This work has not set out to claim what is right in the name of conservation and all that a school could and should do for its students. There cannot be one good formula for the school as role model. Rather, this work strives to uncover within the school landscape relevant landmarks for student environmental motivation.

Although through this investigation, I have tried expressly to identify objects and practices in the design and operation of schools which may be instrumental for young people in their acquisition of knowledge of, practices within and motivation to do something for the conservation of their earthly environment, the focus has not been on creating a recipe for the perfect ecological school.

In this chapter, I would like to discuss the results of the follow-up study on ecological culture and its effect on students and explain what I feel are the implications for education and research.

6.1. Student effects

In 1986, an extensive literature review was done on empirically derived educational outcomes in environmental education and published (Bolscho, 1986). The conclusion was reached that the school environment must have an impact on children and youth, but no hard evidence had been produced by that time. Included in the review was research in three areas: socialization, environment, environmental psychology, instruction, environmental cognition and school climate.

Although this review placed more emphasis on social, political and geographical aspects of the school environment, in contrast to the immediate physical surroundings and its use (as I do here), more than ten years later, we still do not share a much better or more comprehensive understanding of this subject. There are only three studies familiar to me which deal with the school environment at all. One is the Titman study already mentioned here and two others are studies of much smaller scale done by university students. One Swedish study looks at effects on school kids (attitudes) as a result of change, or improvement, in the school’s ecological culture (not yet translated, Johannsen, 1996). And the other study looks at the "environmentalization" of Kindergartens in Kiel, Germany (Marggraff, 1997).

One study in Canada is planned to look at the effects of school design and student activity on physical health and "emotional intelligence" in youth.

This investigation, too, takes us away from content and procedures of instruction, if only temporarily, and brings into focus the school as an ecological culture and contending factor in the education of young people. Student knowledge of conservation going on at their school, their conservation activity there and their motivation to act environmentally are the indicators chosen for this investigation. School features and practices in conservation are the instigating factors at play. These indicators and factors will be considered in the next sections.

6.1.1. Student knowledge of conservation at their school

Results on knowledge are the most straight forward to interpret and suggest strongly that student knowledge (on conservation at school) improves with ecological culture. The "better" the ecological culture is, the better student knowledge is. It appears also that the physical manifestation of ecological cultures on the school grounds is more significant than conservation practices in influencing knowledge positively.

"Knowledge" in this investigation was indicating correctly whether or not conservation features or modifications are present at the school. There is further support that suggests that the better the contact is between conservation item and student, the more likely it is that the student knows about it.

This interpretation of "knowledge" has a new twist to it. We thought about it for a long time, whether or not to include knowledge in the investigation. "Knowledge" is of great interest but there has been little evidence generated that supports that knowledge and behavior are associated. The space available was very limited and we came up with many objections for using classical categories (i.e., content, procedural..). If "knowledge", then what kind? It was then agreed upon to define knowledge on very specific and intimate terms for students, i.e., student knowledge of conservation at their own school.

As a majority of the schools here feel that knowledge is one of the primary functions of the school, this apparent strong correlation between knowledge and ecological culture may revive the debate between knowledge and behavior - at least for the highly motivated students. Although knowledge scores in general improve at schools with better ecological cultures, it is only the highest motivated group which appears to profit as a result of knowledge. This means that for most of the students knowledge is not motivational.

In any case, it really was not the intention to merely measure the correctness of factual information. Knowledge was defined as it was because it, knowledge and its acquisition, ought to represent a cultural trait measuring and characterizing the (alternative) way of thinking at a school on, in this case, ecological matters. The ecological culture of the school is reflected in the knowledge of the students on ecological matters at the school. When the culture changes, knowledge - perception and understanding - of the students changes (and can be "corrected"). In other words, a school can do so much for the environment, yet it is really ecological not before this is in the kids' heads.

So, for many students we may have to reconsider knowledge as it is presently conceived for its role in the task of educating. Schools are limited on their resources and the time they have with students. Schools are one factor of many in the lives of young people. If a school defines its function as heightening awareness, skills in observation and perception and sensitizing students to conservation in general, then it appears that an investment in the design of the grounds and practices at the school is worthwhile because the students will most likely notice it and, therefore, it will be included in their repertoire of knowledge.

If, however, it is more important at the school to get its kids actively and personally involved in decision making and problem solving in conservation, as is the implication behind this study and the focus of the next section, then it appears that only a minority of the students profit from the ecological "improvements" characterized by the schools in this sample. For the majority of the students, a gain in conservation knowledge is not associated with a gain in environmental motivation.

6.1.2. Student motivation to act environmentally

Our research suggests that student environmental motivation takes on four profiles which appear to lie on a continuum between low and high. This is deceiving. I think there is a tendency to think that one may progress in motivation stepwise, one step left or right, a little bit less or a little bit more and then again. Certainly appearances on the whole imply this, although it has never been explicitly formulated nor intended. This is a concern to me because in the many conversations I have had with others where I introduce the four profiles, the students belonging to the lowest motivation category are quickly associated with indifference, apathy, resignation, and more or less, the response that these are the kids that we can’t reach. I do not feel comfortable with this interpretation.

Students of the highest motivation ("sensitive optimists", MOT1) are more present as the ecological culture of schools increase. The opposite is almost true for kids with the "lowest" motivation. "Almost" because it was discovered that the most students with the lowest motivation ("skeptics", MOT4) were, ironically, at schools with the best ecological cultures. Instead of a incremental acquisition or loss of motivation, it may be more realistic to consider the possibility that any student - even a highly motivated student - might equally likely be "demotivated" into the lowest motivation category. I interpret the data to suggest that something at the school has gone "wrong" for a number of the students. Perhaps, for the one or other student, a conflict has arisen within the ecological culture of the school. Recognizing demotivation as a legitimate response to a conflict instead of a character trait of students could very well be more productive in the long run than giving up on these students.

Another puzzling observation is that of students of the second lowest motivation profile ("self doubters", MOT3). In general, they tend to avoid direct confrontation with problems despite the fact that they see a problem and viable solutions. They do not admit to feeling under social pressure to behave environmentally and they have little confidence in their competence. Although it is hoped that motivation for these students could improve and therefore their numbers should decrease. This was my wish and this is what I got. However, it should not mean that the lowest motivation group increases as a result, which is likely the case. Furthermore, schools with the weakest ecological culture show as great a drop in students of this category as do schools of the strongest variety.

Ironically, at schools where practices are emphasized but the physical ecological features of the school are weak (eco practices) do we see that the number of these students increases by about 11%. That is, one-quarter to one-third of all kids in the 9^th grade at these schools fall into this category alone (there is still the "lowest" motivational category!). They recognize the state of things but do not feel compelled to get involved themselves in at schools designed specifically to be conducive student involvement. Yes, it is an ever reoccurring phenomena that some people do not get actively involved in situations of need or injustice. And their reasons may be justifiable. However, I find it discouraging to think that for so many students school efforts have failed to restore or strengthen student self-confidence for activities that are, in my estimation, not extraordinary. Perhaps it is reaching these students at all that poses the greatest challenge.

So, we have that a strong ecological culture supports motivation in some students but does not appear to be adequate to sustain motivation for a majority of the students. There is indication that something is going on at these schools which possesses, in addition to a positive influence, a negative streak or poses conflict for some students.

An indication of potential conflict might have been detected in another unexpected observation on motivation, namely that of the second highest motivation profile ("go with the flow", MOT2). It was anticipated for the more positive expressions of ecological culture that the two higher motivation groups (MOT1 and MOT2) would either grow (at the "best" schools) or only one would grow but the other would at least remain stable (as is represented by the ecological culture eco design); and the reverse would be true as the ecological culture "worsens" or declines. This was not the case. These relatively highly motivated students are underrepresented at schools with the best ecological culture and over represented at schools with the least. A similar, albeit diametrically opposed, phenomena was observed for the lowest motivation group. Why is student motivation so volatile?

Upon closer comparison of the motivation profiles of these two groups (MOT1 and MOT4, see Figure 4-6), we see that scores approach each other for the motivation variables: coping style, social norm and self competence. Students respond to these variables most similarly. Could it be, then, that one (or more) of the other variables distinguishing them is being undermined by a "positive" eco-culture resulting in a motivational "fall" for some students? Table 6-1 offers several possible explanations of how "good" schools may pose conflicts for students that the "bad" schools do not, resulting in an unexpected demotivation of students at the schools with strong ecological culture and a higher than expected motivation at schools with the weakest ecological culture.

If these suggestions illustrated in the table above are applicable for the unexpected observations on motivation and ecological culture, then one consequence would be to recognize that students belonging to the lowest motivation category (MOT4) are not merely without motivation and unreachable. Rather, these students may be, in fact, "demotivated" by school efforts. This result suggests to me that the "least" motivated need to be attended to in greater detail as has yet been the case. Special considerations of these students, in my estimation, are not recognized and, therefore, not being met.

Yet, in my estimation, the challenge we face now, as a result of this research, is to understand better how student motivation evolves over time. We have a good snapshot of German 9^th graders, a very interesting picture. But we cannot say how the students got there nor predict where they are heading. For example, how does one interpret the fact that our "worst" schools for ecological culture are most representative of the mean - almost identical. They do not lie at the lower extreme with regards to student outcomes, except for knowledge, as one might expect. Does this suggest that if a school is not going to go all the way for conservation and if student motivation is to remain intact for the majority, then it is better that the school does nothing? Or are there perhaps developmental aspects of students that are very important to consider yet? Can a phase of critical rebellion be healthy (and unavoidable?) for critical thinking, coping strategies, self perception with regards to others? Do kids need to work through phase of ambivalence with regard to cognition, motivation and behavioral consequences to appreciate themselves as actors?

The observations and open questions suggest that the imitation and resulting transfer of (environmental) behaviors in a cultural context as proposed by both Bronfenbrenner and Vygotski is limited not only in extent but also limited to a selection of students at schools. A vast majority of students appear either unwilling or unable to acknowledge the ecological culture at their schools. In either case, it appears that further understanding of the process behind initiation, development and sustention of motivation is necessary to promote environmental behavior.

Maria Montessori (Montessori, 1993) defends the idea that children go through periods of receptivity that facilitate the acquisition of particular skills. These periods - also known as the "sensitive periods", are temporary. This idea supports that there is a level of maturity enabling skills to be acquired which support the development of motivation to act environmentally in young people. Which skills are associated with which periods in the lives of children? Similarly, it is conceivable that just as there are "sensible periods" for skill acquisition, there are also "sensible periods" for interests and needs (for example, needs associated with self-realization, with autonomy or with relatedness). In the attempt to foster motivation, it is perhaps necessary to identify key experiences and the critical periods associated with them. In this way educators can better choose the content and methods of their activities to better suit their students. For example, wouldn't it be worthwhile to foster motivation, for example, "self-competence" by targeting self-realization activities at the right time?

The final area of environmental outcomes in students considered in this study is the kind of opportunities made available to students for activity in conservation at their school. This subject remains very confusing and may also be a contributing factor in student demotivation. This is the topic of the next section.

6.1.3. Student opportunities in conservation activity at school

Environmentally involved youth is a central goal of environmental education and underlies our motivation model for this investigation. However, student environmental activity was not measured here empirically, rather, I have collected student reports of their activities at school and elsewhere as a measure of educational opportunities in conservation, not as a response or solution to an environmental problem - as environmental activity is presented in the integrated action model. Therefore, although the subject of environmental activity is of primary interest, our data provides only indirect information on it.

Student environmental activity at school, then, is either an independent or moderator variable. Activities at school have been interpreted as learning opportunities for students which may be influential in environmental motivation for further environmental activity. For example, such opportunities can introduce students to potential solution options or provide situations to practice useful skills.

It actually went beyond the scope of the study but I did begin to establish and compare two types of environmental experience: activity opportunities at school and opportunities elsewhere. This was done to establish a point of reference for these experiences in general as it became evident during analysis of the data as well as during the school visits that what we thought were activity opportunities were at times in fact mandatory experiences for students.

When student motivation profiles of the activity groups at school were compared with the activity groups away from school (see Section 4.7.1), it was evident that the profiles for motivation within each activity group elsewhere were much stronger than for activities groups at school. This suggested to me that other factors, in addition to student preference, are at work which lead to kids’ participation in activities at school. ("Naive!" you scream. Yet this needs to be addressed if we are to really understand environmental participation.) This data, then, cannot be used to make generalizations about kids’ environmental activity preferences if what was being expressed was a result of "force" and not a result of preference. It might be more accurate, then, to classify this data as kids perceptions on their environmental activity at school.

The results of the follow-up study, on the whole, shed little light on the subject of student activity opportunities. Nevertheless, student environmental activity at schools whether an opportunity or obligation (or perhaps precisely due to this difference) does seem to be influenced by the ecological culture at school. An effect of activity opportunity on motivation cannot be ruled out. The riddle just hasn’t been solved yet.

Another point worth mentioning, or an admission, is the fact that it is simply unrealistic to assume that one environmental opportunity (experience or activity) is comparable with another. Each is unique in its own way and so must the effects it may have on students. Well, I don’t assume this either, but I worked with the data as if I did. The inadequacy of my method is due to a widespread lack in understanding of what environmental activity is, which sort ought to be investigated for what and how it can be done effectively. Therefore I do not believe this to be a weakness particular to this investigation but a weakness of theory and research in environmental education in general. For example, are we educating for good habits or the ability to respond to new and perhaps challenging situations? Are the consequences of each clear?

What are student experiencing? If collective ecological behavior at school determines the ecological school culture, do students recognize this behavior? Is collective behavior enough or is recognition necessary to establish the ecological culture? Are these particular behaviors transferable to new situations at or away from school? What about collective knowledge? These are just several yet unanswered questions.

Now we turn to factors implicated in the environmental outcomes just discussed.

6.2. Ecological culture and the schools

Environmental education as a special event, a temporary phase or a good intention is not enough to get the job done. If we expect special environmental behaviors from students and if we expect these behaviors to be performed regularly or habitually, they require special settings. The "ecological culture" is intended to be a measure for this special setting at schools in particular.

This investigation focused on two aspects of ecological culture: its physical expression on the school grounds and the associated practices (either in general as well as those specifically geared at student participation opportunities). It is maintained that this kind of learning positively reinforces the motivational needs of young people leading them to environmental involvement.

Through the concrete manifestations or features and practices it chooses, a school creates a landscape. Students learn from cues in the landscape what their environment is, the way of life there and the value of the environment.

Criteria for assessment were developed to characterize how ecological the landscape of a school is. And this information was used to determine what effects the ecological culture has on students. Effects were measured in terms of conservation activity at school, knowledge of school conservation and motivation to act environmentally. It was expected that:

1. a school with a marked "ecological culture" has identifiable structural cues; and
2. the "ecological culture" at school:

1. reduces the aversions and obstacles in environmental practices at school (e.g. more activity) and leads to increased knowledge;
2. encourages quality participation opportunities for students in conservation which are most likely to be motivational because student participation in the decision and planning process is esteemed and not merely seen as a favor or luxury (e.g. better practices in conservation); and
3. fulfills student motivational needs and preferences thereby promoting motivation to act environmentally (i.e., in that it promotes the acknowledgment of the necessity of environmental protection, options for solutions, necessary skills, social infrastructure (norms); e.g. more motivated students).

Results support the idea that there are structural cues differentiating schools and defining ecological culture. Ecological culture, in turn, does appear to have an impact on students, even if the desired effect has been observable only for a minority of the 9^th grade student population. Table 6-2 summarizes the results.

This table makes evident that the hypothesis could only be partially supported through this investigation. Ecological culture at schools, as it turns out, does influence student motivation but this effect must be differentiated. Students appear to have very distinct motivational needs and preferences and it could be these differences which result in the unexpected - sometimes contradictory - outcomes observed at schools of the four ecological cultures.

I could not expect dramatic results. The small sample size, the aggregation effects, and the fact that school in all probability has a secondary, not primary, influence on students, ought to minimize measurable effects in students considerably. The connection between school and student will be difficult to detect. Nevertheless, variance was observed suggesting that the instruments may be doing their job.

All my expectations were not met, but I believe now that my expectations were oversimplifying a situation that is still too misunderstood to be defined as it was here and resulted in less than optimal categories. I am speaking, in particular, of the educational opportunities for students in conservation at school. Although I believe that the categories for participation in conservation activities at school are legitimate, they are, for example, not adequate in distinguishing between mandatory and voluntary opportunities. I feel these two qualities could play a significant role in determining not only which students do what, but also in understanding the resulting outcomes. Mandatory activity may be very important for some students because it fulfills particular preferences or needs - perhaps only for a time - where as it might be terribly unproductive for another kind student with a very different need or preference. Furthermore, these activities, although very common at schools, are inherently very different and present very different challenges and opportunities to students. These qualities have not been taken into consideration in this investigation.

The concept of "practices" presents its challenges, too. Practices in conservation at school are certainly representations of reality but there are aspects about them which are more abstract and, consequently, naively neglected in importance. I believe more than with physical manifestations (although not exempt), practices function as if two persons were "talking" together and parallel in character to interpersonal communication as it is presented by Schulz von Thun (1981). Figure 6-1 summarizes that any message between individuals contains, in addition to the most commonly recognized content aspect, three other inherent aspects. All four aspects are actors in the resulting (mis)communication.

I think practices at school, much like messages, in addition to being informative (1) about how conservation could be done for the benefit of the environment, living things, "future generations" etc. (not void from interpretation either), practices say also something about the "grown ups" of the school world (2). They say something about the relationship, also (4), between "grown ups" there and students. And practices say something about the expectations (3) adults at school have of students, too. All this, whether consciously or not, is taken in by the students. Each in their own individual way.

Just as messages can be positive, some messages, or at least aspects of them may not be so encouraging as might be anticipated. Demotivation in students may be a reaction to any one or more of these four aspects gone amiss. Students that are responding to the content aspect of the message may be less forgiving of practices that don’t live up to their environmental standards. Students that are zoning in on the relationship aspect may hear rejection as an equal partner and retreat or rebel. Students may also experience difficulty with the message conveyed about the adults there or about expectations on them. I feel these are not only plausible and reasonable reactions from students, they are also mandatory points to look at when a school is thinking about evaluating a current or potential practice.

It is possible, too, that the sample was not well chosen. Only a repeat performance will tell. All in all, though, I believe these results, despite shortcomings, reinforce my suspicion that this subject merits further investigation.

One last observation that I feel is important to mention while still on the subject of the factors of environmental culture at school, and this is that during my visits to the schools it became very apparent that there was a lot of new "activity" planned at a number of the schools. Only one of the twelve school principals felt that they were "finished" and had attained their goals where environmental design and practices at the school is concerned. Activities for students in more technical areas were underrepresented in this investigation (only two of 54 schools indicated activity in this area). In just one year, new activities in technical areas (or plans for them) at four of the twelve schools in the follow-up is a strong indication that attitudes are changing and that such activity is gaining acceptance. Another indication of changing attitudes is characterized one principal’s to the question whether or not they would be "finished" with their plans, and if not when. He raised his eyebrows (and his voice) with discontent, "finished?!" He said they would never be finished. How could the following student profit from this? There are always new students coming. And what actually ought we to "finish" with? These are an important point because some researchers are of the opinion (Rode 2000) that environmental education -or environmental (classroom) instruction -has reached its plateau in Germany. This may be the case, for the most part. But my observations tell me that there are some qualitative developments still to be expected. In view of this I expect that we shall move away from a need for a definitive picture of what schools ought to do and how it ought to look toward school as a sort of playing field. There will be a defined outline of boundaries, only a few rules and many, many "building blocks" to take apart and put back together or build anew. The younger the children are the concrete the building blocks must be. The more mat ure the students become, the more abstract the building blocks need to be to fulfill their needs, interest and skill requirements associated with the environmental behavior learning objective. A structure will be exceedingly important, yet held to a minimum, allows necessary flexibility of the school to really develop a ecological culture with the kids. The more kids can do and takeover themselves, the more they will identify with the "culture" and with the learning process they are undergoing. We will be giving them a chance to take responsibility for their own learning as well as their actions.

The following section reflects on the methodology used in the investigation and further implications for research in this area.

6.3. Methodology/ research

This investigation required instruments that could "read" the school landscape in a way that is methodologically sound and practical to use (objective), yet, still relevant to understanding impacts on students.

A survey of schools provided information on conservation at the schools. A similar survey provided the complementary information on student knowledge of these conservation features and environmental modifications there. In addition, the student survey provided information on student activity opportunities in conservation at school as well as on their motivation to act environmentally. Two new instruments gathered more information on the ecological culture of the schools. An assessment survey provided more information on the physical manifestation of the ecological culture (i.e., features and modifications) and the assessment interview provided information on general school practices in conservation.

A validation of the instruments was not within the scope of this project. Numerous tests of variance (ANOVA) were conducted for the student variables. The vast majority of which were significant. At the school level, the effects are necessarily weaker. Still effects observed between student and school variables were for the most part significant. For an analysis of the individual school indicators it only made sense to make a comparison for extreme groups (schools with high or low scores). These comparisons point, additionally, toward connections between the individual traits and observed student effects.

One particularly special aspect of this research is that it tries to condense an enormous amount of information into manageable bits. It has done this by applying the technique of latent class analysis (Rost, 1997). This approach looks for associations among variables that are similar for a number of students. These students are then identified as groups sharing a characteristic response profile for the variables under investigation. This approach was used for identifying student profiles for environmental motivation and for student conservation activity.

I feel this approach is very helpful for comprehension. Granted, a motivation profile condenses and generalizes unique individuals into homogenous student groups, but it also gives form and structure which ought to reduce overwhelming complexity (for example, a classroom full of 20 - 30 young and dynamic personalities and quirks plus one more) into something manageable. It was also useful for looking at effects of variables on others at a different "level", i.e., student data could be relatively easily prepared to be used in the analysis of the schools.

Conservation knowledge could theoretically but was not evaluated with latent class analysis. It was measured in terms of general agreement with the responses of the administration for the presence of the items. This was the measure of knowledge used in conjunction with effects due to ecological culture. The degree of agreement of students with the administration was easily calculated for each school. But if the character of student knowledge on conservation is of interest (Is conservation of one sort better known than others? Do different kids notice different things?), then this measure is inadequate.

Area specific knowledge can only be compared among schools when identical items are considered. This means that knowledge on a particular area of conservation (pertaining to nature, or technology or..) can be calculated only for those schools with the same representative items present. Due to the fact that each school has a unique composition of features and measures in conservation, a subsample of schools representing the knowledge area "nature conservation" is not identical with the subsamples constructed for the other conservation knowledge areas. Furthermore, this reduces the viable subsample size rapidly and could not be upheld with a total sample of only twelve. Insufficient subsamples, then, made latent class analysis for potential student conservation knowledge profiles unfeasible.

The two new assessment instruments appear to take us a methodical step closer to working manageably with otherwise qualitative data and without compromising content substance entirely. The items ought to be tested for validity and reliability, but this requires a larger sample of schools.

Realistically, the assessment survey should have been evaluated using several testers, however, these instruments have been applied only this once.

Another point of contention is that it cannot be denied or further avoided, if advances are to be expected in the design of school grounds, that there is incredible concern for "safety" and "appropriate" behavior in within school landscapes designed with the kids (best?) interests in mind! Investigation on school landscapes ought to include observations of students and how they "use" the landscape. Additional information from the students on what they do and where may help interpret the observations. I imagine it could be terribly interesting and useful, too, to collect data on design, (physical) use/ activity and analyze this with respect to phycho-motoric skills and development. In addition, I expect advances in understanding in these areas will give insight into issues on general student health and their capacity to learn.

The problem of the small sample size and effects due to the aggregation of data has been elaborated on several times. But there is yet another comment to be made about the sample which is relevant for future research in Germany. One of the four common school types in Germany is the "Gesamtschulen". It is more or less a school which houses in one complex the other three normally found in isolation of each other. The idea, or one of them, behind the Gesamtschule is a kind of intellectual and social desegregation.

While I was traveling and speaking with the principals, it became apparent that Gesamtschule principals see their schools as more than a place of learning. Typically the school day is longer at the Gesamtschule than at the other types of schools. The students have much more "free time". These schools must provide students with activity alternatives for this time. The consequence is that at these schools extra curricular needs of the students have greater priority than at schools where the time factor is very constraining. The contrast can be quite crass. At the Gesamtschule there is a genuine school life, in addition to classroom instruction. Also, these schools are typically very large and have extensive grounds. Characteristically, many of these schools were built in the early 70’s and have an open campus type atmosphere with lots of green. This cannot be considered a random event with regard to our sample and should perhaps be considered when constructing samples in further research.

The next and final section discusses broader implications of these findings for (environmental) education at schools.

6.4. Implications for education

In summary, it has been argued that the ecological culture is instrumental in environmental education outcomes at schools. This idea is embedded in the concept that schools, in addition to outcomes due to instruction, are also instrumental in the development of student well-being and their taking on of responsibilities (Section 3.3). This is not a result of direct instruction, rather, it is a product of culture. Despite less than optimal footing in current theory, it has also been maintained that there are five general principles for this educational process (Hesse, 1996):

1. Participation,
2. Anticipation (in contrast to reactive adaptation),
3. Situation orientation in everyday living situations,
4. Issue orientation in a social-political setting, and
5. Holism or "wholeness".

Yet a realization is very difficult and hindered by a number of repeatedly observed or experienced "if"s and but"s:

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

For the individual educators this is an impossible task. In response two premises were defined:

1. The task must be set for the school as a whole and all its members and occurs in conjunction with a positive role and lifestyle including the design of the school and person-to-person relationships in addition to learning content, methods and technical support; and
2. The task involves future-oriented guidance and models for youth. However, if on the "outside" other guidance and models reign, then schools have hardly a chance. Therefore, the school and politicians, education agencies and other institutions are called upon to work together on this issue.

In short, only at schools who are conscious of their role in the development of an ecological school culture are empowered to use the authentic learning situations availed to accompany students in a learning process they themselves help create and thereby foster environmental skills and (lasting) behavior.

Table 6-3 reviews these two premises and six points in light of the results obtained through this investigation.

In retrospect my results on environmental design and practices at schools, for the most part, further differentiate the six points and reinforce the two premises made for environmental education at schools. Both design and practices appear to be instrumental factor of the ecological culture at the school. There is also compelling indication that the ecological school culture has an impact on student outcomes (activity, knowledge and motivation) implicated as important factors contributing to environmental behavior.

In conclusion, I think we all would benefit from taking a few words to heart that John Dewey upheld. He said that the school world for kids ought to be as real and as vivid as their world at home or in the neighborhood. Froebl and Montessori felt similarly.

Vigotsky adds that the first source for the development of inner self and qualities of personality for a child lies in interactions with others (Vygotzky, 1987; Oerter, 1995).

In general, this means that a school must strive to teach with everything it has got... well, the school does anyway. At issue here is whether the schools are aware of this or not. And therefore, a very important first step is getting schools to recognize that their bounds lie beyond the classroom walls and that each school must work toward its own rationale on school culture. With this in mind, the school functions for students as an authentic place of learning through the development and formation of genuine relationships between the students and objects of real life - and not only with objects but with processes and with people there as well. The quality of this relationship or culture will have a noticeable effect on the students in attendance at the school.

This summarizes my present views on this investigation and concludes my study - hopefully only temporarily! Comments, criticism and exchange of ideas are welcome.

The model schools were not identified but...

In one breath, I do not want to forget to summarize that the major weaknesses of this investigation lie in:

1. the small sample size;
2. aggregation effects;
3. lacking profile for the development of motivation over time in young people;
4. inadequate definition for environmental activity/ behavior;
5. inadequate differentiation of relevant practices; and
6. student activity was not observed.

I don’t want to be too redundant so I will not go into these details again here.

Home

Contents