https://www.mdu.se/

This article offers a set of unique vignettes or stories that attempt to illustrate examples of critical approaches to environmental education (EE) in diverse contexts. It draws from the experiences of five environmental educators in four different regions of the world. We detail the history of the emergence of critical consciousness in education in Brazil, and its application in a Brazilian region, then move to examples of critical educational responses to oppression in New Zealand and Zimbabwe, before closing with a critical examination of innovative teaching and research in Europe. Through this breadth of endeavour, we identify commonalities across these contexts such as the importance of participatory action and research to examine people-environment relations, particularly as constituted by indigenous peoples, and to interpret realities in ways that empower through learning-led social-ecological change.  We argue that this critical approach can foster emancipation through individual and collective learning in EE processes within very different contexts.

There is an ongoing discussion about what content that should be taught in science education and there are different views among teachers about what represent good science content. However, teachers are not isolated individuals making their own interpretations, but are part of institutionalised systems building on patterns in the selection of teaching goals and content. Earlier research shows that teachers teach in alignment with different selective traditions, which can be understood as well-developed teaching habits. Individual teachers seem to develop their personal habits on the basis of the contextual situations created by earlier generations of teachers.

In order to find out which content teachers find representative for science education, we asked nine teachers to take part in group interviews to talk about what they value as “good” science content. The participants were grouped according to their selective traditions expressed in earlier studies. The method was used to dynamically explore, challenge and probe teachers views.

The starting point for the group discussions is national tests in science. In Sweden, national tests in biology, physics and chemistry were introduced in secondary school science (Year 9) in 2009. One overarching aim of these tests is to support the implementation of the science curricula and to include for example knowledge about socio-scientific issues (SSI). The content of the tests can consequently be seen as important for teachers to consider.

The findings show on the one hand that the individual science teachers choose science content in alignment with an earlier categorisation illustrated in a selective tradition study. On the other hand, teachers seem to return to a scientific rational discourse when they discuss questions in the tests relating to socio-scientific issues. The results are discussed in relation to the issue that teachers seem to be more comfortable when working with traditional science content but also in relation to the finding about how teachers’ selective traditions appear to become less visible in group discussions.

Storskaliga och kostsamma nationella tester genomförs i hela västvärlden och tar stora lärarresurser i anspråk. Med stora satsningar som dessa är det viktigt att ställa frågan om betygsunderlaget som genereras är likvärdigt? Studiens titel, ”alla gör fel” anspelar på just detta och kommer från en elevs uttalande då eleven inser det sannolika i att samtliga elever i elevgruppen gör på samma sätt av sociala skäl istället för att använda sig av sina individuella naturvetenskapliga kunskaper. Denna fallstudie undersöker svenska lärares möjligheter att bedöma elevers individuella förmågor i tre undervisningsgrupper under genomförandet av ett praktiskt delmoment i det nationella provet i kemi i åk 9. Datainsamling genomfördes med två fasta videokameror och tre par spionglasögon. Trots att provinstruktioner till elever och lärare är väl utvecklade och bedömningsanvisningar till läraren är detaljerade visar resultaten i denna studie att det är svårt att bedöma elevers individuella praktiska förmågor. Det finns många olika slags faktorer som påverkar provresultatet. En sådan faktor är provet genomförs i en laborationssal där situationen skiljer sig väsentligt från miljön för ett teoretiskt prov i ett klassrum. En annan faktor är att det under den praktiska provdelen i en laborationssal närmast är omöjligt för eleverna att undvika att kommunicera. Studiens resultat visar att det finns påverkansfaktorer som sociala interaktioner och systematiska fysiska felkällor. I resultatet diskuteras hur lärares möjligheter att bedöma elevers individuella praktiska förmågor under nationella prov bättre kan säkerställas.

The tendency to assess students has increased worldwide (Broadfoot & Black, 2004; Lundahl, Roman, & Riis, 2010). The purpose is usually to assess their knowledge but large scale tests also aim to build foundations to make grading more equivalent on a national level (Lundqvist & Sund, In Press; Sund, In Press). The theoretical tests are suitable for subject matter knowledge but the challenge is to assess practical abilities. This is often done by theoretical tests asking questions on experiences and results from practical work (Cfr the outlines in Ofqual (2015)). Another approach is to develop test with parts containing a practical inquiry. In Sweden the national school agency have developed a national test which include a practical part where the task is related to acidification of lakes. Within this part teachers are expected to conduct a given systematic inquiry to assess student’s achievements supported by well-developed assessment guides.  It is well known in earlier research that it is complicated to conduct practical tests (Abrahams & Reiss, 2012; Harlen, 1999). This case study focus on the possible obstacles for teachers when they are assessing practical abilities during a test in a laboratory environment. This type of test and test environment is complicated. The purpose of this study is to investigate the prerequisites for teachers to make an individual assessment of students’ individual abilities during a practical work. Differences in three groups way of choosing equipment in the beginning of their practical test inspired to study the conditions for teachers’ equivalent assessments of student’s independent practical work. The research question is:

What obstacles are present when teachers assess student’s individual achievements?

The results make a number of practical and social obstacles visible. They are discussed in relation equivalent assessment, alternative ways of assessing students’ practical abilities to be able avoid some of the discerned challenges.

Science teachers have differing views about what students should learn. Their teaching experience often leads them to develop habitual answers to students’ questions, such as – why should I learn this? Some teachers argue that students need to learn more ‘canonical’ science knowledge so that they can become scientists, while others tell students to apply scientific knowledge in order to make their everyday lives easier. If a group of teachers argue and act in similar ways in similar situations, they can be described as working in a similar collective habit. In this study these are called selective traditions in science teaching. In practical terms they work well in everyday, multifaceted, hectic teaching situations. However, the traditions can obstruct the inclusion of socio-scientific issues (SSI) in national science education tests. Some research has been conducted on selective traditions in written curriculum material, although little is known about how they can be discerned in teachers’ descriptions of their science teaching. This study draws on Dewey’s discussion of the interplay between individual and collective habits to discern teaching traditions by regarding them as institutionalized teaching habits. A firmly developed analytical tool is applied to the extensive data consisting of twenty-nine Swedish science teachers’ responses in semi-structured interviews. The methodology used in this study is inspired by earlier environmental and sustainability education (ESE) research. The results are discussed in relation to earlier research on ‘scientific literacy’ and how research can support teachers’ changes of practice to encourage students to perform better in large-scale tests.

Science teachers regard practical work as important and many claim that it helps students to learn science. Besides theoretical knowledge, such as concepts and formulas, practical work is considered to be an integral and basic part of science education. This implies that in addition to theoretical science tests, there is a need to find new ways of assessing students’ practical performances. As practical work is perceived and understood in different ways, comparing the results between classes and schools is difficult. One way of making the results comparable is to develop systematic inquiries to be assessed in national large scale tests. However, introducing similar testing conditions in a laboratory environment is not always possible. Although the instructions and assessments guides for such tests are detailed, many obstacles need to be overcome if equality in the overall test situation is to be achieved and an equivalent assessment of students’ practical abilities guaranteed. For example, in a test situation in the laboratory it is almost impossible for students not to communicate with each other. This empirical case study investigates two secondary school science teachers’ assessments of 15-16 years old students in three separate groups in the practical part of a Swedish national test in chemistry. Data is gathered using two video cameras and three pairs of spy camera glasses. The results show that individual and independent assessments are difficult due to the social interactions that take place and the physical sources of errors that occur in this type of setting.

In seeking co-provocateurs for this roundtable, the initial outreach was fuelled by anger regarding the devaluing of social sciences compared to natural sciences and economics (Mendel, 2014) as well as the frustration of seeing poorly designed research by natural scientists studying human behaviour and education without being informed by protocols and best practices developed for such work by the social sciences (Pooley, Mendelsohn & Milner-Gulland, 2014), and ignorance of deep critical explorations of educational and other social processes by sociologists, anthropologists amongst others (Sund & Lysgaard, 2013). However, the initial response provoked an offer to discuss the role of love in environmental and sustainability education research, ESER. While this reply was clearly housed in the same concerns and critique initially expressed, the use of the word “love”, a powerful concept simultaneously simple and complex, drew us to seek a circle of renewal and remembering of life and lives that may have been forgotten at times within ESER.

The phrase “all our/my relations” comes from indigenous worldviews and practices of honouring all the people who have come before you as well as the other living beings with whom we share this planet (Kulnieks, Longboat & Young, 2013). This round table discussion will honour all our relations by remembering the current and past practices which take on issues related to motivation rooted in social and cultural patterns, as well as politics of knowledge with complex histories and inequities (Glass, Scott & Price, 2012; Sund & Öhman, 2014). We will respect people and scholarship via three main currents of discussion:

1. The role of love in ESER
2. “Ignored concepts” - Research and extensive discourse that gets ignored when defining questions that assume people are selfish and have never cooperated to protect the commons, or are not politically active (Gaiser, Rijke & Spanning, 2010) uncritical acceptance of people/nature dichotomy, uncritical use of education as transferring information from expert to ignorant.
3. Political dimensions of ESER (postcolonial lens, global inequities, poverty in the “south”)

The discussions will flow at the level of and through individuals, but also at infrastructural and conceptual spaces and places. Creative methodologies provide powerful avenues to disrupt imbalances and injustices and take into account issues of representation, legitimation and politics in research as well as communications about research (McKenzie, 2005). Philip Payne (2005) challenges the limitations of textual discourse as a way of knowing; he focuses on “being, doing and becoming a relational, social and ecological ‘self’” (p. 415) and suggests that strong cultural production constrains these qualities. Framing, metaphors and narratives are important for meaning making (Lakoff, 2010) and are particularly important to deconstruct when challenging dominant views that may have been taken as common sense (Stone-Mediatore, 2003), as well as inviting critical reflection on the very story being told. We will use creative juxtapositioning of the currents of discussion in order to evoke deeper insights than may arise from sequential presentations of the three discussion themes (Neilson, 2009). Additionally, the format of the round table will include multiple forms of communications to involve all who attend, and, the participants along with the provocateurs will physically be seated within a circle.

References

Gaiser, W., Rijke, J.D., & Spanning, R. (2010). Youth and political participation – empirical results for Germany within a European context. Youth 18(4), 427-450. Glass, J. H., Scott, A., & Price, M. F. (2012). Getting active at the interface: How can sustainability researchers stimulate social learning? In A. Wals & P. Blaze Concoran (Eds.) Learning for sustainability in times of accelerating change. pp. 167-183. Wageningen University Press, NL. Kronlid, D.O., & Öhman, J. (2012). An environmental ethical conceptual framework for research on sustainability and environmental education. Environmental Education Research, ifirst article, 1-24. Kulnieks, A., Longboat, D. R. & Young, K. (2013). Contemporary Studies in Environmental and Indigenous Pedagogies. A Curricula of Stories and Place. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Lakoff, G. (2010). Praxis forum. Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication, 4(1), 70-81. McKenzie, M. (2005). The ‘post-post period’ and environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, 11(4), 401-412. Mendel, J. (2014). Bad Research and High Impact: The Science: So What Campaign and Social Media Criticism. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 13(1), 56-61. Neilson, A. L. (2009). The power of nature and the nature of power. Special Issue: Inquiries into practice. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 14, 136-148. Payne, P. (2005). Lifeworld and textualism: Reassembling the researcher/ed and ‘others’. Environmental Education Research, 11(4), 413-431. Pooley, S. P., Mendelsohn, J. A., & Milner‐Gulland, E. J. (2014). Hunting Down the Chimera of Multiple Disciplinarity in Conservation Science. Conservation Biology, 28(1), 22-32. Stone-Mediatore, S. (2003). Reading across border: Storytelling and knowledges of resistance. New York, NY: Palgrave. Sund, L., & Öhman, J. (2014). On the need to repoliticise environmental and sustainability education: Rethinking the postpolitical consensus. Environmental Education Research, 20(5), 639-659. Sund, P., & Lysgaard, J. (2013). Reclaim “Education” in Environmental and Sustainability Education Research. Sustainability, 5(4), 1598–1616.

In educational settings, sustainable development (SD) is often handled with the aim of reducing the contested aspects of the concept. Issues like trade, conservation, public health and international relations are often presented in a simplified way so that they are easier for students to grasp. However, in education, this tendency to simplify sustainability issues can be a disadvantage. This study explores how Swedish upper secondary schoolteachers’ education for sustainable development (ESD) in award-winning ‘ESD-schools’ supports students to become informed and autonomous democratic citizens by appreciating the complexity of the concept of SD. This empirical study is part of a larger research project studying progressive upper secondary schools and is a development of earlier research on teachers’ starting points for long-term purposes beyond the teaching – which we have termed objects of responsibility.

In interviews of five teachers from two schools, experienced in ESD issues and working in teacher teams, an interesting commonality in their arguments for teaching sustainability emerged during the analytical process. The implications of the study’s results are important for EE/ESD research into teaching continuity as well as for teachers in practice.

For many years there has been calls from international organisations (UNESCO) and national governments for education to be oriented towards social change, sustainability and preparing students for life in a global society. This has been described as a curricular global turn in national school curricula and international policies (Mannion, Biesta, Priestley & Ross 2011; Martin 2011). As educators we are encouraged to ‘globalise’ education or ‘think globally’ through ‘bringing the world into the classroom’ and promoting global issues and perspectives in the curriculum.

Within our field of research global development issues have been critically investigated and discussed. A number of debaters have described education for the environment as indoctrination and that such an approach to education has universalizing tendencies that seek to marginalise other approaches and turns education into a political tool (cf. Jickling 1992; Jickling and Spork 1998; Sauvé 1999; Jickling and Wals, 2008; Van Poeck and Vandenabeele, 2012; Sund and Lysgaard, 2013, etc.). Deploying feminist and postcolonial scholars, Noel Gough (2002) criticised the position that a culturally transcendent environmental science is possible and instead suggested ‘that “thinking globally” in science and environmental education might best be understood as a process of creating transnational “spaces” in which scholars from different localities collaborate in reframing and decentring their own knowledge traditions’ (cf. Sund and Öhman, 2014a)

Despite this, ESE is quite often treated as politically neutral and/or intrinsically good. We would like to turn your attention to the fact that policies[1], curricular reform and activities with the objective of developing global solidarity and building a sustainable citizenship very often foreclose the complex historical, cultural and political nature of these issues. These universal global perspectives tend to overlook and respect locally identified needs.

ESE educators cannot, therefore, hide behind ‘good intentions’. This is further exemplified when universal values and a universal ethics are connected to the Enlightenment and to Western culture. ESE then risks becoming problematic if it is to enlighten people in other parts of the world. We argue that the apparent rush to ‘globalise’ and/or ‘universalize’ would benefit from an unpacking of the assumption that global/universal is better and a reminder that the universal is always articulated in a particular context.[2]

[1] Examples are the Earth Charter (2000) and the Johannesburg Declaration (World Summit on Sustainable Development [WSSD] 2002). The WSSD borrows language from the Charter on the theme ‘Making it happen’: ‘We commit ourselves to act together, united by a common determination to save our planet, promote human development and achieve universal prosperity and peace’ (Paragraph 35, WSSD 2002).

[2] The contextuality of ESE-related issues and the importance of using non-western values and traditions to inform the development of ESE curricula is described by Wals (2009, 16), who underlines that: ‘Although both the challenge of sustainable development and the call for ESD is worldwide, there is a general understanding that the local realities and manifestations of ‘unsustainability’ are often quite different and deeply rooted in local histories and political and cultural traditions.