Teaching Approaches in Geography and Students’ Environmental Attitudes

The Environmentalist, 24, 101–117, 2004 2005 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands.

Teaching Approaches in Geography and Students’ EnvironmentalAttitudes

STEPHEN PUI-MING YEUNGS.K.H. Kei Hau Secondary School

Summary. In a study which examines the pattern of geography teaching at the Advanced Level in Hong Kongand assesses the relative effectiveness of didactic and enquiry teaching approaches that are used by the teachersconcerned for the development of positive values towards the environment, the question was asked as to whetheror not enquiry is more effective than didactic approaches for the development of environmental values, in boththe short and long terms, for students as a whole and for students from different ability ranges. Questionnairesurveys and interviews were conducted to obtain data from students after they were taught a topic on people andthe environment in the curriculum, with the approach chosen by their teachers. Results show that the enquiryapproach was effective with the lower to medium ability classes in the short term but students who were taughtdidactically performed better in more areas in the longer term. The possible causes for this pattern are discussedand suggestions for improving the effectiveness of enquiry approaches in a high-pressure, examination-orientedclassroom environment are offered.

Introduction

A person’s attitude towards the environment is the ex-tent and nature of his or her concern for environmen-tal quality (Linke, 1980). Its development is a maingoal of environmental education in schools (Bordenand Schettino, 1979; Curriculum Development Coun-cil, 1992a). It is based cognitively on a person’s under-standing of the operation of natural processes togetherwith human activities and their effects on the environ-ment. Affectively, it is an attribute that can represent aperson’s worries, likes and dislikes about the environ-ment. Environmental attitudes also encompass peo-ple’s tendencies to act and live in environmentally re-sponsible ways. According to the degree of moralityor responsibility attained, people’s environmental at-titudes can be classified into five levels (White, 1990;Marsden, 1995). The first three of these are namely(a) anti-morality (people gain satisfaction from caus-ing damages to the environment), (b) amorality (peo-ple act purely in their own interest without caringabout the effects on the environment), and (c) mini-malist morality (people care only selfishly about theirown environment and that of their close relatives or

friends, but not that of the others outside their imme-diate circle). On the positive side of the continuum,the fourth and fifth levels are (d) concrete morality(people extend their environmental concern to the lo-cal community and possibly their country as well, butnot to those of the others living further beyond), and(e) maximalist morality (benevolence covers all globalenvironments irrespective of how far away they are).

In the literature in the field, young people are foundto be concerned at the global and national levels withchanges and deterioration of the physical environment(like ozone depletion and pollution (Connell et al.,1999; Riechard and Peterson, 1998)), and at the locallevel with society-generated issues (like rubbish dis-posal (Ivy et al., 1998)). Global and national issuesare seen as more important than local issues (Uzzell,1999). Not everyone has the same view however—while some are worried about the future (such as theAustralian upper secondary students investigated byHutchinson (1997)), others (such as the Swedish 16-year-olds studied by Oscarsson (1996)) are confidentthat conditions are bright for their country. Simi-larly, whereas most Brisbane and Melbourne studentshave identified environmental protection as a major

102 Yeung

national goal (Connell et al., 1998), young people inthe same cities in Australia and in Sweden gave higherpriority to personal goals and employment opportuni-ties (Connell et al., 1999; Oscarsson, 1996).

The level of environmental concern among stu-dents was found to be affected by sex, age andgeographical location (Rickinson, 2001). Femalestudents, for example, showed greater concern forwildlife issues (Prelle and Solomon, 1996) and inter-est about the future (Hicks and Holden, 1995). Thestudy of upper primary, junior secondary and seniorsecondary students in Brisbane by Kwan and Miles(1998) suggests that older students have stronger anddeeper interest in the environment than do the youngerones. In England, rural students showed more con-cern for acid rain problems than did urban students(Prelle and Solomon, 1996). Besides examining theunderlying factors involved, researchers have also ad-dressed the nature of students’ attitudes. Their find-ings are positive according to the report made for Eng-land and Scotland by Lyons and Breakwell (1994)—large numbers of students in their study for instanceresponded positively to statements calling for pollu-tion control by industrialists and by themselves. Stu-dents are, however, less environmentally responsiblein cases for which personal interests or the benefitsof technology and modern consumer products are in-volved (Ivy et al., 1998). The nature of environmen-tal attitudes held by students is found to be dependenton gender and socio-economic grouping. In particu-lar, Chan’s (1996) study of secondary school studentsin Hong Kong found that girls are more positive thanboys, and noted that students from better-off fami-lies in private housing are more willing to behave inpro-environment ways than are students from lower-income families living in public housing estates.

The development of positive environmental atti-tudes is seen by many researchers as being facilitatedby the use of “enquiry teaching” approaches (e.g.,Raw, 1989; Roberts, 1996; Stimpson, 1992a, 1992b).Teachers following this approach are expected to asktheir students more questions at higher cognitive andaffective levels for stimulating thinking and the de-velopment of values, and to provide opportunities forclass discussion and the exchange of views (Iozzi,1989). Students, on their part, are encouraged to de-velop their own attitudes and to reflect on the moralityof their consumer behaviour (Milne, 1983). Enquiryteaching can take many forms, such as data-basedlearning (Peart and Stimpson, 1990) and simulated

public enquiry (Boardman, 1988). Recently, there arecalls for it to be conducted with respect to real-worldissues which are viewed differently from two or morecompeting perspectives (Stradling et al., 1984; Cor-ney and Middleton, 1996). Conducted in an enquirymode, issues-based teaching is considered capable ofenhancing motivation, promoting citizenship and de-veloping positive attitudes at a faster pace because ofthe increased opportunities available for reflection onhuman values (Ranger and Bamber, 1990). Fieldwork,if carried out in an enquiry manner that can help stu-dents identify, describe and account for salient envi-ronmental features, has a particularly valuable role inthis connection. As Stimpson (1995) contended, itcan help to “promote a conservation ethic, develop anawareness of environmental issues and encourage en-vironmental empathy” (p. 163).

In contrast to enquiry approaches, didactic ap-proaches, which can be defined as methods for thedirect transmission of knowledge as described by theteacher or in the textbook (e.g., Robert, 1982; Naishet al., 1987), require students just to listen and takenotes in a receptive mode. They give little attentionto independent thinking and therefore may not be souseful in promoting active learning and participation.They do not accord priority to the collection of datain the field and the discussion and sharing of ideasamong students. They are considered weaker in gen-erating the interest needed for the development of en-vironmental concern (Marsden, 1995). They are seeninstead as effective by teachers (e.g., Yau, 1992) andcurriculum agencies (e.g., National Curriculum Coun-cil, 1990) only for imparting the facts needed by theexamination and for the mastery of basic skills.

A number of empirical studies have been madeon the effectiveness of enquiry-oriented treatmentsin practice (Rickinson, 2001). Notable gains in themorality of perception of nature were identified byBogner (1998) amongst secondary students after tak-ing an ecology course in a German national park. Af-ter participation in a one-year conservation-based pro-gramme on the natural history and behaviour of an en-dangered species of birds, a greater willingness to actpositively one week and four weeks later was shownby a group of students in Switzerland (Bogner, 1999).In general, programmes which are longer (Zelezny,1999), residential in nature (Dettmann-Easler andPease, 1999) and emphasizing student interaction andparticipation and teacher reinforcement are more ef-

Teaching Approaches in Geography 103

fective than programmes which do not have these fea-tures.

In spite of the perceived usefulness of enquiry ap-proaches, students who were so taught were found tohave a lower level of concern for the environment thanstudents taught in a didactic style (Yeung, 1993). Seenin this light, enquiry could be non-systematic and sub-jective and may not always lead to the orderly andstructured use of knowledge. The arguments in sup-port of enquiry teaching are often ideologically basedbut not equivocally supported by empirical research.The purpose of the study here is to examine the va-lidity of these arguments in a formal subject con-text for students in their final years of schooling inHong Kong, where the educational system is stronglyshaped by the need to prepare students for cognitivelyoriented public examinations. The aim is to deter-mine which teaching approach, enquiry-oriented ordidactic, is more effective for students from differ-ent ability ranges and time frames involved. Geog-raphy at the Advanced Level was chosen for analysisbecause of its concern with the interaction betweenpeople and environmental systems (Pattison, 1964;McKeown-Ice, 1994) and the examination of issuesabout which there are conflicting technocentric, eco-nomic and ecocentric views.

Research hypotheses and methodology

Two hypotheses are examined in this study: 1) En-quiry is more effective than the didactic approach forthe development of positive environmental attitudes inboth the short and long terms for students as a whole;and 2) Within the same range of academic ability,classes taught with an enquiry approach are able todevelop a higher level of environmental morality thanclasses taught didactically. A pre-test–post-test, non-equivalent control group design (Wiersma, 1995) anda quasi-experimental approach were used for data col-lection and for testing the validity of these hypotheses.Participants were chosen on the basis of classes, whichdiffered greatly in student numbers because geogra-phy is not a compulsory subject. Classes taught witha didactic approach were chosen to form the controlgroup against which changes in attitudes through theuse of an enquiry approach were assessed. In this way,cause and effect relationships in attitudinal changescould be identified given that students were alreadyorganised in intact classes and could not be randomlyassigned into treatment or control groups.

A stratified random sample of the teachers (N =48) who had responded to an earlier survey aboutteaching approaches (N = 255) was first selected tosee if they could teach the topic “Man–environmentinteraction in selected natural landscapes” in the cur-riculum (Curriculum Development Council, 1992b)with a didactic approach or an enquiry approach.Teachers were asked to choose their approach becausethey, as professionals, were in the best position to de-cide which one was more appropriate for their classes.It would be unfair to them and their students if an ap-proach were assigned in advance, which would neces-sitate disruption to normal classroom practices. To en-sure the representativeness of the classes chosen, thesampling ratios for all districts in the territory werekept as similar as possible.

The topic being taught covered the natural condi-tions in tropical rainforests and tropical deserts, diffi-culties and prospects for human settlement and eco-nomic development, the impact of human use andabuse on the environment, as well as the differentviews on how these two landscapes should be used.Notes and reference lists covering these areas weresent to teachers who had chosen to be didactic. Refer-ence lists, slides, transparencies, role cards and work-sheets were provided to support teachers who wishedto be enquiry-oriented. The didactic teachers wereasked to describe and explain the topic content in de-tail. Their students were expected to listen, take downsome short notes and answer a few questions hereand there. Teachers using the enquiry approach wereasked to take up a more facilitative role, helping stu-dents to find answers for themselves and offering di-rection and guidance where needed. The extent ofteachers following their chosen approach was moni-tored by asking them to describe in a subsequent in-terview how they did teach in the lesson. Regulartelephone contacts were made with teachers to encour-age them to follow the chosen approach closely and tosuggest solutions for any difficulties that might arise.Their students were also asked in the subsequent ques-tionnaire survey and interview to describe how theywere taught.

Students were assessed for short-term and long-term changes in their attitudes before, immediately af-ter and two months after the teaching of the topic. Thequestionnaire used measured environmental attitudesin general and the level of environmental morality inparticular. Section A comprised 16 Likert-scale state-ments on environmental issues in tropical rainforests

104 Yeung

Table 1. Design for comparing the effectiveness of teaching approaches for the development of positive environmental attitudes amongststudents from different academic ability ranges

Classes by ability Pre-test Approach used Post-test results Long-term and short-termchanges in attitude

Higher ability (H) Results set H Didactic (D)Enquiry-oriented (E)

Results sets HD1 and HD2Results sets HE1 and HE2

Assessed by comparing HD1 and HD2 withHE1 and HE2, respectively, and analysinginterview data

Lower to mediumability (LM)

Results set LM Didactic (D)Enquiry-oriented (E)

Results sets LMD1 and LMD2Results sets LME1 and LME2

Assessed by comparing LMD1 and LMD2with LME1 and LME2, respectively, andanalysing interview data

and tropical deserts and students’ responsibility for theproblems which were present (Appendix A). Studentswere asked to indicate the extent of their agreementor disagreement with each statement. Section B de-scribed ten everyday situations with an environmentalbearing and asked students what they should do aboutthem (Appendix B). Follow-up group interviews (Ap-pendix C) were held for finding out more about thechanges in attitude. Classes were put into higher abil-ity groups or lower to medium ability groups accord-ing to the average grades in geography obtained inthe school-leaving Hong Kong Certificate of Educa-tion Examination (HKCEE) by their constituent stu-dents. A class taught with a given approach was com-pared with another class only if both were from thesame range of ability. In this way, the chance of con-founding the effects of teaching approaches with thoseof academic ability could be minimised. Table 1 sum-marises the research design for comparing the data ob-tained from students.

The mean numbers of positive and negative re-sponses given by students in the pretest and two post-tests were computed. Comparisons were made onthem and on the nature of the dimensions revealed forthe pre-test and two post-tests so as to identify possi-ble changes in the short and long terms. t-tests wereused to determine if there were significant differencesin students’ responses by the academic ability of theclasses, and by the approach in which the two abilitygroups were taught. The responses to the ten situa-tions listed in Section B of the questionnaire were re-coded according to morality level. The means of thenumbers thus obtained, coded on a scale of 1 to 5 fromanti-morality to maximalist morality, were used to de-scribe the level attained by students in each case aswell as any trends which were present. Finally, the fre-quencies of responses obtained in the interviews wereused to describe the changes in attitude after the teach-ing of the topic.

Results

Seven hundred and thirty seven students in 42 schoolscompleted the pre-test. Fewer classes and studentstook part in the post-tests (37 and 616 in the first,and 28 and 432 in the second respectively) becausesome teachers were too busy to help further or had notplanned to teach the chosen topic earlier in the schoolyear. Most of the students were female. Their aca-demic ability was medium as shown by their gradesin HKCEE Geography. Classes from 48 schools wereinterviewed.

In spite of variations, students were found to bepositive in terms of friendliness with the environment(Part (a), Table 2, and Appendix B). They respondedpositively to 7.6 statements in the pre-test and 8.1 inthe first post-test, but only to 7.3 in the second post-test. In the pre-test and first post-test, the higher abil-ity classes had significant leads (p = 0.01) over thelower to medium ability classes. In the interviews, theclasses (N = 48) reported on changes in 14 types ofattitude. The three most common ones together withthe proportions of students mentioning them were agrowing interest in learning about the environment(45.8%), a wish to reduce the use of paper (39.6%),and more concern for the environment (33.3%). Withrespect to environmental morality then, the average re-sponse value in the pre-test was 3.6 on a scale of 1–5(Part (b), Table 2, and Appendix C), suggesting thatstudents were already having a responsible attitude be-fore the chosen topic was taught. Students answered ata higher morality level in situations of more immedi-ate concern or with a higher chance of occurrence, bygiving a maximalist response to what to do with an el-der brother who often smoked at home (Q.4) and con-crete morality answers to the use of air conditionersin the classroom (Q.6) and the case of helping faminevictims in Africa (d, Q.10). In contrast, responses at alower level were given in the pre-test to issues of lesser


Table 2. Average responses to the attitudinal statements to environmental morality situations (by allstudents and by students from different ability ranges)

Pre-test Post-test 1 Post-test 2

(a) Attitudinal statement (Section A of the questionnaire)1. No. of students

(i) All classes (A) 733 595 417(ii) Higher ability classes (H) 184 188 128(iii) Lower to medium ability classes (LM) 549 407 289

2. No. of positive options chosen by students (out of 16)(i) A 7.6 8.1 7.3(ii) H 8.5** 8.7** 7.5(iii) LM 7.3** 7.9** 7.2

3. No. of negative options chosen by students (out of 16)(i) A 4.0 3.9 3.3(ii) H 3.6** 3.4** 2.9**

(iii) LM 4.2** 4.2** 3.5**

(b) Situations with an environmental bearing (Section B of the questionnaire)1. No. of students

(i) All classes (A) 243 190 177(ii) Higher ability classes (H) 75 88 128(iii) Lower to medium ability classes (LM) 168 102 49

2. Response to all statements on average by(i) All classes (A) 3.6 3.6 3.6(ii) Higher ability classes (H) 3.4 3.5 3.5(iii) Lower to medium ability classes (LM) 3.6 3.6 3.7

** Significantly different at the 0.01 level (according to t-test) from the corresponding number of op-tions chosen by classes from the other ability range.

personal concern, such as the building of the new air-port at Chek Lap Kok which, after all, was far awayfrom where most people lived (b, Q.5).

In the post-tests, a tendency towards concretemorality could be noted from the mean response valueof 3.6. There were four instances, all in the sec-ond post-test, of responses differing from those in thepre-test. On one hand, students exhibited a highermorality level on issues of a more hypothetical nature(namely with what to do with money won in a lot-tery (Q.8)) or having less direct personal impact thanthat in both the pre-test and first post-test (i.e. withthe location of the new airport (Q.5)). On the otherhand, students answered at a lower morality level inthe cases of the elder brother smoking at home (Q.4)and what to do with Vietnamese boat people in HongKong (Q.9), suggesting that their degree of moralitywas not able to stand the test of time. In the first post-test, then, the higher ability classes were answering ata level higher in three cases (Q.1, Q.4 and Q.9) but ata level lower only in one (Q.3). In the second post-test, these students responded at one level higher in

one case (Q.9) and did not become less moral in anyother. In spite of these improvements, they could notcatch up because the other classes were doing better atthe same time.

Higher ability classes

Amongst the higher ability classes, the didacticallytaught students were more positive in environmen-tal attitudes than the students who were taught withan enquiry approach (Part (a), Table 3, and Appen-dix B). They had significantly larger numbers of pos-itive responses than negative responses (p = 0.01)

in both the pre-test and first post-test (8.5 vs. 7.3 and8.9 vs. 8.3). They were however improving slowlyand so were caught up by the others in the secondpost-test. In the interviews, the eleven higher abil-ity classes as a whole named changes in eight areasof attitude, with the most popular ones being a wishto minimise the use of paper, an interest in learningabout the environment and a greater concern for theenvironment (mentioned by 54.5%, 36.4% and 36.4%

106 Yeung

Table 3. Average responses of higher ability classes to environmental attitude statements and envi-ronmental morality situations


(a) Attitudinal statement (Section A of the questionnaire)1. No. of students taught with

(i) a didactic approach (D) 117 120 91(ii) an enquiry approach (E) 67 55 97

2. No. of positive options chosen by students (out of 16)(i) D 8.5** 8.9 8.8(ii) E 7.3** 8.3 8.8

3. No. of negative options chosen by students (out of 16)(i) D 3.5** 3.3 3.2(ii) E 4.2** 3.5 3.2

(b) Environmental morality situations (Section B of the questionnaire)1. No. of students taught with


2. Response to all statements by students taught with(i) a didactic approach (D) 3.6 3.6 3.6(ii) an enquiry approach (E) 3.4 3.6 3.3

** Significantly different at the 0.01 level (according to t-test) from the corresponding number ofoptions chosen by students taught with the other approach.

of the classes, respectively). Those who were taughtdidactically (N = 7) reported changes in six types ofattitude. The most popular one was a greater concernfor the environment, followed by an interest about theenvironment and a wish to minimise the use of paper.In contrast, the classes who were taught with an en-quiry approach (N = 4) reported changes in a widerrange of attitude (altogether 8 types), including a wishto minimise the use of paper (75%) and a wish to min-imise the use of plastic bags (50%).

In both post-tests, the higher ability students re-sponded at the same environmental morality level insix cases (Q.2, Q.5, Q.6, Q.7, Q.8 and Q.10) as in thepre-test (Appendix C). In the first post-test, their an-swers were at one level higher in three cases (Q.1, Q.4and Q.9) but at one level lower in just one (Q.3). In thesecond post-test, they responded at one level higher inone case (Q.9) but did not become less moral in any.The didactically taught students responded at a higherlevel in the pre-test than those who were taught withan enquiry approach (with morality values of 3.6 vs.3.4, Table 3b). They were at a higher level in threecases (Q.1, Q.4 and Q.9) but at a lower level in two(Q.3 and Q.8; Appendix C). They could still take thelead in the second post-test because the group taughtwith an enquiry approach was doing worse. Both

groups of higher ability students had responded at thehigher levels (concrete and maximalist) in three casesof immediate concern or widespread publicity (Q.4,Q.6 and Q.7). Their responses were however at theanti-moral or amoral level in a case of less direct con-cern, namely whether or not the new airport should bebuilt in suburban Chek Lap Kok (Q.5).

The higher ability students taught with an enquiryapproach showed some improvements in the first post-test (Table 3, Part (b), and Appendix C). With their re-sponse value moving up to 3.6, they were closer to theconcrete level than to the minimalist. Their level ofenvironmental morality was however lower than thatof the didactically taught students in a case with nodirect impact in the foreseeable future, namely howthe old airport site should be redeveloped (Q.7). Theyresponded more positively in two cases of immedi-ate concern here in the first post-test than in the pre-test (Q.1 and Q.4). They did less well in the secondpost-test (with a response value of 3.3), answering ata higher level in two cases (Q.2 and Q.7) but at a lowerlevel in three others (Q.5, Q.8 and Q.10). The didacti-cally taught students answered at a higher level if thechance of occurrence was low (Q.8), but at a lowerlevel in a case without much direct impact on theireveryday life (Q.9).


Lower to medium ability classes

In the pre-test, the didactically taught students gavea greater number of positive responses to the atti-tudinal statements (7.5) than did students who weretaught with an enquiry approach (7.2) (Part (a), Ta-ble 4, and Appendix B). Unlike the first group, thesecond group did markedly better in the first post-test. In the second post-test, however, the didacti-cally taught students did worse but could still take thelead (with 7.3 responses) because the number of pos-itive responses made by the students who were taughtwith an enquiry approach was falling even faster to7.1 from 8.1 in the first post-test. In the interviews,the classes as a whole (N = 37) reported changes infourteen types of attitude. The three most commonwere a growing interest in learning about the environ-ment (48.6%), a wish to minimise the use of paper(35.1%), and a greater concern for the quality of theenvironment (32.4%). Amongst these classes, thosetaught didactically (N = 13) identified changes in tenareas of attitude, with the two most common ones be-ing a wish to use less paper and a greater concern forthe environment (30.8% in both cases). The classestaught with an enquiry approach (N = 24) togetherreported positive changes in twelve areas in the firstpost-test. The three most popular ones were an inter-

est in learning about the environment (61.9%), a wishto minimise the use of paper (34.8%), and a greaterconcern for the environment (31.4%).

Unlike the higher ability classes, the lower tomedium ability classes responded at the same sub-concrete environmental morality level with a meanresponse value of 3.6 (Part (b), Table 2, and Appen-dix C) in the first post-test as in the pre-test. In thesecond post-test, they were at one level lower in onecase (Q.3) and at two levels lower in another (Q.9)but at one level higher in one (Q.7) and at two levelshigher in another (Q.5). They were therefore doingbetter here than in the pre-test. Both groups of lowerto medium ability students were responding halfwaybetween the minimalist and concrete levels (with a re-sponse value of 3.5) in the pre-test (Part (b), Table 4).Their levels were higher in situations of more imme-diate concern and with respect to disasters widely re-ported by the mass media (Q.1, Q.4, Q.6, Q.7 andQ.10) but were, however, of an amoral nature withrespect to the location of the new airport (Q.5). Thedidactically taught students did less well in the firstpost-test, unlike the case with the students who weretaught with an enquiry approach (with response valuesof 3.4 vs. 3.6). In the second post-test, both groups re-sponded at the higher, concrete level in evaluating the

Table 4. Average responses of lower and medium ability classes to attitudinal statements and envi-ronmental morality situations


(a) Attitudinal statement (Section A of the questionnaire)1. No. of students taught with


2. No. of positive options chosen by students taught with:(i) a didactic approach (D) 7.5 7.5 7.3(ii) an enquiry approach (E) 7.2 8.1 7.1

3. No. of negative options chosen by students taught with:(i) a didactic approach (D) 4.3 4.3 4.7*

(ii) an enquiry approach (E) 4.6 3.7 3.8*

(b) Situations with an environmental bearing1. No. of students taught with


2. Response to all statements by students taught with(i) a didactic approach (D) 3.5 3.4 3.8(ii) an enquiry approach (E) 3.5 3.6 3.7

* Significantly different at the 0.05 level (according to t-test) from the corresponding number of optionschosen by classes from the other ability range.

108 Yeung

Table 5. Relative effectiveness of didactic and enquiry approachesfor the development of environmental attitudes and morality by aca-demic ability


A. Higher ability classes1. Attitudes D � E** D � E D = E2. Morality level D > E D = E D > E

B. Lower to medium ability classes1. Attitudes D > E D � E D > E2. Morality level D = E D < E D > E

=/>/< similar or no appreciable difference (by 0.3 positive re-sponse or 0.3 level or less).�/� more/less effective than the other group by 0.4 to 1.0 positiveresponse or level.D—classes that were taught with a didactic approach.E—classes that were taught with an enquiry approach.** Difference significant at the 0.01 level.

location of the new airport (Q.5). The former studentswere able to get closer to the concrete level after alland overtake the latter as well (with response valuesof 3.8 vs. 3.7).

In summary, students’ level of responsibility, asshown by their responses to the attitudinal statementsand morality situations, was moderate (Table 2). Inboth the pre-test and post-tests, the higher abilityclasses were more responsible in their attitudes buthad lower levels of morality (Part A, Table 5), suchas by giving positive responses to more statementsthan the lower-to-medium ability classes (Section 2in Part (a), Table 2). For the higher ability classes,enquiry approaches were less effective than didacticones for the development of positive attitudes in theshort term but not in the long term as well. In terms ofenvironmental morality, enquiry was useful for help-ing students to catch up in the short term but not alsoin the long term (Part A, Table 5). For the lower tomedium ability students then, enquiry was more ef-fective for the development of environmental attitudesand morality (Table 4) in the short term but not in thelong term as well.

Discussion

Students in this study showed a moderate level of en-vironmental concern and friendliness. Their level ofmorality, lying between the minimalist and the con-crete (with response values varying about halfway be-tween 3 and 4, Part (b), Table 2), reflected a lower de-gree of concern than those of the fifth-year secondarystudents in England studied by Richmond (1976) and

the 11th grade students in New York studied by Haus-beck et al. (1992). This situation is unsatisfactory be-cause it suggests only a lukewarm willingness to takepositive action for the environment. It is, however, notsurprising because Hong Kong students were earlierfound to be cherishing a much stronger sense of mate-rialism than of environmentalist values (Ng, 1991). Itwas not alarming as students’ concern was not at a lowlevel in both the pre-test and post-tests. After all, en-vironmental issues are also discussed in other subjects(such as English and Mandarin Chinese) although thetreatment might not be exhaustive or systematic aboutwho is/are responsible and what people should do tosolve the problems.

Students were positive in situations which requiredonly small personal sacrifice but were rather nega-tive if personal responsibility was involved. This co-existence of positive and negative attitudes is an indi-cator of students’ uncertainty about what action theyshould take and their sharing of powerless feelingsabout what they could actually achieve in unfamiliarsituations. Both of these responses, which may besimilar to those of many other people, are not that de-sirable because they mean that people are not willingto try to solve environmental problems on their ownunless that they have been assured repeatedly of thepositive contribution which they can make (Prelle andSolomon, 1996). Incidentally, a sense of impotencewas also found amongst young people from Aus-tralia, in spite of cultural differences and the higherlevel of public concern for environmental issues there(Hillcoat et al., 1995). Like the findings by Gillettet al. (1991) about 16–18 year old students in BritishColumbia, Canada, the increase in attitudinal scoresamongst students was not large enough to be statis-tically significant after all. This lack of positive atti-tudinal change is understandable because attitudes aslatent constructs reflect what a person thinks should bedone rather than what he or she actually knows or doesand so cannot be easily shaped by just a few weeksof teaching, no matter how effective this could be forcognitive gains or behavioural changes. In general,the higher ability classes had a higher attitudinal scorethan did the lower to medium ability ones (Parts (a)2and (a)3, Table 2) but responded at a lower moralitylevel to everyday situations than the same classes inboth the pre-test and post-tests (Parts (b)2 and (b)3,Table 2). Their higher academic ability might be thechief cause for their attitudinal score to be higher herealthough research results are often divided about the


correlation between knowledge and values (Ramseyand Rickson, 1976; Iozzi, 1989).

The degree of environmental concern and levelof environmental morality amongst students overalland classified by ability groups and subsequently byteaching approach was only moderate. That findingcan be attributed first to the nature of environmen-tal education in schools. The attention of the geog-raphy curriculum in schools, for instance, is placedon the understanding of environmental systems ratherthan attitudinal issues such as concern for environ-mental health (Fung and Lee, 1990). There is lit-tle initiative for teachers to promote the clarificationand analysis of values in view of the need to preparestudents for the cognitively oriented public examina-tion. Teachers cannot get much support from the gov-ernment and school authorities, even if they want tomake a change. The official guidelines on environ-mental education (Curriculum Development Council,1992a) have not provided enough exemplary teachingplans on how positive attitudes could be developed inthe classroom. Most schools also do not have an in-tegrated set of aims and objectives for environmen-tal education (Wong and Yan, 1995) or special envi-ronmentally oriented task forces and formal activities(such as paper recycling campaigns). The contributionof extra-curricular activities is often limited by smallparticipation rates amongst students (Fung, 1986) andby a focus on knowledge (like quizzes) or the provi-sion of adventure or service experience only (such asscouting) rather than specifically on the attitudes in-volved. Students are not encouraged to analyse theirown value position or reflect critically on the links be-tween their lifestyles and the solution of environmen-tal problems.

Students’ family backgrounds and the social con-ditions in which they live are also responsible for theirlimited concern for the environment. Since the eco-nomic take-off in the 1970s, Hong Kong families havebecome relatively affluent and less concerned with thewastage of resources (Ng, 1991). Most students getsufficient pocket money from their parents. Recentyears have also seen a greater emphasis on personalfreedom and human rights, sometimes at the expenseof civic responsibility. Although solid evidence is dif-ficult to find, these family and social factors added to-gether are encouraging students to give higher priorityto personal convenience and comfort than to matterswith an environmental bearing. In an analysis of stu-dents’ reasoning, Ho (1994) identified some interest-

ing parallels found in the present study, e.g. regardingpollution as unavoidable and justifying their own en-vironmentally unfriendly behaviour in terms of whattheir peers were doing.

Amongst the higher ability classes, those who weretaught an enquiry approach improved faster than theothers in both attitudinal scores and morality levels inall cases except in the latter case in the second post-test (Tables 3 and 5). Amongst the lower to mediumability classes, then, those that were taught didacti-cally did not do so well in both attitudes and moralitylevels (Tables 4 and 5) as those taught with an enquiryapproach, in the first post-test although not in the sec-ond post-test. One possible reason for the greater ef-fectiveness of enquiry in the short term is that it haspaid more attention to the analysis and evaluation ofvalues. However, the fact that the effectiveness ofenquiry cannot extend to the longer term may be ac-counted for by its lesser emphasis on memory work,compared to the case with didactic teaching. At thesame time, it happened that proportionally more of thedidactically taught students were of higher academicability and so could respond more positively in thelonger term. As a corollary of this trend, students whowere taught with an enquiry approach and yet wereacademically weaker might have found it difficult tohandle the large variety of ideas that are presented inan open-ended and less structured way and to reflecton the attitudes involved.

Suggestions

The two findings of this study are that the level of envi-ronmental concern and friendliness and the degree ofenvironmental morality of students are not high andthat no teaching approach can prove to be more ef-fective than the other in all situations. As a resultof these findings, a mixed approach would seem ap-propriate for students, on average. Didactic methodsare easier to master as they require teachers only toread out what they have learnt themselves and accord-ing to prepared materials, like their own set of notes.Enquiry approaches, however, require teachers to beadaptive to highly variable classroom conditions andto be capable of answering student questions whichcannot always be anticipated in advance. For thatreason, more attention should be given to the devel-opment of enquiry teaching skills and because manyteachers themselves were not taught with an enquiryapproach in their old school days (Yeung, 1999).

110 Yeung

To improve teachers’ competency with enquiry ap-proaches, one urgent step forward is the expansion ofenvironmental education programmes in training andrefresher courses (Tilbury, 1992) with special refer-ence to teaching under high-pressure classroom envi-ronments. In this regard, the universities and the gov-ernment should aim at improving teachers’ mastery ofenvironmental education principles and the pragmat-ics of classroom teaching, and implement continuous,on-going programmes so that more teachers can havethe chance to participate and benefit. Every schoolshould form a special committee to organise activitiesand programmes that are helpful for the clarificationof values and the appreciation of personal responsibil-ity for the environment.

With respect to the curriculum itself, a review ofits usefulness for the development of effective teach-ing approaches is apposite. Opportunities should beprovided for the analysis of complex issues such ashow industrial and urban development can take placewithout causing serious pollution and the reasons fortheir occurrence. Students should be given chance toexamine how their everyday attitudes, behaviour andlifestyle can affect environmental quality, and how im-provements can be made through changes in these ar-eas. Specifically, this means that geography curric-ula should include more case studies of human impacton landforms, climate and other aspects of the nat-ural environment. Local issues like the deteriorationin air quality should be included for analysing the at-titudes of different decision-makers (like environmen-talists on one side, business interests on the other andthe government in between) and arousing a sense ofurgency for action. The influence of nature on hu-mans in turn, such as extreme weather conditions ashazards, should not be ignored although it might benot so marked in technologically advanced societies.

Even if the curriculum itself is revised and im-proved, the development of values could only be ex-pedited with an understanding by teachers of exactlywhat they should teach and how. The curriculumguides for environmental education in general (Cur-riculum Development Council, 1992a) and geogra-phy in particular (Curriculum Development Council,1992b) should be revised and expanded according tothe needs of values development. For the sake of clar-ity, they should include in-depth and concrete sug-gestions on how issues can be taught with the well-being of the environment in mind. There should bedetails on what affective aims can be addressed (Iozzi,

1989), and how a mixed approach embodying a suit-able balance of enquiry and didactic elements can beimplemented in face of mounting pressure in the class-room.

Last but not the least, there is a need for revisingthe content and style of questions in public examina-tions. In Hong Kong, this need is all the more obvi-ous because of the strong impact of examinations onpedagogical changes and hence on the attainment ofdesired learning outcomes (Morris, 1995). So far, theunderstanding of facts has been emphasized in geog-raphy examinations (Yeung, 1985, 1999; Hong KongExaminations Authority, 1999) at the expense of val-ues development (Llewellyn et al., 1982). To rem-edy this situation, the Examinations Authority shouldset more questions on everyday issues and give moremarks to fieldwork and project work because of theirvalue in promoting the development of positive atti-tude and sense of responsibility for the environment.

Conclusion

As suggested in the discussions for British and Aus-tralian classrooms (Rawling, 1986; Fien et al., 1989),didactic approaches are found in the present study tobe more effective than enquiry for the developmentof positive environmental attitudes and morality in thecases with the higher ability classes in the short term,and for the development of both attitudes and moral-ity with the lower-to-medium ability classes in thelong term (Table 5). The effectiveness of enquiry ap-proaches has come under doubt because classes thatwere so taught did not out-perform the classes whowere taught didactically in the longer term. On reflec-tion, this is not surprising given the lesser familiarityof enquiry approaches to teachers and students alikeand the time and resource constraints in the lesson. In-cidentally, it happened that proportionally more of thestudents who were taught with an enquiry approachwere from the lower to medium ability range.

As summarised in Table 5, enquiry was associatedwith higher attitudinal scores and morality values onlyin the cases with the lower to medium ability classes inthe first post-test. The conclusion therefore is that thehypotheses here, which stipulated that enquiry is moreeffective than didactic approaches for the developmentof positive environmental attitudes (a) for students asa whole and (b) for students within the same range ofacademic ability, cannot be accepted in full. However,to minimise the risk of ignoring enquiry approaches


that may be useful for the development of environ-mental attitudes (in the short term for the lower tomedium ability classes for the present study, Table 4),it is worthwhile to examine the following aspects ingreater depth. The first of these is whether or notthe results obtained are just a function of the researchmethodology used, and the number and nature of top-ics taught to students. Secondly, there is the questionof whether or not the results are not the results are alsoapplicable to geography classes at lower secondarylevels, classes in other subjects, and to other educa-tional systems dominated by didactic approaches but

increasingly open to the influence of enquiry teaching.Notwithstanding those needs for follow-up work how-ever, and to minimise possible bias, research shouldalso be carried out on how a mixed approach can bemade more useful for the development of environmen-tal attitudes because one major finding of this study isthat the usefulness of both didactic and enquiry ap-proaches cannot be ignored.

Appendix A

Appendix A. Average responses to the attitudinal statements by all students, by the ability ranges of classes, and by the approach throughwhich students were taught

Attitudinal statement (Section A of the questionnaire) Pre-test Post-test Options for1 2 a response

1. Nature is the chief cause of environmental damage in tropical rainforests. A 3.7 3.8 3.6 +ve = 4, 5H 4.0** 4.0* 3.6 −ve = 1, 2LM 3.6** 3.8* 3.7

HD 3.9* 4.0* 3.7**

HE 4.1* 3.8* 3.2**

LMD 3.6 3.7 3.6LME 3.6 3.8 3.7

2. Deforestation is a trend which cannot be reversed if tropical rainforest countriesare to develop economically.

A 2.5 2.5 2.6 +ve = 4, 5H 2.6 2.6* 2.8** −ve = 1, 2LM 2.5 2.5* 2.5**

HD 2.6 2.7 2.7HE 2.4 2.6 2.9LMD 2.5 2.5 2.7*LME 2.5 2.4 2.4*

3. As a student I cannot do anything to slow down the rate of deforestation in trop-ical rainforest countries.

A 3.2 3.5 3.4 +ve = 4, 5H 3.4* 3.5 3.5 −ve = 1, 2LM 3.2* 3.3 3.3

HD 3.4 3.5 3.6**

HE 3.3 3.4 3.1**

LMD 3.1 3.3 3.4LME 3.2 3.3 3.3

4. I can make a greater contribution to protecting the environment by using hand-kerchiefs than by using recycled paper.

A 2.3 2.3 2.3 +ve = 1, 2H 2.3 2.2 2.2 −ve = 4, 5LM 2.3 2.2 2.3

HD 2.2 2.3 2.1HE 2.4 2.2 2.1LMD 2.3 2.3 2.4LME 2.3 2.3 2.3

5. Commercial lumbering is environmentally harmless if replanting is carried out. A 3.4 3.4 3.4 +ve = 4, 5H 3.6** 3.4 3.4 −ve = 1, 2LM 3.4** 3.4 3.4

HD 3.6 3.6 3.4HE 3.6 3.1 3.3LMD 3.3 3.0** 3.3LME 3.4 3.5** 3.5

112 Yeung

Appendix A. Continued


6. Deforestation is only harmful to the local environment in tropical rainforestcountries.

A 4.3 4.2 4.1 +ve = 4, 5H 4.4* 4.3 4.0 −ve = 1, 2LM 4.2* 4.2 4.1

HD 4.5 4.4 4.3**

HE 4.3 4.1 3.4**

LMD 4.2 4.2 3.9*

LME 4.2 4.1 3.2*

7. Going to a 2-week camp for studying ecosystems in a tropical rainforest is amore enjoyable experience than going to the beach in summer.

A 2.2 2.4 2.4 +ve = 1, 2H 2.2 2.3 2.4 −ve = 4, 5LM 2.2 2.5 2.3

HD 2.2 2.4 2.2**

HE 2.0 2.2 2.7**

LMD 2.2 2.3 2.5*

LME 2.2 2.5 2.3*

8. I am a culprit for the destruction of tropical rainforests. A 2.7 2.8 2.8 +ve = 1, 2H 2.7 2.8 2.9 −ve = 4, 5LM 2.7 2.8 2.8

HD 2.7 2.8 2.8HE 2.8 2.8 3.0LMD 2.8 2.8 2.8LME 2.7 2.8 2.8

9. Desertification is a problem which can only be solved by technology. A 3.4 3.5 3.3 +ve = 4, 5H 3.6* 3.5 3.2 −ve = 1, 2LM 3.4* 3.4 3.3

HD 3.6 3.6 3.3**

HE 3.6 3.5 2.9**

LMD 3.4 3.5 3.2LME 3.4 3.4 3.4

10. Going to a 2-week camp for studying ecosystems in a tropical desert is a moreenjoyable experience than going to the beach.

A 2.6 2.7 2.7 +ve = 1, 2H 2.6 2.6 2.5 −ve = 4, 5LM 2.6 2.7 2.7

HD 2.6 2.6 2.5HE 2.5 2.4 2.8LMD 2.6 2.6 2.8LME 2.7 2.7 2.7

11. The encroachment of deserts into semi-arid lands is mainly due to the abuse ofthe environment by people.

A 2.6 2.4 2.4 +ve = 1, 2H 2.5** 2.3** 2.3 −ve = 4, 5LM 2.7** 2.5** 2.5

HD 2.4* 2.2 2.2**

HE 2.7* 2.3 2.6**

LMD 2.6 2.5 2.5LME 2.7 2.5 2.4

12. As a student in Hong Kong I cannot do anything to slow down the rate of deser-tification in Africa.

A 2.8 2.9 3.0 +ve = 4, 5H 2.9* 3.1** 3.1 −ve = 1, 2LM 2.7* 2.8** 3.0

HD 3.0 3.2 3.1HE 2.8 3.0 3.0LMD 2.7 2.7 2.8LME 2.7 2.8 3.0


Appendix A. Continued


13. Nomadic herding is harmless to the tropical desert environment. A 3.1 3.3 3.4 +ve = 4, 5H 3.3** 3.4 3.4 −ve = 1, 2LM 3.1** 3.3 3.4

HD 3.3 3.5 3.4HE 3.2 3.5 3.4LMD 3.1 3.1 3.2*

LME 3.0 3.1 3.5*

14. Irrigation should not be practised on arid tropical soils for fear of increasing therate of salinisation.

A 3.2 3.1 3.0 +ve = 1, 2H 3.2 3.1 3.1 −ve = 4, 5LM 3.2 3.0 3.0

HD 3.1** 3.5 3.2HE 3.4** 3.0 3.0LMD 3.2 3.0 3.1LME 3.2 3.0 3.0

15. I should donate more money to projects which give technological aid rather thanfood aid to people suffering from desertification.

A 3.1 2.9 2.9 +ve = 4, 5H 3.1 2.9 3.0 −ve = 1, 2LM 3.1 3.0 2.9

HD 3.4 2.9 3.0HE 3.2 2.9 2.9LMD 3.2 3.0 2.8LME 3.0 2.9 2.9

16. If I were a farmer in a tropical desert, I would rather use crop remains as a fuelthan as a cover for protecting the soil.

A 3.0 3.0 3.0 +ve = 4, 5H 3.1 3.1 3.2 −ve = 1, 2LM 3.0 3.0 3.0

HD 3.1 3.2 3.2HE 3.1 3.1 3.2LMD 3.1 3.0 3.1LME 3.0 3.0 3.0

C. No. of positive options chosen (out of 16). A 7.6 8.1 7.3H 8.5** 8.7** 7.5LM 7.3** 7.9** 7.2

HD 8.5** 8.9 8.8HE 7.3** 8.3 8.8LMD 7.5 7.5 7.3LME 7.2 8.1 7.1

D. No. of negative options chosen (out of 16). A 7.6 8.1 7.3H 8.5** 8.7** 7.5LM 7.3** 7.9** 7.2

HD 3.5** 3.3 3.2HE 4.2** 3.5 3.2LMD 4.2 4.2 4.0*

LME 4.1 4.2 3.2*

∗/∗∗ Significantly different at the 0.05/0.01 level (according to t-test) from the corresponding number of options chosen by classes from theother ability range: 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = not sure, 4 = disagree, 5 = strongly disagree, A = all classes, H = higher ability classes,LM = lower to medium ability classes, HD = higher ability classes taught with a didactic approach, HE = higher ability classes taught with anenquiry approach, LMD = lower and medium ability classes taught with a didactic approach, LME = lower and medium ability classes taughtwith an enquiry approach.

114 Yeung

Appendix B

Appendix B. Average responses to environmental morality situations by students as a whole, by the ability ranges of classes, and by theapproach through which students were taught

Situations with an environmental bearing Pre-test Post-test1 2

A. Higher ability classes1. No. of students taught with a didactic approach (HD). 36 58 372. No. of students taught with an enquiry approach (HE). 41 30 123. Average response to attitudinal statements by

(a) students taught with a didactic approach (HD). 3.6 3.6 3.6(b) students taught with an enquiry approach (HD). 3.4 3.6 3.3

B. Lower to medium ability classes1. No. of students taught with a didactic approach (LMD). 76 32 192. No. of students taught with an enquiry approach (LME). 91 71 353. Average response to attitudinal statements by

(a) students taught with a didactic approach (LMD). 3.5 3.4 3.8(b) students taught with an enquiry approach (LMD). 3.5 3.6 3.7

C. Average responses to individual statements1. In my desk there is an old dusty exercise book left by a student who has already graduated. The

first ten pages have been used and stained with some soft drink. I will(A) keep the book and use all empty pages for rough work.(B) put the book inside another desk.(C) tear off the used and stained pages and throw them into the bin.(D) tear it into pieces and throw it away.(E) take the used pages to a collection box for recycling and use the blank pages for writing notes.

A d d dH c d c

d. LM d d da. HD d d cc. HE c d cb. LMD d c de. LME d d d

2. After having a picnic with my friends at a picnic I will(A) leave all the rubbish behind.(B) put all my rubbish into the bin before I leave.(C) take away all my rubbish and help them to do so as well.(D) take part in beach cleaning days run by the school.(E) take away only cans and bottles.

A c c ca. H c c cc. LM c c cd. HD c c ce. HE c c db. LMD c c c

LME c c c

3. I have a karaoke player at home. It is my(A) right to sing at any volume before 9 o’clock in the evening.(B) right to sing at any volume and time I like.(C) duty to sing at a low volume in the weekend.(D) duty not to sing when our neighbours are at home.(E) right to sing at any volume before midnight.

A d d dc. H d c da. LM d d cd. HD c c de. HE d d db. LMD c d d

LME c d c

4. My elder brother is a heavy smoker. I think he should(A) give up smoking because it harms the environment and the people around him.(B) be allowed to smoke at home at any time.(C) give up smoking because it is harmful to his health.(D) be allowed to smoke anywhere at any time.(E) Only smoke in his room.

A e e de. H d e db. LM e e ed. HD e e da. HE d e dc. LMD e d e

LME e e e

5. I live in Kowloon City. The Government is building the new airport and reclaiming land at Chek Lap Kok.(A) I don’t like the location. A lot of rare species will be displaced.(B) I like the location. Only the countryside is affected.(C) I like the location. Only a small number of villagers will be affected.(D) I don’t like the location. Nearby marine habitats and fish lives will be disturbed.(E) I like the location. I will not be affected by aircraft noise anymore then.

A b b ce. H b b bc. LM b b db. HD b b bd. HE b b aa. LMD b a d

LME b b d


Appendix B. Continued

Situations with an environmental bearing Pre-test Post-test1 2

6. There are three air-conditioners in our classroom. We are only allowed to use them during the lesson fromJune to September.(A) I will switch off the air conditioners after school if I am not in a hurry.(B) I will come back to the classroom to switch off the air conditioners even if I have already left.(C) I will turn on the air conditioners whenever I feel warm.(D) I will switch off the air conditioners after school if all classmates have left the classroom.(E) I don’t like this rule. I have paid my school fees.

A d d dH d d d

c. LM d d de. HD d d db. HE d d dd. LMD d d da. LME d d d

7. After the new airport is open, the land at Kai Tak should be redeveloped into(A) a public housing district.(B) a refuse dumping ground.(C) a container terminal.(D) a park with community and cultural facilities.(E) a shopping district with cinemas and restaurants.

A d d dd. H d d da. LM d d eb. HD e e ee. HE d d ec. LMD d e d

LME d d e

8. My father has a car which is three years old. He has just won $160,000 in a lottery. The first thing I wouldlike him to do is to(A) replace all the furniture at home with new ones.(B) donate a significant amount to organisations which help children in developing countries.(C) change to unleaded petrol with his car.(D) buy a new car.(E) donate a significant amount to environmental organisations in Hong Kong.

A c c dH c c c

b. LM c c ce. HD b c dc. HE c c ba. LMD c c cd. LME c c d

9. Giving shelter to Vietnamese boat people is expensive. There are still some 30,000 of them in Hong Kong.The best solution is to(A) send all of them back even if force is needed.(B) send them back except those with children born in Hong Kong.(C) send them back except those with a lot of savings.(D) allow them to stay if other countries are not willing to accept them.(E) send them back except those who can prove themselves as political refugees.

A c c bH b c c

a. LM c c ad. HD d c cb. HE c c ce. LMD c c cc. LME c c a

10. There are serious crop failures and famines in Africa again.(A) Africa has so many people. Some loss of life and property may be of benefit to them.(B) I will design a poster to appeal for help in school.(C) I will donate $200 to the Red Cross for helping the victims.(D) This is not for Hong Kong people to worry.(E) I will go to help the victims in my holidays.

A d d da. H d d dc. LM d d dd. HD d d db. HE d d ce. LMD d d d

LME d d d

A = all classes, H = higher ability classes, LM = lower to medium ability classes, HD = higher ability classes taught with a didactic approach,HE = higher ability classes taught with an enquiry approach, LMD = lower and medium ability classes taught with a didactic approach, LME= lower and medium ability classes taught with an enquiry approach, a(1) anti-moral, b(2) amoral, c minimalist morality, d(4) concretemorality, e(5) maximalist morality.

Appendix C. Interview with students about theirenvironmental attitudes

Please answer the following question with respect toyour geography course in Form 6. Your responses willbe treated in strict confidence.

After learning the topic “Man-environment rela-tionship in selected natural landscapes,” what changesin attitudes about the environment have occurred toyou (say, getting more interested in learning about pol-lution problems, and be more prepared to minimisethe wastage of paper)? Name the three most impor-tant ones.

116 Yeung

References

Boardman, D.: 1988, ‘The Public Enquiry as a Teaching Approach,’in R. Gerber and J. Lidstone (eds.), Developing Skills in Geo-graphical Education, International Geographical Union Com-mission on Geographical Education (with Jacaranda Press),Brisbane, pp. 94–102.

Bogner, F.X.: 1998, ‘The Influence of Short-Term Outdoor EcologyEducation on Long-Term Variables of Environmental Perspec-tive,’ Journal of Environmental Education 29(4), 167–29.

Bogner, F.X.: 1999, ‘Empirical Evaluation of an Educational Con-servation Programme Introduced in Swiss Secondary Schools(Research Report),’ International Journal of Science Education21(11), 1168–1185.

Borden, R.J. and Schettino, A.: 1979, ‘Determinants of Environ-mentally Responsible Behavior: Facts or Feelings?’ Journal ofEnvironmental Education 10(4), 35–37.

Chan, K.K.W.: 1996, ‘Environmental Attitudes and Behaviour ofSecondary School Students in Hong Kong,’ The Environmen-talist 16(4), 297–306.

Connell, S., Fien, J., Sykes, H. and Yencken, D.: 1998, ‘YoungPeople and the Environment in Australia: Beliefs, Knowledge,Commitment and Educational Implications,’ Australian Journalof Environmental Education 14, 39–48.

Connell, S., Fien, J., Lee, J, Sykes, H. and Yencken, D.: 1999,‘If It Doesn’t Directly Affect You, You Don’t Think about It:A Qualitative Study of Young People’s Environmental Attitudesin Two Australian Cities,’ Environmental Education Research5(1), 95–113.

Corney, G. and Middleton, N.: 1996, ‘Teaching Environmental Is-sues in Schools and Higher Education,’ in E.M. Rawling andR.A. Daugherty (eds.), Geography into the Twenty-First Cen-tury, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp. 323–338.

Curriculum Development Council: 1992a, Guidelines for Envi-ronmental Education in Schools, Education Department, HongKong.

Curriculum Development Council: 1992b, Syllabuses for Sec-ondary Schools: Geography (Advanced Level), The Govern-ment Printer, Hong Kong.

Dettmann-Easler, D. and Pease, J.L.: 1999, ‘Evaluating the Effec-tiveness of Residential Environmental Education Programs inFostering Positive Attitudes Towards Wildlife,’ Journal of Envi-ronmental Education 31(1), 33–39.

Fien, J., Gerber, R. and Wilson, P. (eds.): 1989, The GeographyTeachers’ Guide to the Classroom, 2nd edn., Macmillan, Mel-bourne.

Fung, Y.W.: 1986, ‘Extra-Curricular Activities in Geography inHong Kong Secondary Schools (in Chinese),’ The Chinese Uni-versity of Hong Kong Education Journal 14(2), 14–19.

Fung, Y.W. and Lee, J.C.K.: 1990, ‘A Comparative Study ofGeography Curricula in Hong Kong and China with Refer-ence to Their Contribution to Environmental Education,’ inP.G. Stimpson and T.Y.L. Kwan (eds.), Teaching Geographyin and about Asian Pacific Countries, International Geograph-ical Union Commission on Geographical Education, HongKong, pp. 5–16.

Gillett, D.P., Thomas, P., Skok, R.L. and McLaughlin, T.F.: 1991,‘The Effects of Wilderness Camping and Hiking on the Self-Concept and the Environmental Attitudes and Knowledge of

Twelfth Graders,’ Journal of Environmental Education 22(3),33–44.

Hausbeck, K.W., Milbrath, L.W. and Enright, S.M.: 1992, ‘En-vironmental Knowledge, Awareness and Concern among the11th-Grade Students: New York State,’ Environmental Educa-tion 24(1), 27–34.

Hicks, D. and Holden, C.: 1995, ‘Exploring the Future: A MissingDimension in Environmental Education,’ Environmental Edu-cation Research 1(2), 185–193.

Hillcoat, J., Forge, K., Fien, J. and Baker, E.: 1995, ‘I Think It’sReally Great that Someone is Listening to Us: Young Peopleand the Environment,’ Environmental Education Research 1(2),159–171.

Ho, K.P.: 1994, ‘The Reasoning of Twelve Students in a Hong KongSecondary School Concerning Environmental Issues—Valuesand Beliefs that Account for their Low Conservation Conscious-ness,’ in Guangzhou Environmental Science Association andFriends of the Earth Hong Kong, Environmental Education inthe Twenty-First Century, Hong Kong, pp. 416–426.

Hong Kong Examinations Authority: 1999, ‘Hong Kong AdvancedLevel Examination Question Papers I and II,’ Hong Kong Ex-aminations Authority, Hong Kong.

Hutchinson, F.: 1997, ‘Our Children’s Future: Are there Lessons forEnvironmental Educators?’ Environmental Education Research3(2), 189–201.

Iozzi, L.A.: 1989, ‘What Research Says to the Educator—Part Two:Environmental Education and the Affective Domain,’ Journal ofEnvironmental Education 20(4), 6–14.

Ivy, T.G.-C., Lee, C.K.-E. and Chuan, G.K.: 1998, ‘A Survey of En-vironmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviour of Students inSingapore,’ International Research in Geographical and Envi-ronmental Education 7(3), 181–202.

Kwan, T. and Miles, J.: 1998, ‘In the Words of Children and YoungPeople: The Opinions and Concerns about Their Environmentsof Some Brisbane School Students,’ Australian Journal of En-vironmental Education 14, 11–18.

Linke, R.D.: 1980, Environmental Education in Australia, GeorgeAllen and Unwin Australia, Sydney.

Llewellyn, J., Hancock, G., Kirst, M. and Roeloffs, K.: 1982,‘A Perspective on Education in Hong Kong,’ Report by a Visit-ing Panel, The Government Printer, Hong Kong.

Lyons, E. and Breakwell, G.M.: 1994, ‘Factors Predicting Environ-mental Concern and Indifference in 13- to 16-Year-Olds,’ Envi-ronment and Behavior 26(2), 223–238.

Marsden, B.: 1995, Geography 11–16: Rekindling Good Practice,David Fulton Publishers, London.

McKeown-Ice, R.: 1994, ‘Environmental Education: A Geographi-cal Perspective,’ Journal of Geography 91(1), 40–42.

Milne, A.K.: 1983, ‘The Role of Geography in Environmental Ed-ucation: Curriculum Challenges for the Next Decade,’ Geo-graphical Education 4, 87–92.

Morris, P.: 1995, The Hong Kong School Curriculum: Develop-ment, Issues and Policies, Hong Kong University Press, HongKong.

Naish, M., Rawling, E. and Hart, C.: 1987, Geography 16–19:The Contribution of a Curriculum Project to 16–19 Education,Longman, Harrow.

National Curriculum Council: 1990, Curriculum Guidance 7: En-vironmental Education, National Curriculum Council, York.


Ng, G.T.L.: 1991, New Environmental Paradigm Survey 1991,Hong Kong Environment Center, Hong Kong.

Oscarsson, V.: 1996, ‘Pupils’ View on the Future in Sweden,’ Envi-ronmental Education Research 2(3), 261–277.

Pattison, W.D.: 1964, ‘The Four Traditions of Geography,’ TheJournal of Geography 89(5), 202–206.

Peart, M. and Stimpson, P.G.: 1990, Approaches to the Teaching ofGeography: The Hydrological Cycle and the Drainage Basin,Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Prelle, S. and Solomon, J.: 1996, ‘Young People’s General Ap-proach to Environmental Issues in England and Germany,’ Com-pare 26(1), 91–101.

Ramsey, C.E. and Rickson, R.E.: 1976, ‘Environmental Knowledgeand Attitudes,’ Journal of Environmental Education 8(1), 10–18.

Ranger, G. and Bamber, C.: 1990, ‘Values Enquiry in Practice: In-vestigating a Local Controversial Issue,’ Teaching Geography15(2), 60–62.

Raw, M.: 1989, ‘Teaching of Issues and Values in GCSE Geogra-phy,’ Teaching Geography 14(1), 18–25.

Rawling, E.: 1986, ‘Approaches to Teaching and Learning,’ inD. Boardman (ed.), Handbook for Geography Teachers, TheGeographical Association, Sheffield, pp. 56–57.

Richmond, J.M.: 1976, ‘A Survey of the Environmental Knowledgeand Attitudes of Fifth Year Students in England,’ UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Riechard, D.E. and Peterson, S.J.: 1998, ‘Perception of Environ-mental Risk Related to Gender, Community SocioeconomicSetting, Age, and Locus of Control,’ Journal of EnvironmentalEducation 30(1), 11–19.

Rickinson, M.: 2001, ‘Learners and Learning in Environmental Ed-ucation: A Critical Review of the Evidence,’ Environmental Ed-ucation Research 7(3), 207–320.

Robert, B.: 1982, ‘Approaches to Teaching and Learning Strate-gies,’ New Unesco Source Book for Geography Teaching, Un-esco and Longman, Paris and Harlow, pp. 55–113.

Roberts, M.: 1996, ‘Teaching Styles and Strategies,’ in A. Kent,D. Lambert, M. Naish, and F. Slater (eds.), Geography in Edu-cation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 231–259.

Stimpson, P.G.: 1992a, ‘Geography, Environment and Education inthe 1990s,’ The Hong Kong Geographer 9(2), 1–11.

Stimpson, P.G.: 1992b, ‘Issues Based Teaching,’ Curriculum Forum2(3), 19–26.

Stimpson, P.G.: 1995, ‘Fieldwork in Geography: A Review of Pur-pose and Practice,’ New Horizons in Education 36, 85–93.

Stradling, R., Noctor, M. and Baines, B.: 1984, ‘An Overview,’ inR. Stradling, M. Noctor and B. Baines (eds.), Teaching Contro-versial Issues, Arnold, London, pp. 102–116.

Tilbury, D.: 1992, ‘Environmental Education within Pre-ServiceTeacher Education: The Priority of Priorities,’ EnvironmentalEducation and Information 17(1), 13–32.

Uzzell, D.: 1999, ‘Education for Environmental Action in the Com-munity: New Roles and Relationships,’ Cambridge Journal ofEducation 29(3), 397–413.

White, J.P.: 1990, Education and the Good Life: Beyond the Na-tional Curriculum, Kogan Page and Institute of Education, Uni-versity of London, London.

Wiersma, W.: 1995, Research Methods in Education: An Introduc-tion, 6th edn., Allyn and Bacon, Boston.

Wong, K.K. and Yan, W.L.: 1995, Survey Report of Green Attitudesand Behaviour of Secondary School Teachers and Students inHong Kong, The Baptist University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Yau, B.L.L.L.: 1992, ‘Environmental Education through the Teach-ing and Learning of Geography,’ The Hong Kong Geographer9(2), 12–19.

Yeung, S.P.M.: 1985, ‘A Survey of the Impact of the Public Ex-aminations on the Relationship between the Stated and Imple-mented Curriculum Objectives of Advanced Level Geographyin Hong Kong,’ Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation, University ofHong Kong, Hong Kong.

Yeung, S.P.M.: 1993, ‘Geography Teaching and EnvironmentalConsciousness among Hong Kong Secondary School Students,’Unpublished M.Phil. dissertation, University of Hong Kong,Hong Kong.

Yeung, S.P.M.: 1999, ‘The Effectiveness and Use of Issues-BasedEnquiry Teaching Approaches for the Development of Environ-mental Consciousness in Advanced Level Geography,’ Unpub-lished Ph.D. thesis, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool.

Zelezny, L.C.: 1999, ‘Educational Interventions that Improve En-vironmental Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis,’ Journal of Environ-mental Education 31(1), 5–14.

Documents

Teaching Approaches in Geography and Students’ Environmental Attitudes