See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325300220

Barriers to environmental education: How do teachers’ perceptions in rural

Ecuador fit into a global analysis?

Article  in  Environmental Education Research · May 2018

DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2018.1477120

CITATIONS READS

8 2,407

2 authors, including:

Susan Jacobson
University of Florida
166 PUBLICATIONS   4,275 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Measuring Viewers' Heart Rate Response to Environment Conservation Videos View project

Underrepresentation in Natural Resource Fields View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Susan Jacobson on 15 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Environmental Education Research

ISSN: 1350-4622 (Print) 1469-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20

Barriers to environmental education: How do

teachers’ perceptions in rural Ecuador fit into a
global analysis?

Chloe Anderson & Susan Jacobson

To cite this article: Chloe Anderson & Susan Jacobson (2018): Barriers to environmental
education: How do teachers’ perceptions in rural Ecuador fit into a global analysis?, Environmental
Education Research, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2018.1477120

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1477120

Published online: 22 May 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 74

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceer20
Environmental Education Research, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1477120

Barriers to environmental education: How do teachers’

perceptions in rural Ecuador fit into a global analysis?
Chloe Andersona  and Susan Jacobsonb 
a
Center for Latin American Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; bDepartment of Wildlife Ecology and
Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

We identified 48 barriers to teaching environmental education reported by Received 11 December 2017
teachers in global literature and compared frequency to empirical data we Accepted 10 May 2018
collected from rural Ecuador, part of an understudied region and continent.
KEYWORDS
We utilized Q methodology and interviews with 25 (78%) teachers at 6 Teaching barriers; Q
schools to identify and categorize barriers. Perceptions of barriers ranked methodology; Ecuador;
by Ecuadorian teachers were statistically classified into three factors: Comparative review
logistical (associated with fieldtrips, time, and money); training and lack of
government support; and attitudinal (associated with student disinterest).
In contrast, barriers related to student testing and controversial topics were
only reported in more developed countries. Results enable region-specific
recommendations.

Introduction
Environmental education (EE) emerged with specific goals in the late 1960s to promote the environ-
mental knowledge, awareness, attitudes, skills and participation needed to address highly visible, global
environmental problems such as biodiversity loss, food shortages, pollution, and health issues. The first
intergovernmental conference on EE (UNESCO 1977) produced 12 guiding principles, 3 goals, and 5
categories of EE objectives, which form a framework that still influences EE today. More recent guidelines
for learning and excellence in EE were published by the North American Association for Environmental
Education (NAAEE 2010).
EE efforts range in scope, origin, and level of formality including but not limited to nonprofit edu-
cation programs for youth and teachers, fieldtrips, fieldwork, greening school grounds, government
mandates for school-based curricular requirements, and the United Nations guidelines (Fisher 2001;
Penwell et al. 2002; Zint et al. 2002; Dyment 2005; González-Gaudiano 2007; Kinder et al. 2015). Despite
the existence of viable guidelines for effective EE, such as those produced in the first intergovernmental
conference and by NAAEE, and well-intentioned efforts at local, regional, and global scales, barriers to
successful EE still remain.
Barriers to EE teaching and learning have been studied in a number of ways, including teacher inter-
views, surveys, and focus groups; with the common goal of understanding and overcoming present
barriers to improve and facilitate EE instruction (Ham and Sewing 1988; Monroe, Scollo, and Bowers
2002). Despite a large body of research, barriers to EE in developing countries have been significantly
understudied, and a synthesis of existing global research on barriers to EE is lacking. Our study makes a

CONTACT  Chloe Anderson  chloander@gmail.com

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2    C. ANDERSON AND S. JACOBSON

contribution by comparing research across geographic regions, and providing in-depth empirical data
for school-based EE in an ignored region using innovative methodology to help understand suites of
barriers and stimulate new investigations.

Literature review
Teachers want to be effective, but multiple factors –curricular, financial, cultural, and environmental– can
impede efforts (Cantrell, Young, and Moore 2003; DaRosa et al. 2011). Delineating barriers to successful
teaching and learning can help in understanding appropriate interventions (DaRosa et al. 2011). Barriers
to EE differ based on a number of specific contextual variables, working at different scales to ultimately
affect teachers’ perceptions and behaviors.
The majority of studies on EE barriers have been conducted in developed countries such as the US,
UK, Canada, and Australia. Common barriers range from training and curricula issues to financial and
safety constraints, as delineated in the results section (Monroe, Scollo, and Bowers 2002; Ernst 2007).
Few studies have been conducted in less-developed countries. A study in China found lack of support
from the community and government, and a lack of time, materials, and funding were all barriers (Lee,
Au, and Ma 2009), while misconceptions about EE and a lack of field trip resources were emphasized
as barriers in Botswana (Ketlhoilwe 2007). We found only 3 studies from Latin America, which refer to
the region as a whole and do not investigate individual countries (Penwell et al. 2002; Cronin-Jones et
al. 2003; González-Gaudiano 2007).
Cronin-Jones et al. (2003) and Penwell et al. (2002) focus on a survey of American and International
schools in Latin America and cite common logistical barriers such as lack of teaching time, lack or
preparation time, and instructional materials as well as other barriers including lack of natural envi-
ronment, curriculum issues, teacher turnover, lack of content knowledge, teacher confidence, and lack
of comfort in the outdoors. González-Gaudiano (2007) discusses the current state of environmental
education in primary schools in Latin America, suggesting insight on factors affecting implementation
such as curriculum and school management, EE’s inferior curricular position, and teacher training.
Flaws in teacher training may include the separation of theory from practice, reliance on traditional
techniques, lack of continuous support, and learning strategies that fail to incorporate local contexts
and the varied challenges that arise with newer fields like EE (Amaral 2004; González-Gaudiano 2007).
None of the previously mentioned studies concentrating on EE in Latin America take an empirical case
study approach in public schools or use in person interviews.
This paucity of research results in a lack of understanding of crucial barriers in countries whose citi-
zens and environments could benefit greatly from solid answers. Investigating barriers at smaller scales
is important because barriers differ based on numerous contextual variables that operate at different
scales to ultimately affect teachers’ perceptions and behaviors. Studies that focus on the complexity
of factors that determine teacher commitment to EE call understanding these influences ‘vital’ (Sosu,
McWilliam, and Gray 2008). Investigating barriers in specific contexts will make critical contributions
to the underlying constructs used in models that predict EE commitment and environmental behavior,
such as the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991; Sosu, McWilliam, and Gray 2008). Understanding
barriers also plays an important role in identifying gaps between environmental concern and action
or behavior (Blake 2007; Kollmuss and Agyeman 2010).
In our effort to expand research on barriers to EE to previously neglected regions, the local envi-
ronmental and socio-economic contexts are necessary to consider (Gray 1999; González-Gaudiano
2007; Campbell et al. 2010). Across Latin America, the configuration of EE as a cross-curricular, disci-
pline-bridging subject limits it to more informal, peripheral curricular spaces (González-Gaudiano 2007;
Campbell et al. 2010). Wider educational problems are also present in Latin America, including rigid
and closed school structures, discipline-focused curricula, systems resistant to change, and a teaching
body uninterested in new approaches (González-Gaudiano 2007).
Exporting United States EE models to countries with vast differences in educational context may
also exacerbate existing barriers. This occurred in Honduras when implementation of an EE model was
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH   3

prohibited by unexpected differences in context, such as dropout rates, access to resources, teacher
education, and number of grades taught together (Ham and Castillo 1990). Outside of descriptive and
theoretical studies, little research has been conducted on barriers to EE in Latin America.
Within the diverse Latin American countries, EE and general education differ greatly by quality
(Campbell et al. 2010) and quantity (Viteri, Clarebout, and Crauwels  2012). EE emerged in Ecuador from
traditional nature-study programs that began in 1979 (MEC-MAE 2006). In the 1990s, curricular reforms
promoted EE infusion, although the current EE plan (2006–2016) lacks implementation and acknowl-
edges a lack of evaluation, especially in rural, resource-poor areas (MEC-MAE 2006; Viteri, Clarebout,
and Crauwels  2012).
No national or case study research on barriers to EE in Ecuador has previously been conducted.
Studying EE barriers in Ecuador will contribute to understanding and mitigating constraints to EE in
Latin America. Our methodology provides an analysis of suites of barriers that are problematic and
could be mitigated collectively. It also provides a comparison of individual barriers across geographic
regions with a needed global synthesis.

Research questions
Categorizing barriers to EE helps in understanding appropriate interventions (Robertson and Krugly-
Smolska 1997; Simmons 1998; Dyment 2005). One of the first studies on EE barriers classified barriers
into the following 4 themes (Ham and Sewing 1988). Logistical barriers include time, money, or soci-
opolitical issues. Educational barriers include perceptions of teacher ability and training. Conceptual
barriers include perceived definitional variations of EE and its place in the curriculum. Attitudinal barriers
relate to teachers’ perceptions of the value of EE (Ham and Sewing 1988). To address current gaps in
research, we used this classification system to focus on two research questions.

(1) How do rural Ecuadorean teachers perceive conceptual, logistical, educational, and attitudinal
barriers to EE; and how are these barriers associated?
(2) How do perceived barriers to EE in rural Ecuador compare to teachers’ perceptions reported
across the globe?

Methods
Global literature review
The completion of a systematic, global literature review on barriers to school-based EE served as a point
of comparison for the current study’s results, as well assisted in the development of one of the current
study’s research instruments. Protocol for the literature review used the Google scholar database and
included studies published from 1988 to 2016 in English in peer-reviewed journals, books, or conference
papers that focused on barriers to K-12 or primary EE, and included key search words ‘barriers’‘environ-
ment’‘education’‘teacher’ or ‘Ham and Sewing 1988’. A broad definition of school-based EE was adopted,
including traditional classroom instruction, field trips or fieldwork, and environmental activities as well
as approaches that promote more interdisciplinary learning such as environment-based education
and education for sustainability (Ernst 2007; Evans, Whitehouse, and Gooch 2012). Because few studies
focus explicitly on barriers to EE, studies that met all inclusion criteria and used similar terminology
to describe barriers, such as constraints, factors, issues, or limitations, were also included. Studies that
did not report empirical results or focused on secondary education were excluded. Thirty-two studies
met this protocol. Reported barriers were categorized into logistical, conceptual, educational, and atti-
tudinal themes following the framework of Ham and Sewing (1988) and coding protocols of Neuman
(2006). Results were separated into less developed and more developed country studies to determine
frequency of citation. Forty-eight barriers to EE reported by researchers and practitioners were identified.
4    C. ANDERSON AND S. JACOBSON

Ecuador study site and participants

Jama parish was selected due to its ecological sensitivity and rural location within a country and con-
tinent previously neglected by barriers research. Jama lies in the northern, coastal province of Manabí
and contains some of Ecuador’s last remaining tropical dry forest, fragmented by agriculture and shrimp
aquaculture. Water contamination and illness are common problems (Levy et al. 2009). Almost 75%
of Jama’s inhabitants live in rural areas, higher than the national average of 37% (CPV-INEC 2010).
Provincially, rural Manabí residents obtain an average of 6.2  years of education and urban Manabí
residents obtain 10.2, both lower than the national averages of 7.2 and 10.9 (CPV-INEC 2010).
We conducted in depth interviews with 25 grade 1–7 teachers at 6 schools in Jama parish. Schools
were selected based on their proximity to the nonprofit Ceiba Foundation, headquartered near Tabuga,
Ecuador. High school, kindergarten, and preschool teachers were excluded. Attempts were made to
interview all teachers at each school, but participation depended upon availability, and 78% of teachers
were available at the time of this study. Seven males and 18 females were interviewed, with a mean
age of 39.84 (SD = ±10.88 years), mean teaching experience (SD = 12.48 ± 8.94 years), and mean years
at their current school (SD = 8.09 ± 10.40 years).

Q methodology and Q set

Q methodology research aims to reveal a participant group’s existing perspectives about a topic through
qualitative interpretation (Watts and Stenner 2012). Q methodology first defines the Q set, or set of
statements about a topic. Each statement is written on a card, and these cards are sorted or arranged
by the participants according to their personal beliefs about the importance of each item. The com-
pleted sorts are analyzed and grouped in the Q Methodology analysis program called PQMethod to
reveal participants’ belief patterns and understand dominant social discourses. These groupings are
called factors, and enable targeted, appropriate interventions (Watts and Stenner 2012; Fraser, Gupta,
and Krasny 2014).
This study used a 25-card Q set, or set of statements, to provide an adequate and reliable interpre-
tation in a reasonable amount of time (Watts and Stenner 2012). Q sets can contain fewer items or up
to 80 items, depending on context and accommodating participant time constraints. This Q set was
based on our global literature review. Of the 48 barriers to EE identified, we selected 21 to include in
the 25-statement Q-set based on frequency of citation by other studies, relevance to previous lesser
developed country studies, and pilot testing with 7 local educators who refined the content and word-
ing of the Q set. Four additional barriers with specific cultural context also emerged from pilot tests.
The development of the Q set was also supported by approximately 30 h of classroom observations
by the primary author.
The categorical breakdown of the 25-barrier Q set also reflects the approximate proportions of logis-
tical, educational, attitudinal, and conceptual barriers identified in the literature review. Participants
were not aware of these categories and the cards were shuffled and distributed randomly. All 25 state-
ments fit Ham and Sewing (1988) categories, including several logistical barriers related to geographic
location and sociopolitical issues.

Instruments: Q sorts and interviews

The Q methodology sorts were conducted in personal, open-ended, semi-structured interviews from
May-August 2015. The interviews were arranged in advance with each school director and with the
assistance of the regional education director. All interviews were conducted at the schools, which
allowed for observations of the school setting, classroom facilities, and teaching resources present.
The interviews lasted an average of 35 min (range = 16–90 min).
Before the Q sort was introduced, participants answered open-ended questions about their rea-
sons for teaching, understanding of EE and the curricula, previous training, sources of environmental
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH   5

information, and environmental problems discussed or taught in class. Basic demographic information
was collected to provide context. The Q sort was introduced by asking about barriers that teachers
may encounter when teaching or thinking about teaching EE. Detailed procedural instructions were
explained.
The Q sorts followed a normal distribution, with teachers sorting statements from −4 (very unim-
portant barriers) to 4 (very important barriers):
No. of statement cards 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1
Rank −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4

Following the Q sort, participants answered additional questions about card placement, personal
experiences with certain barriers, additional barriers, and ideas for diminishing barriers.

Factor interpretation
Factor analysis using PQMethod (2.35) identified and grouped similar sorts into factors. Each factor
represented a different view of teachers’ perceptions about barriers to EE. Three factors were extracted
based on guidelines such as variance, defining sorts, and factor eigenvalues (Watts and Stenner 2012).
Interview responses were recorded, transcribed, translated, and analyzed through qualitative content
analysis (Saldaña 2015), then combined with demographic data to provide context for PQMethod
results.

Study limitations
Q methodology produces significant results, yet does not facilitate statistical comparison with other
studies using varied methods in different situational and educational contexts. The lack of research on
barriers to EE in lesser-developed countries also limited statistical comparison.

Results
Global literature review
The literature review identified 5 studies conducted in less developed countries and 27 studies in
developed countries. Forty-eight common barriers were identified, consisting of 22 logistical barriers,
7 educational barriers, 13 attitudinal barriers, and 6 conceptual barriers (Table 1).

Factor interpretation
The three-factor analysis explained 44% of the total variance and included 20 of 25 participants as
defining sorts. Table 2 describes participant demographic information by factor. All study participants
perceived student safety issues as a barrier but did not indicate large class size, a lack of relevancy to
classroom subjects, or the fear of being controversial as barriers. The Q sorts revealed 3 unique factors,
or suites of barriers (Table 3).

Factor 1: logistical barriers associated with field trips, time, and money
Seven participants, all females teaching upper elementary grades with lower than average years spent
at their current school, were significantly associated with Factor 1 (Table 2). These teachers identified
logistical barriers related to taking students outside on fieldtrips, lack of class time and money, and
issues with student safety and permissions. A teacher explained this issue:
It’s hard to bring them [the students] to the countryside or the forest because the government is so difficult. We
have to have permission. We have to transport the kids. We have total responsibility if something happens, someone
falls, or gets sick. It’s hard! And I have 30 students.
6    C. ANDERSON AND S. JACOBSON

Table 1. Global analysis of literature and current study results, comparing barriers to EE in 4 categories and between less developed
and more developed country studies.

Citation* Less
Barrier developed Citation* More developed Total (%)
Logistical
  Lack of teaching time (A)DF GKLMNOPRSUVYZA’E’F’ 61
Lack of preparation time (A)CF GIJKLNOPRVY 42
Instructional materials (A)CDF GMNOPSTUYZ 42
Financial (A)F GIJKNOPRZD’F’ 39
Technology (A)   3
  No natural environment DF GIJNRZA’ 27
Safety, liability, and classroom mgmt. (A) GHIJZA’B’D’ 27
Lack of transportation   GIJZ 12
Lack of field trip resources E ZB’ 9
Setting not appropriate   HD’ 6
External outdoor forces   D’ 3
  Lack of administrative support (A) GIJMNTY 21
Lack of parent support (A) IJN 12
Lack of community interest/partners F IJ 9
Lack of government support (A)F   6
  Curriculum issues BC NRSXA’C’E’ 27
Emphasis on testing   IJKMRTA’B’ 24
Emphasis on standards B IJMSU 18
Class size too large F G 6
Class size too small (A) G 6
Permission not certain (A) Y 6
Teacher turnover D   3
Educational
  Lack of content knowledge (A)CF GIJNOUWC’G’ 36
Lack of training (A) HIJOTWG’ 24
Lack of pedagogical knowledge F GIJB’ 15
Lack of other knowledge   NB’C’ 9
Lack of training in particular setting   HX 6
Wider educational barriers B X 6
 
  Previous training ineffective (A)   3
Attitudinal
  Lack of teacher interest or commitment BC NA’D’E’ 18
Teacher confidence C HXZ 12
Desire to be uncontroversial/traditional   IJZB’F’ 15
Lack of comfort in the outdoors D JKL 12
Does not promote career advancement   A’ 3
  Lack of student interest or commitment (A) NA’E’ 12
Students don’t understand (A) A’ 6
May overwhelm/scare students (A) A’ 6
Not appropriate for students   A’ 3
  Counter to school climate   IJXF’ 12
Other concepts are more important   OB’ 6
Lofty social and political goals of EE   Y 3
Lack of convincing evidence   J 3
Conceptual
  Not relevant to what I teach (A) GIJOB’ 18
Not relevant to grade I teach   IJB’ 9
Issues with discipline-focused curricula B   3
  Definitional problems/ misconceptions (A)E KRF’ 15
Conflicting ideas/lack of consensus   QYF’ 9
Hard to actually understand goal of EE   HYA’ 9
Citation code*: (A), current study; B, González-Gaudiano (2007); C, Cronin-Jones et al.  (2003); D, Penwell et al. (2002); E, Ketlhoilwe
(2007); F, Lee, Au, and Ma (2009); G, Ham and Sewing (1988); H, Simmons (1998); I, Ernst (2007); J, Ernst (2009); K, Monroe, Scollo,
and Bowers (2002); L, Lane et al. (1994); M, Easton and Monroe (2002); N, Zint et al. (2002); O, Smith-Sebasto and Smith (1997); P,
Moseley, Huss, and Utley (2010); Q, Talsma (2001); R, Bruyere, Wesson, and Teel (2012); S, Carrier, Tugurian, and Thomson (2013); T,
Ernst (2010); U, Stevenson, Carrier, and Peterson (2014); V, Christenson (2004); W, Kinder et al. (2015); X, Dyment (2005); Y, Robert-
son and Krugly-Smolska (1997); Z, Hanna (1992); A’, Fisher (2001); B’, Lemmey (1999); C’, Sosu, McWilliam, and Gray (2008); D’, Waite
(2009); E’, Cutter-Mackenzie (2010); F’, Evans, Whitehouse, and Gooch (2012); G’, Cutter-Mackenzie and Smith (2003).
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH   7

Table 2. Comparison of teachers’ demographic information by factor.

  Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Number of participants associated with factora 7 7 6
% Femalesb 100 86 67
Mean age (SD) 37.71 (7.74) 35.57 (11.37) 43.83 (10.11)
Mean years teacher (SD) 11.43 (3.69) 11.57 (9.85) 14.83 (11.82)
Mean years current school (SD) 4.14 (1.68) 8.06 (10.62) 12.10 (13.94)
% schools represented 83 83 50
% teaching 1 grade level 86 43 100
% teaching 2 grade levels 0 57 0
% teaching 3 grade levels 0 0 0
% teaching > 3 grade levels 14 0 0
% teaching grade 1–3 0 86 33
% teaching grade 4–7 100 14 67
a
All percentages were calculated using this value.
b
Remainder of participants were male.

Table 3. Factor array, displaying all barrier statement scores and indicating significant statements.

Factor
    1 2 3
  # Defining sorts 7 7 6
  Eigenvalue 3.75 4 3.25
  % Variance explained 15 16 13
No. Statement      
Logistical
1 Lack of preparation time 1* −4 −2
2 Lack of teaching time 2* −2** −4**
3 Lack of resources 1 0* 2
4 Lack of money 2 −3* 1
5 Issues of permission with authority 3 1* 2
6 Lack of attention from government 2* 4* −1*
7 Class size too large 0 0 −2
8 Class size too small −1 −1 1*
9 Students of diff ages/levels in same classroom 0 2* 0
10 Regrouping of various grades −1* 3* 2*
11 Student safety issues 4 3 3
12 Difficult to maintain order −4* 0** 1**
Conceptual
13 Not relevant to what I teach −2 −1 0
14 Don’t understand what EE is −3** −2 −2
15 Not a part of the curriculum 1 1 1*
Educational
16 Lack of content knowledge −2 1** 0
17 Lack of EE training −2** 0 0
18 Lack of pedagogical knowledge −1 −3** 0
19 Previous training ineffective 3* 2 1
Attitudinal
20 Fear of being controversial 0 −2 −1
21 More important subjects exist −1** 0** −3*
22 Students aren’t interested −3* −1* 4*
23 Students don’t understand 0 2* −1
24 I can’t choose what I teach 0 1 −3*
25 EE could scare the students 1* −1* 3*
*
Distinguishing statement significant at p < .01 level; **Distinguishing statement significant at p < .05 level.

Despite field trip barriers and working with older students, maintaining order was not a barrier.
Prior ineffective training and the misconception that EE is not a part of the curriculum were barriers
although these teachers claimed to know about the environment, how to teach EE, and understand
8    C. ANDERSON AND S. JACOBSON

what it is. It was not a lack of training, but ineffective training, that impeded these teachers. Conceptual
barriers were minimal. Attitudinal barriers were less decisive than other barrier categories.

Factor 2: logistical barriers associated with a lack of government support coupled with
educational barriers
The seven teachers that were associated with Factor 2 identified a lack of attention from the government
or Ministry of Education, the regrouping of various grades due to a lack of teachers, and students of
different ages or levels in the same classroom as barriers to EE. The majority of these teachers teach
multiple lower elementary grades in a rural area (Table 2). A participant described these barriers:
Here, I have three grade levels in my class at the same time…My brain is always split between the grades and
compartmentalized by subject. Here mathematics, here language, here social studies. I only have 2 girls in the
second grade. Because of this, I would prefer to teach just one age.
Additionally, ineffective teacher training, lack of knowledge about the environment, and student
deficits in understanding were barriers. Nonetheless, these teachers reported understanding EE, how
to teach it, and were not concerned about uninterested students.
Class size and a lack of preparation time, teaching time, money, and resources did not impede these
teachers, despite many teaching more than 1 grade. Although these rural teachers do not fear being
controversial, a perceived inability to choose what they teach and EE’s absence in the curriculum acted
as additional barriers.

Factor 3: attitudinal barriers associated with student disinterest and fear

Six participants, teaching only one grade in less rural schools, were significantly associated with Factor 3
(Table 2). Attitudes about students dominated their views of barriers, including the beliefs that students
were not interested, could be overwhelmed or scared by EE, and the consensus statement of student
safety issues. An example from this group was: ‘The students aren’t very interested in EE, only a little,
they like sports and gym class.’ Despite these concerns, teachers reported that students understand
EE. Negative attitudes were not barriers.
Lack of teaching time or attention from the government were not concerns. However, the regroup-
ing of grade levels, approval of authority, and lack of resources including money still posed problems.
Although their previous training was considered ineffective, educational and conceptual barriers were
minimal.

Synthesis of global literature review and interview findings

Logistical barriers
The current study, as well as studies from less developed and developed regions, all cite common logis-
tical barriers, often related to resources. However, several logistical barriers from the current study, such
as safety or liability and permission issues, were not cited in other studies from less developed counties
(Table 1). The most commonly cited logistical barriers were similar regardless of study location, with
the exception that studies conducted in more developed countries cite an over-emphasis on student
testing as a barrier. Study interview responses identified lack of parental support, lack of technology,
and institutional issues, such as a lack of administrative support, as additional barriers.

Educational barriers
Lack of content knowledge and ineffective training were barriers in this study. Thirty-six percent of
global studies cited lack of content knowledge as a barrier, but emphasized a lack of training rather
than ineffective training. Participants’ previous training in EE varied greatly, coming from local nonprofit
organizations and various levels of government. Water or river contamination, littering, and deforesta-
tion were the environmental topics taught most often.
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH   9

Attitudinal barriers
Three attitudinal barriers related to students were present in this study (Table 1). Teachers’ attitudinal
barriers about students are discussed only minimally in the global literature, instead focusing primar-
ily on teachers’ personal attitudes and views of EE that negatively affect successful implementation
such as a lack of interest, commitment, or confidence, lack of comfort in the outdoors, a desire to be
uncontroversial, and the belief that EE does not promote career advancement (Table 1). For example,
a study from Queensland, Australia identified staff resistance and fear of being perceived as ‘too green’
or ‘ultra conservationist’ as barriers of sustainability education (Evans, Whitehouse, and Gooch 2012).

Conceptual barriers
Definitional problems and the perception that EE lacks subject relevance were conceptual barriers in the
current study and minimally in the global literature (Table 1). Almost half the study teachers reported
that EE should be taught throughout the curriculum, but only 32% claimed to actually do so. EE was
also commonly associated with the natural sciences, social studies and math.
Additionally, the majority of teachers recognized the knowledge, attitudes, and awareness objectives
of EE but failed to include the participation and skills objectives in their descriptions of EE. Interview
responses revealed that the most popular conception of EE was learning and teaching about the envi-
ronment, including transmitting feelings of concern to instigate care and protection. Skill development
and opportunities for active participation were rarely mentioned.

Discussion
The lack of research on barriers to EE in less developed countries emphasizes the need for increased
understanding of regional and local contexts to better facilitate study comparisons, develop regional
training programs, and create appropriate, local curricula. Despite geographical differences, barriers
related to time, money, instructional materials, training, and content knowledge impede many teach-
ers in all settings. This study identified 3 unique teacher viewpoints through Q methodology to help
in understanding barriers and developing solutions. Ham and Sewing’s (1988) framework assisted in
organizing factor interpretation.

Logistical barriers
Equity has been a focus of Latin American educational reforms since the 1990s, with an emphasis in
Ecuador on increasing access to education to improve rural opportunity (Cabrera and Espinosa 2008). In
this study, the perceived lack of government attention to rural schools was associated with issues related
to teaching more than one grade level simultaneously. A lack of government support was only cited in
one other study, from China. In the 27 studies from more developed countries, a lack of government
support was not a barrier. Similarly, current study participants from less rural settings, especially those
teaching only one grade and associated with Factor 3, perceived adequate government assistance.
Many current study teachers, especially participants teaching multiple elementary grades and asso-
ciated with Factor 2, did not report limited time, money, or resources as barriers to EE (Table 2). This
perception contrasts sharply with the more traditionally held beliefs of many teachers from the global
literature review and associated with Factor 1 (Table 1). This may demonstrate Factor 2 teachers’ concep-
tual and educational understanding of EE, experience teaching multiple grades with these limitations, or
confidence in their pedagogical knowledge. Demographic variables, such as fewer years of experience
at their current schools and teaching older grades, may also influence Factor 1 teachers’ perceptions of
traditional logistical barriers (Table 2).
Although a lack of parental support was not a barrier in other lesser-developed country studies
and only minimally from developed country studies, it emerged as an additional barrier in this study.
A teacher associated with Factor 3 described the issue:
10    C. ANDERSON AND S. JACOBSON

Well, I believe that in the house, the parents don’t help [to support ideas from school]. In the house, kids learn. In
school, kids learn. Between the two, the kids develop. But the parents don’t understand, they don’t help. They litter
or don’t practice what we talk about in school. The kids observe them, they are watching them, and copying them.
We need to include the family in EE to help the institution.
This highlights the important influence of rural, agricultural livelihoods that may clash with aspects
of EE, especially if material is imported from more developed regions.

Educational barriers
Flaws in teacher training in Latin America often stem from the juxtaposition of social problems onto
educational problems (Amaral 2004). While teaching behavioral competence to address social issues
is one approach to EE, the pressure it places on education and teachers has been criticized (Jensen
and Schnack 2006). Additionally, many teacher-training programs in Latin America do not include EE
or lack continuity or support (González-Gaudiano 2007). A study in rural Ecuador supports this conclu-
sion, identifying EE projects that have been abandoned or lack continual assistance (MEC-MAE 2006).
Teacher turnover, an issue in many Latin Americans schools, may also impact educational barriers in
this study (Cronin-Jones et al. 2003). In rural Ecuador, the median time spent teaching at the current
school was only 3 years, with 24% of participants having worked at their current school for 1 year or
less. In a review of 21 private American schools in Latin America, 16% of teachers stayed an average of
less than two years at each school (Cronin-Jones et al. 2003).
In the current study, fifty percent of teachers who received some form of government EE training
described reasons for its ineffectiveness, including discontinuity, minimal local opportunities, and an
indirect focus on EE. Trainings more often focused on topics such as recycling. Ineffective training could
contribute to a perceived need for resources and was associated with a lack of government support.
Ineffective, rather than a lack of, training was ranked as a more significant barrier for teachers in every
factor group. No other study on EE barriers reflects this constraint (Table 1), suggesting an increased
need for locally relevant trainings targeting teachers’ needs in diverse educational settings.
When teaching about the environment, teachers mainly focused on local and visible issues, like water
contamination, although ‘global warming’ was an important topic for 28% of study teachers. Pollution
was also the most often taught environmental issue in the American (private English speaking) schools
of Latin America, due to its visibility (Penwell et al. 2002; Cronin-Jones et al. 2003). This may additionally
reflect teachers’ ineffective trainings and identify a path forward for future, more effective trainings that
teach larger scale environmental issues by building on local ones.

Attitudinal barriers
The attitudinal barriers identified in this study, especially by less rural teachers that comprise Factor 3,
suggest that perceptions about student disinterest, student safety, and the potential to overwhelm stu-
dents impede the teaching of EE despite positive attitudes about EE itself. The association between highly
ranked attitudes, perceived adequate government assistance, and teachers who only instruct one grade
suggests that attitudinal barriers may emerge when logistical needs are met. However, only one other
study (Fisher 2001) identified teachers’ attitudes about students as barriers to EE, discussing both teacher
and student disinterest in scientific fieldwork in the UK possibly due to the effort involved. Purely student
related attitudes could be unique to this study, or a reflection of unacknowledged teacher disinterest.

Conceptual barriers
Teachers reported beliefs about the need to infuse EE into the curricula in Ecuador, a paradigm of EE
planning in Latin America (Cronin-Jones et al. 2003; MEC-MAE 2006; González-Gaudiano 2007). However,
teachers mostly associated EE with the natural sciences (Penwell et al. 2002; Cronin-Jones et al. 2003;
González-Gaudiano 2007), and with caring for nature, as this study found (MEC-MAE 2006).
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH   11

Teachers’ Q sorts did not always align with their responses in additional interview discussions.
Conceptual barriers were not highly ranked despite an apparent lack of conceptual understanding of
EE. For example, teachers’ strong emphasis on only the knowledge, awareness, and attitude objectives
of EE while failing to conceive the participation and skills objectives insinuates a possible attitude-be-
havior or value-action gap and suggests a lack of conceptual understanding, potentially related to
ineffective training.

Implications and recommendations

Many variables affect the cognitive and affective circumstances that ultimately form teachers’ per-
ceptions about barriers to EE. This study did not address all of them. One important future need is to
include parents and students to identify broader barriers to EE that stymy wider environmental attitudes,
skills, and participation. Investigation into the depth of teacher understanding of national EE policies,
reasons for failed policy implementation, and a deeper investigation of the effects of rural and urban
contextual differences are also important.
Because perspectives about barriers are diverse, specialized EE training should target teacher groups
differently, facilitated by Q methodology results. There is not a panacea for overcoming barriers in rural,
coastal Ecuador. However, the development and distribution of a regionally focused EE curriculum that
relates to larger scales would be beneficial, along with improved preservice and ongoing in-service
training (Gray 1999; González-Gaudiano 2007). Local actors, NGOs, and the government should collab-
orate to facilitate future trainings that focus on improving content knowledge, overcoming conceptual
barriers, and promoting local action. The three distinct categories of teachers revealed by Q methodol-
ogy in this study present three general perspectives for targeted interventions. Training can address the
needs of specific teacher groups by emphasizing minimal logistical requirements, presenting innovative
pedagogy for instructing multiple concurrent grades, and instigating student interest.
Gaps between developed and less developed countries and urban and rural opportunity need to
close. Differences in context need to be acknowledged and accommodated so that EE can more effec-
tively help address dire environmental challenges.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This research was supported by a University of Florida Tropical Conservation and Development travel grant.

Notes on contributors
Chloe Anderson recieved her MA in Latin American Studies from the University of Florida. She holds a certificate in
Environmental Education and Communications and specialized in Tropical Conservation and Development. Her main
research interests are agricultural and environmental education.
Susan Jacobson is a Distinguished Teaching Scholar and Professor in the University of Florida, Department of Wildlife
Ecology and Conservation. She conducts research and has published widely on the human dimensions of natural resource
management, environmental communication, and wildlife conservation in the U.S., Latin America, Africa, and Southeast
Asia.

ORCID
Chloe Anderson   http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4805-5978
Susan Jacobson   http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5992-939X
12    C. ANDERSON AND S. JACOBSON

References
Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (2): 179–211.
Amaral, I. 2004. “Programas e ações de formação docente em educação ambiental.” In Pesquisa em educação e reflexões
de pesquisadores em educação ambiental [Research on education and reflections of researchers on environmental
education], edited by J. E. Tagliberand A. F. S. Guerra, 145–167. Itajaí: REASul.
Blake, J . 2007. “Overcoming the ‘Value‐Action Gap’ in Environmental Policy: Tensions between National Policy and Local
Experience.” Local Environment 4 (3): 257–278.
Bruyere, B., M. Wesson, and T. Teel. 2012. “Incorporating Environmental Education into an Urban after-School Program in
New York City.” International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 7 (2): 327–341.
Cabrera, C., and B. Espinosa. 2008. Desafíos para la educación en el Ecuador: Calidad y equidad. Quito: Flasco.
Campbell, T., W. Medina-Jerez, I. Erdogan, and D. Zhang. 2010. “Exploring Science Teachers’ Attitudes and Knowledge
about Environmental Education in Three International Teaching Communities.” International Journal of Environmental
and Science Education 5 (1): 3–29.
Cantrell, P., S. Young, and A. Moore. 2003. “Factors Affecting Science Teaching Efficacy of Preservice Elementary Teachers.”
Journal of Science Teacher Education 14 (3): 177–192.
Carrier, S., L. Tugurian, and M. Thomson. 2013. “Elementary Science Indoors and out: Teachers, Time, and Testing.” Research
in Science Education 43 (5): 2059–2083.
Censo de población y vivienda (CPV-INEC). 2010. “Población por área, según provincial, cantón y parroquia de
empadronamiento.” Instituto Nacional De Estadística Y Censos (INEC). www.inec.gob.ec.
Christenson, M. 2004. “Teaching Multiple Perspectives on Environmental Issues in Elementary Classrooms: A Story of
Teacher Inquiry.” The Journal of Environmental Education 35 (4): 3–16.
Cronin-Jones, L., R. Penwell, M. Hakverdi, S. Cline, C. Johnson, and I. Scales. 2003. “ The Status of Environmental Education in
Latin American Middle and High Schools.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL, April 21–25. 
Cutter-Mackenzie, A. 2010. “Australian Waste Wise Schools Program: Its past, Present, and Future.” The Journal of Environmental
Education 41 (3): 165–178.
Cutter-Mackenzie, A., and R. Smith. 2003. “Ecological Literacy: The ‘Missing Paradigm’ in Environmental Education (Part
One).” Environmental Education Research 9 (4): 497–524.
DaRosa, D., J. Skeff, M. Friedland, S. Coburn, S. Cox, S. Pollart, M. O’Connel, and S. Smith. 2011. “Barriers to Effective Teaching.”
Academic Medicine 86 (4): 453–459.
Dyment, J. 2005. “Green School Grounds as Sites for Outdoor Learning: Barriers and Opportunities.” International Research
in Geographical & Environmental Education 14 (1): 28–45.
Easton, J., and M. Monroe. 2002. “Project Learning Tree Teacher Assessment Survey.” Applied Environmental Education and
Communication: An International Journal 1 (4): 229–234.
Ernst, J . 2009. “Influences On US Middle School Teachers’ Use of Environment-Based Education.” Environmental Education
Research 15  (1): 71–92.
Ernst, J. 2007. “Factors Associated with K-12 Teachers’ Use Of Environment-based Education.” The Journal of Environmental
Education 38 (3): 15–32.
Ernst, J. 2010. “Influences on the Use of the Fishing: Get in the Habitat! MinnAqua Leader’s Guide and Implications for
Curriculum Dissemination.” Applied Environmental Education and Communication 9 (2): 104–121.
Evans, N., H. Whitehouse, and M. Gooch. 2012. “Barriers, Successes and Enabling Practices of Education for Sustainability
in Far North Queensland Schools: A Case Study.” The Journal of Environmental Education 43 (2): 121–138.
Fisher, J. 2001. “The Demise of Fieldwork as an Integral Part of Science Education in United Kingdom Schools: A Victim of
Cultural Change and Political Pressure?” Pedagogy, Culture and Society 9 (1): 75–96.
Fraser, J., R. Gupta, and M. E. Krasny. 2014. “Practitioners’ Perspectives on the Purpose of Environmental Education.”
Environmental Education Research 21 (5): 777–800.
González-Gaudiano, E. 2007. “Schooling and Environment in Latin America in the Third Millennium.” Environmental Education
Research 13 (2): 155–169.
Gray, Brian V. 1999. “Guest Editorial: Science Education in the Developing World: Issues and Considerations.” Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 36 (3): 261–268.
North American Association for Environmental Education. 2010. Guidelines for Excellence. Washington, DC: North American
Association for Environmental Education.
Ham, S., and L. Castillo. 1990. “Elementary Schools in Rural Honduras: Problems in Exporting Environmental Education
Models from the United States.” Journal of Environmental Education 21 (4): 27–27.
Ham, S., and D. Sewing. 1988. “Barriers to Environmental Education.” Journal of Environmental Education 19 (2): 17–24.
Hanna, G.1992. “Jumping Deadfall: Overcoming Barriers to Implementing Outdoor and Environmental Education.” In
Celebrating our tradition charting our future: Proceedings of the international conference for the association for
experiential education, Banff, Alberta, Canada, October 8–11. 
Jensen, B., and K. Schnack. 2006. “The Action Competence Approach in Environmental Education.” Environmental Education
Research 12 (3–4): 471–486.
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH   13

Kollmuss , A. and J. Agyeman. 2010. “Mind the Gap: Why do People Act Environmentally and What are the Barriers to Pro-
Environmental Behavior?” Environmental Education Research. 8 (3): 239–260.
Ketlhoilwe, M. 2007. “Environmental Education Policy Implementation Challenges in Botswana Schools.” Southern African
Journal of Environmental Education 24 (1): 171–184.
Kinder, T., N. Mesner, M. Larese-Casanova, K. Lott, A. Cachelin, and K. LaLonde. 2015. “Changes in Knowledge and Attitude
from a Short-Term Aquatic Education Program.” Natural Sciences Education 44 (1): 18–25.
Lane, J., R. Wilke, R. Champeau, and D. Sivek. 1994. “Environmental Education in Wisconsin: A Teacher Survey.” The Journal
of Environmental Education 25 (4): 9–17.
Lee, J., A. Au, and W. Ma. 2009. “Progress Towards Education for Sustainable Development in Macao.” In  Schooling for
Sustainable Development in Chinese Communities, edited by M. Williams and J. Lee. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lemmey, R. 1999. “The Scope for Provision of Outdoor Education in Primary Schools – An English Case Study.” Outdoor
Education and Experiential Learning in the UK 1–9.
Levy, K., A. Hubbard, K. Nelson, and J. Eisenberg. 2009. “Drivers of Water Quality Variability in Northern Coastal Ecuador.”
Environmental Science & Technology 43 (6): 1788–1797.
Ministry of Environment (MEC-MAE). 2006. Plan nacional de educación ambiental para la educación básica y el bachillerato
2006–2010. Quito: MEC-MAE.
Monroe, M., G. Scollo, and A. Bowers. 2002. “Assessing Teachers Needs for Environmental Education Services.” Applied
Environmental Education and Communication: An International Journal 1 (1): 37–43.
Moseley, C., J. Huss, and J. Utley. 2010. “Assessing K–12 Teachers’ Personal Environmental Education Teaching Efficacy and
Outcome Expectancy.” Applied Environmental Education and Communication 9 (1): 5–17.
Neuman, L. W. 2006. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Penwell, R., L. Cronin-Jones, M. Hakverdi, S. Cline, and C. Johnson. 2002. “Teacher perceptions regarding the status of
Environmental Education in Latin American Elementary Schools.” Paper Presented at the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA, April 1–5.
Robertson, C., and E. Krugly‐Smolska. 1997. “Gaps Between Advocated Practices and Teaching Realities in Environmental
Education.”Environmental Education Research 3 (3): 311–326.
Saldaña, J. 2015. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Washington, DC: Sage.
Simmons, D. 1998. “Using Natural Settings for Environmental Education: Perceived Benefits and Barriers.” The Journal of
Environmental Education 29 (3): 23–31.
Smith-Sebasto, N., and T. Smith. 1997. “Environmental Education in Illinois and Wisconsin: A Tale of Two States.” The Journal
of Environmental Education 28 (4): 26–36.
Sosu, E., A. McWilliam, and D. Gray. 2008. “The Complexities of Teachers’ Commitment to Environmental Education: A Mixed
Methods Approach.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2 (2): 169–189.
Stevenson, K., S.  Carrier,  and M. Peterson. 2014. “Evaluating Strategies for Inclusion of Environmental Literacy in the
Elementary School Classroom.” Electronic Journal of Science Education 18 (8): 1–17.
Talsma, V. 2001. “The Rouge Education Project: Challenges of Implementation.” The Journal of Environmental Education 32
(3): 26–30.
UNESCO. 1977. “Final Report Presented at the Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education.” Tbilisi, Georgia,
October 14–26.
Viteri, F., G.  Clarebout, and M. Crauwels. 2012. “Environmental Education in Ecuador: Conceptions and Currents in Quito’s
Private Elementary Schools.” Environmental Education Research 19 (5): 577–599.
Waite, S. 2009. “Outdoor Learning for Children Aged 2–11: Perceived Barriers, Potential Solutions.” Paper presented at the
Fourth International Outdoor Education Research Conference, La Trobe University, Beechworth, Victoria, Australia, 15–18.
Watts, S. and P. Stenner . 2012. Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method and Interpretation. London: Sage.
Zint, M., A. Kraemer, H. Northway, and M. Lim. 2002. “Evaluation of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Conservation Education
Programs.” Conservation Biology 16 (3): 641–649.

View publication stats