncould not be made, so Mann–Whitney U non-parametric tests were used for all ofthe following analyses. Differences in pre- and post-test scores on all subscales ofthe MTES were compared between the SDT-guided section and the non-SDT-guided section. Changes between the post-test scores and the final MTESadministration six months following the end of the course were also compared forall subscales.

Results

At the end of the course, there were 12 participants from the comparison sectionand 15 participants from the SDT-guided section (n= 27). The analysis comparingchanges in pre- and post-test scores between the two sections indicated no statisti-cally significant differences on any the MTES subscales, except for the amotivationsubscale (U(1) = 154, z=�3.1, P= .001).

Only six participants from the comparison section and 11 participants from theSDT-guided section (n= 17) returned the questionnaires that were mailed to themsix months following the end of the course. The comparison of the two sections’post-test and test administration six months following the course showed nostatistically significant differences on any of the subscales (Table 3).

Table 3. Means for the six motivation subscales as measured by three MTESadministrations in SDT-guided and comparison sections.

Pre-test Post-test +6Months

MTESsubscale

SDT(n= 15)

Comparison(n= 12)

SDT(n= 15)

Comparison(n= 12)

SDT(n= 11)

Comparison(n= 6)

Amotivation 9.0 6.2 5.6 6.4 7.6 5.3Externalregulation

7.3 8.0 7.1 8.5 8.2 8.3

Introjectedregulation

17.1 15.9 20.5 16.9 21.9 14.5

Identifiedregulation

23.4 23.8 25.1 24.2 25.7 23.2

Integratedregulation

16.7 15.7 22.5 18.9 22.0 18.3

Intrinsicmotivation

18.8 19.1 23.1 21.1 23.3 20.5

470 R. Darner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

27 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Discussion

The most relevant type of motivational regulation regarding environmental motiva-tion is integrated regulation. This is because this type of motivation determinesbehaviours that arise from the self but are not necessarily pleasurable in their ownright, such as many proenvironmental behaviours. Surprisingly, the two sectionsshowed no statistical difference in the degree to which they fostered this highlydesirable form of motivation. Also unexpected was that the measurable differencebetween the two approaches was in how they combated environmental amotivation,or lack of motivation toward proenvironmental behaviours, which environmentaleducators undoubtedly want to reduce. Students in the SDT-guided section experi-enced a more substantial decrease in amotivation toward proenvironmental behav-iours following the course, compared to students in the non-SDT-guided section.Furthermore, statistically insignificant differences between post-test scores and theadministration six months following the course indicate this positive outcome waspotentially long-lasting. These data imply that SDT-guided instruction is a poten-tially fruitful approach when trying to reduce environmental amotivation in the biol-ogy classroom.

This study points to several future avenues of inquiry that are likely to be fruit-ful. First, due to the small sample size used in this study, replicates with larger sam-ples are called for. Also, because this study looks at the effects of entire curriculartreatments, questions still remain about which elements of SDT-guided instructionare most effective in supporting any or all of the basic psychological needs, asdefined by SDT. Legault and Pelletier (2000) also faced this challenge when theyexamined the effects of a schoolwide environmental education programme and mea-sured its effects on both students’ and parents’ attitudes and self-determinationtoward the environment. Like the present study, their investigation also yielded lim-ited statistically significant findings, indicating that we have not yet learned aboutthe intricacies of a students’ development toward environmental self-determination.Rather, this and other studies call on environmental educators to make refined,detailed observations of specific curricular designs, events, processes and theireffects on students in order to pinpoint what aspects of the classroom environmenthelp students feel fulfilled regarding their basic psychological needs.

Covitt (2006) gives indication of some curricular features that are likely to sup-port students’ self-determination in the environmental education classroom. Forexample, when students had more opportunities to make choices and engage inreflection, they had more positive attitudes toward their service learning (Covitt2006). This was likely because being allowed to make choices supports student’ssense of autonomy (Deci and Ryan 2000; Ryan 1995), while reflection might helpstudents plan goal-oriented behaviour, thereby supporting their sense of competence.Nevertheless, a thorough investigation of specific teaching actions, curricular activi-ties and the nature of social interaction in environmental education classroomswould help to identify specific features of the classroom that foster or underminestudents’ developing self-determination toward the environment.

Conclusions

This paper documents the first empirical tests of SDT as guide to constructing envi-ronmental education that is aimed to foster environmental motivation and eliminatelack of motivation toward the environment. These preliminary results indicate this is

Environmental Education Research 471

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

27 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

a potentially effective approach toward this goal, although further research needs toverify these findings with a larger sample and investigate specific aspects ofSDT-guided instruction and how they contribute to environmental self-determination.

Notes on contributorRebekka Darner is a lecturer of biology at the University of Florida. Her research identifiesinstructional contexts that foster self-determination toward various behaviours, includingproenvironmental behaviours among life sciences students and effective teaching behavioursamong science graduate students. She also contributes to curricular reform and developmentfor the biology major at the University of Florida.

References

Chiras, D. 2001. Environmental science: Creating a sustainable future . 6th ed. Sudbury,MA: Jones & Bartlett.

Covitt, B.A. 2006. Self-determination and student perceptions in environmental service-learning. Applied Environmental Education and Communication 5, no. 3: 171–81.

Darner, R. 2009. Self-determination theory as a guide to fostering environmental motivation.Journal of Environmental Education 40, no. 2: 39–49.

Deci, E.L. 2008. Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, develop-ment and health. Canadian Psychology 49: 182–5.

Deci, E., and R. Ryan. 1990. A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality.In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation, ed. R.Dienstbier, pp. 237–88. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Deci, E., and R. Ryan. 2000. The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and theself-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11: 227–68.

Dunlap, R.E., K.D. Van Liere, A.G. Mertig, and R.E. Jones. 2000. Measuring endorsementof the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56:425–42.

Legault, L., and L. Pelletier. 2000. Impact of an environmental education program onstudents’ and parents’ attitudes, motivation, and behaviours. Canadian Journal ofBehavioural Sciences 32, no. 4: 243–50.

National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. 2005. As America becomesmore diverse: The impact of state higher education inequality, California state profile.http://www.higheredinfo.org/raceethnicity/California_State_Profile.pdf.

Pelletier, L., K. Tuson, I. Green-Demers, K. Noels, and A. Beaton. 1998. Why are youdoing things for the environment? The motivation toward the environment scale(MTES). Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28: 437–68.

Ryan, R. 1995. Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal ofPersonality 63: 397–427.

Ryan, R., and E. Deci. 2000a. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions andnew directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25: 54–67.

Ryan, R., and E. Deci. 2000b. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsicmotivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55: 68–78.

Ryan, R., and E. Deci. 2002. Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY:University of Rochester Press.

San Diego City College. 2004. Accreditation self study 2004: Demographics and history ofSan Diego City college. San Diego, CA: San Diego City College.

San Diego City College. 2005/2006. City college catalog. http://www.communitycollege.net/catalogs/city/.

Singer, D., M. Lebeffe, E. Brooks, and G. Wisehart. 2005. Biology 101 laboratory and lectureguide. San Diego, CA: San Diego City College.

Villacorta, M., R. Koestner, and N. Lekes. 2003. Further validation of the motivation towardthe environment scale. Environment and Behavior 35: 486–505.

472 R. Darner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

27 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014