by Audrey Erb
The most exhilarating moments in teaching occur when an inspiring, learning community emerges from the structure of the course.
-Thomashow 169
The professionals in the Association for the Study of Literature and the Environment (ASLE) have a highly respected reputation for advancing scholarship and interest in nature writing, ecological literary criticism, and environmental literacy. The ASLE journal, ISLE, states,
The existence of ISLE reflects the rapid growth of ecological literary criticism and environment scholarship in related disciplines in the United States and around the world in recent years, which in turn reflects the steady increase in the production of environment literature over the past several decades and the increase visibility of such writing in college classrooms. ISLE will serve to encourage such scholarship, writing, and teaching, while facilitating the development of a theoretical foundation for these activities. It will also serve to bridge the gaps between scholars, artists, students, and the public.
This journal statement reflects the dedication of ASLE members to college teaching and the notion that scholars, students, and the public must become partners in the preservation of nature and the creed of sustainability. If this dedication prevails, we must ask how we can improve our teaching and further these partnerships. Most faculty are under pressure to constantly improve their scholarly performance and understandably much energy is directed to this end. Often there is little time left to focus on process or pedagogy. This is compounded by the lack of instruction in pedagogy at the graduate level. How many of us have had a course in teaching methods before our first teaching job? Yet in order to create the partnerships and bridge the gaps mentioned above, it is necessary to develop sound teaching practices. This study is based on the assumption that ASLE members, particularly teachers new to the field of environmental literacy, are interested in analyzing and improving their pedagogical practices. It looks at a small sample of ASLE educators, sixteen in all, and examines the patterns of teaching methods in the group in the light of stated goals. Some basic question posed are: In addition to promoting scholarship and partnerships, what are our goals? What are our methods? Do our methods support our goals?
This research paper summarizes a sample survey of the current pedagogical practices used in environmental courses taught by sixteen members of ASLE. The survey consisted of three basic questions: What are your primary classroom goals? What percentage of time do you devote to the following [sixteen] teaching strategies? and How do you evaluate your teaching effectiveness? The scope of this study did not analyze the content of such courses, because there is much evidence (from ASLE syllabi, published articles, and conference notes) that ASLE instructors focus on highly respected nature/ecology writers, philosophers, and educators. Nor is the study intended to be a definitive statement about ASLE as an organization or about the total membership. It is merely intended to provide some clues about how ASLE members teach environmental literacy and to raise questions based on those clues. What do these clues tell us about our teaching paradigms? What do they tell us about our relationship with students? About our relationship with the environment? About ourselves? This study does not claim to resolve disputes about conflicting teaching practices, however it does try to establish a starting point for discussion within ASLE by looking at a small sample of ASLE teachers and the patterns of teaching that emerge.
The sample of responses indicates that ASLE teachers are concerned about what they teach, how they teach (and how students learn), and how they and students are transformed through learning. This spectrum is what Mitchell Thomashow, author of Ecological Identity: Becoming a Reflective Environmentalist and a member of ASLE, refers to as content, process, and reflection.
Environmental education . . . must strive to integrate three interconnected domains of knowledge: content, process, and reflection. Content is the information that flows through a system . . . Process refers to the ways that people share and use information . . . the way information is represented. Reflection is the personal or collective interpretation and contemplation of information . . . its deep meaning (Thomashow 172).
To underprivilege any of these categories is to short-change our students; it is important to balance our concerns about each. The survey shows that ASLE sample places a high value on all three domains. However of the 24 goals volunteered by the group, seven dealt with process and twelve with reflection. This may be significant if we are asking students to do a lot of thinking about environmental literacy, but we are not showing them ways to use the information.
David Orr , author of Ecological Literacy, expresses similar views when he states "all education is environmental education" (Orr 90) and promotes "rethinking both the substance and the process of education" (Orr 90). His six foundations of education (What is education for?) include being mindful of: the importance of place; being in and learning about the natural world; the way we teach; and the need to cross disciplinary boundaries. He integrates content, process, and reflection when he compares a conversation to teaching:
Good conversation is unhurried. It has its own rhythm and pace. Dialogue with nature cannot be rushed. It will be governed by cycles of day and night, the seasons, the pace of procreation, and by the larger rhythm of evolutionary and geologic time . . . The form and structure of any conversation with the natural world is that of the discipline of ecology as a restorative process and healing art. (Orr 91)
Orr also promotes relevant, real-life projects that help merge school and community and break down disciplinary barriers. He says, "Real learning is participatory and experiential, not just didactic" (Orr 91) and therefore students should be actively engaged in what and how they learn. To learn from this small survey then, it is important to be mindful of clues that tell us something of the content, process and reflection occurring in our classrooms.
An informal survey of teaching practices was posted on the ASLE discussion list and sent to an additional 75 addresses of ASLE members who teach some form of English course with an environmental component. The survey is reproduced in Appendix A.
Its purpose was to determine classroom goals, teaching methods, and strategies used for evaluating teaching success. Respondents were asked to articulate their classroom goals and how they evaluated their success. A list of sixteen teaching methods was included and each instructor was asked to estimate the percentage of time spent on each method. Some respondents not only estimated time spent on the methods listed, they also included narratives of other methods they employed. In addition, some respondents included comments about their teaching philosophy, and some expressed an interest in exploring pedagogical issues further.
(See figure 1.)
Of the primary classroom goals that were prompted in the questionnaire:
Four respondents cited three of these goals; two respondents cited all of these goals. Two respondents also mentioned teaching awareness of environmental problems.
Two dozen other goals were articulated by the respondents; of these, six goals mentioned ethics or values; six mentioned landscape, place, regional area or local surroundings (one specifically mentioned getting students in the field); two mentioned helping students become empowered, outraged or excited; two mentioned a connection with art; two mentioned the writing process or student voice. One goal mentioned the historical roots of environmentalism; one mentioned grief and environmental loss; one mentioned student relationship with nature.
The results show that in addition to the prompted goals of critical thinking/reading/writing skills, academic writing skills, and appreciation of environmental literature, respondents were most interested in ethics/values and landscape/place. These stated goals are interesting when compared to the number of instructors who venture into the field (see methods section) and use place as a component of the curriculum. It shows that three fourths of the respondents have a specific concern for the reflective domain while half specifically mention the process domain. In addition, three respondents mentioned building a face-to-face community within their classrooms; two instructors mention partnering with disciplines outside the humanities.
The fact that three respondents mentioned classroom community is encouraging, because community implies an atmosphere of mutual sharing, interdependence, collaboration. If a classroom community is a commonwealth of purpose, the labor and love of learning becomes a group effort, and skills necessary to organize and implement this effort are transferable to local, regional, and global issues. Mitchell Thomashow, says,
A class is a temporary community in which people learn together by looking deeply into their lives, an opportunity to deal with important issues, a place to discuss the meaning of life, a place to practice thinking about the meaning of environmentalism (Thomashow 169).
It seems that at least three of the respondents would agree with Thomashow's analogy of classroom and community and his emphasis on collaboration and reflection. Three other teachers mention using community participation as a method of teaching. These responses prompt the question, How do we define and incorporate notions of community into our teaching? Is community, like place, a major touchstone in our teaching: What about on-line communities? Although this survey did not ask each respondent about sharing teaching ideas, a few of the teachers said they would be interested in a session on pedagogy at the 1999 ASLE conference.
From the tone of the responses, it is clear that the instructors carefully consider their teaching goals as they develop curriculum; most adjust their goals with the nature of each course and according to the chemistry of the class. As a group, the respondents were quite definite about what they hope to accomplish in their teaching and these goals are tied to content/scholarship and values/ethics. The next section looks at how they implement these goals.
Common educational ground is found not so much in what people know but in how they learn (Thomashow 171).
(See figure 2.)
Fourteen of the sixteen respondents mentioned using lecture, however the range of time spent in lecture ranged from "as little as possible" to 66 percent. Most of responses were between five and thirty percent. With one exception, the lecture method is not used more than 30 percent of the time.
Face-to-face discussion was also mentioned by fourteen respondents. However the range was twenty percent to eighty percent or more ("discussion-based" or "always"). Eight respondents use face-to-face discussion more than sixty percent of the time. Thus more than half the sample use face-to-face discussion more than half the time.
In class peer review was cited by nine instructors, although the percent of time spent ranged from five to thirty percent; seven instructors use it less than thirty percent of the time.
In-class group projects were cited by five respondents; they use this method five to twenty percent of the time. Two people use debate sparingly (10-15 percent); one person uses role-playing ten percent of the time.
One person uses oral presentation thirty percent of the time; one uses "performance" twenty percent.
These findings show that most instructors rely heavily on group discussion in class, supplementing the discussion with lecture and peer review. This approach is described as de-centered by some educators and is thought to encourage students' (verbal) voices in the classroom. Although some of these discussions may occasionally occur outdoors, it is assumed that most of it occurs "in the box." Thus the results show that this sample favors a de-centered, discussion approach, but it occurs mainly within the four walls of a classroom. What kind of message does this convey to our students? Are they learning that constructive dialogue is a useful way to address ideas and issues? Or are they learning that talk is fine for classroom work, but little of it relates to the real world issues? What does this say about how we approach environmental issues and problems in general? Do we mostly talk? How does this approach compare to more active involvement, such as debate, role-playing, and experiential learning. Is there an advantage to conducting classroom discussion on-line, where reticent voices may venture forth?
(See figure 3.)
With one exception, on-line instruction, is seldom used. One instructor uses group discussion on-line 80 percent of the time and on-line peer review ten percent of the time, but balances this with five percent field experience. Another instructor spends five percent of the time employing on-line discussions. Three teachers mention using listserves or web pages; one uses on-line journals. Regarding e-mail, two people said students do communicate via e-mail; two said students rarely use it. Two respondents said they were Luddites.
Two respondent mentioned that they felt students spend enough time in front of terminals or not enough face-to-face or outdoors. On-line instruction was described as a "hassle" or not my style by two teachers. Most of the respondents just skipped the on-line section.
This study shows that nearly all of the respondents are reluctant to use to use on-line instruction. It would be interesting to determine how many of these instructors have computer writing labs available on their campuses. Aside from Luddism, some responses indicate philosophical reasons for avoiding computer instruction such as too "disembodied" or not concrete. Other responses reflect a lack of training about how to use computers constructively, yet three responses cited an interest and willingness to learn.
Because computer instruction, especially in composition courses, is not new, questions come to mind: Are ASLE members particularly resistant to on-line instruction? Are stated goals, such as sense of place and environmental ethics, not compatible with on-line methods? Is computer instruction, as some respondents suggest, contrary to achieving deeper ties with the environment? Or have we just not figured out how best to use computers in this field?
Richard Selfe, director of the Center for Computer-Assisted Language Instruction at Michigan Technological University and author of several articles dealing with computer mediated instruction, recently commented on computer instruction.
Most environmentalists are now becoming attuned to the value of networked communication systems, so the fact that we are not teaching with technologies in the university is just another example of the slowness of academics to adapt to cultural change: that's not necessarily a bad trait. (Selfe, e-mail 6/19/98)
Other scholars, such as C.A. Bowers, have written a about the non-neutrality of computers and the misuse of them in educational settings. However, Selfe believes that technologies, including networked communication systems, don't have to lead to disastrous ends.
They aren't predestined to be so used, they aren't simply overdetermined and predestined. They are always under reconstruction and redesign and that design process gives agents of change a chance to influence what they look like, what they are likely to be used for, how they effect us, our students, and our teaching. (Selfe, e-mail 6/19/98)
Selfe promotes teacher awareness regarding classroom computers and a willingness to help shape their role in education. He stresses 'becoming technology critics as well as technology users" (Selfe, 496) and encouraging "reflective teaching habits in computer-supported writing facilities (Selfe 497) and examining technology issues from critical perspectives. This means finding ways to get involved in the design as well as the implementation of computers and software. He advises,
Environmentalist can't afford to leave the use and design of these systems to conservative (NOT conserving) groups who rally support for the high impact industries and the legislative initiatives we find so objectionable these days. Yes, it would be more fun to spend our time not behind a computer but out in the "wilds," . . . but . . . both are necessary. (Selfe, e-mail 6/19/98)
In response to the suggestion that ASLE, with its focus on global sustainability, should be teaching about the non-neutrality of computers as a way to promote other more sustainable approaches, Selfe said,
The connection to be made from our argument about the "non-neutrality" of academics to technology and the non-neutrality of our use of other technologies is a wonderful notion. One that has been sort of an unstated assumption on my part for awhile. Nice to see someone say it "out loud." Would I like to see someone put this argument in a publication! (Selfe, e-mail 6/19/98)
(See figure 4.)
[Students] will respond to teaching that makes connections-between course content and their lives as local and world citizens, and between content and a learning process that gives them the skills they need to be responsible and effective advocates (Collett 309).
Because the field of environmental literacy values sense of place, it is logical to spend instructional time out-of-doors in the community or in natural settings, and indeed the results are encouraging. In all, twelve respondents include some outdoor activity in their curriculum; eleven organize/require walks, hikes or trips; one has students go outdoors on their own to complete a major paper. Seven instructors use one-day nature trips; two use extended wilderness trips; one takes students on a brief overnight trip. Two teachers ask students to spend 20 percent of the time in community participation; another teacher requires twenty hours of community service. One teacher requires weekly outdoor time; one has students adopt a piece of land, monitor and write about it; one uses evening visits to the university environmental center; one includes a nature walk each semester. One teacher specifically stated, "get students into the field" as an overall goal.
Most respondents did not calculate the percentage of time spent in the outdoors, but other than the two week-long trips, the time spent in open air seems to average less than 25 percent for most teachers. Yet even among the four instructors who do not take students out (due to liability or logistical issues) two expressed a sincere interest in doing so. Perhaps this is a call for help, and ASLE members might consider some ways to help each other learn how to incorporate outdoor experience into the curriculum. One respondent specifically suggested a panel about the role of fieldwork in teaching environment and literature; another had attended such a session and would like to try outdoor trips but was fearful of liability.
Additional comments included:
The best writing is based on experience. Writing and reading about abstract ideas is boring unless the writer can support abstract ideas He/she has developed from personal experience.
or
It's concreteness . . . that is my rationale for much that I do. I think that students get plenty of abstraction in their other English courses here and probably in life in general, so I want them to integrate what they read for my courses with some sort of first-hand experience, whether it be a backpacking trip or a nature hike.
Experiential learning then is important to almost all instructors, even the ones who don't use it much. If this is true among ASLE members in general, perhaps it is time for ASLE to consider (reconsider) ways to educate, encourage, and support fieldwork. Is it possible to organize a roundtable, or better yet an outing at the next ASLE conference that addresses this issue? Can the ASLE website add a page that offers ideas and suggestions for taking classes outdoors?
(See figure 5.)
The most consistently used method of evaluating teaching effectiveness was student evaluation forms. Ten instructors use some form of student evaluation provided by their institution. Six teachers evaluate their teaching by noting improvement in student work; four use their own surveys. Two respondents use informal mid-term evaluations. Other strategies included noting student remarks, level of excitement for the subject, peer (faculty) evaluations, publication of student writing, students taking subsequent courses, student comfort with high level concepts, the degree students participate in real community dialogue, and intuition (probably something we all rely on).
Obviously, when students evaluations and their level of improvement are important yardsticks by which the sample group measures teaching effectiveness. A couple of instructors mentioned that their success was tied to what students do beyond the classroom, but considering the emphasis on values in the goals section, it is surprising that more instructors did not articulate this connection. Of course we can not always obtain feedback about students once they depart. But, if we hope to foster responsible global citizens, is it important to at least try to measure teaching effectiveness beyond the "box?" Do ASLE professionals have any interest in pursuing ways to estimate the long-range effectiveness of teaching environmental literacy?
The results of this survey show that ASLE instructors consider scholarship, ethics, and sense of place important goals. They tend to favor a somewhat decentered classroom structure that relies on student participation, particularly discussion, seasoned with experiential learning. Although lecture is less of a focus, most do use this method. More than half include face-to-face peer review and about a third use group projects. Although few of these teachers use on-line instruction, some have an interest in exploring this area.
What does this tell us about how we approach global sustainability? What metaphors, ideologies, and unspoken messages does this kind of pedagogy advance? And regarding computer technology in undergraduate classrooms, Is computer-mediated-communication an acceptable option given the inherent problems of computer design versus ecological design? Is Luddism an alternative? Is there an ideal mix of computer and noncomputer teaching methods?
Only effective teachers will foster critical readers/thinkers and responsible global citizens. We must balance our concern about what we teach, with a concern about how we teach. The summary of results shows that ASLE teachers use fairly traditional approaches to teaching and spend much of their instructional time in "the box," although most recognize the importance of place and community and strive to get their students "out." So what is really going on here? Do some of us mostly intellectualize and posture? Are we effectively building those partnerships mentioned in the ISLE statement? Can we foster scholarship and purposeful sustainable living? Is it part of our job? Orr says, "Environmental education ought to change how people live, not just how they talk" (Orr 91). Do we and our students live any differently after close readings, discussions, and sporadic contact with nature?
When considering the impact of our teaching methods, it may be helpful to keep in mind some questions that Bowers, author of Educating for an Ecologically Sustainable Culture, poses:
Obviously, these questions are not exhaustive, but they remind us that our perspectives may tend to narrow as we grapple with the many routine demands of teaching and learning. The key here is being open to other ways of looking at our teaching priorities, so that we continually grow beyond the confines of our institutional mandates.
A diagram of learning retention rates that is sometimes handed out in educational methods classes shows a triangle. The peak is labeled "lecture-5%" and the base is labeled "Teach others/Immediate use of learning-90%." And in between the labels say "Discussion-50%" and "Practice by doing-75%." This guide assumes that retention is a measure of learning (and it is) and that teaching others is the best method to remember. This paradigm is not uncommon in college classrooms.
Yet questions abound. Why not change the triangle into a circle? Or a sphere? Or fluid waves? How does retention foster good global citizens? How can we re-invent our classrooms to encourage multiple ways of knowing and learning?
In his book, Ecological Identity, Thomashow talks about being flexible with a group of learners.
Teaching a class is like playing basketball or performing jazz. There is an organization and a structure, but the most exciting moments occur when the team or group discovers a zone of excellence, an improvisational communication that transcends the original structure. (Thomashow 193)
The ability to respond to a group's chemistry and energy is an asset that comes with experience, but can be cultivated if we are willing to experiment and trust our instincts. The aim of teaching is not to get through one more discussion about a reading, but to awaken something deeper in our students.
Thomashow admits that his own early teaching relied on the traditional methods of lecture, discussion, and reading.
And although those . . . have their place in education, . . . something more dynamic was necessary, projects that would inspire my student to look deeply into their lives-modalities of reflective learning . . . I required something versatile, participatory, and substantive . . . simultaneously profound and accessible, intuitive and analytical. (Thomashow 192)
The results of his seventeen years of experimentation have produced an activity that Thomashow calls the sense-of-place map. This map is a representation of one's personal experience with landscape throughout one's life. It may incorporate a variety of artistic media: mobiles, linear maps, photos, drawings, dioramas, poetry, sculpture, film, audio, music, or artifacts. For example, a sense-of-place map may be a collection of photo albums, scrapbooks, artifacts, rocks, and shells collected during a lifetime of hiking and fishing. Some of us may already possess parts of such maps if we examine our travel souvenirs and personal treasures. The idea is to connect these pieces and identify the patterns and stories that bind us to the landscape.
This is just one example of offering students ways to merge content, process, and reflection about place. And if, as this survey suggests, sense of place is important, it might be useful to share other ideas and innovations, including field work, about how to teach it.
In a recent film called The Truman Show, the protagonist, Truman, finally becomes aware that he's been duped for thirty years by a vast television conspiracy that broadcasts his every waking moment. In the final scene the creator/director of the show, who loves Truman like a son, tries to convince him to remain in his artificially constructed world, because it is safe, predictable and happy, a caricature of the real world without the risks. It is a pivotal moment, because Truman has had virtually no contact with the "outside" and he's frightened. Ironically, the viewers who observe his dilemma onscreen want him to escape to the outside, even though it means the end of their favorite long-running show. As teachers are we like Truman's creator, if we orchestrate our students' experiences in safe, predictable classrooms that don't allow them to go "outside" the paradigms that underlie their very existence? What alternative ways of knowing can we share with them? What paths to voluntary simplicity can we reveal? Can we expect students to invent solutions for our ecological dilemmas if we don't re-invent how we teach?
Survey Results
Goals
figure 1
total of 16 respondents
To teach:
critical thinking skills (process) |
academic writing skills (process) |
reading/writing skills that lead to global citizenry (process) |
awareness & appreciation of env. literature (content/reflection) |
other |
| 8 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 24 |
Other
· teach about this area (content)
· teach ways to get empowered, outraged environmentally (process)
· to help students get excited to continue to explore env issue (reflection)
· teach env ethics (reflection)
· to emphasize the connection between landscape, art, and culture (reflection)
· to work towards linguistic and ecological literacy simultaneously (content)
· to connect environmental ethics and literary aesthetics (reflection)
· to create conversation about environmental issues and to avoid ideological polemics (reflection)
· to explore the relationship of art and activisim (reflection)
· to link environmental writing to larger, more canonical literary traditions (content/reflection)
· to get students into the field (process)
· to compel people to articulate their tacitly held environmental values (process)
· to help students face and understand the grief that often comes with recognition of environmental loss (process)
· to model an open-minded and respectful intellectual and ethical approach to env. issues (reflection)
· to show students the historical roots of American attitudes toward the environment (content)
· to have students look at their relationship with the natural world (reflection)
· to help students establish pattern (in later life) for learning about their surroundings (process)
· to show how biosphere works (content)
· to show how humans have impacted the environment (content)
· to help students form opinions and values re: env issues (reflection)
· to help students develop a written voice (process)
· to teach adaptible writing process (process)
· teach awareness of env problems 2 (content/reflection)
· teach awareness of env literature from multicultural/global perspective (content/reflection)
Survey Results
In-class Methods
figure 2
total of 16 respondents
In-class
| lecture | group discussion | group project | peer review | role-play | debate | other |
| little as possible | 60% | 5% | 20-25% | 10% | 15% | 30% oral presentation |
| 20% | 70-80% | 10% | 15% | 10% | 20% performance | |
| 30% | 20% | 10-15% | 25-30% | |||
| 25-30% | 25-30% | 10% | 10% | |||
| some | always | 20% | 10% | |||
| 5% | 60-70% | 20% | ||||
| 20% | 70% | 10% | ||||
| 15% | 25% | 5% | ||||
| 5% | 60% | 30% |
| 66% | 33% | |||||
| 20% | 80% | |||||
| 10% | 35% | |||||
| 5% | 40% | |||||
| 30% | discussion based |
Survey Results
On-line Methods
figure 3
total of 16 respondents
On-line
| group discussion | group projects | peer review | other |
| 5% | none | 10% | 3 teachers use listserves/web pages |
| 80% | 2 teachers say students use my e-mail | ||
| 2 teachers say students rarely use my e-mail | |||
| 1 teacher uses on-line journal | |||
| 1 supplies e-mail | |||
| 2 teachers say I'm a Luddite |
Survey Results
Field Methods
figure 4
total of 16 respondents
Field Methods
| off-campus one-day trip | off-campus overnight trip | extended wilderness trip | community-based research or participation | other outdoor |
| 2-3 per semester | 1 per semester | one-week backpacking | 20% | 5%-paper based on outdoor experience |
| 1 per semester | raft trip | 20% | weekly outdoor time | |
| 10% | 20 hours per semester | adopt a piece of land & write about it thru seasons | ||
| 1 per quarter | one nature walk per semester | |||
| 5-6 per semester | one impromptu or planned trip per semester | |||
| evening trips to university outdoor center |
Survey Results
Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness
figure 5
total of 16 respondents
number of teachers who use each method
| standard institutional evaluation forms | my own surveys | improvement in student work | informal midterm evaluations | other (each mentioned once) |
| 10 | 4 | 6 | 2 | informal student remarks |
| demonstrated critical thinking skills | ||||
| level of excitement in class | ||||
| peer (faculty) evaluations | ||||
| published student writing | ||||
| degree students participate in real community dialogue | ||||
intuition conferences | ||||
| comfort with high level concepts | ||||
| students take other courses from me |
Bowers, C.A. Educating for An Ecologically Sustainable Culture. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1995.
Collett, Jonathon. and Stephen Karakashian, eds. Greening the College Curriculum: A Guide to Environmental Teaching in the Liberal Arts.
ISLE. Journal of the Association for the Study of Literature and the Environment. Reno: University of Nevada Press.
Orr, David. Ecological Literacy: Education and Transition to a Postmodern World. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1992.
Richard J. Selfe with Cynthia L. Selfe. "The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones," College Composition and Communication. 45 (4), 480-504, 1994.
Thomashow, Mitchell. Ecological Identity: Becoming a Reflective Environmentalist. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1995.