Such enthusiasm for a perceived new paradigm in the mathematical sciences is beginning to emerge within broader educational contexts (Devaney & Keen, 1989; Egnatoff, 1989; Geake, 1990a & 1990b). Much of the interest in fractal geometry has focussed on its ability to describe complex natural phenomena (Mandelbrot, 1983 & 1990; Pickover, 1987; Barnsley, 1988). Recent investigations into the visual perception of natural imagery have used fractal mathematics in describing the characteristics of such perception (Pentland, 1984; Field, 1987; Peli, 1990). This study examined human visual perception of the fractal form found in the natural environment. Specifically, this research project examined how exposure to a program of fractal computer graphics affected the perceptual sensitivity of primary school children to the natural visual environment. The underpinning rationale was to address a long standing challenge of Linke (1980) to develop a stronger theoretical basis for environmental education in Australia.

Concern about the quality of our environment has been given increasing prominence by public, private and voluntary bodies alike. We are advised through newspapers and the media on such matters as lead in petrol, the waste on non-renewable resources, the greenhouse effect, extinction of wild flora and fauna, the dumping of nuclear waste, which are all threatening the future of our planet. There is a strong emphasis on checking and reversing the deterioration and destruction of may aspects of our world.

The word “environment”, however, has come to mean to many the natural or rural, not the human or urban. Little attention is paid to the urban environment, yet in Britain most people live in towns or cities where vast changes are taking place with dramatic effect on those who live there. We are faced with poverty, unemployment and disadvantage, as well as derelict, degraded and inhuman environments. The scale of change and complexity of issues in the urban environment demands a deeper understanding and more positive action. (Kean, 1991)

Modern technology has its own momentum. Our very seeing and experiencing of the world changes as a consequence of the techno-scientific innovations that have been so instrumental in shaping our culture. There is a risk that, given the pride of place that we have allotted to techno-science, we will be further seduced by the hubris inherent in our cultural beliefs about how humankind relates to Nature.

Historically we have accepted a dominant role in the relationship with the environment, now our technology allows for a near absolute acting out of this role. Should we be won over by this seduction, then our exploration of the relationship between climate change and social change will be severely limited as will be our action to effect useful change.

The development of instrumentation for experiment, embedded in a social milieu of optimism about cultural progress, revealed to us micro-worlds and macro-worlds that our forebears could only dream about. It has also generated and subsequently named the unexpected and unwanted problem of a threatening climate change.

The rise of our technology-dominated culture has inevitably resulted in the quasi-religious belief that sees technology as socially salvific; for whatever problems we might have in society, there will be a new technological solution just around the corner that will save us from the threatening peril.

It is important to demythologise this near absolute belief so as to break the vicious cycle of technology being the dominant vehicle for producing progress (and some unforeseen associated problems), and that in order to have progress, there will always be an acceptable cost. So often one hears the stated hope: “There will be new technology that will address these problems” - the belief being that the path of progress will only temporarily be thwarted.

The background to the development of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the resulting techniques and procedures, or legislation, have been presented by many authors; for example, Canter (1977), Munn (1975), Porter (1985) and Thomas (1987). During the past decade many people have become involved in the practice of EIA, but how they have been trained for this involvement is not well documented. To contribute to the documentation, I will explain the development of a module which can be adapted to suit the time available for the coverage of EIA, and the varying capabilities of undergraduate and post graduate students enrolled in environmental engineering/ management/ planning/ policy/ science/ studies courses.

Following sections examine, firstly the relationship between the objectives of EIA and those of the module, which I will refer to as Environmental Assessment. Next the constraints which influence the form of the subject, and the range of possible training techniques are discussed. Finally, the details of Environmental Assessment's structure are presented along with some comments on its approach.

Despite good intentions, many environmental education (EE) projects seem to fall short in realising ambitious learning goals such as “helping citizens become environmentally knowledgeable, skilled and dedicated people who are willing to work individually and collectively, toward achieving and/or maintaining a dynamic equilibrium between the quality of life and the quality of the environment.” (Harvey cited in Hungerford et al., 1980). Without always challenging the nature and content of these goals, many researchers and practitioners are trying to resolve this discrepancy between the theory and practice of EE. Some have tried to instrumentally structure EE content matter by using hierarchical levels of universal goals and objectives (e.g. Hungerford et al., 1980; Marcinkowski, 1990) whereas others who question the value or the status of universal goals and objectives, have put emphasis on contextual development of EE within the school community (e.g. Bull et al., 1988; Robottom, 1987). However, relatively little attention has been paid to the way young people come to make sense of their own environment through their everyday interactions with(in) the lifeworld.

For more than fifty years constructivist approaches to learning have suggested that the pre-instructional perceptions (also referred to as “mini-theories” and “misconceptions”) of the learner play a key role in successful learning or lack thereof (Ausubel, 1968; Driver and Oldham, 1986; Freyberg and Osborne, 1981; Gilbert and Watts, 1983; Hasweh, 1986; Novak and Gowin, 1984, Wals, 1987) Yet, unlike the English teacher who is very capable of determining at what “level” her students are, environmental educators have little understanding of students' perceptions of the environment and environmental issues, and the “mini-theories” to which they lead.

Social ecology as expressed by the Social Ecology Centre, (Faculty of Agriculture & Rural Development, University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury), is an emerging field of learning concerned with improving the quality of the interrelationships between people and between people and the environment. The essence of this improvement is powerfully depicted by Albert Einstein, with this plea for people to widen their sense of compassion and concern to all life:

A human being is part of the whole, called by us ‘Universe’ a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty.

Social ecology then is concerned with recognising and transcending this ‘optical delusion’ of which Einstein speaks.

In 1992 the Social Ecology Centre will be offering, through the introduction of the Bachelor of Applied Science (Social Ecology) [B. App. Sc. (Soc. Ecol.)] program, a substantively new and different approach to environmental education at a tertiary level. The establishment of the B.App.Sc. (Soc. Ecol.) will provide for the first time learning opportunities in social ecology at undergraduate level.

Context is an important element in understanding the nature of the curriculum in any field and its goals. Thus, Cornbleth (1988: 89) describes curriculum as “an ongoing social activity shaped by various contextual influences within and beyond the classroom”. She argues that curriculum is a “contextualized social process” which:

Similarly, Berlak and Berlak (1981: 24) write of the need to investigate teachers' decision making in terms of “the social, cultural and political forces and structures that are omnipresent in all social situations”. Sharp and Green (1975) argue that comprehensive explanations of teaching require an investigation of the “sociology of situations, their underlying structure and interconnections and the constraints and contingencies they impose” (p. 25).

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between national economic and political priorities and environmental education policy formulation and curriculum strategies. This relationship will be placed in the historical context of developments in environmental education in Australia from 1970 until the present and will be analysed in terms of the ideological and pedagogical stances implicit, and explicit, in the developments during this period. I will argue that the emphasis throughout the period has been to sustain the development of environmental education without any questioning of why, what and how this development should occur.

‘Sustainable development’ has become a slogan for governments, industry and conservation groups in recent times. It was the subtitle for the World Conservation Strategy (IUCN 1980) and the National Conservation Strategy for Australia (DHAE 1984) - living resource conservation for sustainable development - and was popularised in the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, more commonly known as the Brundtland Report or Our Common Future (WCED 1987). The definition of sustainable development given in the World Conservation Strategy (IUCN 1980: section 1.3) and repeated in the National Conservation Strategy for Australia (DHAE 1984: 12) is as follows:

The aim of this paper is to address the issue of the coherence of three dimensions of environmental education activities - its substantive purposes; the research informing its policy, organisation and practices; and the professional development processes supporting its practitioners. It will be argued (i) that the purposes of environmental education are socially transformative, (ii) that the dominant approach to research in the field is behaviourist and deterministic, and (iii) that within a context of socially transformative environmental education, the role that the dominant behaviourist approach to research plays in professional development needs to be critically examined. The paper outlines a current international project in environmental education which includes in its aims an exploration of the relationships among environmental education purposes, research and professional development.

Environmental education has received widespread recognition over many years as being an important process in the preservation and improvement of the world's environment (Lucas, 1979; UNESCO-UNEP, 1988). Environmental education assumes this importance through its potential to involve people at local, national and global levels in a socially active, problem solving, critical and participatory process (Greenall, 1987, 1990; Robottom, 1987) to ultimately develop environmentally literate, responsible and active citizens (Hines, Hungerford and Tomera, 1986/87; Stapp, 1969). Obviously then, environmental education is much more than just a process of knowledge transmission about the environment and awareness raising of specific environmental problems. Rather, environmental education is described by many (e.g. Greenall, 1987; Huckle, 1983; Lucas, 1979; Robottom, 1987) as a process that facilitates the challenging of dominant environmental attitudes and behaviour patterns of individuals, groups and entire societies to bring about positive social transformation and the development of a new environmental ethic.

For environmental education to fulfil this role of social and ethical change, it is internationally recognised that environmental education must address knowledge, awareness, skill, attitude and participation objectives (UNESCO-UNEP, 1976, 1978, 1988). Much of the literature on environmental education encapsulates this range of objectives into three broad categories or forms - education in the environment, education about the environment and education for the environment. Education in and about the environment is intended to develop the knowledge, awareness, attitude and skill objectives, while education for the environment has its focus on the values, ethics, problem solving and action objectives.