If men are from mars, and women are from venus, then who's going to take care of the earth?

Hmm, it's all coming together now. No wonder there were so many more girls than guys in my high school and college environmental clubs. No wonder this program has been so female dominated thus far. Girls seem to have a greater concern for the environment, and yet I would say I know more boys that like to spend time outdoors than girls. So, there's the gap and the subsequent question: why is it that boys spend more time outside, but care less about it than girls?

The answer, I think, was discovered by the author. Traditional teaching methods jive better with the manner in which most girls learn. Therefore, they gain a greater appreciation for how and why the health of the environment affects them. So, while boys may have more experiential knowledge about the environment, they may not necessarily see how they are connected to it. The answer I alluded to is simply to teach about the environment with methods that cater to all learning styles. If teachers can engage each and every student and get them to see how and why the environment is relevant, then I think we will see the same marked increase in knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors across the board that the author found in her study.

Another thing that really stuck out to me, although totally unrelated to gender, was how the reviewers disagreed on the content. I guess it just reminded me of the discrepancy over something as simple as a definition for EE that we talked about in Paul's class. The researcher here chose three commonly used and credible curricula, and five of the six reviewers gave totally different grades to the completeness of the lessons. It's just so interesting to me how different everyone's opinion can be on what is "good" in academia, and the rest of the world really. Makes me wonder how "good" our standards really are, maybe just "good enough," or hopefully at least "as good as they can be."