Report from an investigation on environmental information in schools

Environmental information in schools

Report from an investigation on environmentalinformation in schools

produced for the Ministry of the Environment


Background for the investigation

• The Ministry of the Environment wished to survey the degree to which schools have access to environmental information which is appropriately presented and quality controlled, and which is relevant to work with the curriculum plans. Feedback AS has been asked to assist the Ministry in this survey.


Technical comments and methodology• Target groups

– The target group for the investigation has been principals or teachers who instruct in subjects in which environment is an element.

• Methods of data collection– The investigation has been carried out by mail, by distributing questionnaires to all primary, lower secondary and

secondary schools in Norway.

• Number of interviews completed– At the deadline, a total of 1729 questionnaires had come in, constituting a response percent of about 40. Systematic

bias thus can be found related to who has answered and who hasn't answered. We nevertheless consider the sample to be large enough that it is meaningful to make statements about the target group as a whole.

• Time period– The investigation was carried out from September 6-17, 1999.

• Reference– The reference number in Feedback AS is MIL 14549

• Analyst responsible– Tora Mellbye, Consultant

• Translation– Faye Benedict


About the sample

• Position– 48% principal

– 43% subject teachers

– 9% other (of these, most are inspectors/teaching inspectors) See the appendix "open answers" in the main report for specification of "others"

• School type– 42% primary, grade 1-4

– 52% primary, grade 5-7

– 29% lower secondary school, grade 8-10

– 11% secondary school, basic course

– 9% secondary school, second year course (VK1)

– 8% secondary school, third year course (VK 2)

– 7% other Some respondents have given more than one answer See the appendix "open answers" in the main report for specification of lines of study, etc.


About the sample

• Number of pupils at the school– 21% under 50 pupils

– 15% 51-100

– 24% 101-200

– 16% 201-300

– 13% 301-400

– 6% 401-500

– 5% over 500

• County– 3% Finnmark

– 4% Troms

– 8% Nordland

– 3% Nord-Trøndelag

– 6% Sør-Trøndelag

– 9% Møre and Romsdal

– 4% Sogn and Fjordane

– 11% Hordaland

– 8% Rogaland

– 3% Vest-Agder– 3% Aust-Agder

– 5% Telemark

– 4% Vestfold

– 5% Buskerud

– 6% Akershus

– 3% Oslo

– 4% Østfold

– 4% Hedmark

– 6% Oppland


• Main results– At the primary and lower secondary school level, the

environmental element seems to be most apparent in the subject nature and environment, but a large percent of the respondents also answer that environment is part of the instruction in the subjects mathematics, social studies and Norwegian. Among those who have answered "other," English and arts and crafts are primarily the subjects mentioned.

– In secondary schools, environmental elements appear primarily in mathematics and natural sciences. Among those who answer "other," chemistry is the subject most commonly mentioned.

– In the vocational lines of study the subjects were not specified, but the open answers indicate that here as well, natural sciences is the subject that to the greatest extent includes an element of environment.

Subjects that include environmental elements

Question 5:What subjects that contain environmental elements (inthe instruction) do you teach?(question was only posed to subject teachers.)

Subject

77%51%

46%41%

32%30%

18%10%

75%68%

36%12%

11%10%

9%9%9%

5%29%

66%

Nature and environmentMathematics

Social studiesNorwegian

Physical educationReligion

Home skillsOther

MathematicsNatural sciences

BiologyPhysics

Social studiesGeography

HistoryEconomics and information science

NorwegianPhysical education

Other

Other

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Primary and lower secondary school

Secondary school, general lline

Secondary school, vocational line

Question 5Numbers are % of the sample 1144/163 (subject teachers/teacher). Percent unanswered 34% of 1732 and 91% of 1728


• Main results– Environmental issues appear to be included to a large

degree in instruction, both as part of ordinary instruction in the teacher's particular subjects, in thematic or project work in one subject, and in interdisciplinary project work.

– Only 6-10% state that environmental issues are not included in any of the instruction forms mentioned.

• Differences among groups– Teachers in the secondary school respond to a greater

degree than those in the primary and lower secondary school, that they include environmental issues in their instruction "to a very great degree" as part of the ordinary instruction in their particular subjects (18% vs. 6%).

– The proportion responding that they take up environmental issues as part of the ordinary instruction in their particular subjects increases with the number of pupils in the school. 39% of the employees in schools having fewer than 50 pupils answer "very great" or "great" degree to this question, compared to 56% among the employees of schools having more than 400 pupils.

Question 6:To what degree do you take up environmental issues in instruction...

Environmental issues in instruction

Environmental issues in instruction

8

5

6

43

36

33

43

49

51

6

9

9

1

1

In thematic/project work in one subject

In interdisciplinary thematic/project work

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

To a verygreat degree

To a greatdegree

To somedegree

To a slightdegree

Not at all

In your particular subjects as part of the ordinary instruction

Question 6Numbers are % of the sample 1441, 1329, 1385. Percent unanswered 16%, 22%, 19% of 1716,1702, 1705


• Main results– Environmental information is acquired primarily through school books and

subject textbooks, but there also seem to be a number of other information channels, such as the municipality, the national authorities and environmental organisations.

– Among those who say that they get information from environmental organisations, the most commonly mentioned channels for information are the Norwegian Society for the Conservation/Friends of the Earth Norway, Bellona, The Environmental Home Guard (Miljøheimevernet) and Inky Arms Eco-detectives (Blekkulf).

– Those who state that they use brochures or teaching packages name primarily "Learn with the forest" and "Blekkulf" as their sources of information. However, many also state that it is coincidental what brochures or packages they use and that it depends on what they are sent.

– Among other information channels, Internet is primarily the channel mentioned.

• Differences among groups– Principals respond to a greater degree than teachers that they acquire

information from the municipality (59% vs. 45%) and regional education authorities (13% vs. 5%), while they to a lesser extent than teachers get information through the County governor's environmental department (18% vs. 23%), national authorities (39% vs. 35%) and schoolbooks/subject textbooks (92% vs. 97%).

– Employees in the primary and lower secondary school respond to a greater degree than those in secondary schools that they get information from the municipality (55% vs. 36%), while they get information to a lesser degree from the national authorities (30% vs. 48%).

– There are some major regional differences regarding sources of environmental information.

– Employees at large schools seem to use more information channels than employees at small schools.

Information channels

Question 7:Where do you primarily acquire environmentalinformation?

Information channels

94%

52%

32%

23%

20%

18%

18%

17%

8%

6%

5%

17%

School books/subject textbooks

Municipality

National authorities

Environmental organisations

County govenor's environmental department

National media

Brochures or instruction packages

Local or regional media

Regional school authorities

County

County governor's agricultural department

Other

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Question 7Numbers are % of the sample 1673Percent unanswered 3% of 1732


• Main results– Regarding whom the school co-operates with on

environmental issues at the municipal or regional level, slightly less than half respond that they co-operate primarily with the education sector and the technical sector.

– Between 1/3 and 1/4 also state that they co-operate with the environmental authorities, the agriculture and forestry sector and the health sector.

• Differences among groups– Principals respond to a greater degree than teachers that

the school co-operates with the health sector (29% vs. 20%), the technical sector (47% vs. 38%), the cultural sector (18% vs. 12%), the education sector (56% vs. 36%) and the agriculture and forestry sector (33% vs. 23%).

– Employees in primary and lower secondary schools respond to a greater degree than those in secondary schools that they co-operate with the technical sector (45% vs. 27%), the cultural sector (16% vs. 8%), the education sector (49% vs. 21%) and the agriculture and forestry sector (29% vs. 16%).

– There are some local variations in whom the school co-operates with at the municipal/regional level regarding environmental issues.

Co-operating partners at the municipal/regional level

Question 8:Whom do the school co-operate with at the municipal/regional level regarding environmental issues?

Co-operating partners

46%

43%

30%

27%

24%

15%

8%

6%

14%

Education sector

Technical sector

Environmental authorities

Agricultural and forestry sector

Health sector

Cultural sector

Planning authorities

Others

None of the above

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Question 8Numbers are % of the sample 1599 Percent unaswered 7% of 1713


• Main results– About 6 of 10 are not familiar with their municipality's

work with Local Agenda 21.

• Differences among groups– Principals answer to a greater degree than teachers

that they know about Local Agenda 21 (46% vs. 35%).

– Knowledge of Local Agenda 21 is greatest in schools with the largest number of pupils (42% in schools with more than 400 pupils vs. 34% in schools with fewer than 51 pupils).

– Nord-Trøndelag (66%), Vestfold (66%), Østfold (63%) and Telemark (59%) are counties in which there is a notably greater knowledge of Local Agenda 21.

Local Agenda 21

Question 9:Are you familiar with Local Agenda 21 in themunicipality?

Local Agenda 21

Question 9Numbers are % of the sample 1652 Percent unanswered 4% of 1724

Yes41%

No59%


• Main results– About 8 of 10 state that their school does not co-operate

with NGOs regarding environmental issues.

– Among those who respond that they do have a co-operation with NGOs, the co-operative partners mentioned are primarily the Norwegian Hunter's and Angler's Association, the Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature/Friends of the Earth Norway, and Nature and Youth.

Co-operation with non-government organisations (NGOs)

Question 10:Does the school co-operate with non-governmentorganisations regarding environmental issues?

Co-operation with non-government organisations

Yes17%

No83%

Which?Norwegian Hunter's and Angler's Association (53 responses)

The Norwegian Society for the Conservation/Friends of the Earth Norway (32 responses)

Nature and Youth (24 responses)

The Enivironmental Home Guard (Miljøheimevernet) (21 responses)

Norwegian Farmer's Association (18 responses)

4H (15 responses)



• Main results– The schools appear to have good access to information about waste and

recycling, outdoor recreation and pollution of air and water.

– About half also answer that they have good access to information about cultural heritage sites and cultural protection, and about climate issues.

– Information access seems to be poorest on topics such as the Plan- and Building Act, development of towns and cities, and genetic issues. Here about half reply that they get poor information.

• Differences among groups– Employees in secondary schools respond to a greater degree than those

in primary and lower secondary schools that they have good access to information on all of the thematic areas, with the exception of waste and recycling, outdoor recreation and cultural heritage and –protection.

– Principals respond to a greater degree than teachers that they have good access to information about waste and recycling (85% vs. 79%), outdoor recreation (85% vs. 73%) and cultural heritage and –protection (58% vs. 53%).

– Access to information about development of cities and towns is best among schools with the highest number of pupils (26% among schools with more than 400 pupils vs. 12% among those with fewer than 51). This may be related to the largest schools being located in towns and cities. The largest schools also seem to have better access to information about chemicals threatening to health and the environment (59% vs. 41%), climate issues (65% vs. 50%) and genetic issues (40% vs. 11%).

– There are also some local variations in access to information. For example, school employees in Nord-Trøndelag, Hedmark and Oppland respond to a greater degree than in the other counties that they have good access to information about predator management. This is most likely the result of the current predator debate in these counties.

Access to information

Question 11:How good do you consider the school's access to information to be on the following themes:

Access to information

81%

79%

69%

55%

53%

43%

37%

28%

25%

20%

17%

17%

38%

3%

3%

5%

13%

9%

18%

23%

32%

34%

42%

43%

49%

12%

Waste and recycling

Outdoor recreation

Pollution of air and water

Cultural heritage and -protection

Climate issues

Chemicals threatening to health and environment

Nature protection areas

Predator management

Land-use and social planning

Plan- and Building Act

Development of towns and cities

Genetic issues

Other

0%20%40%60%80%100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%100%

Neither good nor

bad

Unanswered

15% 4%

17% 5%

26% 5%

32% 5%

38% 6%

38% 5%

40% 6%

40% 7%

42% 5%

38% 6%

40% 6%

34% 6%

49% 95%

Very poor Quite good Very good

Question 11Numbers are % of the sample 1649, 1628, 1634, 1626, 1611, 1625, 1617, 1598, 1627, 1618, 1613, 1610, 74


• Main results– ¾ of school employees respond that all pupils at their

schools have access to Internet, or will get access to it in the near future.

– About half of these respond that the computers pupils have access to are in the library, while about ¼ respond that they are located in the classroom or the teachers' room.

– Among the 50% who respond that the computers are located elsewhere, the "other" responses show that the great majority of these are located in separate rooms or computer rooms.

Here it has been possible for the respondents to cross off

more than one alternative.

• Differences among groups– The employees in secondary schools respond to a

greater degree than those in primary and lower secondary schools that all pupils have access to Internet (95% vs. 71%).

– Employees in schools in Finnmark and Sogn and Fjordane respond to a greater degree than those in other counties that all pupils have access to Internet (91% and 89% respectively, vs. 75% total).

Access to Internet

Question 12:How many of the pupils have access to Internet or will get access to Internet in the near future?

Question 13:Where are the computers with access to Internet located? (question only asked of those who have Internet access).

75%

14%

11%

All pupils

Only a few pupils

Only teachers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

47%

26%

22%

50%

Library

Classrooms

Teachers' room

Other

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Question 12Numbers are % of the sample 1538Percent unanswered 11% of 1725



• Main results– About 2/3 respond that Internet is used in environmental

instruction to a great extent or to some extent, but only 1% respond that Internet is used to a very great extent.

– Only 7% respond that Internet is not used at all in this kind of instruction.

• Differences among groups– Teachers respond to a greater degree than principals that

Internet is used to a slight extent or not at all in environmental instruction (40% vs. 32%).

– The employees in secondary schools respond to a greater degree than those in the primary and lower secondary schools that they use Internet to a great extent in environmental instruction (22% vs. 12%).

Internet in environmental instruction

Question 14:To what extent is Internet used in environmentalinstruction? (question was only asked of those whohave Internet access)


To a very great degree1%

To a great degree12%

To some degree51%

To a slight degree29%

Not at all7%



• Main results– A clear majority state that Internet is used in instruction by

pupils themselves finding information on the web, while about half respond that the teachers themselves find ideas for instruction at familiar websites.

– Only a minority (4-7%) state that the pupils store their own information and that pupils exchange experiences with other schools using the Internet.

• Differences among groups– The principals believe that teachers use the Internet to

find ideas for instruction to a greater degree than the teachers themselves report (57% vs. 48%).

– Employees in secondary schools respond to a greater degree than those in primary and lower secondary schools, that the pupils themselves find information on the Internet (93% vs. 83%).


Question 15:How is Internet used in the instruction?(question was only asked of those who have access to and who use Internet in environmental instruction)


Question 15Numbers are % of the sample 1314.Percent unanswered 24% of 1724

85%

52%

7%

4%

4%

Pupils find information on the web

Pupils store their own information

Pupils exchange experiences with other schools

Other

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Teachers find ideas for instruction at familiar websites


• Main results– Regarding knowledge of various websites, a source of

error here may be that many appear to have jumped over this question. If we interpret the results in hand, however, the knowledge of the websites for the Ministry of the Environment and Network for Environmental Education seems to be the greatest.

– None of the websites are used to a great extent in environmental instruction. About half respond, however, that the websites of the Ministry of the Environment and the Network for Environmental Education are used to a great extent or to some extent.

– Least known and least used are the websites of GRID Arendal, NORSAS and GRIP.

• Differences among groups– Employees in secondary schools consistently respond to

a greater degree than those in the primary and lower secondary schools that they know about the websites and use the websites mentioned to a great extent.

– Employees at large schools consistently respond to a greater degree than those at small schools that they use the websites to a great extent.

– Both knowledge of and use of GRID Arendal's website is greater in Aust-Agder than in the other counties. This is natural considering its geographic proximity.

Knowledge and use of websites

Questions 16a and 16b:Which of the following websites are you familiar with?To what degree do you use the following websites in environmental instruction? (question only asked of those with access)

Knowledge and use of websites

Min. of the Environ.

81%

Network Environ.

Education71%

Environ. Home Guard

52%

Local Agenda 21

48%

Environmen-tal status in

Norway46%

Grid Arendal 34%

NORSAS 30%

GRIP-center 25%

Other NGOs 27%

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

14

7

5

4

4

3

2

3

38

37

23

20

19

10

8

5

11

22

24

26

26

27

20

23

21

23

25

30

45

49

48

66

67

73

62

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

To a very great degree To a great degree To some degree To a slight degree Not at all

Degree of use

Question 16Numbers are % of the sample Kjennskap 1293, Bruk 1141, 1092, 989, 968, 954, 938, 887, 875, 725


• Main results– Only a minority state that they prefer either printed or

electronic information, while as many as 83% percent state that they wish to receive both.

Printed vs. electronic information

Question 18:Should the environmental information schoolsreceive be in printed form, electronic form or both?

Printed vs. electronic information

Printed14%

Electronic3%

Both83%

Question 18Numbers are % of the sample 1398. Percent unanswered 19% of 1716


• Main results– As regards knowledge of printed materials, a source of error for this

question may be that many seem to have jumped over this question. If we interpret the results in hand, however, the respondents seem to have the greatest familiarity with the printed materials "Learn with the forest" and "Network for environmental education."

– About ¾ of the teachers respond that they use "Learn with the forest" to a great extent or some extent in environmental instruction.

– About half also respond that they to a great extent or some extent use "Network for environmental education."

– The least-used materials are "Living school" and "SOLIS."

– Common for most of the materials is that a relatively small proportion of the respondents state that they use it to a very great or great extent.

• Differences among groups– The employees of secondary schools have, with the exception of "Learn

with the forest," consistently greater knowledge of the information materials mentioned than employees in primary and lower secondary schools.

– "Learn with the forest" is clearly more heavily utilised in primary and lower secondary schools than in secondary schools. 44% respond that it is used to a very great or great extent, compared to 6% in secondary schools.

– There are a few variations among counties in knowledge of the various kinds of information materials. MEIS, for example, is most widely known in Vestfold, Nord-Trøndelag and Møre and Romsdal (75-80% vs. 56% total). MEIS is also most used in instruction in Nord-Trøndelag and Møre and Romsdal.

– Employees in schools having more than 400 pupils respond to a greater extent than those at small schools that they have knowledge of Network for environmental education, MEIS and SOLIS.

Knowledge and use of printed information materials

Questions 20a and 20b: -Which of the following printed information materials are you familiarwith?To what extent are the following printed information materials used in

environmental instruction?

Knowledge and use of printed informationmaterials

Learn with the forest

83%

Network for Environmen-tal Education

67%

Meis 56%

Living school

42%

Solis 37%

Other 11%

13

3

2

3

1

7

28

11

10

7

3

11

31

39

31

22

19

15

13

24

24

24

27

13

16

22

34

44

50

54

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%To a very great extent To a great extent To some extent To a slight extent Not at all

Material Degree of familiarity

Degree of use

Question 19Numbers are % of the sample Knowledge 1595Use1405, 1224, 1151, 1034, 980, 293


• Main results– About 2/3 of the teachers are not familiar with "Environmental

status in the county." It is natural to presume that this is because not all counties have come equally far in developing these reviews yet. The large variation in knowledge of this from county to county strengthens this supposition.

– Among those who are familiar with "Environmental status in the county," about half respond that it is used in environmental instruction.

• Differences among groups– Employees in secondary schools respond to a greater degree

than those in primary and lower secondary schools that they know of "environmental status" (44% vs. 22%), and they also use it to a greater extent in teaching (66% vs. 49%).

– Knowledge of "Environmental status in the county" is greatest in Vestfold, Sogn and Fjordane and Akershus (42-58% vs. 26% total).

– "Environmental status in the county" is more well-known among the employees of larger schools than those of small schools. While 33% of respondents from schools having more than 400 pupils were familiar with it, only 20% of those from schools with fewer than 50 pupils knew about it. It is also the large schools that seem to utilise "environmental status" to the greatest extent in environmental instruction (71% vs. 34%).

Environmental status

Questions 21 and 22:-Some county governor’s environmental departments havedeveloped reviews of the environmental status in the county.Are you familiar with this?- Do you use it in environmental instruction?

Environmental status

Some of county governor's environmental departments have developed reviews of the environmental

status in the county. Are you familiar with this?

Yes26%

No74%

Yes52%

No48%

Do you use this in environ-mental instruction?

Question 20 & 21Numbers are % of the sample 1684, 412 Percent unanswered 2% of 1684 and 4% of 431


• Main results– About half the schools have a system for

communicating and storing environmental information. About 2/3 respond further that the librarian has responsibility for this system, while 1/3 respond that the teachers have responsibility for it.

– Regarding the type of system used to communicate and store environmental information, the open answers suggest that they are not all equally systematic. Among the most common responses are Micromarc, notebooks/archives, collection in a separate shelf or cabinet, and Dewey.

System for communicating/storing environmental information

• Differences among groups– The principals respond to a greater degree than the teachers that the school does not have such systems (65% vs. 47%).

– Secondary schools seem to have systems for communicating and storing environmental information to a greater extent than primary and lower secondary schools (72% vs. 41%).

– The largest schools appear to have systems for communicating/storing to a greater extent than the smaller schools (45% in schools with more than 400 pupils vs. 25% in schools with fewer than 51 pupils). While the librarian is primarily responsible for this system in the larger schools, it is the teachers who have the main responsibility for it in smaller schools.

– Akershus is the county in which the most respondents state that they have a system for storing and communicating environmental information (63% vs. 45% total).

Does the school have a system for communicating and storing environmental information?

Yes45%

No55%

67%

31%

2%

12%

Librarian

Teachers

Pupils

Others

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Who is responsible for this system?


Question 23Numbers are % of the ssample 738 Percent umanswered 56% of 1692


• Main results– Among those who respond that the school has a system

for communicating and storing environmental information, 2/3 of these experience that this functions very or rather satisfactorily. Only a minority (8%) respond that the system functions unsatisfactorily.

• Differences among groups– Employees in secondary schools seem to be more

satisfied with their systems for communicating and storing environmental information than employees in primary and lower secondary schools (74% state that their systems function very/rather satisfactorily, compared to 62% in primary and lower secondary schools).

– The satisfaction with the systems for communicating and storing environmental information is greatest in the largest schools.

System for communicating/storing environmental information

Question 25:How well does this system function in relation to theschool’s/teacher’s needs?

System for communicating/storing

8%

57%

27%

6%

2%

Rather satisfactorily

Very satisfactorily

Very unsatisfactorily

Rather unsatisfactorily

Neither satisfactorily nor unsatisfactorily



• Main results– Slightly less than half of the employees in schools respond

that the school library collects and systematises environmental information.

• Differences among groups– The principals respond to a greater degree than the

teachers that the library does not have a role in collecting and systematising environmental information (65% vs. 53%).

– Employees in secondary schools respond to a greater degree than those in primary and lower secondary schools that the library collects and systematises information (78% vs. 34%).

– Employees at larger schools respond to a greater degree than those at smaller schools that the library collects and systematises environmental information (75% at schools with more than 400 pupils vs. 29% at schools with fewer than 51 pupils).

The role of the library in collecting environmental information

Question 26:Does the library collect and systematise environmentalinformation?

The role of the library in collecting environmental information

Yes43%

No57%



Advice to the authorities

• At the end of the questionnaire the school personnel were asked to give advice to the authorities about:

– what the authorities can do to make the school's or teachers' access to environmental information easier

– how they can present environmental information better, for use in schools?

• The next pages summarise the most important comments. For a fuller version of the replies in the open answers, see the appendix to the main report.


Advice about what the authorities can do to make the school'sor teachers' access to environmental information easier

• Produce both printed and electronic information– Printed: brochures, "environmental newspapers," books, catalogues, reviews, etc.

– Electronic: Training and follow-up in use of Internet (data systems)

• Free information materials (printed and electronic)

• Quality rather than quantity when providing information

• Tailor the information to specific target groups (pedagogically correct adaptation)

• The information should include the following elements:– What information can be found (categorised by topic with pictures and description of the contents)

– Where and how to access the information (information channels/availability)

– For what age groups/target groups the information is produced and is relevant

– Popularisation and simplification of the contents, without sacrificing the "factual content"

• Hold courses about both printed and electronic information

• Continually produce and update overviews of available information and databanks

• Allocation of resources– Time: Teachers, pupils and the library services

– Funds: Computer equipment, access to and use of Internet, improvement of library services, further education and in-service education, updated textbooks, excursions and activities

• Have a contact person at each school who has special responsibility for informing colleagues and co-ordinating the information flow.


Advice to the authorities about how they can better adaptand present information, for use in schools?• Produce information in printed and electronic (Internet) form

• Inexpensive, preferably free, information material

• The information should be presented in both language forms (nynorsk and bokmål)

• All information should include references to literature as well as being categorised by topic

• The information/teaching material should include:

– Clear and easily understood language

– More graphics and illustrations, but less text

– Less use of foreign terms and specialised terminology

– Practical exercises that clarify the reading materials

• The information or teaching material should be:

– Systematised and adapted, practically and theoretically, to the various school levels

– To the point and objective (not propaganda intended to scare)

– Visually and pedagogically well-adapted for the target groups • The information/teaching material should consist of/be presented in the form of:

– Slides, videos, illustrations and tape cassettes

– Internet, professional journals, "thematic packages," textbooks, brochures and CD-ROMs

• Lectures and coursing of teaching personnel and other possible users

• An advisory role in relation to schools

• Allocation of more resources (professional literature, computers, diverse equipment, excursions, activities)

Documents

Report from an investigation on environmental information in schools