The complexities of teachers' commitment to environmental education: A mixed methods approach

Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 169-189

  Sosu, Edward M ^a   McWilliam, Angus ^a   Gray, Donald S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Environmental education; Mixed methods; Systems theory and complexity; Teacher commitment

Indexed keywords

EID: 40549144033     PISSN: 15586898     EISSN: 15586901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1558689807313163     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Ajiboye, M.J.O., & Audu, U.F. (1998). Environmental knowledge and attitudes of some Nigerian secondary school teachers. Environmental Education Research, 4, 329-340.
2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179- 211.
3. Ajzen, I. (2002). Constructing a TpB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Retrieved July 16, 2005, from http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf
4. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
5. Armitage, C.J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.
6. Banathy, B.H. (1991). Systems design of education: A journey to create the future. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
7. Barrett, M.J. (2007). Homework and fieldwork: Investigations into the rhetoric-reality gap in environmental education research and pedagogy. Environmental Education Research, 13, 209-223.
8. Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (1), 8-22.
9. Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new synthesis of mind and matter. Hammersmith, UK: Flamingo.
11. Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. Journal of Environmental Education, 31 (1), 15-26.
12. Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice: Includes a 30-year retrospective. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
13. Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
14. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304-1312.
16. Connell, S. (1997). Empirical-analytical methodological research in environmental education: Response to a negative trend in methodological and ideological discussions. Environmental Education Research, 3, 117-132.
17. Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Cutter, A., & Smith, R. (2001). Gauging primary school teachers' environmental literacy: An issue of "priority." Asia Pacific Education Review, 2, 45-60.
19. Cutter-Mackenzie, A., &Smith, R. (2003). Ecological literacy: The "missing paradigm" in environmental education (Part 1). Environmental Education Research, 9, 497-524.
20. Dillon, J., & Arjen, W. (2006). On the danger of blurring methods, methodologies and ideologies in environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, 12, 549-558.
21. Dillon, P.J., & Gayford, C.G. (1997). A psychometric approach to investigating the environmental beliefs, intentions and behaviours of pre-service teachers. Environmental Education Research, 3, 283-297.
22. Evans, M.G. (1991). The problem of analyzing multiplicative composites: Interactions revisited. American Psychologist, 46, 6-15.
23. Gotch, C., & Hall, T. (2004). Understanding nature related behaviours among children through a theory of reasoned action approach. Environmental Education Research, 10, 157-177.
24. Greene, J.C. (1994). Qualitative program evaluation: Practice and promise. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 530-544). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25. Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26. Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (3 rd ed., pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H.A.M. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2505-2528.
28. Hoban, G.F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change: A systems thinking approach. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
29. Hsu, S.J., & Roth, R.E. (1999). Predicting Taiwanese secondary teachers' responsible environmental behavior through environmental literacy variables. Journal of Environmental Education, 30, 11-18.
30. Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.
31. Ko, A.C., & Lee, J.C. (2003). Teachers' perceptions of teaching environmental issues within the science curriculum: A Hong Kong perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12, 187-204.
32. Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage.
33. May, T.S. (2000). Elements of success in environmental education through practitioner eyes. Journal of Environmental Education, 31, 4-12.
34. Palmer, J. (1998). Environmental education in the 21st century: Theory, practice, progress and promise. London: Routledge.
35. Palmer, J.A., & Suggate, J. (1996). Influences and experiences affecting pro-environmental behaviour of educators. Environmental Education Research, 2, 109-121.
36. Patel, N.V. (1995). Application of soft systems methodology to real world process of teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Management, 9, 13-23.
37. Phelps, R., & Hase, S. (2002). Complexity and action research: Exploring the theoretical and methodological connections. Educational Action Research, 10, 507-524.
38. Plevyak, L.H., Bendixen-Noe, M., Henderson, J., Roth, R.E., & Wilke, R. (2001). Level of teacher preparation and implementation of EE: Mandated and non-mandated EE teacher preparation states. Journal of Environmental Education, 32, 28-37.
39. Reid, A., & Scott, W. (2006). Researching education and the environment: Retrospect and prospect. Environmental Education Research, 12, 571-587.
40. Rodriguez-Ulloa, R., & Paucar-Caceres, A. (2005). Soft systems dynamic methodology (SSDM): Combing soft systems methodology (SSM) and systems dynamic (SD). Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18 (3), 303-334.
41. Scottish Executive. (2000). Environmental studies, society, science and technology: 5-14 national guidelines. Glasgow: Learning Teaching Scotland.
42. Scottish Executive. (2004). A curriculum for excellence. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www.acurriculumforexcellencescotland.gov.uk/
43. Scottish Executive. (2006). Statistical publication. Retrieved September 12, 2006, from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/99843/0024183.pdf
44. Shuman, D.K. (1995). Factors that influence commitment to teaching environmental education: Development and test of a causal model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Idaho.
45. Shuman, D.K., & Ham, S.H. (1997). Toward a theory of commitment to environmental education teaching. Journal of Environmental Education, 28, 25-33.
46. Summers, M., Kruger, C., Childs, A., & Mant, J. (2001). Understanding the science of environmental issues: Development of a subject knowledge guide for primary teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 33-53.
47. Tajino, A. (2002). Transformation process models: A systemic approach to problematic team-teaching situations. Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, 17 (3), 29-44.
48. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49. Zint, M. (2002). Comparing three attitude behaviour theories for predicting science teachers' intentions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 819-844.