The new environmental movement- moving away from fear

Helpless, helpless, helpless (Neil Young, 'Helpless')

https://animalsaustralia.qnetau.com/appeal/bobby-calves/bobby-newspaper-ad-nov2011.pdf
The above links to an advertisement developed by Animals Australia to inform the public of the fate of bobby calves in the dairy industry. I think this is a perfect example of the loss message. Yes it might get some people's attention and create change, but will others turn away suffering from 'learned hopelessness'? The answer to this question I found in my mother's reaction to the advertisement. A lover of animals herself said 'turn the page, I can't read that'.
This advertisement is tame compared to Animals Australia's other advertisements. As a person who is concerned about animal welfare and as such a vegetarian, even these advertisements make me feel helpless.
http://www.animalsaustralia.org/media/ads.php
While I believe it is important for people to not be ignorant to what is happening to animals, I think advertisements like these create 'learned hopelessness' and 'action paralysis'. They are confronting and upsetting and as such many people find it easier to not think about it rather than to have to do something about it. The same can be said about environmental issues like palm oil.

Does the Loss message work?

I have just posted this video on my facebook page to test the loss message. I have asked people to be honest, if this video makes them care about the issue and whether or not they will take action OR if they feel the issue is so large that they feel helpless to do anything about it. I think many people will say they will take action to stop palm oil use. However, as revealed in my literature review, intention to act does not always lead to action. I guess the question is, would a love message create action than a message like the one above?

What makes us care about the environment and how, as educators, can we foster this care? - Literature Review, Rhiannon Harris

‘We stand at a crucial moment in Earth’s history. A time when humanity must choose its future’ (The Earth Charter Initiative n.d.). These are the opening words of the Earth Charter, a document of values and principles for a sustainable future developed after the 1992 Earth Summit (The Earth Charter Initiative n.d.). Yet, almost a decade on, a question stands; ‘has humanity chosen its future?’, with the current debate about Climate Change and the increasing concern for the environment (NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water 2010), it would seem that the answer is ‘not as yet’. It appears the decision for humanity’s future does not lie in the hands of industries or politicians but with the general public and ‘their willingness to take care of the environment’ (Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys 2000, p.13). If Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys (2000) are correct in this statement, then it is imperative to understand not only what makes us care about the environment but how this care can be fostered. According to Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002), the answers to this question are diverse, complex and poorly understood. This paper attempts to unravel the complexities of caring about the environment and show how this care can be fostered by educators through reviewing the current literature.

In attempting to answer ‘What makes us care about the environment and how, as educators, can we foster this care?’ this literature review will first look at the question ‘What makes us care about the environment?’, in doing so it will examine the role of formative experiences and the current concern for the ‘Bubble-wrap generation’ (Malone 2007) as well as the role of knowledge and emotions. It will then attempt to answer ‘how can we foster this care?’ by looking at the use of Love not Loss messages Love not Loss (video recording) 2010, immersion in nature, the Earth Charter, behaviour change theories and the principles of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD).

What makes us care about the environment?

Formative experiences and the concern for the ‘Bubble- Wrap Generation’ (Malone 2007)

Formative experiences

 It is agreed upon in the literature (Chawla & Cushing 2007, Cachelin, Paisley & Blanchard 2009, Tikka, Kuitunen & Tynys 2000, Chawla 1999, Mulder et al 2009, Darner 2009, Thomas and Thompson 2004, Palmer et al 1999, Futerra 2010) that it is an individuals childhood experiences in the natural environment that contribute to a feeling of care for the environment. This notion is best described by Futerra (2010) in their statement  ‘research on adults who care about biodiversity reveals the single most important factor behind taking action is an emotionally-powerful childhood experience of nature.’ (p.12).

Similarly, Mulder et al (2009) state that ‘life-long attitudes and behaviours towards all animals are based in large part on childhood experiences’ (p.879). Although Mulder et al (2009) suggest that children who own pets are more likely to exhibit positive attitudes towards wildlife, they do not provide hard evidence that shows this positive attitude carries on to adulthood. Better evidence of the importance of formative experiences are given by Chawla (1999) and Palmer et al (1999).

            In a study of fifty-six environmentalists from different countries, Chawla (1999) found that most participants stated reasons for caring about the environment stem from childhood experiences. Of the fifty-six, seventy percent stated their reason for this care came from direct experiences outdoors followed by sixty-four percent stating an influence from their family. Similarly, Palmer et al (1999) in their study of one hundred and thirty environmental educators in Australia and Canada, found that seventy-two percent of participants stated their experience in nature and the outdoors as a child influenced their feelings of care towards the environment.

Although Chawla and Cushing (2007) note that these two studies have been criticised as they look back on childhood experiences of adults and not of experiences for children today, there is suggestions that these experiences are still of importance to the development of care for the environment. According to Thomas and Thompson (2004) most children gain their understanding of the natural environment through direct experience in nature and the outdoors. Although Thomas and Thompson (2004) state, through their study of children living in London, that children gain a richer learning experience through direct contact with the outside environment, their evidence is through self-reported behaviour and according to Gralton, Sinclair and Purnell(2004) self-reports are not reliable pieces of evidence.

Two studies that better support Chawla (1999) and Palmer et al (1999) are Gralton, Sinclair and Purnell (2004) and Cachelin, Paisley and Blanchard (2009). Both these studies show that the current generation of children are benefiting from experiences in natural, outdoor environments.

Gralton, Sinclair and Purnell (2004), in comparing one outdoor environmental education program and one classroom based program, found that the cognitive learning gained by those students who participated in the outdoor program was higher than those learning in the classroom. Although Gralton, Sinclair and Purnell (2004) acknowledge that attitudes to the environment did not alter within both groups of learners, their research shows that outdoor learning experiences are more beneficial to learners than environmental education in the classroom.

In a similar situation, Cachelin, Paisley and Blanchard (2009) studied two groups of school children, each group were learning about wetlands. One group’s learning environment was in direct contact with a wetland area while the other group remained within the classroom. Cachelin, Paisley and Blanchard (2009), unlike Gralton, Sinclair and Purnell (2004) found that those who were learning in the wetland environment showed higher attitudes of care towards the wetland then those who were learning within the classroom. In fact, it was found that those who conducted their learning within the classroom environment showed negative attitudes towards wetlands.

Cachelin, Paisley and Blanchard’s (2009) study presents a problem for the level of care felt for the environment for modern day children. If the literature is correct (Nagel 2005, Thomson & Thompson 2004) and today’s generation of children are not experiencing their outdoor environment, the level of care that will be felt for the environment may not be high.

The ‘Bubble wrap’ generation

The term ‘Bubble wrap generation’ has been coined by Martin (2007) and refers to the current generation of children in Australia who are growing up spending most of their time indoors playing on the computer or watching television (Martin 2007). According to Martin (2007) children of the ‘Bubble wrap generation’ are growing up in built environments and with parents who increasingly are viewing the outside environment as a dangerous place for their children. Although there is evidence to suggest that the local neighbourhood is safer now than for previous generations, increasingly children today are not experiencing the outside environment (Martin 2007).

Martin’s (2007) observation of the ‘Bubble wrap generation’ is supported by the study conducted by Thomas and Thompson (2004) in the United Kingdom. Thomas and Thompson (2004) found that ‘children are losing their connection with the natural environment’ (p.3) as the outside environment is being viewed as a dangerous place for children.

Thomas and Thompson (2004) studied ten and eleven year olds in four different locations in the United Kingdom. Within this study it was found that while there was a want to play in the outdoor environments great fear was associated with these places many to do with traffic, stranger danger, being lost and bullying as well as terrorism. 

This fear of the outside environment and the declining ability for children to play in their outdoor spaces is concerning when we take into account the affect being in the outside environment can have on children’s feelings of care for the environment and this translating to the care felt as an adult. If Thomas and Thompson (2004) are correct when they suggest that ‘a sense of care for the environment is conditioned in childhood through prolonged, repeated interaction with the natural world’ (p.11) then there is concern for the future of the current generation and the care that they will feel for the environment.

Knowledge and emotions

Knowledge

The question of whether environmental knowledge creates a feeling of care for the environment is both disputed by the literature (Chawla & Cushing 2007, Tsevreni 2011, Mandikonza, Musindo & Taylor 2011, Darner 2009, Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002, DeChano 2006) and acknowledged (Hopkins & McKeown 2002, Tikka, Kuitunen & Tynys 2000).

This notion of disagreement between the literature is supported by DeChano (2006) and Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys (2000). While DeChano’s (2006) research shows that knowledge about the environment does not necessarily result in concern for the environment, Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys (2000) in their study suggest otherwise.

DeChano (2006), in her research of final year, secondary school students in Chile, England, Switzerland and the United States, used questionnaires to find out whether or not knowledge of the environment a student had correlated with the attitudes one had for the environment. She found that although all students gained a below average score for environmental knowledge, they held positive attitudes towards the environment (DeChano 2006), According to DeChano (2006)  the hypothesis that there is a significant relationship between environmental knowledge and positive environmental attitudes was not supported by the data collected.

Juxtaposed to DeChano’s (2006) research is the study of Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys (2000). Through conducting a survey on the environmental knowledge and attitudes of University students at ten universities in Finland, Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys (2000) found that those studying biology and forestry had stronger knowledge and attitudes towards the environment while those who were studying engineering and economics had the lowest. They suggest that these findings show that there is a connection between the level of environmental knowledge and attitudes towards the environment. However, they also suggest that there have been previous studies that dispute their conclusions and a small deviation within their data of students studying to be kindergarten teachers showing little environmental knowledge but positive environmental attitudes (Tikka, Kuitunen & Tynys 2000) would suggest their conclusions are not totally supported by the data.

Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys (2000) go on to state that although environmental knowledge does correlate with positive environmental attitudes, ‘attitudes seems to be dependent on personal feelings and values in addition to factual knowledge’ (p.17).

Although these two studies show opposing findings, they bring about the issue that the development of environmental knowledge alone will not achieve a feeling of care for the environment. While it is acknowledged by Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) that people need to have a basic knowledge of the environment to show concern for the environment, and that therefore there is a place for knowledge (Tsevereni 2011),it is suggested by Mandionza, Musindo and Taylor (2011) and  Chawla and Cushing (2007) that knowledge alone will not cause people to care about the environment.

Emotions

As suggested by Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys (2000) it is the way we feel about the environment in addition to knowledge that will cause us to care about the environment. This notion is supported by Martin (2007) when he states ‘the capacity to think with the heart as well as the head is vital [to caring]’ (p.57). According to Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) it is the emotional connection that we feel towards the environment that makes us care about the environment. The importance of an emotional connection with the environment is best summed up by Cachelin, Paisly and Blanchard (2009) in quoting Gould ‘We cannot win the battle to save species and environment without forging an emotional bond between ourselves and nature’ ( p.3).

This emotional connection with the environment is developed through our human capacity to feel empathy and compassion (Fein 2003, Futtera 2010). As is suggested by Futerra (2010), it is not the knowledge of mass species loss that will cause people to care about the environment, but the way nature makes us feel. It is through empathy that we feel ‘love’ for the natural environment (Futtera 2010).

This ability of our capacity as humans to feel empathy and compassion is suggested by Reis and Roth (2010) and Schultz (2000).

Reis and Roth (2010) look at the use of ‘emotion talk’ by an educator in developing learners’ emotional connections with the environment. According to Reis and Roth (2010) it is the ability of the educator to use emotions when talking with learners which can have a fundamental effect on their emotions and how they come to perceive their natural environment. In their study of one environmental educator it was found that her belief was to have children fall in love with the natural environment. As stated by the environmental educator ‘if you fall in love with something, you’ll try your best not to harm it’ (Reis and Roth 2010 p.80). Reis and Roth (2010) found the environmental educator used talk that conveyed how she felt about her surroundings and the animals within the surroundings, for example ‘Oh it’s beautiful! Isn’t that lovely?’ (p.80). The children whom the environmental educator was interacting with was found to have given names to some of the species of animals they were finding. Reis and Roth (2010) suggest this naming of animals shows affection and empathy towards the species they were coming across.  

In a study of perspective taking of individuals, Schultz (2000) looked at the role of empathising with the environment in developing biospheric, altruistic or egoistic concerns. According to Schultz (2000) a person who holds biospheric concerns is someone who values all living things. While altruistic is someone who values the welfare of other people and those who are egoistic value their own welfare about others and other living things. Schultz’s (2000) study found that when individuals were asked to look at an animal being harmed by nature from the perspective of the animal were more inclined to show ‘biospheric environmental concerns’ (Schultz 2000 p.402) than those who were asked to remain impartial. Although Schultz (2000) does not suggest whether or not ‘biospheric environmental concern’ is the most preferred view when caring about the environment as opposed to egoistic and alturitic concerns, he does suggest that humans’ ability to empathise with others and nature has the ability to produce concerns for the environment. Thus it is the emotional connection that we develop through our ability to feel empathy and compassion for the natural world that develops our care for the environment.

How do we foster this care?

Love not Loss messages

In a recent video developed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Love not Loss (video recording) 2010 it is stated that it is not the overwhelming knowledge of species loss and environmental destruction that will cause people to care about the environment but it is the love we feel for the environment. They suggest that to create the feeling of care for the environment we must move away from loss messages and start to embrace love messages. This notion of ‘Love not Loss’ Love not Loss (video recording) 2010 is supported by the literature (Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002, Fein 2003, Cachelin, Paisley & Blanchard 2009, Martin 2007, Chawla & Cushing 2007, Nagel 2005, Futerra 2010) and shows the affect both love and loss messages can have on the level of care felt by individuals.

It appears that as educators it is very easy to talk about the ruin of the environmental world (Nagel 2005, Futerra 2010), yet this focus on the negatives appears to be having no affect on the care felt by individuals. As is suggested by Futtera (2010) people may feel guilty or shake their heads at the mention of extinction rates, but this does not translate into a feeling of care or action. In fact, it seems that the ‘loss’ message is doing more harm than good.

According to Nagel (2005) creating fear within individuals on the state of the environment can cause ‘learned hopelessness’ (Nagel 2005).  ‘Learned hopelessness’ shares a similar meaning to the term ‘learned helplessness’ in which an individual cannot escape from a painful situation causing them to no longer register the pain and make no attempt to escape it (Nagel 2005). However, the difference in ‘learned hopelessness’ is the individual feels that the state of the environment is so dire that there is nothing anyone can do to fix it therefore they make no attempt to care about the environment (Nagel 2005). Nagel (2005) suggests that when educators present information on the global problems of the world, particularly to young children, fear can result and the feeling that nothing can be done.

The term ‘learned hopelessness’ can be also be described as ‘action paralysis’ (Mandikonza, Musindo & Taylor 2011). ‘Action paralysis’ means where fear is so paralysing an individual feels unable to act (Mandikonza, Musindo & Taylor 2011). Mandikonza, Musindo and Taylor (2011) in their study of an educational response to cholera in Zimbabwe found that when fear of cholera rises ‘action paralysis’ results. Although Mandikonza, Musindo and Taylor’s (2011) study was not related to environmental destruction, it shows that scaring people into action does not work.

This feeling of inability to change the overwhelming global environmental problems can create apathy (Agyeman and Kollmuss 2002, Nagel 2005, Futerra 2010, Tilbury and Wortman 2004), a feeling that can only be described as the antonym to ‘care’ (Fein 2003). Thus it is imperative that educators try to not use ‘loss’ messages as a way to inform about the environment.

            Furthermore, looking at the evidence that it is childhood experiences of the natural environment that create care for the environment shows that it is not loss that drives people to want to protect the natural world, but the emotional connection we feel with it (Futerra 2010). According to Futerra (2010) ‘love messages work by reconnecting us with these experiences’ (p.13).

As can be seen by the ‘emotion talk’ used by educators in Reis and Roth’s (2010) study, educators did not tell learners about the plight of the natural environment, instead they talked about how beautiful and lovely the natural environment is. Reis and Roth (2010) note educators observed students in excitement as they connected with the natural world with some continuously smiling during the conversations about the natural environment. This is a far cry from Nagel’s (2005) ‘learned hopelessness’.

Immersion in nature

The agreement by the literature (Chawla & Cushing 2007, Cachelin, Paisley & Blanchard 2009, Tikka, Kuitunen & Tynys 2000, Chawla 1999, Mulder et al 2009, Darner 2009, Thomas and Thompson 2004, Palmer et al 1999, Futerra 2010) that childhood experiences in the natural environment leads to care for the environment and as the recent phenomenon of the ‘Bubble wrap generation’ (Malone 2007) reveals the importance of educators allowing children to learn in the outside environment. According to Martin (2007) to care about the environment we need to feel connected to the natural environment. Learning experiences that allow children to be immersed in nature is one way in which educators can ensure children experience the natural environment (Martin 2007). Through doing this, educators can ensure children understand that humans are connected with the natural environment, not separate (Tilbury & Fein 2002, Clugston 2010), thus building what Fein (2003) refers to as a ‘relationship’ with nature.

Cachelin, Paisley and Blanchard (2009) show the importance of educators immersing children in nature. As previously mentioned, Cachelin, Paisley and Blanchard (2009) observed two groups of children learning about wetlands within a classroom and learning about wetlands in the wetlands. It was found that students who were not involved in learning in the natural environment held negative attitudes to wetlands and did not show any desire to visit the wetlands. Therefore children did not feel connected to nor did they build a relationship with the natural environment, which means the feeling of care for the environment is not developed or fostered.

If educators are to foster care of the environment, particularly in children, then they need to get them out of the classroom and learning in the natural environment.

Use of the Earth Charter

The Earth Charter is a document that can be used by educators as a resource to help foster care for the environment. The Earth Charter sets out four key ethical principles (The Earth Charter Initiative n.d.) that educators can follow in developing learning experiences that aim to foster care for the environment. These four principles are labeled as; Respect and Care for the Community of life, Ecological Integrity, Social and Economic Justice and Democracy, nonviolence and peace (The Earth Charter Initiative n.d.).

Clugston (2010, 2011), Fein (2003) and Tilbury and Fein (2002) show why using the Earth Charter can foster care for the environment.

According to Clugston (2011) there is a push to have the spiritual element of humanity considered when referring to sustainability. This spiritual element consists of our values and our ability to feel compassion and can be achieved through the Earth Charter (Clugston 2010). Clugston (2010) states that through the Earth Charter educators can ‘awaken a sense of wonder and awe’ (p.162) by showing learners how we are connected with the natural world and how we have come to be on the earth. Thus learners are able to see how humans are apart of the environment and start to build Fein’s (2003)‘relationship’ with nature.

Similarly, Fein (2003) suggests that the Earth Charter can be used to show that we are not independent from nature but are connected with nature and as such through our actions we can impact the environment. Although it may be suggested that this could possibly have the affect of Nagel’s (2005) ‘learned hopelessness’, the Earth Charter can be used to show how we can positively impact on our environment (Fein 2003). This is too, suggested by Tilbury and Fein (2002). Although they do not directly refer to the Earth Charter, they suggest that to care about the environment we need to realise that we are connected to the environment. They refer to this notion as ‘Ecological sustainability’. This is similar to the Earth Charter’s principle (Earth Charter Initiative n.d.) ‘Ecological integrity’.

Thus through the Earth Charter, educators can show learners how we are connected with the natural environment and as such we need to care about it.

Behaviour Change

Looking at how educators can change the behaviour of their learners to take action for the environment is beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is suggested by Gralton, Sinclair and Purnell (2004), a positive attitude towards the environment can be defined as the feeling to be concerned about and to act positively towards the environment. Thus, the connection between concern and action shows that behaviour change theories can shed some light on possible ways educators can foster care for the environment.

According to Tikka, Kuitunen and Tynys (2000), the current perception of environmental problems is not only based on people’s action but the way they think about the environment.  For this reason, as is suggested by Reis and Roth (2010), environmental education activities must consider the emotion’s of people.

The behaviour change theories suggested by Stern (2000), Corbett (2005) and Darner (2009) show the importance of educators considering emotions when developing educational activities with an objective to foster the feeling of caring about the environment.

Stern (2000), in developing his Value- Belief- Norm Theory (VBN) suggests that it is a person’s values, their beliefs about the environment and personal norms that will cause a person to act positively or negatively towards the environment. According to Stern (2000) the VBN acts like a chain with one variable affecting the next, for example if a person holds altruistic values, they may believe that environmental degradation is a concern as it will negatively affect people (Stern 2000). What is revealed in Stern’s (2000) VBN theory is that the values a person holds, whether they are egoistic, alturistic or biospheric, will affect their perception of the environment. For this reason, educators must be aware of the values their learners hold and help learners to clarify these values (Tilbury & Wortman 2004).

Unlike Stern (2000) who appears to provide a formula for how a person will behave, Corbett (2005) reviews the literature on altruism, self-interest and the Reasonable Person model. Corbett (2005) presents an unflattering side of humanity by suggesting that more often than not, humans will choose an option that will be in their best interest rather than make a sacrifice for the environment. While this suggestion is based on the Reasonable Person Model of Kaplan (2000), it does not appear to be based on hard evidence. However, although Corbett (2000) suggests we act pro-environmentally if it is beneficial for us, she also states that a range of social factors will also influence pro-environmental behaviour. This reveals that educators must be aware of the affect social structures within the learning environment are having on their learners’ attitudes and the ability to empower or disempower individuals (Corbett 2000).

Through Darner’s (2009) Self-Determination Theory (SDT) the need to empower learners in order to foster care for the environment is shown. Like Corbett (2000), Darner (2009) views a social supportive learning environment as having the ability to empower learners as their ideas and views are valued by each member of the learning community. According to Darner (2009) individuals will become self-determined to act pro-environmentally when their psychological needs are supported, when they understand why it is important to act positively towards the environment and how to act in this way. This means for educators who are wanting to foster care for the environment within their learners they need a socially supportive learning environment which supports the views and emotional needs of their learners.

The role of Education for Sustainable Development

As can be seen through reviewing Stern (2000), Corbett (2005) and Darner (2009), in order for educators to foster a feeling of care for the environment learners need to be within learning environments that enable learners to clarify their values and feel socially supported.

The principles of ESD can be used by educators to allow learners to clarify their values and feel socially supported. These principles are described by Tilbury and Wortman (2004) as being Envisioning, Critical Thinking and Reflection, Participation in decision making, Partnerships and Systemic Thinking. Each of these principles has the ability to enable learners to clarify their values and engage in meaningful collaboration. For example, envisioning and critical thinking and reflection requires learners to question their biases and assumptions thus enabling them to understand their values and how these values are created (Tilbury & Wortman 2004). In a similar way systemic thinking looks at how things are connected and brings about the assumptions that we hold about the way the world operates (Tilbury & Wortman 2004). Participation in decision making allows the educator to act as a facilitator to the learning enabling learners to work collaboratively and are encouraged to share their values and beliefs (Tilbury & Wortman 2004).

If environmental educators follow these principles they will enable learners to clarify the values they hold for the environment within a supportive learning environment (Tilbury & Wortman 2004, Hopkins & McKeown 2002).

The use of the principles developed by Tilbury and Wortman (2004) also has the ability to foster care for the environment without overwhelming learners with environmental global problems (Hopkins & McKeown 2002).

Although it is suggested by Jickling (1994)  that there is opposition to ESD as there is a belief the there should not be education for anything as values should not be involved in education, there are those like Fein (2003) who suggest that education is value laden. Thus, an educational activity that a learner participates in could be classified as indoctrination. Our choice, according to Fein (2003), as educators is to make sure that we handle values in an ethical and professional manner.

This shows that while using educational activities to foster care for the environment may seem to be ‘indoctrination’ if using an appropriate framework, like ESD, educators will be able to create autonomous and empowered individuals who clarify their values in a supportive environment.

In summary, it appears that what makes us care about the environment is not the insurmountable knowledge that we can gain on the problems affecting the globe but the emotional connection we feel to the natural environment. This feeling of love for the environment has been found by the literature (Chawla & Cushing 2007, Cachelin, Paisley & Blanchard 2009, Tikka, Kuitunen & Tynys 2000, Chawla 1999, Mulder et al 2009, Darner 2009, Thomas and Thompson 2004, Palmer et al 1999, Futerra 2010) to be built from childhood experiences outdoors in the natural environment. It is suggested by Martin (2007) that these findings are concerning when we take into account the current generation’s pre-disposition to remain indoors. A question remains about the future of this generation and how they will feel connected and show concern for the natural environment when they reach adulthood.

For the educators of this generation, the answer as to how we can foster this care lie in using Love not Los messages Love not Loss (video recording) 2010, conducting environmental education in the outdoor environment, using the Earth Charter, clarifying values, having a socially supportive learning environment and following the principles of ESD. Through these ways educators can foster care for the environment without creating ‘learned hopelessness’ (Nagel 2005) or have the fear of unethical indoctrination.

References

Cachelin A, Paisley K and Blanchard A 2009 Using the Significant Life Experience Framework to Inform Program Evaluation: The Nature Conservancy’s Wings and Water Wetlands Education Program The Journal of Environmental Education 40(2):2-14.

Chawla L 1999 Life Paths Into Effective Environmental Action The Journal of Environmental Education 31(1):15-26.

Chawla L and Cushing D F 2007 Education for Strategic Environmental Behavior Environmental Education Research 13(4):437-452.

Clugston R 2010 Earth Charter Education for Sustainable Ways of Living Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 4(2):157-166.

Clugston R 2011 Ethical Framework for a Sustainable World: Earth Charter Plus 10 Conference and Follow Up Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 5(2):173-176.

Corbett J B 2005 Alturism, Self-Interest and the Reasonable Person Model of Environmentally Responsible Behavior Science Communication 26(4):368-389.

Darner R 2009 Self-Determination Theory as a Guide to Fostering Environmental Motivation The Journal of Environmental Education 40(2):39-49.

DeChano L M 2006 A Multi-Country Examination of the Relationship Between Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 15(1):15-28.

Fein J 2003 Learning to Care: Education and Compassion Australian Journal of Environmental Education 19: 1- 13

Futerra 2010 Branding Biodiversity Futerra Sustainability Communications http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Branding_Biodiversity.pdf, 16 July 2011

Gralton A, Sinclair M and Purnell K 2004 Changes in Attitudes, Beliefs and Behaviour: A Critical Review of Research into the Impacts of Environmental Education Initiatives Australian Journal of Environmental Education 20(2):41-52.

Hopkins C and McKeown R 2002 Education for Sustainable Development in D Tilbury R B Stevenson J Fein and D Schreuder Education and Sustainability, Responding to the Global Challenge, Commission on Education and Communication, IUCN.

Jickling B 1994 Why I Don’t Want My Children To Be Educated For Sustainable Development: Sustainable Belief Trumpeter 11(3):2-8.

Kollmuss A and Agyeman J 2002 Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are The Barriers to Pro-environmental Behavior? Environmental Education Research 8(3):239-260.

Love not Loss (video recording) 20^th October 2010, IUCN.

Malone K 2007 The Bubble-Wrap Generation: Children Growing Up In Walled Gardens Environmental Education Research 13(4): 513-527.

Mandikonza C, Musindo B and Taylor J 2011 Cholera in Zimbabwe: Developing an Educational Response to a Health Crisis Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 5(1):17-25.

Martin P 2007 Caring for the Environment: Challenges from Notions of Caring Australian Journal of Environmental Education 23:57-64.

Mulder M B, Schacht R, Caro T, Schacht J and Caro B 2009 Knowledge and Attitudes of Children of the Rupununui: Implications for Conservation in Guyana Biological Conservation 142:879-887.

Nagel M 2005 Constructing Apathy: How Environmentalism and Environmental Education May Be Fostering ‘Learned Hopelessness’ in Children Australian Journal of Environmental Education 21:71-80.

New South Wales Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water 2010 Who Cares About the Environment in 2009?: A Survey of NSW People’s Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviours Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, NSW.

Palmer J, Suggate J, Robottom I and Hart P 1999 Significant Life Experiences and Formative Influences on the Development of Adults’ Environmental Awareness in the UK, Australia and Canada Environmental Education Research 5(2):181-200.

Reis G and Roth W 2009 A Feeling for the Environment: Emotion Talk in/for Pedagogy of Public Environmental Education The Journal of Environmental Education 41(2):71-87.

Schultz P W 2000 Empathizing With Nature: The Effects of Perspective Taking on Concern for Environmental Issues Journal of Social Issues 56(3):391-406.

Stern P C 2000 Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior Journal of Social Issues 56(3):407-424.

The Earth Charter Initiative: Values and Principles for a Sustainable Future n.d http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html 21 Sep 2011.

Thomas G and Thompson G 2004 A Child’s Place: Why Environment Matters to Children Green Alliance/Demos, UK.

Tikka P M, Kuitunen M T and Tynys S M 2000 Effects of Education Backgrounds on Students’ Attitudes, Activity Levels, and Knowledge Concerning the Environment The Journal of Environmental Education 31(3):12-19.

Tilbury D and Fein J 2002 The Global Challenge of Sustainability in D Tilbury R B Stevenson J Fein and D Schreuder Education and Sustainability, Responding to the Global Challenge, Commission on Education and Communication, IUCN.

Tilbury D and  Wortman D 2004 Engaging People in Sustainability, Commission on Education and Communication IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK.

Tsevreni I 2011 Towards an Environmental Education without Scientific Knowledge: An Attempt to Create an Action Model Based on Children’s Experiences, Emotions and Perceptions About Their Environment Environmental Education Research 17(1):53-67.

 

References Cited

ARIES 2009 Education for Sustainability: The Role of Education in Engaging and Equipping People for Change Commonwealth of Australia.

Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage 2007 Caring for Our Future: The Australian Government Strategy for the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, 2005-2014 Commonwealth of Australia, ACT.

Bennet C I 2006 Strengthening Multicultural Perspective in Curriculum and Instruction in Comprehensive Multicultural Education: Theory and Practice eds C I Bennet,  Pearson, Boston pp319-461.

Brundtland G 1987 Our Common Future: Chairman’s Foreword Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-cf.htm 25 Sept 2011.

Carson L, Cole-Edelstein L and Hardy M 2000 Citizen Juries in Australia- A Discussion about Protocols  www.activedemocracy.net/articles/protocol.pdf 21 Sep 2011

Clugston R 2010 Earth Charter Education for Sustainable Ways of Living Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 4(2):157-166.

de Bono E 1995 Exploring Patterns of Thought…Serious Creativity The Journal for Quality and Participation 18(5): 12-18.

DeChano L M 2006 A Multi-Country Examination of the Relationship Between Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 15(1): 15-28

Department of Sustainability and Environment Victoria 2005 Effective Engagement: Building relationships with community and other stakeholders- Book One: Introduction to Engagement The Community Engagement Network, East Melbourne.

Fein J 2003 Learning to Care: Education and Compassion Australian Journal of Environmental Education 19: 1- 13

Ferreira J Ryan L and Tilbury D 2006 Whole-School approaches to sustainability: A review of models for professional development in pre-service teacher education. ARIES and Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, ACT.

Friere P 2003 From Pedagogy of the Oppressed in A Darder M Baltodana and R D Torress eds The Critical Pedagogy Reader  Routledge, New York pp 57-68

Herman H 1998 What is Open Space Technology? Open Space World. http://www.openspaceworld.org/cgi/wiki.cgi?AboutOpenSpace 21 Sep 2011

Hopkins C and McKeown R 2002 Education for Sustainable Development in D Tilbury R B Stevenson J Fein and D Schreuder Education and Sustainability, Responding to the Global Challenge, Commission on Education and Communication, IUCN.

Jackson M G 2011 The Real Challenge of ESD Journal of Sustainable Development 5(1): 27-31

Jickling B 1994 Why I Don’t Want My Children To Be Educated For Sustainable Development: Sustainable Belief Trumpeter 11(3):2-8.

Jucker R 2011 ESD between Systemic Change and Bureaucratic Obfuscation: Some Reflections on Environmental Education and Education for Sustainable Development in Switzerland Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 5(1):39-60

Monroe M C, Oxarart A, Mcdonell L and Plate R 2009 Using Community Forums to Enhance Public Engagement in Environmental Issues Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 3(2): 171-182.

Mula I and Tilbury D 2009 A United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-14): What Difference will it Make? Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 3(1):87-97.

Murray P 2011 The Sustainable Self : A Personal Approach to Sustainability Education (Publisher Unknown)

NSW DET 2003 Quality Teaching in NSW Public Schools Department of Education and Training Professional Support and Curriculum Directorate, Sydney.

Preston N 2010 The Why and What of ESD: A Rationale for Earth Charter Education (and Naming Some of it Difficulties) Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 4(2):187-192

Robinson K 2010 Changing Education Paradigms TED Talk  http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html 5 Aug 2011

The Co-Intelligence Institute 2008 The World Café http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-worldcafe.html 21 Sep 2011

The Earth Charter Initiative: Values and Principles for a Sustainable Future n.d http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html 21 Sep 2011.

Tilbury D and Fein J 2002 The Global Challenge of Sustainability in D Tilbury R B Stevenson J Fein and D Schreuder Education and Sustainability, Responding to the Global Challenge, Commission on Education and Communication, IUCN.

Tilbury D and  Wortman D 2004 Engaging People in Sustainability, Commission on Education and Communication IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK.

UN 2002 Agenda 21, Section IV, Chapter 36, Promoting Education Public Awareness and Training UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_36.shtml 21 Sep 2011.

A Framework from which to develop and evaluate programs in Education for Sustainable Development

The Framework I have developed summarises my ideas and reflections. I have designed the Framework in a way that will allow it to be used in any context, be it in a school classroom, an outdoor environmental education program or a community education program. It does not have steps to follow, instead it provides elements that should be incorporated into a program if the program is to be Education for Sustainable Development (EfSD). I felt that by not providing steps to follow it would allow creativity of the educator and allow any program to be evaluated, whatever the educational context.

I have used a Framework similar to the Quality Teaching Framework (DET 2003) where each element has sub-categories that must be addressed in that element.

For an educational program to be EfSD it must possess the following elements:

Element	Sub-categories
Learner needs	Programs must acknowledge and build upon learners’ previous knowledge. Programs should be adaptable to learner needs eg. Disabilities, cultural. Programs (if applicable)should provide learners with opportunities to interact with their natural environment. Programs should have clear objectives that are known to the learner with feedback provided from educator.
Cognition	Programs develop and foster Critical Thinking. Programs develop Reflective Learners. Programs develop and foster Systemic Thinking. Programs develop and foster Envisioning Skills.
Collaboration	Programs should be developed with the goal of empowerment of individuals. Programs should have role of educator as facilitator. Programs should further build upon learner’s ability to work with others.
Values Clarification	Programs should develop metacognitive skills. Programs should encourage learners to question current dominant world views that create unsustainable practices. Programs should encourage compassion and empathy. Programs should encourage visions of a better world and not treat them as rhetoric.
Evaluation	Programs have mechanisms in place that allow for flexibility. Programs should have on going monitoring and reflection. Educators should be engaged in reflective practice. Programs are developed with ability to be evaluated and built upon from evaluations. Resources are appropriate and effective. Evaluation should measure the elements in this framework.

A great image

This image is taken from the World Wildlife Fund website http://www.worldwildlife.org/sites/photocontest/people-gallery.html . To me this is both Environmental Education and Education for Sustainable Development. I think this is a great image to start dialogue about our relationship with the natural world and bring home that 'love not loss' message.

Developing a Framework for EfSD

In class we looked at what makes an effective program in Education for Sustainable Development (EfSD), we also had a go at developing a program.

I find there are some similarities between developing a program in the formal education sector and developing a program for EfSD. The following I have taken from a programming book for teaching by Ruth Reynolds and Julie Hinde McLeod (2007) called Quality Teaching for Quality Learning: Planning through Reflection and I have adapted the framework given by Tilbury and Ross (2006) in Living Change: Documenting good practice in Education for Sustainability in NSW.

Adapted from Reynolds R and Hinde Mcleod 2007 Quality Teaching for Quality Learning: Planning through Reflection

Adapted from Tilbury D and Ross K 2006 Living Change: Documenting good practice in Education for Sustainability in NSW.

Here similarities between the two processes are shown, these similarities are planning, enacting and evaluating of a program as well as the underlying need to reflect on the program.

From the experience of having a go at developing a program in class, it appears a program needs to have the following steps:

1. Know your learners and their needs.

2. Identify objectives.

3. Plan Program- Funding

                          - Resources

                           - Activities/Steps needed to reach objective

4. Implement Program- Monitoring progress throughout

5. Evaluation- Do the outcomes match the objective?

                        Outputs

                        Impacts

Although there are similarities between the designing of a program in the formal sector of education and designing a program in EfSD, there appears to be one fundamental difference. I am not sure if I am looking at this incorrectly, but I feel that while programs in the formal sector focus on the learning of the group as a whole it also focuses on the learning of the individuals, programming in EfSD only appears to look at the group as a whole. Has the group learning met the intended objectives? I believe this will not allow for real evaluation of the outcomes and impacts of the EfSD program, I think there needs to be assessment of individual learning. I think as well as identifying objectives there need to be indicators in programs that show explicitly show that individuals are meeting the program objectives.

I also feel that when we were involved in developing the program in class, the elements of EfSD like visioning, systemic thinking etc, were forgotten, they were not incorporated into the program or used as a guide to develop activities. I feel that the elements of EfSD should act as guiding principles in a framework when educators are developing their programs. Through my understanding, it is through these principles that learning really takes place. The EfSD principles is the pedagogy of EfSD.

Reynolds R and Hinde McLeod 2007 Quality Teaching for Quality Learning: Planning through Reflection Thomson Social Science Press, Melbourne.

Tilbury D and Ross K 2006 Living Change: Documenting good practice in Education for Sustainability in NSW. Macquarie University, Sydney and Nature Conservation Council, NSW.

Education For Sustainable Development: Some Thoughts

In this reflection I will look at three issues within Education for Sustainable Development (EfSD) that I find very interesting. The first issue is the idea that there should not be Education for anything, the second issue is the divide that appears to be between EfSD and Environmental Education (EE) and lastly I want to look at the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD).

Should we have education for anything?

The United Nations Agenda 21 (2002), a document that sets out objectives that need to be achieved from a local to a global scale for Sustainable Development to occur, in Section Four a whole chapter is dedicated to the importance of education in achieving Sustainable Development. However, should education be used as a tool to push this agenda? While I agree that, yes, education should be used as a tool to help create a sustainable world, I believe people, like Jickling (1994) have a right to question the notion of Education for.

According to Hopkins and McKeown (2002) there is a distinction between Education about and Education for Sustainable Development. The distinctions lies is the use of education to foster thinking and actions that are focused on sustainability( Hoopkins and McKeown 2002). To Jickling (1994) this is more of indoctrination rather than education, or education having a hidden agenda. This is revealed in the statement, ‘Sustainable Development is in the common interest and the public must be persuaded, or made, to pursue this end’ (p.5). He then goes on to question whether or not it is the role of education to make people behave in a particular way. I would argue, Yes. As we saw in one of my previous reflections, Preston (2010) alludes to the fact that education is always pushing particular values. This can be further supported by the fact the all schools have behaviour standards. However, what I think Jickling (1994) is trying to say here is that education is about achieving free thought and autonomous thinking and the Education for anything does not achieve this goal. I wonder if Jickling (1994) would now change his mind in light of the principles like Critical Thinking and Systemic Thinking that govern EfSD. Surely these principles do not result in indoctrination. One must also question Jickling (1994), is an education system that seeks to help learners achieve a better world for their future a bad thing? 

Taken form:http://adaptationresourcekit.squarespace.com/2-learn-about-climate-change/

What is the difference between EfSD and EE?

Through my many readings I either come across the notion of EfSD or EE, they are not one or the same. Tilbury and Fein (2002) state that EfSD is different to EE as it looks at developing the links between environment, society, economy and politics. They state that EfSD ‘must differ significantly from much of the nature study work carried out under the EE banner’ (p.9). However, I would argue that this is an important element and should be apart of EfSD, particularly if we are to understand how systems in the environment work. Perhaps, what Tilbury and Fein (2002) are saying that in EE there is too much focus on environment. If this is the case then I believe this is a great downfall on the part of EE as how can we understand environmental issues and impacts without understanding the social, economic and political aspects that affect the environment?

In my opinion, it should not be either/or with EfSD and EE, it should be combined. Although it is suggested that knowledge does not lead to direct action (DeChano 2006), therefore in regards to EfSD does not lead to sustainability. I would suggest knowledge is still needed if one is to first understand the issues on which to act upon.

DESD- What does it mean?

The Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability (ARIES 2009) state that the DESD aims to ‘integrate the principles, values, and practices of sustainable development into all aspects of education and learning.’ (p.2) This means that learning in all education sectors should not only be to learn about Sustainable Development but it should be embedded in the system. That is, it should be integrated into all actions in education sectors. According to ARIES (2009) it reorients traditional forms of education, focusing on – interdisciplinary and holistic learning, values-based learning, critical and reflective thinking, integration of all subject areas, participatory decision making and locally relevant information. It is interesting to note here, as already mentioned in one of my first blogs, this re-orientation of traditional education can be seen to be happening through frameworks like the NSW Quality Teaching (DET 2003) and from learning in pre-service teacher training some of these elements are taught to be used. However, EfSD was never mentioned in my teacher training, yet the decade started in 2005 (Australian Government, Department of the Environment and Heritage 2007), I started my teacher training in 2004 and finished in 2007. Why was there no mention? And why is there no mention in schools? Even the Australian Government have a document dedicated to taking action under the banner of the DESD. Entitled Caring for Our Future: The Australian Government Strategy for the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, 2005-2014 (2007) yet this is the first I have heard of this decade. I have only just seen the document put out by ARIES in 2006 entitled Whole-School approaches to sustainability: A review of models for professional development in pre-service teacher education. Shouldn’t I have seen this before now? And what were the previous models?

Mula and Tilbury (2009) look at the issue of the difference the DESD is making. They state that the challenge of the DESD is going to be engaging those who are less aware of Sustainable Development yet have the greatest role in achieving it. I would suggest if Agenda 21 (UN 2002) is correct about education being critical to Sustainable Development then there needs to be a greater push in reaching the teachers. Within a lot of the literature I have read thus far there appears to be a forgetfulness for the formal sector. Should we not be focusing on those who are teaching the children as well as the community? For if the Brundtland Commission’s (1987) definition is correct, and Sustainable Development is about safekeeping today for tomorrow’s generation, why is there not a focus on the younger generations?

According to Mula and Tilbury (2009) it is too soon to report on the success of the DESD, yet they suggest that looking at the achievements through the halfway mark of the decade it seems to be lacking in engaging and implementing changes. They suggest that with an apparent lack of indicators it will be difficult to assess the impact of the decade. They conclude with the belief that the goals of the decade are too ambitious for a ten year period.

I would suggest from my own experience as a pre-service teacher and a teacher, the decade goals are not being achieved in the formal sector and I believe this to be a great shortsightedness on the formal sectors part as well as those documents pushing the DESD.

Tilbury D and Fein J 2002 The Global Challenge of Sustainability in D Tilbury R B Stevenson J Fein and D Schreuder Education and Sustainability, Responding to the Global Challenge, Commission on Education and Communication, IUCN.

Hopkins C and McKeown R 2002 Education for Sustainable Development in D Tilbury R B Stevenson J Fein and D Schreuder Education and Sustainability, Responding to the Global Challenge, Commission on Education and Communication, IUCN.

Jickling B 1994 Why I Don’t Want My Children To Be Educated For Sustainable Development: Sustainable Belief Trumpeter 11(3):2-8.

ARIES 2009 Education for Sustainability: The Role of Education in Engaging and Equipping People for Change Commonwealth of Australia.

Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage 2007 Caring for Our Future: The Australian Government Strategy for the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, 2005-2014 Commonwealth of Australia, ACT.

Ferreira J Ryan L and Tilbury D 2006 Whole-School approaches to sustainability: A review of models for professional development in pre-service teacher education. ARIES and Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, ACT.

DeChano L M 2006 A Multi-Country Examination of the Relationship Between Environmental Knowledge and Attitudes International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 15(1): 15-28

Mula I and Tilbury D 2009 A United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-14): What Difference will it Make? Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 3(1):87-97.

Brundtland G 1987 Our Common Future: Chairman’s Foreword Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-cf.htm 25 Sept 2011.

UN 2002 Agenda 21, Section IV Chapter 32 Promoting Education, Public Awareness and Traininghttp://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_36.shtml 20 Sept 2011 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development

Some resources for Systemic Thinking

This is an advertisement from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). This could be used as a tool to engage learners in systemic thinking as it could access background knowledge as well as provide learners with some new information which would allow them to build a systems model.

I was looking for an image that may depict systemic thinking and came across this one on someones blog on website called Eco-Localizer the blog is entitled  What we can't see, we can't consciously change. In this blog the writer states 'We cannot hope to apply the necessary systemic thinking to our converging crises, because no one has a full view of the system. We can't see what we can't consciously change.' This picture is almost used as the image of this inability to stop this downward fall of environment and society due to human actions. He then goes on to say that what we need is to localise production to combat the current ecological and social crises. However, I disagree with him. This picture shows we have 'full view of the system' we know what is causing the problems, it is just a matter of looking at the connections and pin-pointing where to start. If we all thought systemically imagine what sort of world it would be. This is what we need in education.

We cannot hope to apply the necessary systemic thinking to our converging crises, because no one has a full view of the system. What we can’t see, we can’t consciously change.

Source: EcoLocalizer (http://s.tt/12uqG)

Dabbling in some Systemic Thinking

Here I have experimented with some Systemic Thinking. I chose to look at Palm Oil as it is an issue in which I have some knowledge. I also believe it is an issue where, if consumers were systemic thinkers, the demand for palm oil production would be low and therefore as a result we would not have the loss of habitat and biodiversity we are currently experiencing. A great tool that can be used with any age group.

Reflection on workshop experience

In class for GSE 827 we were required to develop a workshop and enact a session from the workshop. I was in a group of three and within this group we decided to focus on the processes of Critical Thinking and Reflection for our session. Our session involved using de Bono’s (1995) Six Thinking Hats to look at Australia’s Carbon Tax.

My impression of how our enactment went was that it was not overly successful. Having said that, I know from my experience as a teacher that having unsuccessful lessons is not necessarily a bad thing. Having unsuccessful lessons is apart of learning to be a better educator, as long as you reflect on the process and what you will do different next time. As such here is my reflection on the process of our session and what I would do better next time.

Description of Session

Our session was one component of a workshop that looks at the processes of Education for Sustainable Development (EfSD) through examining Australia’s Carbon Tax. The session involved learners being split into pairs with each pair having one of the six thinking hats. Learners were required to jot down their thoughts of the Carbon Tax while only operating under their given hat. We then asked for responses and wrote some of these onto a white board next to a picture of their appropriate hat. We were then supposed to use these responses to start a discussion about the way we as individuals think and how this thinking can influence the way we view a situation, like the Carbon Tax.

While this was the intended structure of the session, all did not go according to plan. Unfortunately the room was not set up as we had planned which meant we had to adapt how we were going to use resources like the white board and projector. Personally, I felt we could have done this better. We needed to be more flexible and work within the constraints better. This is what educators have to do on a daily basis.

At the orientation of our session, we gave learners a brief overview of the workshop and I explained the six thinking hats. While I think I explained the hats somewhat sufficiently, for this activity to have been successful in developing deeper understandings participants needed to have more time to learn about each hat and digest the information about each hat. We also forgot to mention the session objectives, which was a large oversight on our part, as this would not have allowed for explicit criteria (DET 2003) to be known.

Following the explanation, hand outs were given to each pair. Each handout was tailored to the pair’s hat with a description of their hat’s way of thinking. With these hand outs learners wrote down their responses. This part was okay as from going around a engaging in dialogue with participants, they appeared to have understood the concept.

However, following this part of the session, we asked learners to give us their responses and we wrote these on the white board. This process was rather slow and not engaging enough. It would have been better to ask participants to share their responses with the class and engage in dialogue about their experience.

We were supposed to use the responses that we wrote on the white board in the conclusion/reflection part of the session. However, we did not follow our session plan. Instead of questioning learners about thinking and using the hats to gain different perspectives about the Carbon Tax while using the responses as prompts, we told participants what they should have learnt. This did not allow for the development of understanding, nor did it allow for Critical Thinking or Reflection which is what we wanted to achieve.

Analysis

Prior to commencement of the session I thought our ideas were good. Particularly about using the Six Thinking Hats as they are a tool that I use in everyday situations to be aware of how I am thinking and reacting to a particular event that is occurring. I assumed that this may then be a tool learners could be use to develop an awareness of how they think and perceive situations thus create critical and reflective thinkers. However, the activity was not appropriate for the use of the hats. It was clear from participant feedback that we were not clear enough with what we were trying to achieve thus the creation of understanding was not achieved.

Our activity was also not appropriate for the 20 min time slot. If we wanted to develop reflective thinkers participants needed more time to engage in the activity as well as swap hats around. I also think participants needed more time to engage in dialogue about how they perceive their thinking processes and the effect this might have on how they look at the world around them. Although it was suggested through feedback that the Carbon Tax was possibly not an appropriate subject to use the Six Thinking Hats with, I tend to disagree as it is a contentious present subject that appears to be coloured by people’s biases towards the issue. I believe these biases are influenced by the way an individual looks at their world and this in turn is influenced by their thinking. However, to develop this idea that individuals’ perception of issues is influenced by the way they think requires activities that enable deep analysis and I do not think this activity was suited to that outcome. Through my experience as a teacher I know through the interaction between participants and us, as educators, this was not a deep learning experience.

Conclusions

Through this experience and other experiences teaching, I think I tend to develop learning experiences that set out to create reflective thinkers and develop deep understandings, however I think I make the process too complicated leaving participants disengaged and confused. Reflective Thinkers cannot be created in one 20 min lesson, it can however, build the foundations to develop reflective thinkers. I think I need to be aware of this when I am developing lessons and try to ‘unmuddle’ my thoughts so I do not have a complicated learning experience.

Action Plan

If I were to do this activity again it would not be for a 20 min time frame. I think an hour would be needed where participants can engage in longer dialogue with their pairs about their hat and following this engage in dialogue with other pairs about the type of thinking that happens under the hat they are using. Following this I think a whole class discussion would be required, where sitting in a circle, participants share their experience, how they perceive their way of thinking. Perhaps, then as small groups participants are given a scenario where each hat has to be used. Participants share findings with whole class and discuss how using all the hats may change the perception of a situation rather than just using the one.

Community Engagement as a learning tool for Education for Sustainable Development

Observation

To help me understand why having the community involved in decision making is a form of learning I read through the reference provided in GSE 827, Effective Engagement: Building relationships with community and other Stakeholders, Book One, An Introduction to Engagement (2005) by the Department of Sustainability and the Environment, Victoria. I also read the journal article by Martha C Monroe, Annie Oxarart, Lauren McDonell and Richard Plate (2009) entitled Using Community Forums to Enhance Public Engagement in Environmental Issues.

After reading these two texts I have discovered the following about ‘learning’:

• The process of learning outside the formal sector of education is different. Within the formal sector the educator has a captive audience, education within the community involves the educators seeking their intended learners.
• Although the term ‘Community Engagement’ does not immediately provide visions of learning, the processes involved in ‘community engagement’ are processes of learning. For example, as mentioned in previous blog, the NSW Quality Teaching Framework (DET, 2003) sets out three elements of learning and within these elements there are dimensions of the type of learning that should be occurring in schools. Some of these dimensions involve accessing background knowledge, participation of all learners, conversations about concepts are sustained, criteria is explicit, learners are engaged, strong support is offered by the teacher and learners direct their activities . Similarly, if we look at what the Department of Sustainability and Environment, Vic (2005) suggest is involved in effective Community Engagement, they state for a project to be successful it must have clear objectives, build consensus, be transparent, have information appropriate to audience capabilities, foster collaboration, build trust with community, foster participation, and build a feeling of ownership of decisions amongst community members. Although they use different language, the concepts are similar.
• Being aware of community knowledge and building upon community knowledge is important (Monroe et al 2009). This is similar to Friere (2003) of ‘problem-based’ learning. Learners are seen to bring with them to new learning experiences background knowledge. Through my learning to be a teacher, it is important to be aware of background knowledge and how to build from background knowledge as it makes the difference to whether or not understanding is created. If community knowledge is not known and acknowledged, I would suggest there is a great chance of community members becoming disengaged due to lack of understanding as well as a feeling that those who are trying to engage the community are not serious about the community being involved in the decision making process (Department of Sustainability and Environment Vic 2005).

Implication

I have realised that although the concepts of learning are similar in Community Engagement as they are in teaching in the formal sector, the role of the educator is vastly different.

In the formal sector the development of understanding within learners is the main goal. However, with Community Engagement, the main goal is coming to a decision about an issue within the community (Department of Sustainability and Environment Vic 2005) and as a result of the community being involved in the decision making process, community members gain new knowledge or knowledge is built upon (Monroe et al 2009).

Action

I think I need to learn more about how to be a community educator. While the skills I have are suited to an audience of five to twelve year olds they are not suited to an audience of community members. Below I have placed the models provided by the Department of Sustainability and the Environment, Vic (2005) and Monroe et al (2009) . I have adapted the model from the Department of Sustainability and the Environment Vic (2005) to show how it is a built upon process.
I believe by referring to these models I will be able to see how I can use the skills I already have and adapt them when working with communities.

Figure One: IAP2, adapted from Department of Sustinability and the Environment, Victoria (2005)

Figure Two: Taken from Monroe et al (2009) Shows the process of using a community Forum.

Monroe M C, Oxarart A, Mcdonell L and Plate R 2009 Using Community Forums to Enhance Public Engagement in Environmental Issues Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 3(2): 171-182.

Department of Sustainability and Environment Victoria 2005 Effective Engagement: Building relationships with community and other stakeholders- Book One: Introduction to Engagement The Community Engagement Network, East Melbourne.