1. Introduction and Historical Context

The concern about the creation and educational use of outdoor school spaces and how to serve the best interests of students is very, very old in Germany. In his work "Didactica magna" Johan Amos Comenius (1592 - 1670) gives a vivid description one such possible space. Comenius wrote:

The rough translation is that: at school there ought to be a garden for the children to spend time in and where their attention is captured, their eyes grazing on the images of the trees, flowers and herbs.

In 1695, August Hermann Franke began spending official class time outside on the school grounds in the school’s garden for what was called nature discovery instruction (Naturkunde). This was the beginning of a very long German tradition in the education of nature in nature. This took place on the school premises but also the students were taken to natural areas nearby.

This is the beginning of the recorded history on the role of the school grounds in education I have found.

A bit over one hundred years later and after World War I, some educators criticizing instruction felt efforts were still inadequate and maintained that, on the one hand, the school of "learning" was overwhelming the students and, yet, at the same time - for the young people - it was lacking the connection with reality. School grounds were envisioned with nature-like "departments" - fields, ponds and forest or a school garden - where instruction in "nature discovery" and in physics, chemistry and math alike could take place.

As a result of World War II, instead of improvements, many schools met with a kind of desertification. Especially the city schools were hit hard. Many schools in larger cities were damaged by the bombing and ensuing fires. Re-adjusted priorities, lacking funds, expensive real-estate prices and a growing student population in the immediate years that followed led, rather, to neglect of the school grounds.

Somewhat later the topic was revived through what was then known as the "golden plan" or the German Olympian Rule. In about 1958, there was a relatively strong movement which intended to lay down federal regulations and "minimum limits" for the design of school grounds. (For example, so many square meters of green per student.) However, opposition rose and availed. The opposition was opposed to the "golden rule" because it felt that through such measures the individuality and the integrity of individual school settings would be compromised. Schools would loose control over determining their own objectives, in addition to relinquishing creative opportunities in the design of the school. Little or any traces are to be found currently within education authorities or other official offices supervising school ground issues, except for the allotment of space in "Kindergarten" (the equivalent of nursery school) and public parks and play areas in urban settings.

In the federal state Schleswig-Holstein, for example, virtually nothing of the golden guidelines has survived. There are, aside from safety regulations, no regulations which school grounds must abide by. A rule of thumb for planing and building is: five square meters outside for each kid. This rough cut estimate, if not already the case, ought to be held to by any later remodeling, expansions or what have you. Yet, many growing city schools can’t. They boarder frequently wall to wall with other structures or streets. Furthermore, what these five square meters are is entirely left to the discretion of the education authority - as it was wished. However, there are neither restrictions nor mechanisms that secure the use of the grounds for the students (and, say, not for a faculty parking lot). This is of particular concern in light of growing innercity congestion.

In any case, for more than two hundred years, there have been initiatives and efforts to get the design and use of school grounds a stronger position on the agenda. Initiatives and efforts are frequently found at the local level in various forms. Larger, regional initiatives can be found, too. One such initiative is found in a region of Hessen where there is a yearly competition for the "best", most ecologically improved school grounds. They have just celebrated their tenth year. I found this initiative special not only because they secure financial sponsoring and provide expertise and counseling in the design of grounds to numerous schools of an area, but because school efforts are recognized and made known to the public.

First in the 80’s, tips for educational elements and practical planning for the school grounds design became apparent, wide spread and quite popular. It is not difficult to find ideas on what to do with your school and how to do it. A nation-wide association of architects, planners, psychologists and educators concerned about living and playing spaces for young people has been publishing for the past two decades a monthly magazine Spielraum ("play space") on related topics. Schools are a particular subject of their concern.

But it wasn’t until 1991 that the Education Ministry of Lower Saxony put together a guide to the "Ecological Re-design of School Grounds" (Bastian, Grothe, Neuhaus-Närmann & Reese, 1991). The forward calls for the examination of the believability of environmental education. They wrote that behavior at school with respect to the environment in general and in the daily specifics ought to be challenged for its adherence to "responsibility" as it is often preached in environmental education in general and in instruction in particular. Schools ought to show youth the way by going it themselves - and schools ought to document it. Schools serve as role models for children and youth and is a significant place where they learn about the world and how it functions. Not only in the classroom or through instruction do schools tell kids how things are done but schools also show them in the daily routines of "business as usual" and through the design and use of the buildings and grounds. A success in environmental education, as it was put in the guide, is the success a school has at designing an environmentally sound and humane place for living and working.

Also according to this guide, school grounds serve multiple functions that are listed below:

• as a place for nature discovery;
• as a place for play and experience;
• as a place for environmental education;
• as a place for practical skills training and "therapy" possibilities;
• as a place of and in support of instruction;
• as a place for the protection of endangered species; and
• as a place or model of democracy: its understanding, its process, its critics.

At the same time, literature often identifies school outside the buildings as a collection of spaces for different kinds of student activities. These spaces are commonly subdivided into the four categories: quiet areas, activity areas, areas for exploring nature and environment and areas of movement or passage. These categories represent uses or needs of students for outside areas (Moore, no date). This arose out of the recognition that structural change in the modern society has lead to the situation that 1) children spend less time playing outdoors than previous generations and 2) school has become for many of these youth the only regular source of contact to nature in a somewhat informal context.

The focus of initiatives vary considerably. In the forefront are often goals which are based on educational, ecological, social or aesthetic values. According to the Lower Saxony guide for school grounds, good design:

1. contributes to autonomy and a positive self-consciousness through identification;
2. creates spaces and situations to explore the natural environment, to gain insight into nature’s qualities and processes, and to move "lightly" within it;
3. promotes a school climate where both students and faculty are partners and conflicts are minimal; and
4. conveys emotional security and at the same time stimulates creativity through individual objects or features as well as through its entirety.

These goals are intended to serve nature conservation but most importantly these goals are intended to foster the development of identity in young people. Often, therefore, one or more of the following objectives will be named for the focus of a re-design of a school grounds:

• to work with knowledge hands-on or on skills at greater depth than the classroom allows, i.e., activities emphasizing sensory perception and observation skills;
• to support and encourage student interests;
• to foster discovery, exploration, research activities;
• to promote awareness of the issues;
• to encourage creativity, curiosity and fantasy;
• to practice skills necessary in getting a job done, i.e., self discipline, stick- to- it-ness and cooperative skills;
• to enable nature education;
• to give students a voice and allow their participation.

Presently, although limited, there are opportunities in every federal state for training or education in topics related to the design of school grounds. For example, there are workshops on safety and responsibilities on aspects of design and equipment or one can train to moderate and supervise the design process at schools. These measures and many others are conducted by convinced and highly motivated individuals from all walks of life and professions, for example, planers, educators, psychologists, architects, gardeners, brick layers and biologists. There is also activity at the international level. In 1997, the OECD (the European Organization for Economic Development) sponsored an international conference on the design of school grounds with the intention of establishing it on their agenda. More than 60 participants from 20 countries attended.

In 1993, at the yearly conference of the Nordrhein-Westfalen parliamentary representatives for children the central subject at debate was "kid friendliness" (Kinderfreundlichkeit) or the necessities of children. The proceedings have been published in the form of a "test for kid friendliness" for a number of areas particularly relevant in the lives of children (Ministerium für Arbeit, Gesundheit und Soziales - NRW, 1993). This workbook identifies the school as one such area and the place where increasingly more kids make the greater part of their social-emotional and, in particular, their sensory-motoric experiences.

Traffic and congestion, the "unmixing" or segregation of urban areas according to function and the increasing density of built areas are resulting in a reduction of spaces for kids. This is also leading to a shift from less time being spent outdoors to more time being spent indoors. These trends are recognized as a significant changes in the conditions of kids lives.

Knauf (1993) maintains that learning objectives are still the first priority of the school. Yet, even for this end, such changes for kids means changes for the school. The school must recognize that it has acquired (and not voluntarily) additional functions which if not fulfilled will inhibit or retard a number of students in meeting the learning objectives. The environment has changed and therefore the learning process must also adapt. Knauf adds that this requires schools to undergo a "process of dealing with environmental issues" which extends to the very design and use of the "learning environment" itself.

The subject of school grounds, their design and student involvement, is getting attention from yet another political source. In 1996, a regulation was introduced in Schleswig-Holstein on the participation of children in community planning and decision making. Children ought to be involved in community events touching their lives. School is seen as a most important place where the involvement of kids is to be encouraged. Hartmut von Henting points out the specialness of schools in the lives of kids. He said that school - the only institution provided by society...is where one practices the most important skills: problems and interests are defined and dealt with publicly; one influences others and allows oneself to be influenced; decisions are made and consequences are followed through; conflicts are not avoided, they are abated; agreements are made; responsibilities are defined and the like (Tiemann, 1997).

Furthermore, the Land Schleswig-Holstein together with the German "Kinderhilfswerk" (Berlin) supports many projects emphasizing the involvement of kids in community events as part of a campaign "Schleswig-Holstein - Land for kids". Projects do include several on the improvement of school grounds. Based on the experiences collected over many projects, several useful publications on working together with kids have been prepared (see, for example, Brunsemann, Stange & Tiemann 1997).

Despite recognition that school grounds, how they are designed and used, as an important tool in learning and in developing the necessary skills to act environmentally, what is still lacking is a theoretical foundation for these efforts and empirical investigation into their effects on youth. The following chapters describe the theoretical position and one such research activity conducted in Germany by me and my colleagues at the Institute for Science Education (IPN). However before I go on with theoretically relevant issues I would like to give a general overview on schools in Germany and environmental education.

2. An Overview of School in Germany and Environmental Education

School systems vary from country to country. Although this is common knowledge, I have noticed that knowledge on the school system is essential for gaining insight on how education is practiced and viewed there. Research in education, be it empirical, is not random. It deals with real people and real issues. This is why I am including a short section on the German school system and environmental education here.

This section describes very generally what role environmental education plays in the public schools in Germany and how the public school system is structured.

The term ‘environmental education’ is widely used, however, it has no single, indisputable meaning. Lucas (1980) classified the usage of this term into the categories ‘education about the environment’, ‘education for the environment’ and ‘education in the environment’ and mixed categories. Education about the environment is concerned with providing a cognitive understanding of issues. Education for the environment is directed toward environmental preservation and is characterized by particular purposes or aims. Education in the environment is characterized by the technique of instruction stressing direct contact in physical and social environments outside of the classroom. Environmental education in Germany reflects all these qualities Lucas has described to some degree although in practice and for purposes of evaluation the catch-all term ‘environmental education’ is used for everything without further specification. In recent years, there is a small but growing group of practitioners that refer to their field as nature conservation education in order to stress their more selected focus.

Several international workshops and governmental conferences document the growing importance of contemporary environmental education issues and international cooperation. The initial definition of ‘environmental education’ was laid to paper in 1970 at the International Workshop on Environmental Education held by the IUCN in Nevada, USA. The UN-Conference ‘On the Human Environment’ in Stockholm, 1972 and the Workshop on Environmental Education in Yugoslavia, 1975 resulted in several programs for international environmental education. Progress reviews and further recommendations for environmental education followed at the ‘Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education’ in Tiblisi, 1977 and the UNESCO/UNEP Conference in Moscow, 1987 (Leal Filho, 1996).

At that time, national (West-Germany) governmental conferences were well under way, too, making their own recommendations for environmental education goals and implementation strategies for the school education system and thus gave environmental education an official status in Germany. Two conferences stand out:

1. a conference conducted by the Institute for Science Education (IPN) in Munich, 1978. At this conference the recommendations of the ‘Tiblisi-Conference’ were adapted for German education institutions.
2. the ‘Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) 1980’ (KMK, 1980). This is a conference of the ministries of education of all German federal states. An important resolution of this conference was that schools have a special responsibility in conducting environmental education.

The responsibility of schools, it is written, lies in the task to create ‘environmental consciousness’ and foster lasting environmentally sound behavior. It was then the task of each federal state to work these recommendations into their curricula. Environmental education, however, has not been introduced as a school subject itself, rather, as an issue to be addressed in virtually all subjects. Criteria for the uniform adoption of environmental issues into the school were developed through support from the ‘Arbeitsprogramm Umweltbildung’ (task force for environmental education) of the federal ministry of education, science and technology in 1987 and a resolution of the ‘Bund-Länder-Kommission’ (federal and state commission) on educational planning and research support. In 1992, the KMK reconfirmed these goals. (Also see Bölts, 1995; Eulefeld, Bolscho & Seybold, 1981; Rode, 1996.)

The German public school system is not uniform for the entire country. Germany is comprised of sixteen federal states called Bundesländer. Each state has its own Ministry of Education responsible for matters within that Land. There are quite a few individual differences from federal state to federal state. I am, however, going to describe the organization in general.

The school system is comprised of three levels: primary, secondary I and secondary II. Children attend primary school (‘Grundschule’) for four years between the ages of 6 and 9. Reading, writing and arithmetic make up about half of the school time. The remaining time is devoted to ‘Sachkunde’ (a course constituted of both natural and social sciences), religion, art, music and sports. Unique to primary school is the holistic approach to teaching.

Begining with the fifth grade children are channeled into one of three types of secondary school: ‘Hauptschule’, ‘Realschule’ and ‘Gymnasium’. There is little movement from one secondary school type to another. Typically, students remain in the school track where they have been placed for the rest of their school education. The differences are academic. The 5th to 10th grades (10 to 16 years) comprise the secondary I level, which is offered by all three school types. The only exception is that, in many but not all cases, the ‘Hauptschule’ includes up to the 9th grade only. The ‘Gymnasium’ offers, in addition, grades 11 through 13 (secondary II) for 17 to 19 year-olds. The qualifications offered at each of these school types differ. The completion of ‘Hauptschule’ satisfies the minimum educational requirements in Germany. Graduates have the opportunity to learn a trade in vocational schools. Completion of ‘Realschule’ allows graduates to learn those trades requiring a higher qualification. Graduation from ‘Gymnasium’ entitles students to attend university.

It is usual that students of the same age level are grouped into units. For example, each new school year the entire first grade is divided into groups "1a", "1b" and so on, depending on the first grade size. Each group has its own classroom for the year and all students of a group stay together - are taught together - for the successive years unless, for example, the school form changes (i.e., primary level to secondary I) or according to subject interests (foreign language versus natural science emphasis). This leads to many smaller groups of students that - within the group - know each other very well over a very long period of time. Additionally, because it is traditional that the kids stay in their classroom for the duration of the day, the teachers naturally have to move about - with all their materials etc. Labs for lab work are common but general class time is conducted in the same place for all subjects.

Environmental instruction is concentrated in the subject areas: ‘Sachkunde’ in primary school and in biology, geography and social studies at secondary schools. Physics, chemistry and religion also contribute considerably to environmental education. In each of these subjects nearly half as many environmentally related issues are addressed as in the core subjects. The remaining serve as complementary subject areas (mathematics, languages, technology, art, music, sports, etc.) (Eulefeld, Bolscho, Rode, Rost & Seybold, 1993; Eulefeld et al., 1981).

The curricula is developed by each federal state subject-wise and can differ from state to state quite dramatically. In general, a curriculum contains a catalogue of contents. It specifies the amount of time that ought to be devoted to each topic and its priority. It is becoming more prevalent that recommendations for teaching methods are included. Although teachers are required to teach specified topics, there exists free room for choosing content and teaching method. It is not a common to monitor teachers on their practices nor on their adherence to the curricula. As far as curricula are concerned, environmental topics - not surprisingly - are most prevalent in biology and this is especially true for grades five and nine at the secondary level.

The KMK conference (KMK, 1980) was instrumental in the introduction of environmental education in curricula and school books; and the IPN, among others, has made a considerable contribution to its implementation by developing instructional materials and conducting empirical studies in environmental education.

"Environmental Education", whether at school or elsewhere, has "responsible environmental behavior" as its ultimate aim (Stapp, 1969; Winston, 1974; Ramsey, 1993). In this light, responsible behavior can be described as culturally recognized behavior and for educational purposes can be addressed in all situations, in all subjects, in all spaces children and youth are found. Environmental education, however, is usually dealt with just like all other school subjects - as a theme and content aspect of curricular class time instruction (Rode, 2000).

3. Theory

Environmental education is certainly appropriate for instruction. There is much to learn. The question posed is if people like Bronfenbrenner and Barker, Lewin and Dewey are on to something? Namely, if the aim of environmental education is indeed behavioral, and all this has a place at school, then is instruction really enough?

"Responsible behavior", as it is propagated by the highest education officials in Germany, is a major objective of the school system in general. Instruction, no matter how superb it may be, cannot possibly be sufficient if the school setting doesn’t correspond - if a fitting "environmental culture" at the school doesn’t exist.

Fietkau (1984) has presented five necessary conditions for responsible behavior with regard to the environment:

• Adequate knowledge about ecology must be present.
• Responsible behavior necessitates ecological values.
• Relevant behaviors require opportunities within a conducive infrastructure.
• There must be incentives for environmentally relevant behavior.
• Environmental behavior must have positive consequences, i.e., social recognition.

All of these conditions are directed at the broader society in general, yet school is equally capable of recognizing and fostering environmental achievement at least as much as they do others. Extrapolating, schools ought to allow students the opportunity to conduct themselves environmentally in everyday situations there. In the words of Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker (1993), one of Germany’s most provocative environmental thinkers, environmental behaviors "must become for us a cultural given; and it is never too early to learn them".

So apart from the objectives of instruction, what additional influence on students can we expect from the school as a whole and its efforts in environmental education?

This section describes selected theories in education and psychology as they pertain to the subject of school (spaces) and youth. First, I look at school as a role model for environmental behavior. This is followed by a section on school environment and education. Then I will describe what I believe - at this time - an ecological school culture is and how it could impact students of the school. Finally, I end with a section specifically discussing the design and use of school spaces and introduce the idea how they might influence student motivation to act environmentally.

Home

Contents

Students are in direct contact with lots of things and procedures at the school, for example, paper and how it is used at school. One school may use paper sparingly and even re-use or recycle it. Another school may not. In this way, a school displays its environmental behavior, or lack of it, with regard to paper. These behaviors are more likely than not entirely independent from classroom instruction.

As students pick up on how paper is used at their school, one could define this as an authentic learning situation. On the one hand, the school conveys knowledge and procedures that are relevant to the students (for example, on using paper). On the other hand, students are active participants in their learning process. The students are present to experience or witness this paper behavior while it is a relevant situation. These authentic learning situations at school, or practices, environmental or not, are the norm. This is the "norm"al way of doing things at our school. This behavior is assimilated as appropriate behavior (Cook & Berrenberg, 1981, Weigel & Amsterdam, 1976). Through the school’s practices, the students acquire procedural knowledge on the use of paper.

Even if there is no explicit research at this time on the role of school environmental practices on students, there are a few findings on procedural knowledge which I feel are significant for this special learning situation at schools.

• Environmental behavior which has been done before or "practiced" re-occurs with greater likelihood in the future (Macey & Brown, 1983);
• New behaviors or behavioral changes occur less seldom for persons who lack the necessary procedural knowledge for that particular behavior (Oskamp et al., 1991; Vining & Ebreo, 1990; Gamba & Oskamp, 1994; Simmons & Widmar, 1990); and
• Intrinsic motivation to develop one’s own competence (Gray, 1985; White, 1959; Wandersman, 1979; Leff, Gordon & Ferguson, 1974; De Young, 1996) for the necessary skills in life (Wandersman, Florin, Friedman & Meier, 1987) are promoted by procedural knowledge.

These findings imply that not only do students become experienced in "paper" behaviors; they would be more likely to repeat these same behaviors in the future. On top of this, if viewed as an accomplishment, competence in "paper" behavior ought to lead to heightened self approval and serve as an additional intrinsic incentive for further similar behavior (Bowlby, 1982).

Whether the school acknowledges it or not, then, it conveys through its own practices and habits to students just how one could and should behave with "paper". In other words, the school portrays a life style and in doing so serves as role model for conduct which the student then assimilates and repeats in future situations.

The Education Ministry of Lower Saxony (Bastian et al., 1991) recognizes the school as a role model for students, too. The Ministry has attempted not only to bring this to the attention of the schools but has tried to get schools actively involved in their role by telling schools that their students must live at school what is to be learned. The school does not consist of instruction alone. School is a place full of real spaces and real things which are the very things students learn from. Students learn what these things are and what to do with them. Students learn about real life situations and personal interactions with others.

The student, as Dewey put it (1987), does not even require instruction, rather, the student must be involved. Students must take a part, reconstruct and experiment with the world around them.

"There isn’t thought which wasn’t in the senses first."
John Locke (1632 - 1704)
an English philosopher and educator

Experience, in the opinion of many, determines the relationship between young people and the world around them. It is the school’s challenge to acknowledge the process and create student experiences.

School can either build upon the students’ world and nurture the relationship or school can ignore this and contribute to the estrangement of young people from the adult world. School must be aware that it gives significance and meaning to places and things and ought to include students in this process (Sanger, 1997). One has to imagine, said Dewey, that education is an ever continuing process of taking apart experiences and putting them together again (McDermott, 1973). Experience at school is a form of communication - be it formal, informal, or non-formal, explicit or implied. Everything a school does, intended or not, educates, even its absence is in the end environmental education (Orr, 1992). The consequence is that environmental education is happening all the time and in every corner of the school.

3.2. School environment and education

Bronfenbrenner (1978) describes "school" as an environmental setting or "culture" showing the recognized way to deal with things, situations and institutions. In "showing", the culture teaches.

However, culture cannot be viewed as something independent from the physical and material space it occupies. Children learn "culture" from the objects of their surroundings. Children act in their surroundings as a result of what they learn.

Furthermore, children are not superimposed into the setting. They are embedded in the culture or (school) system. Lewin (1936) has used the term "habitat" to refer to the cultural environment I have just described. Lewin does not dwell on the objects within habitats but stresses the meanings held for them. More importantly, meaning possesses two qualities. One is subjective and the other is objective.

Habitats are filled with objects and meanings. Each child will have its own meaning for the things within its habitat. Each kid will relate to - for example, paper - a little bit differently. Therefore, the meaning of "paper" will vary from child to child. As children give individualized meaning to objects of their world, they also construct individualized or subjective habitats.

Barker (1968) has described the second quality of meaning as that part which is the same for all individuals. Shared or "collective" meaning for things, and situations etc., is objective and defines the habitat setting.

School is a special habitat for kids. Its setting, the collective meanings for otherwise common things can be significantly different from those at home with family.

Each family is individual and unique. The school is created out of the melding of many, many "families" that together tend to modify the expression of each other at the school until what remains is an amorphous "typifying" or "standardizing" of that conglomerate or sample of society.

This phenomena is not restricted to the youngsters only. As each child brings with it to school its particular subjective views on the world, so does each faculty member, school principal and anyone else of influence associated with the school. Students and faculty together represent a unique perspective on their society. More or less together, the aims and objectives of the school will be set (and only together may they be reached!).

Although concrete (learnable) objectives are determined to a large extent by the cultural norms and working forms within the society (Oerter & Montada, 1995). This has to be further differentiated for each school. What school is, then, is going to be interpreted differently in each instance. What aims and what the students ought to experience, develop, acquire for "life" - both personally and as a functioning part of society will vary. So, in addition to "knowledge", or perhaps most importantly, the school conveys to its students its particular conventions in thinking, in speech and expression as well as in conduct with the worldly things and persons.

Again, this does not only take place during instruction but, for the most part, through the experiences and procedures of the normal school day (Bowers, 1993; Smith, 1992). Or as Dewey (1987) cared to put it:

The school is a product of the environments of the kids and faculty attending them and at the same time, it is a place of learning about our environment. School not only reflects culture, it is culture. Each school, in its own way, passes on environmental behaviors through its ecological culture.

3.3. Ecological culture at school

As with any culture, an ecological school culture is dynamic. It is a process in a continual state of evolution and development. It lives. It will never reach a final form. Yet, be ecological culture independent from and more obscure than instruction, it is not haphazard, nor is it without rhyme or reason. It is not entirely beyond our control.

Vygotski (1896 - 1934) got interested in how the "products" of culture are "acquired" by individuals (Vygotzky, 1987). His theoretical explanation for this describes two behavioral starting points and is named the two-step theory of cultural development.

This theory describes behavior as a bridge between the individual and environment. As it is with every bridge, it requires an architect. The architect of bridges connecting people to their material world is the culture itself. Objects, experience and behavior are constructs of culture and cannot be separated from this context. Human behavior, then, can be understood and defined - theoretically - only in reference to the culture to which it belongs. "Education", "development" and "socialization" is, therefore, learning the right way of doing things. For us, the right way and the objects cannot be separated from each other. Our environment, as we learn it, understand it and experience it, is a product of our culture.

Culture, learning and the objects and environment that make up our world is a social event. My environment and its contents (O), for example, can be defined as a societal product of others ("creators" and "users", C) in a cultural context.

On the other hand, I (c) construct personal relationships to my environment and to the objects (o) within it. My subjective perception has form and order to it which shapes subsequent experience (use, learning).

This approach describes the two-step relationship between myself and the world as a dynamic process between both objective and subjective counterparts. The culture provides the objective quality of objects and processes. I bring new nuances of meaning into culture through my own personal experience with things. These counterparts are in continual interaction in a process of assimilation and evolution between culture and myself, between school and student. A culture at school is, therefore, the product of both the school environment (as defined by the culture there) and the individuals there, the students included.

An ecological school culture encompasses, then, both 1) the setting (the collective meaning on nature and environmental protection at the school and the way of doing things, or habits, with objects and spaces there) in interaction with 2) the subjective "meaning" of the students on "school", its content and student experience.

Each school, whether in acknowledgment of it or not, for better or for worse, develops its own ecological culture.

Now, when a school chooses - as an example - to set "conservation skills for the protection of nature and environment" as a major educational goal, then there are many concrete things it can do to embody an ecological "setting". This school could take its function as role model very seriously and choose practices and procedures deemed fitting. This school could act according to the same principles and examples used for the students during instruction. It could use paper sparingly and in a way that this use is transparent to the students.

In 1996, the Education Ministry of Lower Saxony together with the German Society for Environmental Education (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Umwelterziehung, 1997), sponsored the conference "The Second Talks on Environment in Lower Saxony Schools". It was here that they chose for their work the concept "sustainable development" as guiding principle for school education. The themes "care", "maintenance", and "design" of the school buildings and grounds were highlighted as a means to attain the central educational objectives: student well-being and responsible environmental behavior.

At this conference the message was sent that it is inconceivable to reach the highest educational aims, that of "well-being" and "responsible behavior", if they remain as ideals and are not embodied there. Several conditions were also named:

• A school can meet these objectives only when it takes on a positive role and lifestyle which includes the design of the school and person-to-person relationships in addition to learning content, methods and technical support; and
• As role model for young people, a school must maintain dialogue and cooperation with politicians, education agencies and other institutions on the needs of youth.

In summary, if the aim of schools is to attain environmentally active or responsible youth, then this example has to be omnipresent. These things, these practices have to be student reality, a standard, a given - not a hobby or a pleasant way to spend an afternoon for a change. I call this omnipresence the ecological culture of the school.

But what really makes an ecological culture at school? And what influence does the design and use of schools have on student environmental behavior?

3.4. Design and use of school grounds

It has been acknowledged that the design and use of the school grounds is a contender on factors influencing student environmental behavior. There has been little work describing what this is, what it influences in students and how it all works.

Briefly here, we have that students learn not only through instruction but also through the objects and practices at school, its collective and subjective meanings or its ecological culture. As we shall see in following chapters in greater detail, the ecological culture is quantifiable and, therefore, identifiable. Using a new educational model for environmental behavior specially developed here, I will attempt to explain the influence of an ecological culture at school on students, in particular, on their motivation to act environmentally.

First though, a summary of the relevant literature I have found on the design and use of schools for student learning.

In Chapter 5, there is a listing of several references on the influence of environments. They do not pertain exactly to the topic here, but they do imply that environmental behaviors at school cannot be understood without considering the role of the school setting, its design and use.

Similarly, the Education Ministry of Lower Saxony (Bastian et al., 1991) maintains, in their guide to designing school grounds, that the thoughtful design and use of the school results in experiences and impressions necessary for student well-being and for the development of responsible behavior. This guide informs schools that the following objectives ought to be reachable through school design and use:

• establishment of a(n) (emotional) bond with nature;
• conveyance of knowledge, insights and practical skills in nature and environment;
• promotion of environmentally protective and humane ethics; and
• critical examination of own behavior and consequences.

These same authors name four potential reasons why aims such as student well-being and responsible behavior cannot be reached without taking design and use of the school grounds into consideration. The design and use of the school:

1. contribute to an education towards self-reliance and positive self-image (through identification);
2. create spaces and situations for experiences and insights into natural phenomena and processes as well as for learning to care for these things;
3. promote a school atmosphere which minimizes conflict (through a student-faculty partnership on issues of design and use); and
4. stimulate and emotionally charge and yet at the same time give a sense of security (through individual objects as well as through its entirety).

The following points were also discussed. They are the product of an exchange of experiences in environmental education at schools (Hesse & Salomon, 1996):

• Projects cannot be generalized and run the same at all schools;
• The success of activities is dependent on the initiatives and involvement of individuals (faculty)
• The "one man show" can stifle or hinder activity. Activity must be something many students stand up for.
• Activities need supporters: family, education authority, maintenance personnel, organizations, experts and others.
• Public relations is essential.
• Activities must be transparent for all.

Yet, descriptions on just what an ecological culture is nor recommendations for the schools have not been more concrete.

Nevertheless, it is expected that an "ecological culture":

1. has identifiable structural cues; and
2. is reflected in its students, such that:

1. environmental practices at school, when a part of the school culture, or habitualized, reduce the aversions and obstacles in performing them;
2. a pronounced ecological culture at school fulfills student needs and preferences thereby promoting the acknowledgment of the necessity of environmental protection, options for solutions, necessary skills, social infrastructure (norms) and, in turn, motivation to act environmentally;
3. student input (participation) in the decision and planning process is normal and esteemed; and
4. school as role model conveys the message that conservation is worthwhile and reinforces practical conservation at the school.

The concepts that have been previously used to describe ecological school culture in the chapter on theory and the educational model for environmental motivation will be elaborated on in the following two chapters, but using the terminology presented in the following table.

Theory to date has not focused in on school design and use yet. Nor has responsible behavior and ecological school culture been integrated together into a investigative model. The following chapter concentrates on previous research we have conducted and the deficits we have encountered which have lead me to this investigation. The subsequent chapter describes the new educational model, the operationalization of ecological culture and the investigative design.

Home

Contents