In this paper we examine the tension between the development of an holistic understanding of the diverse relations linking people and environments and the dominant, technocratic orientation of tertiary environmental studies programs. Different ideologies of environmentalism are seen to be reflected in specific modes of research, education and social practice. We describe how the Graduate School of Environmental Science at Monash University has worked with these tensions. We have sought in the GSES to incorporate a more interdisciplinary, critical environmentalism that may promote a movement towards a more sustainable, equitable and enriching society.

One thing about which there is widespread consensus is that the earth and its inhabitants are in social and environmental peril. This is where the consensus ends, however, for there is equally widespread disagreement as to the nature and causes of the problems (more social or more environmental), the severity of the problems (for whom are they recognised and felt as problems), and the most appropriate and effective solutions necessary to deal with them. This paper argues for the adoption of a critical, feminist perspective in examining the area of Environmental Education (EE) as an ‘appropriate response’ to this globally perceived socio-environmental crisis.

Historically, environmental education emerged out of the early 1970's during the time when the environmental movement was gaining momentum and vitality on a worldwide scale (Disinger, 1983; Robottom, 1985a; Stapp, 1970). It was envisioned by the international participants at the three major UNESCO-UNEP Environment Conferences held that decade, that EE was the most appropriate and hopeful educational response to the crisis situation of the deterioration of quality of life and the environment (Fensham, 1978).

The aims of EE that emerged from the UN conference in Tbilisi, USSR in 1977 were particularly ambitious in that they transcended a concern with the roles, objectives and guiding principles of EE and spelled out the need for an understanding of:

Learning about the utilization, development and perhaps conservation of energy for our expanding world population has long been a part of science curricula. The world “about” is, however, paramount in describing the nature of these courses, and parallels a similar phenomenon observed in numerous so-called environmental education programmes in schools. Despite the close association between energy use expansion and environmental impact, little “energy education for the environment’ has occurred in this country.

This paper examines some of the reasons for this situation and highlights the difficulties facing the environmental education teacher who wishes to lead a valid study of energy sources. External community influences, a lack of breath and problems with information availability are identified as factors which contribute to the present status of energy education. It is perhaps fortunate that the majority of students seem to possess positive attitudes towards energy conservation and the environment, and so, hopefully, remain receptive towards improvements in this aspect of environmental education.

Throughout Australia there has been a substantial interest in enviromental education for more than a decade. Much human and financial effort has gone into curriculum development at the school level and into support for implementation via inservice education, conferences, workshops, etc. Relatively little systematic evaluation of these efforts has been undertaken at the level of what students are learning.

Most definitions of enviromental education internationally and in Australia emphasise the importance of affective learning concerning the environment alongside more usual cognitive knowledge and skills. Accordingly any evaluation should recognise this somewhat unusual balance among the intended learnings compared with most other subject areas.

Recent research in several areas of school learning has brought out the importance of starting with an explicit recognition of the perceptions and understandings students already hold about topics. Teaching and learning of the topic then ought to be processes that enable the learners to generate or construct from these starting points, new understandings and perceptions. There has, however, been almost no research, apart from a comparative study by Schaeffer and his co-workers of West German and Phillippino secondary school students' associations with the word, ENVIRONMENT. (Schaeffer, 1979; Hernandez, 1981; Villavicencio, 1981). This paper reports an attempt in Victoria to begin to fill these gaps.