students' mental models of the environment

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 44, NO. 2, PP. 327–348 (2007)

Students’ Mental Models of the Environment

Daniel P. Shepardson,1,2 Bryan Wee,1 Michelle Priddy,1 Jon Harbor2

1Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Purdue University,

100 North University St. West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-2098

2Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University,

100 North University St. West Lafayette, Indiana

Received 27 June 2005; Accepted 21 June 2006

Abstract: What are students’ mental models of the environment? In what ways, if any, do students’

mental models vary by grade level or community setting? These two questions guided the research reported

in this article. The Environments Task was administered to students from 25 different teacher-classrooms.

The student responses were first inductively analyzed in order to identify students’ mental models of the

environment. The second phase of analysis involved the statistical testing of the identified mental models.

From this analysis four mental models emerged: Model 1, the environment as a place where animals/plants

live—a natural place; Model 2, the environment as a place that supports life; Model 3, the environment as a

place impacted or modified by human activity; and Model 4, the environment as a place where animals,

plants, and humans live. The dominant mental model was Mental Model 1. Yet, a greater frequency of urban

students than suburban and rural students held Mental Model 3. The implications to environmental science

education are explored. � 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 44: 327–348, 2007

Historically American’s viewed the environment as a commodity, an inexhaustible resource

for their use and profit; few individuals were concerned about the environment (Nash, 1990):

� Thoreau, in the 1850s, who gave significance to nature;

� Muir’s efforts in the early 1900s led to a national sentiment for preserving wilderness

lands; and

� Leopold in the mid 1900s pioneered the land ethic, an understanding of the

interrelationships of organisms and the environment (Nash, 1990).

The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do

not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.

Contract grant sponsor: National Science Foundation (NSF); Contract grant number: 9819439-ESI.

Correspondence to: D. P. Shepardson; E-mail: [email protected]

DOI 10.1002/tea.20161

Published online 9 January 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

� 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Yet, it was not until Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (Carson, 1962) that public concern for the

environment emerged. This environmental concern manifested itself in the first Earth Day (1970),

the first report on environmental quality by the Council on Environmental Quality (1970), and the

passage of the National Environmental Education Act (1970). Today, public concern for

environmental protection continues; the U.S. population believes that environmental education is

important and that it has a positive impact on students’ understandings about the environment and

environmental issues (National Environmental Education Training Foundation [NEETF], 2005).

Many U.S. citizens, however, still lack basic knowledge about the environment and the

environmental issues facing the nation (NEETF, 2005).

Research in environmental education tends to focus on students’ factual knowledge about

environmental issues, their environmental attitudes and behaviors, and less on students’

conceptions of the environment; that is, while there are a number of studies that have investigated

students’ conceptions of environmental phenomena, events, and issues, few studies have looked

specifically at how students conceptualize the environment itself (Rickinson, 2001). Furthermore,

this limited research on students’ conceptualizations of the environment have been situated in

secondary schools abroad and have used relatively small sample sizes (Rickinson, 2001). Given

this knowledge gap, it is essential for research in environmental education to identify students’

conceptions about the environment (Payne, 1998).

We argue that students’ conceptualizations of the environment or their mental models of the

environment shape the ways in which they understand an environmental issue and guides their

environmental behaviors. In essence, to understand environmental issues, students must first

conceptualize what the environment is, the phenomena and processes that interact to shape and

characterize the environment. Consequently, the purpose of this study was to identify upper

elementary, middle school, and high school students’ conceptualizations or mental models of the

environment. Our study was guided by the following research questions:

(a) What are students’ mental models of the environment?

(b) In what ways, if any, do students’ mental models of the environment vary by grade level

or community setting?

This article elucidates students’ mental models of the environment, explores the importance

of these mental models in learning about the environment, and provides examples for how this

informs curricular planning and instructional design in the context of environmental science

education.

Significance of Study

It may be argued that if environmental science education is to improve citizens’

understandings about the environment and environmental issues, students must develop mental

models that are more closely aligned with scientific models. Thus, it is essential to grasp the

constructs that students use to explain the natural world around them—the environment. A deeper

understanding of students’ mental models allows educators to identify potential impediments to

learning (Ausubel, Novak, & Hanesian, 1978) and provides insight toward planning curriculum

and designing instruction that builds on students’ existing mental models. Effective learning

experiences require a curriculum that combines students’ conceptions with current scientific

understanding in a meaningful fashion, thereby allowing curriculum and instruction to be

sequenced in a way that encourages curricular continuity and moves students toward higher levels

of scientific literacy (Driver, Squires, Rushworth, & Wood-Robinson, 1994).

328 SHEPARDSON ET AL.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching. DOI 10.1002/tea

Background

In this section we provide a summary of the research on students’ conceptions of the

environment, together with a general overview of the literature on mental and conceptual models.

Although the research on students’ conceptions reported below was conducted within schools,

Rickinson (2001) noted that television and school serve as the two main sources of students’

environmental information. Television, in particular, provides students access to information

about environmental problems and issues through nature programs and movies. Thus, we

acknowledge that students’ conceptions of the environment are likely to be influenced by

television and other external sources as well as formal schooling.

Student’s Conceptualizations of the Environment

There are a number of studies that have investigated students’ conceptions of specific

environmental phenomena, events, and issues. For example: Gambro and Switzky (1996)

investigated students’ conceptions of energy, acid rain, and the greenhouse effect; Carderio and

Sayler (1994) looked at students’ conceptions about tropical rainforests and clearcutting; and

Boyes and Stanisstreet (1994, 1998) investigated students’ conceptions about ozone depletion.

Few studies, however, have looked at how students conceptualize the environment itself, and these

are reported below.

In an investigation of U.S. children’s conceptions of forest environments at the primary level,

Strommen (1995) noted that children’s conceptions consisted of prototypical forest animals (e.g.,

bears and wolves) and that their ideas about specific animals reflected animal-place (i.e., where

animals live) or animal-food (i.e., predator–prey) relationships. Although the children exhibited a

well-developed knowledge base about the different organisms (i.e., trees, animals, bugs) found in

a forest environment, their conception of the forest environment was ‘‘incomplete,’’ lacked a

structure, and consisted of misconceptions (Strommen, 1995, p. 695).

Loughland, Reid, and Petocz (2002) found that primary and secondary students in Australia

conceptualized the environment in six distinct ways: (1) the environment as a place; (2) the

environment as a place containing living things; (3) the environment as a place containing living

things and people; (4) the environment does something for people; (5) people are part of the

environment and are responsible for it; and (6) people and the environment are in a mutually

sustaining relationship. Littledyke (2004) also found that suburban students at the primary level in

the United Kingdom (UK) tended to associate the environment with animals; as a place where

animals live. Likewise, Alerby (2000) found that primary and secondary students in Sweden

thought about the environment in aesthetic terms, as a pristine and pure place that is not impacted

by humans. Students that included humans in the environment depicted people using the

environment for their benefit.

Students in Australia often thought about human impacts on the environment, specifically

pollution, when they conceptualized the environment (Walker, Brady, & Young, 1999). Similarly,

secondary age students in the UK identified anthropogenic rather than natural sources of

pollutants; that is, they were more likely to mention cars and factories belching smoke rather than

volcanic eruptions (Myers, Boyes, & Stanistreet, 1999, 2000). In other words, students’

conceptualizations were tied to ‘‘a visible and therefore concrete form of pollution’’ (Myers et al.,

2000, p.272). Students’ views about the environmental impact of air pollution tended to focus

heavily on humans (e.g., respiratory health) rather than on animals or plants (Myers et al., 1999,

2000) and air pollution was viewed to be worse in urban rather than rural areas (Myers et al., 2000).

In essence, students only see an environmental issue or concern in relation to a negative impact on

humans.

STUDENTS’ MENTAL MODELS 329


Several studies have investigated students’ conceptualizations of nature. For example, Wals

(1994) found that secondary students from inner-city Detroit conceptualized nature as a pristine

environment consisting of animals and plants. Similarly, Payne (1998) found that primary students

in Australia conceptualized nature as a pristine environment consisting of living and non-living

components; indeed, a place was no longer natural once it had been impacted or modified by

human activity. The environment, however, does not only consist of nature or natural places. The

Environmental Protection Agency (2004) (EPA) defines environment as the built environment as

well as the natural environment and all natural resources including air, land, and water. Studies that

have explored students’ conceptions of urban environments found that students were not able to

conceptualize living organisms inhabiting built-up areas (Membiela, Nogueiras, & Suarez, 1994)

and they did not consider urban areas to have wildlife (Simmons, 1994).

Rickinson (2001) concluded from his review of the literature that children perceive nature as a

natural and non-human entity; that is, nature is viewed as a place for recreation, leisure, and

solitude, as well as a place that is threatening and dangerous to people. Rickinson (2001) asserts

that students construct mental models about environmental phenomena based on their existing

ideas and that these mental models are rich in content but poorly structured.

Mental and Conceptual Models and P-Prims

In order to understand the world and its phenomena students construct internal

representations or mental models that are based on their prior knowledge, existing ideas or

conceptions, and past experiences; these mental models are useful or functional in that they allow

students to make predictions or explain phenomena or events (Greca & Moreira, 2000). These

mental models are always under construction and based on new knowledge, ideas, conceptions,

and experiences; they are personal, idiosyncratic, and often unstable (Greca & Moreira, 2000).

diSessa (1993), however, viewed students’ explanations of phenomena to be spontaneous

constructions based on elements of their existing knowledge structures or what he called

phenomenological primitives (p-prims). These p-prims are automatically and unconsciously used

by students to make meaning of phenomena and situations (diSessa, 1993). Thus in different

contexts students may use different p-prims to make meaning, to explain phenomena, events, or

situations. In this sense, p-prims are not mental models, but are isolated knowledge structures that

students use to make sense of the world.

On the other hand, scientific or conceptual models are precise, complete, and simplified

representations of phenomena based on scientifically accepted knowledge; they are external

representations shared by a community of practitioners (Greca & Moreira, 2000). Conceptual

models may be too simplistic or too complex for practical application or use (AAAS, 1990), which

is why it is important to acknowledge students’ mental models as equally valid, but alternative,

learning pathways in science. By eliciting students’ mental models, educators are able to reveal the

multiplicity of learning processes and turn science instruction into a more inclusive endeavor.

Because students come to science classrooms with different cultural, educational, and

personal experiences they each have different mental models (Glynn & Duit, 1995). Learning

science, in part, requires students to reflect on their existing mental models and to build conceptual

models (Glynn & Duit, 1995; Greca & Moreira, 2000; Libarkin, Beilfuss, & Kurdziel, 2003); it

involves the modification or restructuring of existing cognitive structures (Mintzes, Wandersee, &

Novak, 1998). This model building process is dependent on the complexity of the students’

existing mental model (Libarkin et al., 2003). Well developed and organized mental models allow

students to place new knowledge into existing models while poorly developed mental models may

be easily modified based on new experiences (Libarkin et al., 2003).



Theoretical and Methodological Framework

A constructivist perspective guided this study. Constructivism, as a research referent, aims to

understand the meanings constructed by students participating in context-specific activities using

language (Schwandt, 1994). Central to this study was the written language and symbols

(e.g., drawings) used by students to transmit meaning (Holstein & Gubrium, 1994) of the

environment. In this study, students respond through writing and drawing to written prompts and

photographs in the Environments Task. Students’ written language and drawings represent their

conceptions of the environment. These conceptions are contextualized by the task itself and

communicate the students’ construction of meaning at that point in time (Patton, 2002); that is,

they reflect the social, educational, and cultural experiences of the students.

Similarly, the authors construct an understanding of the language and symbols students used

to represent their conceptions of the environment—the authors create constructions about the

students’ constructions. Thus, meaning is not discovered in the students’ written language and

drawings, but constructed in the mind of the authors within a socio-cultural context. Therefore, the

codes, categories, and typologies constructed by the authors are shaped and colored by their

experiences and conceptions of the environment and are social constructions. Our interpretations

of the students’ responses, then, are just that, interpretations grounded in our experiences,

conceptions, and perspectives about the environment (Patton, 2002).

Furthermore, this study draws from Kress, Jewitt, Ogborn, and Tsatsarelis (2001); that

students’ written language and drawings serve as signs and symbols for representing and

communicating the meaning they construct of the environment. These signs and symbols carry

meanings that are motivated by the interests of the student making the signs or symbols and the

form they use to express that meaning (Kress et al., 2001). The signs and symbols, then, represent

the interest and intent of the student at that point in time; they reflect what the student views as

crucial and salient for their purpose in making the sign or symbol to represent their meaning (Kress

et al., 2001).

This study was descriptive in nature and reflected a cross-age survey (Driver, Leach, Millar, &

Scott, 1996) of students, involving the collection of qualitative data (i.e., student written and drawn

responses). This qualitative data was then analyzed for its content in an inductive manner to

identify concepts and patterns in student responses. This content analysis was followed with a

statistical analysis to determine the significance in the frequency of the identified student

conceptions. The cross-age survey was conducted with limited information about the social,

cultural, and educational experiences of the students and how these might influence students’

responses on the Environments Task. The benefit of a cross-age survey was that it allowed us to

collect data from students with varying degrees of experience, including school science, providing

us access to a breadth of student conceptions with varying degrees of sophistication (Driver et al.,

1996). This permitted the characterization of students’ conceptions of the environment over

different age groups, and allowed us to discover trends or patterns in students’ conceptions of the

environment. At the same time, this enabled us to compare our findings to those of other

researchers; however, identifying the factors that contribute to the development of students’

mental models of the environment is beyond the scope of this study.

Researchers’ Environmental Backgrounds

The authors hold diverse educational and experiential backgrounds pertaining to the

environment that provide a lens for interpreting the students’ responses. Shepardson’s educational

background includes a B.S. in Wildlife Science and a masters degree and Ph.D. that emphasized



ecological and environmental science content. He directed a small-scale study of the feeding

behavior of elk, was a member of a mountain lion research team, and conducted air quality and

other natural resource management studies for the National Park Service. In addition he worked

seasonally for the U.S. Forest Service. He served as the PI of the ENVISION project and teaches

the introductory environmental science course for elementary education majors and graduate level

courses in environmental education.

Wee majored in economics with a minor in wildlife science as an undergraduate before

moving on to a master’s degree in conservation biology. Currently, he is pursuing a doctoral degree

in geoenvironmental science education where his research is focused on children’s conceptualiza-

tions of land use. In addition, he has spent several years in the environmental field working at

national and state parks in the US and Singapore, teaching environmental science courses to

undergraduate and graduate students, and assisting in the development and implementation of

professional development programs for science teachers. Priddy has a Bachelor of Science

degree in Wildlife Science. She is currently pursuing her Master of Science in Education with a

specialization in Geoenvironmental Science Education. She is a seasonal naturalist at Grand Teton

National Park.

A Mental Model of the Environment

In order to appreciate how existing conceptions influence data interpretation, each of the

authors individually constructed a concept map of the environment. These concept maps were

relatively complex in that they consisted of numerous environmental entities and factors

interacting on several spatial and temporal scales. Nonetheless, the authors were able to agree on

the areas of overlap during group discussion, and the common themes that emerged from their

concept maps were: (a) the environment consists of anthropogenic and natural systems, processes,

and events and (b) different components of the environment are interdependent. Based on this

consensus, the authors generated a more holistic mental model of the environment (Figure 1).

ENVIRONMENTALISSUES, PROBLEMS AND

EVENTS

PROCESSES

NATURAL SYSTEMS HUMAN SYSTEMS

THE ENVIRONMENT

Figure 1. A mental model of the environment.



Specifically, the environment is composed of natural systems, human systems and processes that

interact in a non-linear fashion to create environmental issues, problems, and events. In this

context, natural systems consist of biotic and abiotic factors that influence rates of change in the

environment. Human systems are comprised of social, cultural, and political elements that

influence behaviors and human interactions with the environment. Processes are a combination of

both natural and anthropogenic actions that in turn, have an effect on human activities as well as

natural events. The dotted lines represent the dynamic and changing nature of the environment; it

is not static and neither are the relationships that exist between its various components.

Method

Sample

We employed a purposeful sampling strategy, sampling the classrooms of teachers who

participated in the ENVISION project (Shepardson et al., 2003). We opted to sample a large

number of students as this provided the advantage of sampling many respondents in order to

document the similarity, diversity, or variation in students’ conceptions of the environment;

facilitating the comparison and statistical analysis of the data (Patton, 2002).

The Environments Task was administered to students in 25 teacher-classrooms at different

grade levels in different community settings that represent a cross-sectional design. This provided

us with a large age range (grades 4 through 12) across multiple school settings and increased the

heterogeneity of the sample. Geographically, data were obtained from Colorado (5%), Indiana

(40%), Kansas (15%), Kentucky (5%), Michigan (10%), Minnesota (10%), Tennessee (10%), and

Wisconsin (5%). This provided us with a wide geographical sample.

Several teachers at the middle and high school level administered the task to multiple

classrooms. The student responses from these teachers were collapsed into a single teacher-

classroom sample. Of the 25 teacher-classrooms: 19% upper elementary, 57% middle school, and

24% high school. The classrooms also represented urban schools (16%), suburban schools (24%),

and rural schools (60%). We did not collect ethnicity or gender data. A total of 1,182 students

completed the draw and explain portion of the task and 877 completed the photograph portion of

the task. The difference in sample size was a result of two factors: (1) not all teachers administered

the photograph portion of the task and (2) not all student responses were legible or interpretable

and were therefore removed from data analysis.

The Environments Task

The Environments Task was designed as an idea eliciting task and was based on the interviews

about instances task (Osborne & Freyberg, 1985) as well as the draw and explain protocol (White

& Gunstone, 1992). Specifically, written prompts were used to elicit student responses and these

emphasized the students’ conceptions. A number of researchers have used such draw and explain

tasks as well as photographs to elicit students’ conceptions about environmental phenomena and

issues (e.g., Alerby, 2000; Anderson & Moss, 1993; Barraza, 1999; Bonnett & Williams, 1998;

Payne, 1998; Simmons, 1994).

The Environments Task is a two-part task. First students are asked to draw a picture of the

environment and to explain their drawing in their own words. Second, students are shown a series

of seven photographs (Figure 2) and asked: (a) to indicate if they think each photograph depicts the

environment and (b) to justify their responses in writing. The seven photographs represent



different natural and human-managed environments: desert, urban homes and sky scrapers, bears

in a stream, woodland stream, aerial view of a cornfield, industrial plant, and a deciduous forest.

The students’ drawings are conceptual visualizations or representations of their conceptions

of the environment. Drawings as representations are an active, deliberate meaning-making

process and, like words, are embodied with meaning (Alerby, 2000; Kress et al., 2001). The

students’ drawings, then, are representations of their mental models (Glynn & Duit, 1995) and

‘‘reveal qualities of understandings that are hidden from other procedures’’ (White & Gunstone,

1992, p. 99). Furthermore, it allows students who have difficulty expressing their ideas verbally or

in writing an opportunity to reveal their ideas (Rennie & Jarvis, 1995). The written portion allows

students to explain the drawings in their own words, and clarifies their conceptions of the

Figure 2. Photographs from the environments task.



environment for the authors. These written responses also allow the authors to validate meanings

constructed from students’ drawings.

A prototype of the Environments Task was administered to a sample of 20 seventh, 23 eighth,

and 25 ninth grade students as a field test. These students were primarily Caucasians from a rural

school in an agricultural community. As part of the field test students were interviewed about the

task and their responses. Based on this field test the task was modified slightly in its wording and

several photographs were deleted.

Data Collection

The Environments Task was administered to the students during the month of September.

Students completed the task during their regularly scheduled science time (elementary) or science

class. Each teacher was familiar with the task and its administration and had previously completed

the task themselves. The teachers administered the task to students prior to providing any formal

classroom instruction about the environment. As noted above, it is unknown what formal or

informal educational experiences these students had prior to completing the Environments Task.

Data Analysis

Data analysis involved two phases. The first phase involved a content analysis of students’

responses resulting in the identification of students’ mental models, and this process was inductive

in nature. The second phase of analysis involved the statistical testing of the identified mental

models within and across tasks and classrooms. The Chi-square test was used to statistically

determine the independence and goodness-of-fit of the mental models. These two phases of

analysis are described in detail below.

Content Analysis. The open-endedness of the Environments Task required an inductive

approach as students described through words and drawings what was meaningful and salient to

them. In order to identify students’ mental models the data were content analyzed using methods

of inductive analysis; that is, instead of searching for pre-determined patterns, themes were

allowed to emerge from the data as the authors interpreted students’ conceptions of the

environment (Patton, 2002). The following process details the analytical procedure described by

Rubin and Rubin (1995). We first coded the draw and explain portion of the task and then coded the

photograph portion of the task. From the first reading of the students’ responses core concepts

(codes) were identified. These initial codes were revised after a second reading. Descriptive

themes were constructed using the core concepts that emerged from students’ responses at

different grade levels, from different geographical locations, and community settings within and

across the two components of the task. The codes were placed into categories and the categories

were grouped into typologies that reflected the students’ mental models. The data were analyzed

for confirming and discrepant situations.

The two parts of the Environments Task ensured credibility (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, &

Allen, 1993) in the data collection and analysis process. This also provided synchronic reliability

(Kirk & Miller, 1986) in that the different parts of the task allowed us to interpret the consistency in

students’ responses. Each part of the task is equivalent in its content focus, yet different in the

manner by which it elicits students’ conceptions of the environment. This difference allows

students’ concepts to be checked against each other, providing a degree of triangulation. Students’

conceptions were also triangulated across different grade levels, geographic regions, and



community settings. To ensure consistency in coding, an inter-rater reliability coefficient was

calculated by comparing the authors’ coding of 10 randomly selected Environments Tasks. The

inter-rater reliability coefficients for the draw and explain and photograph components of the task

were 0.80 and 0.89, respectively. Coding was monitored throughout to ensure consistency and

reliability.

Statistical Analysis. We employed the Chi-square test to determine statistical significance of

the frequency of the identified mental models across task and classrooms. All Chi-square tests

were run using Microsoft Excel. We first compared the frequency of the mental models across both

tasks to determine if the tasks (i.e., draw and explain, photographs) were similar in eliciting

students’ mental models using a 2� 4 matrix (task�mental model). Next we compared the

frequency of the mental models for each task across classrooms (teachers) to determine the

stability of the mental models using a 25� 4 matrix (classroom�mental model) for each task.

These initial Chi-square tests allowed us to determine the validity of the identified mental models

based on statistical significance; that is, if the mental models reflected the data, then there should

be no significant difference in the frequencies of the mental models across task or classrooms.

Although there should be no significant difference in the overall frequencies of the mental

models, it is possible that the frequencies of the mental models may differ by grade level or

community setting. Thus, to answer our second research question we conducted a series of

Chi-square tests partitioning the data by grade level and community setting. To compare the

frequency of the mental models across grade level (i.e., upper elementary, middle school, and high

school) we constructed a 3� 2 matrix (grade level� task) for each mental model. To compare

the frequency of the mental models across community setting (i.e., rural, suburban, urban) a 3�2 matrix (community setting� task) was constructed for each mental model. In order to determine

if a significant difference existed between the mental models we conducted a Chi-square test

comparing the frequencies of each mental model. This would statistically determine the goodness-

of-fit of the data and if students held a prevalent mental model of the environment.

Results

We first present the results of our inductive analysis, identifying the 12 emergent categories

that reflected the students’ mental models. Next we report the results of our statistical analysis of

the distribution of students’ mental models across different data partitions: grade level and

community setting.

Students’ Mental Models of the Environment

From the inductive analysis we identified 32 codes or concepts that we grouped into

12 different categories of student responses on the draw and explain and photograph portions of

the Environments Task (Table 1). Next we grouped the 12 categories into 4 typologies that

reflected these students’ mental models of the environment:

� Model 1: a place where animals/plants live—a natural place

� Model 2: a place that supports life (animal, plant, and human)

� Model 3: a place impacted or modified by human activity or intervention

� Model 4: a place where animals, plants, and humans live



Description of Mental Model 1. Mental Model 1, a place where animals and plants live—a

natural place reflected student conceptions that the environment consists of living and nonliving

components (not including humans), or was a place where energy is transformed and matter

cycled. This mental model consisted of the following five categories: (1) a place where plants and

animals live; (2) the environment as a natural place; (3) the environment as consisting of living and

nonliving components; (4) the cycling of matter; and (5) energy transfer. In all cases, the

environments drawn were natural places which excluded humans and built or managed environ-

ments (Figure 3). The category, a place where plants and animals live, reflected 35% of the student

responses (Table 1) and is illustrated in Figure 3. The student has drawn a picture of trees, birds, an

owl, and a butterfly, a natural place where plants and animals are found or live. There are no

symbols or signs of humans or human built objects or artifacts included in the drawing. The student

writes, ‘‘my drawing is in an environment because it [h]as trees, animals.’’ The next dominant

category within this typology, the environment as a natural place, reflected 11% of the students’

responses (Table 1). This category is slightly different in that the students’ written responses

explicitly describe the environment as a ‘‘natural place’’ or that it is ‘‘nature.’’ The students’

drawings consisted of plants, trees, and animals, but not humans or human built objects or artifacts.

The living and nonliving category reflected 6% of the students responses and is similar to the

previous two categories (Table 1). The difference here is that students explicitly wrote about or

labeled parts of their drawing as consisting of living or nonliving factors. For example, students

would draw and identify soil and air as nonliving components and trees and animals as living

components of the environment. Again, humans were not drawn or mentioned in the students’

responses. The remaining categories (cycling of matter, energy transfer) reflected 3% of the

student responses. In these cases, student drawings would show the sun and describe the sun as

providing energy for plants (photosynthesis) and that the energy was transferred from plants to

animals and animals to animals. Again, humans were not part of these processes, nor were the

processes explicitly linked to the survival of plant and animals; they were simply processes of

nature.

Table 1

Relationship between mental models and categories

Mental Model Categories Percentage of Responses

Model 1A place where animals/plants Place where animals/plants live 35

live, a natural place Natural place, nature 11Living and nonliving 6Cycling of matter 2Energy transfer 1

Model 2Supports life Supports animal life 12

Supports human and animal/plant life 2Supports human life 2Supports animal/plant life 2Supports human and animal life 2

Model 3A place impacted or modified by

humansPlace were only people live (Built

environment)14

Polluted environment 1Model 4

A place where animals, plants,and humans live

Place where animals, plants, andpeople live

10



Description of Mental Model 2. Mental Model 2, a place that supports life is comprised of

five categories, all indicating that living organisms need the environment to survive or live, that the

environment provides the resources necessary for life (Table 1). These five categories vary only by

the degree that student responses explicitly reference animals, plants, and humans. This mental

model of the environment as supporting life is illustrated in Figure 4. The student has drawn and

labeled the environment consisting of a ‘‘tree,’’ ‘‘duck,’’ ‘‘clouds,’’ ‘‘sun,’’ ‘‘pond’’ (water), and

‘‘grass/soil.’’ The student writes, ‘‘It provides oxygen, water, and sunlight. It is an environment

that has everything you need to live on’’. The student conceptualizes the environment as providing

the resources that animals, plants, and people need to live; the environment supports life. In this

mental model, the environment is viewed as a natural place that includes abiotic and biotic factors,

but it emphasizes the environment as a natural resource for supporting life—plants, animals, and

humans. The cycling of matter or energy transfer is not made explicit.

Description of Mental Model 3. Mental Model 3, a place impacted or modified by human

activity or intervention is illustrated in Figure 5. Here the student has conceptualized the

environment as a natural place impacted (in many cases polluted) by humans. For example, the

student has drawn and labeled ‘‘happy family,’’ ‘‘healthy bird,’’ ‘‘beautiful pond,’’ ‘‘pollution,’’

‘‘sewage plant,’’ and ‘‘tire factory.’’ The student writes, ‘‘My drawing is an environment because

this used to be a peaceful little pond which has turned into a polluted [sic] area.’’ This category of

polluted environment was reflected in 1% of the student responses (Table 1). The other category

within this mental model conceptualizes the environment as a place where only people live. This

category reflected 14% of the student responses (Table 1). Student drawings represented the built

environment: houses, buildings, and various commercial and retail structures.

Description of Mental Model 4. Mental Model 4, a place where animals, plants, and humans

live (Figure 6) places humans in the environment living in harmony with other organisms

Figure 3. Example student response: Model 1, a place where animals/plants live.



Figure 4. Example student response: Model 2, supports animal life.

Figure 5. Example student response: Model 3, a place impacted or modified by humans.



(e.g., plants and animals). This Mental Model was based on a single category and accounted for

10% of the student responses (Table 1). As illustrated in Figure 6, this student, for example, has

drawn and labeled an environment consisting of a ‘‘human,’’ ‘‘bird,’’ ‘‘fish,’’ ‘‘flower,’’ and writes

‘‘An environment is a place where living things live. . .’’ This mental model differs from the other

mental models in the following ways:

� Mental Model 1 does not include humans, separating humans from the environment

whereas Mental Model 4 conceptualizes humans as part of the environment, living with

plants and animals.

� Mental Model 2 emphasizes the environment as providing resources to support life;

Mental Model 4 does not conceptualize the environment as providing resources, but

simply as a place to live.

� Mental Model 3 views humans impacting (polluting) or modifying (building) the

environment; Mental Model 4 conceptualizes the environment as a natural place

providing organisms (including humans) with a place to live.

Descriptive Results. The descriptive statistics for the four mental models by task are shown

in Table 2. The dominant mental model for these students was Mental Model 1: the environment as

a place where animals and plants live. This mental model separates humans from the environment.

In other words, environments are natural places and humans do not live in, rely on, or impact the

environment. The next most prevalent mental model was Mental Model 2: the environment as a

place that supports life, including humans. This mental model views the environment as a resource

that living organisms need to survive. It views the environment as natural capital available to living

organisms and humans, and does not view the use of resources as impacting the environment but

rather as necessary for animal and human survival. This is followed by Mental Model 3, a place

Figure 6. Example student response: Model 4, a place where animals and humans live.



impacted or modified by humans and where the environment is a place that humans pollute and/or

modify to live. It views human activity as impacting the environment in some way. Mental Model

4, a place where animals and humans live, is similar to Mental Model 1, but includes humans as

part of the environment. It does not view the environment as providing resources for supporting

life or that animals or humans have an impact on the environment, but simply a place where

animals and humans co-exist. It suggests that humans live in harmony as part of the environment,

and it was the least common mental model held by students.

Statistical Results. Each task elicited students’ mental models in similar frequencies;

there was no significant difference among the frequencies of the students’ mental models by task,

X2 (3 df)¼ 3.17, p¼ 0.366. The comparison of the frequency of the students’ mental models by

teacher-classroom also showed no significant difference: task 1,X2 (72 df)¼ 2.02, p¼ 0.999; task

2, X2 (72 df)¼ 0.08, p¼ 0.999. This further supports the plausibility of the existence of the

students’ mental models. There was, however, a statistically significant difference among

the frequencies of the mental models: X2 (3 df)¼ 6.42, p¼ 0.093; thus Mental Model 1 was more

prevalent than the other mental models.

Grade Level and Community Differences

The percentage of each mental model by grade level and community setting are shown in

Figures 7 and 8. The dominant mental model across all situations is Mental Model 1, the

Table 2

Mental model frequencies by task

Mental Model Draw and Explain Photographs

Model 1. A place where animals/plants live 650 (55%) 548 (62%)Model 2. A place that supports life 237 (20%) 155 (18%)Model 3. A place impacted or modified by humans 180 (15%) 83 (9%)Model 4. A place where animals, plants, and humans live 115 (10%) 91 (10%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Per

cen

tag

e

Model 4Model 3Model 2Model 1

Mental Model

High Sch

Mid Sch

Up El

Figure 7. Mental Models by grade level.



environment as a place where animals and plants live. Mental Model 1 also tends to be more

prevalent in students from upper elementary grades in suburban settings. On the other hand,

Mental Model 3, the environment as a place impacted or modified by humans, is more dominant in

urban students’ conceptions relative to suburban and rural students (Table 3). A greater frequency

of students in urban schools held Mental Model 3. In other words, students in suburban and rural

schools were less likely to view the environment from the perspective of human impact or

intervention.

Discussion

It is important to stress that the four mental models are descriptions of students’ conceptions

of the environment as a whole and not of individual students. It is possible that an individual

student, under a different context, might convey a different mental model. The four mental models

are an attempt to characterize the different conceptualizations students hold about the

environment and to summarize these in such a way as to inform practice and to further our

understanding about how students make meaning of the natural world. Furthermore, the mental

models are not intended to represent a conceptual hierarchy. They are meant to distinguish the

varied ways in which students make sense of the environment. Therefore, no particular mental

model is conceptually more complex or ‘‘better’’ than the other.

These students’ mental models about the environment incorporate similar conceptions found

in other studies (e.g., Loughland et al., 2002; Strommen, 1995), that the environment provides a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Per

cen

tag

e

Model 4Model 3Model 2Model 1

Mental Model

Urban

Suburban

Rural

Figure 8. Mental Models by community setting.

Table 3

Chi-square and probability values for each mental model by grade and community

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Grade level (2 df) X2¼ 0.01 X2¼ 1.09 X2¼ 2.87 X2¼ 0.20p¼ 0.995 p¼ 0.580 p¼ 0.238 p¼ 0.905

Community setting (2 df) X2¼ 0.27 X2¼ 3.00 X2¼ 8.07 X2¼ 0.05p¼ 0.874 p¼ 0.222 p¼ 0.018 p¼ 0.975



place for animals to live and the food, water, and shelter that animals need to survive. Unlike

Walker et al. (1999) who found that students’ think about the environment with regard to human

impact, these students’ primary mental model refers to the environment as a natural place; that is,

there is a distinct human-environment boundary. Although the students in the Loughland et al.

(2002) study did conceptualize the environment in relationship to people, humans were essentially

separate from the environment, with the environment being viewed as a resource to support life.

The dominance of Mental Model 1 across grade levels suggests that environmental science

education has little impact on students’ conceptualization of the environment because the

environment includes interactions between human and natural systems. It also suggests that

educational materials and curricular programs, such as textbooks, promote a prototypical view of

the environment that cuts across grade levels and most community settings. In fact, many

textbooks tend to take an ecosystem perspective or a pollution-oriented view of the environment

instead of developing a conceptual model of the environment. Prototypical environments include

forests, mountains, and streams; urban (i.e., built environments) or human-managed landscapes

are rarely mentioned or not described as being part of the environment. Interestingly, even though

Mental Model 4 describes humans co-existing with other organisms, there is no evidence of

human impact on the environment within this particular mental model. Thus, students’ conception

of the environment as a pristine or ‘‘pure’’ place (Mental Model 1) still underlies and/or influences

other mental models of the environment. Consequently, the environment is presented as a natural

place that provides the resources to support human life. Thus, it appears that many of the

educational and curricular materials used by teachers reinforce Mental Models 1 and 2. The only

statistically significant difference existed among urban, suburban, and rural students for Mental

Model 3, the environment as a place impacted or modified by humans. It appears that students

living in urban areas conceptualized the environment differently from students in suburban and

rural areas. Students immersed in built environments were more likely to view built landscapes as

environments or the environment as a polluted place. In contrast, students familiar with rural and

suburban landscapes did not view human-managed landscapes as environments; for these students

environments were places where animals and plants live (e.g., Mental Model 1).

Although the complexity of Mental Model 1 increased by grade level, the overall view of the

environment as a place where plants and animals live remains unchanged across grade levels. The

prevalence of both Mental Models 1 and 2 implies that students demonstrate nominal rather

than operational environmental literacy (Roth, 1992). In other words, these students have

‘‘rudimentary knowledge of how natural systems work’’ (Roth, 1992, p.20). They have a basic

understanding of the environment as a place that consists of living and nonliving things, where the

nonliving components provide the resources for the living components. This reflects an ecosystem

or ecological view of the environment. In addition, humans are not viewed as living organisms

interacting with natural systems within the environment. Instead, the students’ mental models

largely reflect an anthropocentric motive in which the environment is valued because it enhances

the long-term interests of humanity.

The mental models constructed by these students suggest that environmental science

education must encourage a more interdisciplinary and comprehensive view of the environment,

one that includes human elements. It even suggests that environmental science should be a stand-

alone discipline because of the ‘‘conventional’’ ways in which concepts are presented that leads to

prototypical views of the environment. The ‘‘infusionist’’ approach, where environmental

education is subsumed by mainstream disciplines, places constraints on what is taught and how it

is taught. Presently, students’ mental models place humans apart from the environment and/or

view the environment as a resource for living organisms, with very few students balancing both

natural and anthropogenic influences within the environment. Pedagogically, this would call for



students to investigate different environments from different perspectives, emphasizing humans as

part of the environment and their relationship with abiotic and biotic factors. Instructional

activities might include field surveys and field studies of different environments, such as stream

monitoring, where students collect physical, chemical, and biological data and relate this data to

human activities within a watershed. Furthermore, students may be asked to identify the social

consequences of environmental decisions and learn how cultural identities influence individual

perceptions as well as people-environment associations. In this way environmental science

education links humans to specific environments and goes beyond traditional instruction to

incorporate the rich and varied components that make up the environment.

Although students’ conceptions of the environment contributes to their understanding about

environmental issues and increases the likelihood that students will engage in environmentally

friendly behaviors (Rickinson, 2001), enhancing students’ understandings about environmental

issues based on their mental models does not necessarily result in positive environmental

behaviors (Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1986). If we assume, however, that students’ mental

models exert some influence on their environmental behaviors, it would appear that we can expect

little in the way of positive environmental behavior from these students. After all, the two mental

models that account for about 75% of students’ conceptions of the environment either place

humans outside of the environment, separate from it, or depict the environment as a resource for

human use. From these perspectives, human behaviors do not negatively impact the environment.

If one is not part of the environment, one’s actions cannot impact the environment, and if the

environment is there to support humans, the indiscriminate use of natural resources is merely a

means to an end. Only about 15% of the students’ held a mental model that incorporated human

behavior as having an impact on the environment. Furthermore, only 10% viewed the environment

as a place where humans live or that humans were part of the environment and even the students

who held this mental model did not conceptualize environmental impacts resulting from human

actions.

The challenge for environmental science educators lies in their ability to develop curricula

and programs that support students’ development of a conceptual model of the environment that

incorporates the relationship between human activity and the physical, chemical, and biological

processes within an environment. To do this, we believe that the curricular emphasis must be on the

local environment expanding to other environments. It must also focus on the environment and

then build toward the environmental issues within that environment versus starting with an

environmental issue. Students must first learn about the environment before learning about the

environmental issue because this places the issue in the context of the environment.

In order for students to develop a conceptual model of the environment, students must first

make their own mental model of the environment explicit and understand their mental model, the

concepts and relationship between concepts that make up their mental model. It would also be

useful for students to share and discuss each others’ mental models. For example, students could

complete the Environments Task and reflect on their own mental model while identifying the

similarities and differences among their classmates. Students could then integrate new

experiences and concepts into their mental model, expanding their mental model towards the

conceptual model. For example, if students hold Mental Model 1, the environment as a place

where plants and animals live, they might explore a local, built environment or the ways in which

personal (human) activity interrelates with plants and animals in a local environment. Or students

might use their mental model to analyze a local environment. After these experiences, students

then modify their responses on the Environments Task. This would expand their mental model to

incorporate humans as part of the environment, linking human activities to the environment.

Students would then explore environmental issues found within that environment. The more



experiences students have with different environments the more likely these experiences will

enrich students’ mental models. Students would eventually compare their mental model to a

conceptual model and use the conceptual model to explain different environments, including

human built and managed environments. Finally, students reflect on how their mental model has

changed and developed toward the conceptual model.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to elucidate students’ mental models of the environment; it was

not an attempt to identify or articulate the origin or development of students’ conceptualizations.

Thus, there is a need for future research to determine the role of students’ experience and education

in shaping the development of their mental models. Do individuals develop different mental

models over time? How does social interaction among peers, teachers, and parents influence the

development of a student’s mental model of the environment? Although this study separated

students’ mental models by grade level and community setting, there is a need to investigate

students’ mental models by gender, age, culture, and socio-economic conditions. Longitudinal

studies of students’ developing mental models are also useful in determining the impact of

experience and schooling on students’ conceptualization of the environment. Furthermore, there

is a need to understand the relationship between students’ mental models and their environmental

behaviors and decision-making. Finally, what are adults’ mental models of the environment? Do

adults hold a mental model of the environment where humans are separate from the environment?

Do high school and college graduates hold similar mental models? Are these mental models

maintained or changed as a result of educational experiences? These varied yet salient avenues of

research in environmental science education can help paint a broader and clearer picture of the role

that humans play in determining the future of global environmental health.

The Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of

Science [AAAS], 1993) and the National Science Education Standards (National Research

Council [NRC], 1996) identify standards related to learning about the environment. Each of these

documents stresses students’ conceptions as one of the fundamental building blocks of education.

Unfortunately, the AAAS (1993) benchmarks and the National Science Education Standards

(NRC, 1996) tend to compartmentalize environmental concepts in different content standards,

thereby fueling the distinction between humans and the environment (as evidenced in Mental

Model 1). The NRC (1996) standards within Science in Personal and Social Perspectives

emphasize a more interdisciplinary approach to understanding the environment. It presents

an understanding of the environment from a human perspective; the human–environment

relationship. Yet, this relationship stresses the utilitarian view of natural resource use, that

environments support human life instead of an ecocentric view that places humans within the

environment. For example, the standards state that, ‘‘the limitation is not the availability of space

but the number of people in relation to resources and the capacity of earth systems to support

human beings’’ (NRC, 1996, p.198).

Although these documents explicitly lay out standards and benchmarks about the

environment that students should know and understand, learning about the environment via life

science, physical science, or earth science compartmentalizes the topic and presents a narrow view

of, or understanding about, the environment. This approach would seem to reinforce students’

conceptualization of the environment as a place where animals and plants live, Mental Model 1, or

that the environment is used to support humans, Mental Model 2. It appears not to support a view or

conceptual model of the environment which places humans in a mutually sustaining relationship

with the environment and its natural resources. Ultimately, educators, administrators and



legislators would do well to heed the notion that, ‘‘central ideas related to health, populations,

resources, and environments provide the foundation for students’ eventual understanding and

actions as citizens’’ (NRC, 1996, p.138) because it seems that the fate of our world does indeed lie

in the mental models that our students construct.

References

Alerby, E. (2000). A way of visualizing children’s and young people’s thoughts about the

environment: A study of drawings. Environmental Education Research, 6, 205–222.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science

literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, S., & Moss, B. (1993). How wetland habitats are perceived by children:

Consequences for children’s education and wetland conservation. International Journal of Science

Education, 15, 473–485.

Ausubel, D.P., Novak, J.D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive

view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Barraza, L. (1999). Children’s drawings about the environment. Environmental Education

Research, 5, 49–67.

Bonnett, M., & Williams, J. (1998). Environmental education and primary children’s

attitudes towards nature and the environment. Cambridge Journal of Education, 28, 159–174.

Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1994). The ideas of secondary school children concerning

ozone layer damage. Global Environmental Change, 4, 311–324.

Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1998). High school students’ perceptions of how major global

environmental effects cause skin cancer. Journal of Environmental Education, 29, 31–36.

Carderio, R.W., & Sayler, R.D. (1994). Student knowledge of environmental and natural

resource issues in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Natural Resources Life Science Education, 23,

132–136.

Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

diSessa, A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105–

225.

Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, R., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of

secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. London, England: Routledge.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science.

Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

Environmental Protection Agency. (2004, January 6). Terms of environment. Retrieved June

05, 2004 from http:/ /www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms/eterms.html

Erlandson, D.A., Harris, E.L., Skipper, B.L., & Allen, S.D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry:

A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Gambro, J.S., & Switzky, H.N. (1996). A national survey of high school students’

environmental knowledge. Journal of Environmental Education, 27, 28–33.

Glynn, S.M., & Duit, R. (1995). Learning science meaningfully: constructing conceptual

models, In S.M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Researching reforming

practice (pp. 3–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Greca, I.M., & Moreira, M.A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modeling.

International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1–11.



Hines, J., Hungerford, H., & Tomera, A. (1986). Analysis and synthesis of research on

responsible environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1–

8.

Holstein, J.A., & Gubrium, J.F. (1994). Phenomenology, ethnomethodology, and interpretive

practice. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, (pp. 262–272).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kirk, J., & Miller, M. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research, Qualitative

Research Methods Series Number 1. London: Sage.

Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning:

The rhetorics of the science classroom (p. 188). London: Continuum.

Libarkin, J.C., Beilfuss, M., & Kurdziel, J.P. (2003). Research methodologies in science

education: mental models and cognition in education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51, 121–

126.

Littledyke, M. (2004). Primary children’s views on science and environmental issues:

examples of environmental cognitive and moral development. Environmental Education

Research, 10, 217–235.

Loughland, T., Reid, A., & Petocz, P. (2002). Young people’s conceptions of environment: a

phenomenographic analysis. Environmental Education Research, 8, 187–197.

Membiela, P., Nogueiras, E., & Suarez, M. (1994). Preconceptions of students about the

natural urban environment in a small Spanish city. The Environmentalist, 14, 131–138.

Mintzes, J., Wandersee, J., & Novak, J. (1998). Teaching science for understanding: The

human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Myers, G., Boyes, E., & Stanistreet, M. (1999). Something in the air: School students’ ideas

about air pollution. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 8,

108–119.

Myers, G., Boyes, E., & Stanistreet, M. (2000). Urban and rural air pollution: A cross-age

study of school students’ ideas. Environmental Education and Information, 19, 263–274.

Nash, R.F. (1990). American environmentalism: readings in conservation history (3rd ed.).

New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.

National Environmental Education Training Foundation. (2005). http:/ /www.neetf.org/

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Children’s science. In R. Osborne & P. Freyberg (Eds.),

Learning in science: The implications of children’s science (pp. 5–14). Auckland, New Zealand:

Heinemann Publishers.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE.

Payne, P. (1998). Children’s conceptions of nature. Australian Journal of Environmental

Education, 14, 19–26.

Rennie, L.J., & Jarvis, T. (1995). Children’s choice of drawings to communicate their ideas

about technology. Research in Science Education, 25, 239–252.

Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical review of

the evidence. Environmental Education Research, 7, 207–320.

Roth, C. (1992). Environmental Literacy: Its Roots, Evolution and Directions in the

1990s. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental

Education.

Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I.S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.



Schwandt, T.A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N.K.

Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118–137). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Shepardson, D.P., Harbor, J., Bell, C., Meyer, J., Leuenberger, T., Klagges, H., & Burgess, W.

(2003). ENVISION: Teachers as environmental scientists. Journal of Environmental Education,

34, 8–11.

Simmons, D.A. (1994). Urban children’s preferences for nature: lessons for environmental

education. Children’s Environments, 11, 194–203.

Strommen, E. (1995). Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Children’s conceptions of forests

and their inhabitants. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 683–698.

Walker, K., Brady, L., & Young, G. (1999). The social cultural influences on environmental

understandings of NSW school students. Paper presented at American Educational Research

Association Annual Conference, Montreal, April.

Wals, A.E. (1994). Nobody planted it, it just grew! Young adolescents’ perceptions and

experiences of nature in the context of urban environmental education. Children’s Environments,

11, 177–193.

White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London, England: The Falmer

Press.



students' mental models of the environment

Documents