This article argues that a mixed methods approach is useful in understanding the complexity that underlies teachers' commitment to environmental education. Using sequential and concurrent procedures, the authors demonstrate how different methodological approaches highlighted different aspects of teacher commitment. The quantitative survey examined significant factors that determine teachers' commitment, whereas the qualitative approach used a soft systems methodology to expand understanding and to explore ways of increasing teacher commitment to environmental education. Results indicate a complex range of factors affecting commitment, and different layers of reality discovered by the different methods provide a holistic understanding of teacher commitment to environmental education. The article also demonstrates how a mixed methods approach can serve the dual role of confirming and elaborating findings.
Ajiboye, M.J.O., & Audu, U.F. (1998). Environmental knowledge and attitudes of some Nigerian secondary school teachers. Environmental Education Research, 4, 329-340.
2.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
3.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Constructing a TpB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Retrieved July 16, 2005, from http://www.people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf
4.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
5.
Armitage, C.J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology , 40, 471-499.
6.
Banathy, B.H. (1991). Systems design of education: A journey to create the future. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
7.
Barrett, M.J. (2007). Homework and fieldwork: Investigations into the rhetoric-reality gap in environmental education research and pedagogy. Environmental Education Research, 13, 209-223.
8.
Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.
9.
Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new synthesis of mind and matter . Hammersmith, UK: Flamingo.
11.
Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action . Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 15-26.
12.
Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice: Includes a 30-year retrospective. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
13.
Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
14.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
15.
Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304-1312.
16.
Connell, S. (1997). Empirical-analytical methodological research in environmental education: Response to a negative trend in methodological and ideological discussions. Environmental Education Research , 3, 117-132.
17.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
Cutter, A., & Smith, R. (2001). Gauging primary school teachers' environmental literacy: An issue of ``priority.'' Asia Pacific Education Review, 2, 45-60.
19.
Cutter-Mackenzie, A., & Smith, R. (2003). Ecological literacy: The ``missing paradigm'' in environmental education (Part 1). Environmental Education Research, 9, 497-524.
20.
Dillon, J., & Arjen, W. (2006). On the danger of blurring methods, methodologies and ideologies in environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, 12, 549-558.
21.
Dillon, P.J., & Gayford, C.G. (1997). A psychometric approach to investigating the environmental beliefs, intentions and behaviours of pre-service teachers. Environmental Education Research, 3, 283-297.
22.
Evans, M.G. (1991). The problem of analyzing multiplicative composites: Interactions revisited. American Psychologist, 46, 6-15.
23.
Gotch, C., & Hall, T. (2004). Understanding nature related behaviours among children through a theory of reasoned action approach. Environmental Education Research, 10, 157-177.
24.
Greene, J.C. (1994). Qualitative program evaluation: Practice and promise . In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 530-544). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H.A.M. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2505-2528.
28.
Hoban, G.F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change: A systems thinking approach. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.
31.
Ko, A.C., & Lee, J.C. (2003). Teachers' perceptions of teaching environmental issues within the science curriculum: A Hong Kong perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12, 187-204.
32.
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London : Sage.
33.
May, T.S. (2000). Elements of success in environmental education through practitioner eyes. Journal of Environmental Education , 31, 4-12.
34.
Palmer, J. (1998). Environmental education in the 21st century: Theory, practice, progress and promise. London: Routledge.
35.
Palmer, J.A., & Suggate, J. (1996). Influences and experiences affecting pro-environmental behaviour of educators. Environmental Education Research, 2, 109-121.
36.
Patel, N.V. (1995). Application of soft systems methodology to real world process of teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Management, 9, 13-23.
37.
Phelps, R., & Hase, S. (2002). Complexity and action research: Exploring the theoretical and methodological connections. Educational Action Research, 10, 507-524.
38.
Plevyak, L.H., Bendixen-Noe, M., Henderson, J., Roth, R.E., & Wilke, R. (2001). Level of teacher preparation and implementation of EE: Mandated and non-mandated EE teacher preparation states. Journal of Environmental Education, 32, 28-37.
39.
Reid, A., & Scott, W. (2006). Researching education and the environment: Retrospect and prospect. Environmental Education Research, 12, 571-587.
40.
Rodriguez-Ulloa, R., & Paucar-Caceres, A. (2005). Soft systems dynamic methodology (SSDM): Combing soft systems methodology (SSM) and systems dynamic (SD). Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18(3), 303-334.
41.
Scottish Executive. (2000). Environmental studies, society, science and technology: 5-14 national guidelines . Glasgow: Learning Teaching Scotland .
42.
Scottish Executive. (2004). A curriculum for excellence. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www.acurriculumforexcellencescotland.gov.uk/
43.
Scottish Executive. (2006). Statistical publication. Retrieved September 12, 2006, from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/99843/0024183.pdf
44.
Shuman, D.K. (1995). Factors that influence commitment to teaching environmental education: Development and test of a causal model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Idaho.
45.
Shuman, D.K., & Ham, S.H. (1997). Toward a theory of commitment to environmental education teaching. Journal of Environmental Education, 28, 25-33.
46.
Summers, M., Kruger, C., Childs, A., & Mant, J. (2001). Understanding the science of environmental issues: Development of a subject knowledge guide for primary teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 33-53.
47.
Tajino, A. (2002). Transformation process models: A systemic approach to problematic team-teaching situations. Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, 17(3), 29-44.
48.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
Zint, M. (2002). Comparing three attitude behaviour theories for predicting science teachers' intentions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 819-844.
