J Environ Stud Sci DOI 10.1007/s13412-015-0301-5

Response: Theory in, theory out: NCSE and the ESS curriculum Shirley Vincent 1

# AESS 2015

Abstract This commentary is a response to the article by James Proctor titled BTheory In, Theory Out: NCSE and the ESS Curriculum^ (Environ Stud Sci 5(2):218–223, 2015) which critiques the report Interdisciplinary Environmental and Sustainability Education on the Nation’s Campuses 2012: Curriculum Design (Vincent et al. 2013) and its findings related to environmental studies and sciences (ESS) curricula. Our report does not constrain curricular discussion or evolution nor does it encourage a move toward convergence in ESS curricula as Proctor asserts. Instead, the implications are simply that, while there is a wide diversity of interdisciplinary environmental and sustainability (IES) degrees, there are some shared aspects of the identity of the field and broad approaches to curriculum design. The results also reveal that a degree program’s name is not a reliable indicator of curricular content and that newly emerging programs in sustainability and energy fit within the broad ESS paradigm. All of the National Council for Science and the Environment’s (NCSE) Center for Environmental Education Research (CEER) studies and reports are designed to support ongoing discussion by providing relevant information obtained using rigorous research design and statistical analysis techniques. They are not intended to be prescriptive or support the status quo.

* Shirley Vincent [email protected] 1

Center for Environmental Education Research, National Council for Science and the Environment, 1101 17th Street, NW, Suite 250, Washington, DC 20036-4711, USA

A Bnew normal^ vs. a Bframework for understanding diversity^ Proctor asserts that the National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE) has Bhelped define the ‘new normal’ of the ESS curriculum.^ (Proctor 2015) However, the work of NCSE has not attempted to define any kind of Bnormal^ for environmental studies and sciences (ESS), new or otherwise. The intent of this study was to understand the wide diversity of interdisciplinary environmental and sustainability (IES) degrees that exist and the views of program leaders about their degree programs’ Bideal^ and existing curricula. BSustainability^ as a core theme is an empirical observation rather than a proposition of what should be, and it should not mask the differences that exist between programs. The different ways in which sustainability is applied in practice and whether it can Bintegrate^ curricular models is worthy of future study, but has not been part of the Center for Environmental Education Research’s (CEER) work carried out to date. We do not recommend or advocate any particular approach to ESS curriculum design. Instead, we advance Ba framework for understanding diversity,^ not a Bnew normal.^ Proctor’s statement that the consulting services provided by CEER primarily Bhelp [clients] define their curricula trajectories based in large part on NCSE’s empirical results^ is not an accurate characterization of our consulting work. Rather than provide prescriptions based on our research, CEER’s consulting services and customized reports aim to provide data and information that allow programs to make thoughtful choices within their own institutional contexts and are often included as part of an external review process conducted with other non-NCSE members. NCSE does not want to constrain curricular discussion or evolution nor does it encourage a move toward convergence

J Environ Stud Sci

in ESS curricula. We promote and welcome a robust dialogue between different points of view from ESS leaders and others. While we disagree with the contentions in Proctor’s paper, we respect his work and its aims regarding ongoing innovation in ESS curricula. We encourage readers to review our curriculum design report which is available at http://ncseonline.org/ceer-reports. Print copies are available for individuals at NCSE affiliate institutions.

Explanation of the framework diagram The framework we present does not represent an empirical statistical analysis and instead should be viewed as an illustration for visualizing and understanding program diversity based on several CEER studies (Fig. 1). The three approaches to undergraduate curricula shown in the framework are based on the relative emphasis on combinations of knowledge and skill components which broadly emphasize natural systems, social systems, or sustainability solutions. However, diversity, not similarity, of programs is the norm, as shown in Fig. 2, which maps the ideal curricula of the leaders of nearly one fifth of all IES undergraduate degree programs. The framework is derived from cluster analysis (three curricular approaches), discriminant analysis (two dimensions that distinguish the three approaches), and the findings from previous studies on the identity of the ESS field (what all ESS programs have in common). Previous studies revealed a consensus opinion on the IES field: it is focused on the interfaces and interactions of coupled human-nature systems with the

Fig. 1 A framework for understanding US undergraduate IES program curricula

goal of preparing students to be sustainability-oriented problem solvers (see Vincent and Focht 2009, 2010, 2011). Key learning outcomes of IES programs include disciplinary synthesis abilities, systems-thinking cognitive skills, knowledge of the sociopolitical and natural aspects of environmental problems, understanding of the limits of science and technology, recognition of the importance of acknowledging and reporting uncertainty, and a normative orientation toward sustainability. The position of Bproblem solving for sustainability^ at the intersections of the three approaches represents this consensus opinion. There is also empirical evidence that supports its position at the intersection of the three curricular approaches. Sustainability is included as a core principle in the curricula for a majority of ESS degree programs (Vincent and Focht 2009, 2010; Vincent 2010), and two sustainability knowledge areas—sustainability concepts and environmental sustainability—have the highest mean knowledge importance ratings across all undergraduate (and graduate) ESS programs as well as the highest mean importance ratings for each of the three undergraduate approaches to curriculum design. There are differences in the importance placed on each of the six types of sustainability knowledge included in the survey among the three approaches, as is reflected in the figure. The Sustainability Solutions Emphasis approach places more importance on all six sustainability knowledge areas than the other two approaches.

Theory CEER studies are exploratory and are conducted using an abductive reasoning approach. Abduction is a method of logical inference introduced by the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce. He argued that, in addition to deductive inference (necessary inference or testing existing theory with observations) and inductive inference (probable inference or developing theory from observations), there is a third type of inference: abductive inference (educated inference or conjecture). Abductive inference is the first step in developing new knowledge. In practice, Peirce’s logic may be described as an iterative process between analysis and synthesis in which observations are interpreted within a contextual frame (Barton and Haslett 2007). According to Peirce, the development of a hypothesis is not a purely intuitive process, but instead a form of educated inquiry. Abduction involves a learning process or cycle of inquiry that starts with observing Bsurprising facts,^ which then leads to the formation of an explanatory hypothesis, followed by analysis and actions that generate new surprising facts. In our studies, we are not attempting to test existing theory or develop new ESS curricula theory from our observations, but instead develop new knowledge through educated inquiry.

J Environ Stud Sci Fig. 2 Undergraduate IES degree programs plotted on two dimensions (functions) that jexplain differences in Bideal^ approaches to curriculum design

We do test some specific hypotheses using our methods— such as whether new sustainability programs have a curriculum design approach distinct from that of ESS programs and whether program curricula evolved substantially from 2008 to 2012. Proctor’s first two assumptions about the Btheoretical dimensions^ of the study are elements of the conceptual framework used to design the study: ESS curricula include diverse forms of knowledge (and skills), and due to the diversity of ESS programs, there are likely to be multiple curricular models—no assumption was made as to how many or their characteristics. His assertion of a third theoretical dimension that Bsustainability integrates the curricular models^—which he states is a conclusion drawn without empirical justification—is not an accurate description of the study’s findings.

Methodology The results of two similar curricula studies conducted in 2008 (Vincent 2010) and 2012 (Vincent et al. 2013)—both with large (statistically robust), nationally representative, but different samples (~30 % overlap)—indicate that all ESS degree programs align with one of the broad approaches to curricula; neither study included any statistical outliers.

Our iterative method of examining the results of statistical analyses and interpreting the findings is utilized in all of CEER’s exploratory, descriptive studies. The veracity of the interpretation of the findings is supported by recommended measures of validity for each statistical test and the convergence of findings obtained through different methodological approaches and repeat studies. All CEER statistical analyses include standard measures of validity for each test to ensure the datasets are suitable for a specific analysis. Sample size and representativeness The data for the 2012 study includes 242 baccalaureate programs which represent 19 % of the total population. This sample size is sufficient to measure correlations between attributes with a statistical power of 0.90 to detect a 0.25 effect size at α=0.05, which is a measure indicating the sample is statistically sensitive and robust. The representativeness of the sample was tested using a z test for proportions to compare the sample data and the program data collected for the target population (our 2012 census), comparing four defining program attributes between the sample and the target population at α=0.05: institution basic Carnegie class, institution control (public or private not-for-profit), institution region (census division), and degree type (name/level). The sample was representative for all of these parameters.

J Environ Stud Sci

Choice of knowledge items The knowledge and skills items included in the original study (conducted in 2008) were determined by the Council of Environmental Deans and Directors (CEDD), who held a number of conversations about core competencies. The items used in the study were drawn from their deliberations and were reviewed by CEDD members at one of their semiannual meetings. The number of knowledge items included in the 2012 study was expanded to capture new developments and to better understand IES curricula. The list for the 2012 survey was generated from a comprehensive literature review and the author’s extensive knowledge of ESS curricula. This list was subjected to multiple rounds of review by numerous individuals representing CEDD, the Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Forum on Science and Innovation for Sustainable Development, and the National Association of Environmental Professionals. The choices made to group items or list individually—such as listing political science as a single item and behavioral social sciences as a group—were based on the perceived likelihood of the knowledge area’s importance in distinguishing differences in ESS curricula. Six categories of sustainability were included to capture potential differences among the burgeoning population of new sustainability degree programs and between sustainability and ESS degree programs. We may have missed some items that should have been included, such as regional studies (Jahiel 2015), but the inclusion of additional knowledge and skills areas in the 2012 survey in comparison to the 2008 survey did not fundamentally change the results, other than to provide a more nuanced understanding of ESS curricula. One notable change between the two studies was that graduate degree programs exhibited distinct differences from undergraduate programs, likely due to the increased granularity of the knowledge and skills areas included in 2012. The very similar results of both the 2008 and 2012 study support the validity of the main findings for both studies. Statistical methods Several erroneous statements concerning the statistical methods are included in Proctor’s paper. We will not address all these in this response; readers may refer to the report and statistical methods references for more information on the methods used in the analyses. Two examples are: Bfor the ensuing statistical analysis to draw valid results from the responses to these items, one must assume that each item is relatively homogeneous^ and Bpopulating a category such as sustainability with a sufficient number of items would be necessary for this category to

eventually surface as a factor.^ Factor analysis typically includes variables with heterogeneous values and a factor may have a significant correlation with a single variable (e.g., see Stevens 1996).

Future directions CEER’s next report on learning outcomes and core competencies will provide information relevant to the questions proposed by Proctor for moving forward. We have collected a large, nationally representative sample of sets of programlevel learning outcomes from IES programs across the US (293 undergraduate programs, 115 graduate programs) and conducted a comprehensive review of key literature and existing standards on ESS and sustainability core competencies. We are using NVivo software to analyze the content of the learning outcomes based on several coding schemes: one derived from the knowledge and skills areas used in our curriculum design study and others from key frameworks in the core competencies literature (e.g., Phelan et al. 2015; Weik et al. 2011). The learning outcomes report is scheduled for release in the fall of 2015. The next CEER study will collect and analyze methods used to assess outcomes for IES programs with a report planned for 2016. These studies will provide information that can help inform a rich and robust discussion on the future of ESS curricula. Again, we do not intend to constrain dialogue with our reports—instead we aim to support ongoing discussion by providing relevant information to help the ESS community understand the evolving field in all its complexity.

References Barton J, Haslett T (2007) Analysis, synthesis, systems thinking and the scientific method: rediscovering the importance of open systems. Syst Res Behav Sci 24:143–155 Jahiel AR (2015) Between the local and the global in the Age of the Anthropocene: the case for the Bregional^ in Environmental Studies and Sciences. Environ Stud Sci 5(2):224–230 Phelan L, Mcbain B, Fergeson A, Brown P, Brown V, Hay I, Horsfield R, Taplin R (2015) Learning and teaching academic standards statement for environment and sustainability. Office for Teaching and Learning, Sydney Proctor J (2015) Theory in, theory out: NCSE and the ESS curriculum. Environ Stud Sci 5(2):218–223 Stevens J (1996) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 3rd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale Vincent S (2010) Interdisciplinary environmental education on the nation’s campuses: elements of field identity and curriculum design. National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington, DC Vincent S, Focht W (2009) U. S. higher education environmental program managers’ perspectives on curriculum design and core

J Environ Stud Sci competencies: implications for sustainability as a guiding framework. Int J Sustain High Educ 10(2):164–183 Vincent S, Focht W (2010) In search of common ground: exploring identity and the possibility of core competencies for interdisciplinary environmental programs. Environ Pract 12(1):76–86 Vincent S, Focht W (2011) Interdisciplinary environmental programs: elements of field identity and curriculum design. J Environ Stud Sci 1(1):14–35

Vincent S, Bunn S, Sloane S (2013) Interdisciplinary environmental and sustainability education on the nation’s campuses: curriculum design. National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington, DC Weik A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6:203–218