Environmental education curriculum evaluation questionnaire: A reliability and validity study

The intention of this research project was to bridge the gap between social science research and application to the environmental domain through the development of a theoretically derived instrument designed to give educators a template by which to evaluate environmental education curricula. The theoretical base for instrument development was provided by several developmental theories such as Piaget's theory of cognitive development, Developmental Systems Theory, Life-span Perspective, as well as curriculum research within the area of environmental education. This theoretical base fueled the generation of a list of components which were then translated into a questionnaire with specific questions relevant to the environmental education domain.; The specific research question for this project is: Can a valid assessment instrument based largely on human development and education theory be developed that reliably discriminates high, moderate, and low quality in environmental education curricula? The types of analyses conducted to answer this question were interrater reliability (percent agreement, Cohen's Kappa coefficient, Pearson's Product-Moment correlation coefficient), test-retest reliability (percent agreement, correlation), and criterion-related validity (correlation). Face validity and content validity were also assessed through thorough reviews.; Overall results indicate that 29% of the questions on the questionnaire demonstrated a high level of interrater reliability and 43% of the questions demonstrated a moderate level of interrater reliability. Seventy-one percent of the questions demonstrated a high test-retest reliability and 5% a moderate level. Fifty-five percent of the questions on the questionnaire were reliable (high or moderate) both across time and raters. Only eight questions (8%) did not show either interrater or test-retest reliability. The global overall rating of high, medium, or low quality was reliable across both coders and time, indicating that the questionnaire can discriminate differences in quality of environmental education curricula. Of the 35 curricula evaluated, 6 were high quality, 14 were medium quality and 15 were low quality.; The criterion-related validity of the instrument is at current time unable to be established due to the lack of comparable measures or a concretely usable set of multidisciplinary standards. Face and content validity were sufficiently demonstrated.