[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-597176-105":59,"doc-detail-597176-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","rejoinder-alternatives-to-national-standards-for-environmental-education","Rejoinder - Alternatives to National Standards for Environmental Education","","A rejoinder responding to critiques of national standards for environmental education argues that the movement relies on flawed information, biased presentations, and misguided objectives. It defends a process-based approach, notes shifting emphasis toward learning quality, and challenges the polarization of environmental education paradigms. The response also clarifies misunderstandings of behaviorism and discusses how non-behaviouristic and behaviouristic approaches can be compatible, emphasizing strength through diversity.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/rejoinder-alternatives-to-national-standards-for-environmental-education/597176/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/rejoinder-alternatives-to-national-standards-for-environmental-education/597176.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Rainbow Cat","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":24},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the main argument of this rejoinder against national environmental education standards?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It argues that the environmental education movement is built on flawed information and biased presentations with misguided objectives, and it claims the North American goal of national standards has lost momentum and needs reconsideration.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does the paper position itself regarding process-based quality assessment?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It points out a shift toward emphasizing the quality of the learning process and suggests this should counter criticism found in mainstream media.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What does the authors’ discussion say about behaviorism in environmental education?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It explains their interpretation of behaviourism as positivistic and instrumental, highlights concerns about prediction and control, and clarifies that ends should include human understanding, potential, and sustainable relationships with surroundings.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},597176,1793125197,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":24,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":44,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},962090769181,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","Rejoinder  \nAlternatives to National Standards for Environmental Education: A Response to Roth and McClaren  \nArjen E. J. Wals & Tore van der Leij,  \nWageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands  \n[T]he environmental education movement is based on flawed information, biased presentations and misguided objectives. At worst . . . impressionable children are being browbeaten into an irrational rejection of consumption, economic growth and free market capitalism. (Cushman, New York Times, April 22, 1997, p.  \nA8)  \nWhen the editor asked us to lead-off a debate in this journal on the notion of national standards in environmental education, we could not resist. At a time when everybody in the academic world is pushed to publish (outcome-based), and hardly anyone has time to read, reflect, and engage in dialogue (process-based), it is quite rare that authors get two experienced and highly respected professors in the North American environmental education scene to take the time to critique their ideas. At the same time, we are pleased to learn that two researchers from a neighbouring country seem to support our line of thinking. Judging from the three responses, we do believe that we have succeeded in starting a lively debate on the subject. We welcome the opportunity to clarify our position somewhat, and to justify some of the choices we made—choices which Roth and McClaren critique, but Croizer and von Frenckell seem to support.  \nFirst of all we are pleased to note, along with Roth , that the North American Association for Environmental Education’s (NAAEE’s) goal of establishing national environmental education standards has fallen of its own weight. The NAAEE now speaks of guidelines for excellence (1996) which seems more in line with our plea for process-based quality assessment. However, the subtitle of amore recent (draft) document, “Environmental Education Guidelines for Excellence: What School-age Learners Should Know and Be Able to Do?”(NAAEE, 1997), still suggests an emphasis on  \nCanadian Journal of Environmental Education, 2, Spring 1997 49  \npredetermined, expert-based learning outcomes with little regard for local circumstances and differences. Nonetheless, there appears to bea shift towards emphasizing the quality of the learning process. Hopefully this shift is the result of constructive criticism from environmental educators both within and outside of NAAEE. It is clear that there is a need for quality improvement and assessment in environmental education to counter the kind of criticism that can now be found even in mainstream media sources such as the New York Times (see the quotation above) and CNN (for example as expressed by Michael Sanera of the Claremont Institute, a conservative California-based research institute, in an interview which was broadcast world-wide on Earth Day) .  \nThere are many issues that could be addressed in this rejoinder, but three demand an immediate response: 1) the polarization of schools of thought in environmental education, 2) our suggested misunderstanding of behaviourism, and 3) the compatibility of nonbehaviouristic and behaviouristic approaches to environmental education.  \nPolarization of Ideas  \nOf course McClaren is right when he says that we over-simplify by introducing three paradigms in environmental education (behaviourist, interpretive, and critical) and by lumping the last two together under the label “non-behaviourist.” As we stated, we did this for the sake of debate. The price we pay for doing so is that we lose some of the nuances, subtleties, commonalities, and diversity of points of view. But, by highlighting differences and distinctions, we try to show that we are dealing with paradigmatic positions rooted in ideologically different world views. Let us not forget that making distinctions is an important philosophical task which enables us to see old territory in new ways and to expose previously hidden meanings. Besides, Roth and McClaren must recognize th","cbCaigmULJeyR81X","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaigmULJeyR81X","pdf",121688,"English","# Rejoinder\n## Alternatives to National Standards for Environmental Education: A Response to Roth and McClaren\n## Polarization of Ideas\n## Interpretations of Behaviourism","[{\"question\":\"What is the main argument of this rejoinder against national environmental education standards?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that the environmental education movement is built on flawed information and biased presentations with misguided objectives, and it claims the North American goal of national standards has lost momentum and needs reconsideration.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the paper position itself regarding process-based quality assessment?\",\"answer\":\"It points out a shift toward emphasizing the quality of the learning process and suggests this should counter criticism found in mainstream media.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the authors’ discussion say about behaviorism in environmental education?\",\"answer\":\"It explains their interpretation of behaviourism as positivistic and instrumental, highlights concerns about prediction and control, and clarifies that ends should include human understanding, potential, and sustainable relationships with surroundings.\"}]","Rejoinder - Alternatives to National Standards for Environmental Education | PDF",1792084544,23]