As conservationists, what do we mean by education?  Jarvis (1993) points out that there is no universally agreed or unchanging definition of education.  “Any definition of education reflects the ideological and ethical preconceptions of the definer or communicator of the definition, rather than an absolute and unchanging reality.”  According to Peters (1966) ‘education’ is a normative concept and he refers to the difficulty Socrates had when he tried to clarify abstract, normative concepts such as ‘justice’ or ‘courage’.  He goes on to argue that we can only define the term ‘education’ by its criteria and through its aims.  One of the aims of education suggests “the intentional bringing about of a desirable state of mind in a morally unobjectionable manner…”.  Peters likens this to ‘reform’ because it would be “a logical contradiction to say that a man had been educated but that he had in no way changed for the better, or that in educating his son a man was attempting nothing that was worth while.”

 

Education can be described as a process which equips the learner with knowledge, skills and experience at a level where insight and criticality are achieved.  Peters (1966) argues that a person can be extremely knowledgeable or well informed, but this does not necessarily mean they are ‘educated’, they must also have “some understanding of the ‘reason why’ of things.”  In other words, a level of cognitive perspective must be achieved. 

 

When developing a conservation education programme it is important to be clear about the terminology used.  There are clear distinctions between education, communication and training.  All three tools may be applied to a conservation problem successfully, but which tool we apply largely depends on the nature and complexity of the problem, and the level of resistance of the target groups involved to the primary conservation goal.

 

 

Formal education is the “the highly institutionalized chronologically graded and hierarchically structured ‘education system’ spanning lower primary school and upper reaches of the university” (Coombs and Ahmed, 1974)

 

Jarvis (1993) clarifies this further.  “Today, formal education frequently refers to teaching method rather than to the structure of the educational provision, and the term most likely to be used to convey the same idea is initial education This has been described as:  going to school, including nursery school, but it could go on full or part-time into the mid-20s”. 

 

 

Non-formal education is any organised systematic, educational activity carried on outside the framework of the formal system to provide selected types of learning to particular subgroups in the population, adults as well as children (Coombs and Ahmed, 1974).  This structured education, delivered over a period of time would include community programmes,  adult education programmes, and programmes run by  voluntary organisations which are not primarily set up to provide education, but do so as part of their wider function. 

 

 

Informal education is generally “unorganised and often unsystematic: yet it accounts for the great bulk of any person’s total lifetime learning.” (Jarvis, 1993).   

 

Most conservation education programmes usually fall within these last two categories of non-formal and informal education.  The range of conservation education programmes is extremely varied.  Some may be structured, systematic and organized over a period of time (sometimes many years).  Others may be more ad hoc and developed to address a specific issue within a relatively short timeframe.  Environmental Education is now beginning to find its way into the curriculum in schools, although it is still often seen as being a science subject rather than being cross-curricular.  David Orr (1994) argues quite strongly that “all education is environmental education”. 

 

 

When discussing definitions of education, it is helpful to consider the concept of indoctrination.  This is particularly relevant in conservation education when there are different cultures and therefore different beliefs and value systems.

 

The use of the word indoctrination as a form of educational harm is a Twentieth Century phenomenon.  Prior to this it simply meant ‘to teach’.  Many attempts have been made at defining indoctrination especially in terms of a single feature of the concept.  The main features pursued have been:

 

-                     the outcome of the process of indoctrination

-                     the content of indoctrination

-                     the methods employed in indoctrinatory teaching

-                     the intentions of the indoctrinator

 

A simple definition would be: “The inculcation of a proposition or set of propositions in the pupil that are said to be certain when the teacher knows they are uncertain and with a lack of regard for any evidence to the contrary”. (Snook, 1972)  

 

Although indoctrination is now largely regarded as a form of educational harm, the process of ‘indoctrination’ is still a part of our everyday lives.  Infants are indoctrinated into the values and beliefs of their families, and as they grow up they are indoctrinated into the value system of the wider community and finally the society in which they live.  This ‘socialising’ aspect of indoctrination cannot be said to be always harmful. 

 

Where indoctrination does become harmful is when the pupil is discouraged or prevented from achieving or acting upon their own value judgement or being able to exercise criticality. 

 

Conservation educators need to be aware of the dangers of indoctrination by taking into account the beliefs, values and cultures of indigenous people.  There may well be situations where we should ask ourselves is it morally or ethically right to impose our own values and beliefs (through education models and activities) on people in other societies?  Do the benefits derived from achieving the conservation goals outweigh the potential damage that could be wrought on indigenous people?  More importantly, who should be the ones to make these kinds of decisions?  And should any decisions made be based on anthropocentric or biocentric considerations?

 

 

Communication is an exchange of ideas and the imparting of information; and the combination of effective sending and effective receiving.  If you send a message – verbal, visual, or written – that the intended receiver does not understand, communication has not occurred.  (Jacobson, 1999).

 

Communication as a conservation tool includes a wide range of activities, strategies, and approaches.   Some of these may be defined as being “educational” i.e. the communication brings about behaviour modification through a process of reflection and criticality. Others may simply impart information to raise awareness.  When developing a conservation education programme a whole range of education and communication strategies may be employed.