Community, School, Environment

Andrea Déri*

SummaryThis paper addresses the interdependence of community, school and environment. It argues that thestronger their relationship, the better their respective quality. Survey results presented in this paper oflearning preferences of 539 primary school students of age 8-14 in Sendai, Japan confirm that students are
keen to learn about their community and their environment. The top three learning preferences include active
approaches such as eLearning, hands-on learning in the local science museum and visiting nature reserves.
By offering successful examples of community-based learning for sustainable development from five countries(Hungary, Japan, Ukraine, USA, Poland), the author encourages educators to engage in community-basedlearning and consider students’ learning preferences.
I. Community2 and learning

In traditional communities“It takes a whole village to raise a child”. This African saying perfectly captures the responsibility of thecommunity in a successful education, the interdependence between good, relevant education and a dedicatedlocal community.
There are, however, two important assumptions in this saying: the community knows the child’s learningneeds, and the community as a whole is dedicated to the learning process. These assumptions are inherent
characteristics of a traditional, rural, self-sustaining community life. More importantly, these characteristics
are vital to the survival of the community. The community not only knows what a child needs to learn to beable to participate in that community (work, family life, spirituality, culture etc.) but no other entity than thatparticular community knows exactly what the child − and ultimately the community − needs.
Therefore it is well understood that each community member has to contribute to the child’s
learning process as each member has something special to offer. Without taking this responsibility, thecommunity’s future is in jeopardy, as children are ill-equipped to produce food, fiber and shelter in thatparticular environment (climate, bio-geography, cultural norms). In this highly contextual learning, successful
education means a composite of parallel, mostly hands-on learning processes that are essential to children’s
happy life in their community, and also to the sustenance of their community. As traditional communities are* Programme Manager, Capacity Building Programme, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), JAPAN－64 －Ann. Rep. Env. Edu. MUE. Vol.5 No.2, 2003

dependent on their natural environment, education is inherently “environmental”: all aspects of the learning
process include environmental and social considerations.
Helena Norberg-Hodge reflects on this process with astute clarity when she describes the traditional
community-based learning in Ladakh, India: “With the exception of religious training in the monasteries,
the traditional culture had no separate process called ‘education’. Education was the product of an intimate
relationship with the community and its environment. Children learned from grandparents, family, andfriends.” “They learned about connections, process, and change, about the intricate web of fluctuating
relationships in the natural world around them.” 3

In the globalizing era
But how relevant is this practice of community-based learning in a rapidly globalizing world, in urban
schools where teaching is isolated from the local community and indifferent to the immediate environment,
where many children are actually commuters? To answer this question, let’s explore first what concern
educators have about modern schools and then explore what benefits community involvement can provide.
There is a deep-felt concern, voiced by sustainable development minded educators that “modern”
education, rooted in the XIX. century’s industrial paradigm4, does not raise children to become happy, creative,
responsible people but only prepares students to become part of the labor force as an efficient supporter of
economic growth without due consideration to social and environmental values.
What role can schools play in re-orienting “modern” education towards a more holistic learning process?
What can schools really change within a system where education as an institution supports the status-quo
of societies? Re-orienting the economic growth agenda towards sustainable development goes beyond
the capacities of learning institutions but schools can spearhead the re-orientation of education towards
sustainable development5 by aiming for more6 than academic achievement and/or career development7.
An important component of this re-orientation is the re-connection of education with real life issues
in their complexity to learn about “connections, process, and change, about the intricate web of fluctuating
relationships in the natural, [social and economic8] world around”. And this is where the involvement of thelocal community-be that community a village or an urban housing complex-, can offer opportunities of not only
a more holistic education but enriched personal and community / societal development, and as a result, better
environmental care and quality, and ultimately a more sustainable development.9

Benefits
With the separation of education from real-life community issues, not only learning becomes moreacademic and thus less action oriented but the integrity of the local community also suffers from loosing
the young generation’s attention to social and environmental issues. By involving community membersin the formal education, or complementing the formal education with informal community-based learning,－65 －community and school are re-connected for both personal and social benefits, as it described in Figure 1.
Having compared the benefits in traditional and modern societies, there is a striking similarity:community-based learning is an immediate survival issue of traditional (self-sustaining) communities, andalmost a pre-requisite for sustainable development of modern societies.

Traditional communities

Modern communities

Personal

Learning is useful and fun

Learning is useful and fun

benefits

Ability to fully and happily function in

Ability to better understand andthe community

participate in the local community, andAcknowledgement for contributing withthe whole society

special individual skills

Better chances for more rewarding

Sense of identity

career choices
Sense of belongingness

Community

Survival

Sense of community/societal

Sustained identity

Enhanced identity

benefits

Sustained social capital

Increased social capital

Adaptation to climate and societal

Ability to solve problems, reach goals bychanges generated by innovation

innovations through trans-generational

inspired by trans-generational learning

communication

Environmental, social and economic

Environmental, social and economic

considerations are inherent part ofconsiderations integrated into learninglearning

Tacit knowledge and improved

Tacit knowledge is passed on for theknowledge management contributes to asurvival of future generations

sustainable development

Figure 1. Benefits of community-based learning in traditional and modern societies.
The implication of knowledge management also highlights the significance of community-based learning.
Interaction with other community members supports students’ implicit learning10 and the acquisition oftacit knowledge, the heritage of trans-generational experience related to that particular community in agiven bio-geographical environment. Tacit knowledge can not be taught at school, can not be expressed bywords, formulas or other explicit ways, but constructed only through direct, hands-on experience and social
interaction. This is a critical point if we consider that environmental wisdom, or in other terminology local,
indigenous knowledge, can only be acquired through implicit learning.
Opportunities for inter-generational interaction offer students with opportunities of implicit learning
about their local environment (including nature conservation, farming, forestry etc.). It is, however, theeducator’s responsibility to make sure the learning leads to knowledge construction (tacit knowledge) which isindispensable for future decisions related to managing local environmental assets.
－66 －Ann. Rep. Env. Edu. MUE. Vol.5 No.2, 2003

How it works: System thinking and scenario analysis
Increasing community involvement in learning (school-based, after-school and life-long learning) results
in increased social capital11 and thus increased ability to address community goals: a reinforcing cycle (Figure2.) This cycle can go reverse as well: decreased community investment in education weakens the community’s
ability to reach its goals. The same phenomenon is articulated at a different level by the laconic statement: “Asthe community goes, so goes the school” 12 and vica versa13.
Scenario analysis and scenario development conducted in the USA have also arrived at the sameconclusion: community values exercise the driving forces in shaping public education14.
Applying a system thinking perspective of school-community interplay helps also better understand thestrong link between the social capital and the quality of local environmental management15.

������� �� �����
��������� �����

���������
���������� �������

������������������
�������
������������

������
���������
�������������
���������
��������
���������

���������
������������� ��������

Figure 2. Reinforcing cycle of community involvement in learning.

－67 －II. Community-based environmental education in practiceThere are inspiring efforts all over the world to purposefully re-connect schools and their communities. A
quick search on the internet by using Google as a search engine for “community, school, environment” resulted
in 4,300,000 hits (September 28, 2003). This is a promising sign of realizing the connection of community life,
school-based learning and the quality of the local environment, and making purposeful efforts to re-establish
the traditionally strong links among young people’s learning, the activity of adult community members tosustain their bio-geographically, culturally and economically shaped local environment.
Improving science education with community-based projects in the USA16 has been convincing. Although
research data is not always available to assess the effectiveness of all community-based learning projects,
schools with community-based learning integrated in their curriculum seem to have higher academic
achievements, happier students who are also more willing to participate in their local community and takeaction for their environment.
Following are a few (just a very few) good examples of community-based environmental education andeducation for sustainability projects from five countries: Hungary, Japan, Poland, Ukraine, USA.

Hungary
The Forest School 17 programme, supported uniquely by both the Ministry of Education and theMinistry of Environment, offers interdisciplinary hands-on learning that involves local communities in the
exploration of real life issues. The Hungarian Eco-School Network18 is part of the Environment and School
Initiatives project of the OECD-CERI (Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development-Centre for
Educational Research & Innovation), with having roots in earlier community-based environmental education
demonstration projects with the Institute for Sustainable Communities19. Eco-schools do not only learn aboutsustainable development but they are managed sustainably as well from the operation of the school to thecatering and working closely with the local community: they walk their talk.

Japan
The Learning Environment and Activity Foundation20 in Nishinomyia, Japan trains community members
to teach students about various aspects of their community, e.g. mothers teach young children about nature
and art, businessmen introduce students to eco-products and eco-labeling, and government officials offer
hands-on field studies on water quality assessment.21

UkraineParents, teachers, students, NGO members, farmers, business people and other interested membersof the community discuss what and how they want to learn together about their environment. Students
learn together with parents to map air pollution, to map illegal garbage dumping, to solve the community’senvironmental problem - not only to learn for better grades.22－68 －Ann. Rep. Env. Edu. MUE. Vol.5 No.2, 2003

USA: Environment as an Integrating Concept
One of the best researched community-based environmental education initiatives is based on the concept
of “Environment as an Integrating Context (EIC)”. US schools used the environment as the integrating
concept not only in science but for all subjects including literature, history, math, social studies. The EIC
Model TM, developed by the State Education and Environment Roundtable” (SEER) improved students’achievement by using local natural and community surroundings as a context for learning.23 Integrating
ecological principles into all subjects of education at school also included the adoption of system thinking
which resulted in not only higher academic achievement but better use of higher order thinking skills
and ability to grasp and solve complex problems creatively. “EIC didn’t teach me all the facts that every
traditional English or history teacher thought I should know,” said one high school graduate. “What it didteach me was how to learn and how to process what I learned into my own facts.” 24

USA: Vermont
The Vermont Education for Sustainability Program25 is “learning that links knowledge, inquiry, and action
to help students build a healthy future for their communities and the planet.” This initiative succeeded tointegrate sustainable development in the education standards of Vermont! Community Mapping26 helps young
people to explore their landscape and discuss their local land-use planning. The Environmental Learning
for the Future (ELF)27 initiative trains community members, mostly parents, to teach elementary school age
children about nature through hands-on explorations. The Linking Learning to Life28 helps students to better
understand the community and their career choices by giving students hands-on learning opportunities invarious organizations including business in their community.

USA: Georgia
The Education for a Sustainable Future Project29, supported by the U.S. Department of Education
developed and successfully implemented curricula and lessons plans on education for sustainable future with
the involvement of local communities in Georgia, USA.

PolandA country wide network of Community-based Environmental Education Centers has been established tostrengthen the quality of community life, school-based and after-school education and their environment30.
In-service teacher trainings support educators with well-tested, innovative methodology.

III. Preferences in community-based learning : Survey in Sendai, Japan“Sendai is ranked the 5th most attractive city in terms of economic activity and living conditions by Hong
Kong’s “Asia Week” magazine. “So no wonder,” the population growth rate is the highest of the 13 major cities
in Japan. Daytime population exceeded one million two years ago.”31 One of the factors in Sendai’s attraction
is its high quality education system which pays special attention to link learning with real life issues, bringing
schools, communities and their environment to close connection.
－69 －Students in Sendai regularly have enjoyable and meaningful learning experience outside of the school, in
their larger community of Sendai, well integrated in their curriculum. Also, the pre-service teacher training
programme of the Miyagi University of Education includes community-based field studies which prepare
future teachers for designing and effectively offering students with real life, community-based learning
experiences.32

Students learning preference: survey results

Rationale
Having looked at the websites of Sendai’s elementary schools, I was delighted to see that many schools
had a strong environmental profile with vibrant community links. Schools must have a plethora of ideas,
approaches and tools to make all this happens. What can other schools learn from Sendai?

Research question
Inspired by this motivation a simple research scheme was designed around the following researchquestion: Given all the options, how students prefer learning about their community and their environment?
In other words, what are the most motivating approaches?
There were two underlying agendas in this question: (1) To better involve students in their learning
process by giving them an opportunity to share their voice, their preferences. (2) To help teachers adjust the
curriculum according to students’ preferred learning so learning can be more enjoyable, more motivating andeventually more effective in terms of raising environmental awareness.

Figure 3. Students of katahira elementary school in Sendai participate in an electronic survey about theirlearning preference.

Methodology
A survey was designed to assess the learning preferences of students in terms of the venue (at schoolor various out of school venues) and the generational composition (peer or mixed-generational learning) of
their learning. The only choice which was more of a learning approach than an actual venue was the use of－70 －Ann. Rep. Env. Edu. MUE. Vol.5 No.2, 2003

the internet in learning. We wanted to include this option as we assumed many students enjoyed using theinternet for learning not only at school where they had limited time but also at home and other venues e.g. inthe science museum.
The survey asked students to select one, two or maximum three situations (out of the offered eight ones
including their own additional choice) they would prefer learning in when they learn about their community,
Sendai. Each option had two varieties: learning with friends (peer group), and learning with friends andadults (mixed generation group).33
An electronic survey 34 using single choice was designed in close consultation with the education
authorities of Sendai. The survey’s language used age-appropriate colloquial Japanese, without any unusual
words, expressions for students of 8-14 years old. The electronic survey was hosted by the server of the United
Nations University, Tokyo (UNU) using UNU’s proprietary application designed for multi-language electronic
surveys. Students could access the survey from the computer laboratory of their school for three days one
week prior the conference. The Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) received the survey
results and shared the analysis with the students and the education authorities in Sendai at the conference.

Results
539 students from more than 120 primary and secondary schools from the larger metropolitan area of
Sendai submitted their 1,498 choices in the eSurvey.35 Not every student submitted three preferences, some
did less. Students ranked the offered choices (14), did not use the opportunity to add their own, individually
articulated, different choice.
The top four learning preferences include eLearning (ICT-assisted, computer/internet-based learning),
hands-on learning in the local science museum, visiting nature reserves and learning in their school.
The results can be summarized in the following five figures.

Learning Preferences
300
250
200
Number of Choices 150
100
50
city park mixed－71 －farm mixed

Figure 4. Learning preferences in all 14 categories.

school mixed

Learning Environments

company mixed

internet mixed

farm peer

museum mixed

nature mixed

city park peer

company peer

nature peer

school peer

museum peerinternet peer0Learning Preferences by Group Composition
300
250
200
Number of Choices 150
100
50

farm

city park

company

natureschoolmuseuminternet

0

Learning Environments

Figure 5. The same as Figure 1 but arranged in a way that the peer / mixed generational learning preferences
are seen separately.
The ranking of peer-learning is different from the ranking of mixed-generation learning. Visiting nature
reserves and the local science museum ranked highest in mixed-generational learning.

Learning Preferences:Peer Learning vs. Mixed-generation Learning
1500
Number of 1000
selection 500
0

peer

mixed

Learning group compositon

Figure 6. Learning Preferences according to learning group composition: peer-learning and mixed
generational learning.
Peer learning was preferred (81%) to learning in a mixed-generation group (students, adults, grand-parents).

－72 －Ann. Rep. Env. Edu. MUE. Vol.5 No.2, 2003

Learning Preferences
350
300
250
Number of Choices

200
150
100

Total (=peer +mixed)

50
farm

city park

company

schoolnaturemuseuminternet

0

Learning Environments

Figure 7. Learning Preferences with combined (peer learning and mixed generational learning) categories.
Electronic learning delivery systems (eLearning), like computer, internet-based learning, TV, radio etc.
ranked first as students’ preference in learning about their community. Visiting museums, culture houses
came very close as second, visiting nature reserves third, and learning in traditional school-based environment
ranked fourth. Visiting companies, offices, hospitals, banks, or city park, and finally farms ranked relatively
low.

Learning Preferences in Mixed / Peer Learning Ratio
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
Mixed / Peer
0.20
Learning Ratio
0.15
0.10
0.05
internet

city park

schoolmuseumcompany

farm

nature0.00

Learning Environments

Figure 8. Mixed/peer learning ratio for each category (nature, farm etc.).
The mixed/peer learning ratio for each category (nature, farm etc.) shows students’ relative preference tolearn in mixed-generational environment.
－73 －Although students prefer learning with their friends in general, exploring nature and visiting farming
activities are the most popular choice when students want to share learning with adults.

Interpretation
Survey results presented in this paper of learning preferences of 539 primary school students of age 8-14
in Sendai, Japan confirm that students are keen to learn about their community and their environment.
The high number of survey respondents in limited time and short notice reflects students’ willingness andenthusiasm to participate in their community-based learning.
Students’ overwhelming preference of learning in peer-groups versus mixed-generational ones is not
surprising given the age of students, students’ previous experience and the strong socialization (school-basedlearning socializes students to learn in peer-groups in sharp contrast with community-based learning wheremixed-generational groups are more the norms). Providing young people with mixed-generational learning
opportunities, however, continues to be important to re-dress the balance for trans-generational learning andinspiring innovation.
Although students prefer learning with their peers, exploring nature and visiting farming activities
are the most popular choice when students want to share learning with adults. Learning about nature andfarming in mixed-generation groups is perhaps the most critical areas for acquiring tacit knowledge, wisdom
passed down from generation to generation. Although the ratio of mixed/peer-generational learning is thehighest in these two categories-a sign of appreciation of trans-generational tacit knowledge which is moreassociated with mixed-generational learning-it is desirable to strengthen this trend with well-designed
community-based learning programmes.
Students’ top three choices constitute active learning approaches: eLearning, hands-on exploration in thelocal science museum and learning in nature reserves. This result confirms the often reported experiencethat active / interactive learning is the most motivational, most engaging36, and most effective especially forlearning about the environment37. The local science museum in Sendai provides a formative, state-of-the-art
learning experience to explore local and global environmental phenomena by using a wide range of tools
including remote sensing, laboratory experiments etc. Applying active approaches to community-basedlearning is recommended not only for increased motivation but also for understanding that learning about fastchanging local issues one should always take an active approach, a self-motivated initiative. By using active
approaches young people ability and willingness to act for local environmental issues are greatly enhanced.
Given the fast development and forceful promotion of ICTs, it is not surprising that the favorite choiceof learning is eLearning: 54% (in peer groups). One of the most attractive features of eLearning is its
learner-centered design: students can immediately see, hear and evaluate the impact of the actions, decisions
and this tight control with strong motivation keeps them engaged, motivated. The increasing amount of
information about local issues can offer teachers, students and community-members a great resource forlearning and informed cooperation. The threats of using eLearning often prevent teachers to even consider－74 －Ann. Rep. Env. Edu. MUE. Vol.5 No.2, 2003

it as a tool. Wisely designed and applied eLearning programmes that add value to other learning forms,
however, can greatly enhance the effectiveness of community-based learning without falling in the trap ofescaping into a virtual reality.
Although school-based learning ranked as the fourth in popularity, given the choice, students would
spend less than a day per week (16 %) of their learning in classroom when it comes to learning about theircommunity. This is a good evaluation of classroom-based learning methods in Sendai as otherwise students
significantly preferred non-traditional learning setting which they associate with community-based learning.
When students learn together with their parents, neighbors, people from business and administration,
farmers, craft men, etc. on a regular basis-as they do in community-based learning-they meet people theywould otherwise not, and they become acquainted with parts of the community which would stay hidden in theregular school education. Through these interactions, the bonding among people, the “social capital”, thus thesense of belongingness and sense of community gets stronger, more diversified and deeper. To purposefullyenhance this process, the current good policies on community-based learning need to be supported and further
studies (e.g. gap analysis) are needed to prioritize action for improvement.

Recommendations
Keep involving the local community in education.
Keep high profile of environmental issues across the whole curriculum.
Strengthen educational programs understanding rural development (more on farms).
Address more the social and economic aspect of community-development.
Honor students’ learning preferences.

IV. The “shin-do-fuji principle
In conclusion, let’s reflect on the “Shindofuji Principle, and old Japanese principle which has a message（身土不二）
for us about community, environment and learning. Originally a Buddhist teaching, the shin-do-fuji
principle literally means that our body and its environment are inseparable:
身 (shin) − our body土 (do) − environment (Earth)
不二 (fuji) − inseparability (not two = one)
It sounds like a succinct articulation of system thinking or the precautionary principle: the interplay
between the physical environment and ourselves warns us to learn more about this system, and bewareof the limits of adaptability of these actors. The globalization-induced mobility and the emergence ofmega-communities (mega-cities) pose a new challenge in (re) learning mobility and the opportunity of (re)defining our relationship with our environment. The key is learning the system. This is a lifelong learning
process. The oneness of human kind (individuals, communities) and our local and global environment gives－75 －us both responsibility and hope.
Acknowledgement
Noriyoshi Sato, Sendai Board of Education
Professor Kazuyuki Mikami, EEC, Miyagi University of Education, Sendai
Dr. Yoshihiro Ugawa, EEC, Miyagi, University of Education, Sendai
Dr. Masahisha Sato, Reiko Koyama, Mami Takanarita, IGES, Hayama
Dr. Brendan Barrett, Ng S.T.Chong , UN University, Tokyo
Ms. Motoko Mezaki, interpreter, translator, Tokyo

Notes:
1

This paper summarizes the main points presented on 2 December, 2002 in Sendai, Japan Contacts:

deri@iges.or.jp, http://www.iges.or.jp/, http://iges.net
2

In this paper community is defined as a group of people with common geographical locality, common interest

and common aspiration (goals).
3

Norberg-Hodge, H. (1991). Ancient Futures, Learning from Ladakh, Learning the Western Way, P 110.

Sierra Club Books. USA
4

Senge, P. & Cambron-McCabe, N. & Lucas T. & Smith, B. & Dutton J. & Kleiner, A. (2000): Schools That

Learn. A Fifth Discipline Field-book for Parents, Educators, and Everyone Who Cares About Education,
Doubleday/Currency http://www.fieldbook.com
5

Agenda 21, Chapter 36 (1992):

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21toc.htm
Earth Summit: Agenda 21 (The United Nations Program of Actions From Rio), 1992. United Nations
Department of Public Information, USA
6

UNESCO “Educating for a Sustainable Future” (1994 - 2001)

http://www.unesco.org/education/esd/ ;7

It is important to acknowledge that community involvement ranks as the third of the five most importantschool-level factors that influences students’ academic achievements. In Marzano, J. Robert (2003) What
Works in Schools: Translating Research Into Action. ASCD, USA
8

Addition by the author.

9

Community-based learning as a tool in education for sustainable development is promoted in several

international educational initiatives, most recently: UNESCO Decade of Education for Sustainable－76 －Ann. Rep. Env. Edu. MUE. Vol.5 No.2, 2003

Development (2003)
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001311/131163e.pdf
10Implicit learning: complex learning in the absence of conscious recollection of what has been learned. It canbe accessed more readily on implicit memory tests (e.g. performance) than on explicit memory tests (e.g. directquestioning). Source: Eysenck, M.W., Keane, M.T. (2001). Cognitive Psychology. Psychology Press, Taylor
and Francis Group11

Social capital can be described as the relations between individuals and groups, often referred bysustainable development minded economist in addition to economic and environmental capitals. “Sharedknowledge, understandings and patters of interactions that a group of people bring to any productive activity”
in Roseland, M. (1998) Toward Sustainable Communities: Resources for Citizens and Their Governments, New
Society Publishers, Gabriola Island BC, Canada and Stony Creek CT, USA
For further reading: Sustainable Measures: Community Capital
http://www.sustainablemeasures.com/Training/Indicators/Capital.html
12Senge, P. & Cambron-McCabe, N. & Lucas T. & Smith, B. & Dutton J. & Kleiner, A. (2000): Schools That

Learn. A Fifth Discipline Field-book for Parents, Educators, and Everyone Who Cares About Education,
Doubleday/Currency http://www.fieldbook.com
13

See also: Deri, A. (2003) “Community-based Education for Sustainable Development.” (eCourse).

http://iges.net
14

Further readings:

GBN.org (1998). “Scenario Thinking: Education and Community.” Scenario Planning Global BusinessNetwork.
Chase, Bob. (1998b). “Welcome to Connecting Schools, Families, and Communities.” National Education
Association
Ogilvy, J. (1995). “Education and Community: Four Scenarios for the Future of Public Education.” Global
Business Network. http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=505
15

The benefits of system-thinking-based community management are described by Gwendolyn Hallsmith (2003)

The Key to Sustainable Cities, Meeting Human Needs, Transforming Community Systems. New Society
Publishers, USA

16

Rapp, K.A., Lal, C. (ed.) ( 1996) Improving science education with community-based projects.

National Science Teachers Association, USA
－77 －

17

Environmental Education and Communication Programme Office, Hungary, homepage:

http://www.prof.iif.hu/konkomp/indexa.htm
18

Hungarian Eco-School Network homepage: http://www.okoiskola.hu/

19

Read more on the Institute for Sustainable Communities homepage: http://www.iscvt.org/

20

Learning Environment and Activity Foundation’s homepage: http://www2.ocn.ne.jp/~leaf-j/

21

Read more on the Institute for Sustainable Communities homepage: http://www.iscvt.org/

22

Read more on the Institute for Sustainable Communities homepage: http://www.iscvt.org/

23

State Education and Environment Roundtable (SEER) homepage: http://www.seer.org/

24

Sherman, P. (1998). Empowering Students to do Extraordinary Things:

Environment as an Integrating Concept http://www.rmc.sierraclub.org/pandp/1998-02/eic.html
25

Shelburne Farms' homepage: http://www.shelburnefarms.org/

26

Orton Foundation’s homepage: http://www.orton.org/

27

Environmental Learning for the Future (ELF) http://www.vinsweb.org/education/

28

Linking Learning to Life's homepage: http://www.linkinglearningtolife.org/

29

Center for Education for a Sustainable Future’s homepage: http://csf.concord.org/esf/

30

Read more on the Institute for Sustainable Communities homepage: http://www.iscvt.org/

31

Outline of Sendai City, Slide Show on Sendai City’s Homepage:

http://www.city.sendai.jp/information/SlideShow/frame15.html
32

Environmental Education Center of the Miyagi University of Education:

http://www.eec.miyakyo-u.ac.jp/english/

33

The text of the eSurvey (original in Japanese):“At school you will learn about Sendai in different ways. What would make you most excited, what are you－78 －Ann. Rep. Env. Edu. MUE. Vol.5 No.2, 2003

really looking forward to? Choose three.”
1.

Classroom lesson in school

2.

Visiting a factory, a bank, a hospital, an office etc in the city

3.

Visiting a museum, a culture-centre in the city

4.

Visiting a city-park

5.

Visiting a farm, rice-paddies in rural areas

6.

Visiting a nature reserve: mountains, seashore

7.

Using computer/Internet, TV, radio

8.

Other: Your ideas....

34

Survey URL: http://c3.unu.edu/sastrial/survey_statistics.cfm?id=229

35

Total student population in Sendai: 539

Total number of primary and secondary schools in Sendai: 148
36

Cooper, G.(1998): Outdoors with Young People. Russell House, U.K.

37

Deri, A. Cooper, G. (1993) Environmental Education - An Active Approach. Regional Environmental Centerfor Central and Eastern Europe, Hungary－79 －