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.

Summary of Tools for Public Participation

World Café -    Informal process involving participants sitting in groups discussing an issue of importance. Each group has a leader who is stationary, the rest of the group members move from group to group. Group discussions are built upon as each new group conversation is initiated. At the end, after three or so rounds, each group forms as a whole to discuss findings and emerging themes. (The Co-Intelligence Institute 2008 The World Café http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-worldcafe.html)

Participatory Rural Appraisal- PRA- PRA is a process in which communities help to make decisions on how to manage resources. It does not involve the use of high technology and allows the community to share their knowledge. It is a bottom-up process.

Open Space Technology – Conferences that allow for capacity building. Open Space Technology is initiated online. At the end of the conference a report is developed and is made available to the community. (Herman H 1998 What is Open Space Technology? Open Space World. http://www.openspaceworld.org/cgi/wiki.cgi?AboutOpenSpace)

Planning for real – Involves the community contributing to the needed changes in their area. A 3-D model is developed. This may be done by a local school. Community members are then asked to write or draw on a card what changes they wish to occur and place this on the model where they would like to see it occur. The process is anonymous and does not require literacy skills.

Citizen Juries- Involves the discussion of a randomly selected group of citizens about an issue regarding policy/planning. Citizen Juries sit for four days and are helped by a facilitator. Their conclusions are submitted to a commissioning body who choose to or choose not to implement recommendations. If they choose not to, they must explain why to the citizen jurors. (Carson L, Cole-Edelstein L and Hardy M 2000 Citizen Juries in Australia- A Discussion about Protocols  www.activedemocracy.net/articles/protocol.pdf)

Asset Based Community Development – Looks at the different skills embedded in a community and how these skills can be used to achieve a community goal.

A useful website for Asset Based Community Development http://www.abcdinstitute.org/

Reflection on the above Tools
The above tools were looked at in GSE 827, I have accessed information for some of the tools so I could further clarify my understanding.
At first I found it difficult to understand how the above tools are a form of learning. I assume this is to do with my background knowledge coming from a formal education context, where collaboration is important for learning but the result of collaboration is the development of deeper understandings and social skills, not a community decision.
I need to find out how the above tools are education and how they relate to Education for Sustainable Development.

The Earth Charter Principles in Action

Taken From http://milgistrust.wildlifedirect.org/category/samburu/

I believe this image and the episode from the BBC Series entitled Human Planet- Rivers, could be used to discuss the Earth Charter. This image and an excerpt from the Episode Rivers shows tribes men from Milgis Lugga waiting for elephants to dig up water from a dry river bed. Once the elephants have left, the tribes men dig the water into wells and drinking troughs for their animals. Once their animals and themselves have had their share of water, the men fill the troughs for the elephants and other wildlife. Truly inspiring. It shows how we as humans can work not only with but in harmony with our world instead of against it. Many lessons to be learnt about sustainable development through this image and the excerpt from the Human Planet series. Certainly shows the first principle of the Earth Charter.

Imagine all the People… Living life in Peace (John Lennon- Imagine) – Values Clarification and The Earth Charter – An achievable goal or are we dreamers?

I am attempting to answer my cognitive dilemma of which I mentioned in my blog on The Earth Charter. Following this dilemma of my cynicism towards the Earth Charter of it being too ‘idealistic’ I have read two articles: Earth Charter Education for Sustainable Ways of Living by Rick Clugston (2010) and The Way and What of ESD: A Rationale for Earth Charter Education (and Naming some of its difficulties) by Noel Preston (2010).

Through reading these articles I have not only come to question my assumptions about ‘idealism’ but have learnt much about the values clarification process.

To start I will first discuss what I have learnt from the values clarification process. Firstly, the values clarification process is a metacognitive process. Preston (2010) alludes to this notion when he mentions human’s ‘ability to think about thinking’ (p.188). Although I do not have a reference for the meaning of metacognition, from my learning to become a teacher in my undergraduate degree, this is what metacognition means.

It appears that it is our ability to be metacognitive that will allow us to clarify what our values are and question these values. It is only through the clarification of our values that we will come to see how they have become shaped and how they have an influence on the way we interact with our world. The Earth Charter is one way that we can learn to be metacognitive. Education has the ability to use The Earth Charter to teach values clarification (Preston 2010) and have individuals question the current world view.

To look at the notion of metacognition in another light, that of de Bono’s (1995) six thinking hats, it would require individuals to be wearing their Blue Hat.

Secondly, to be engaged in values clarification a learner is also engaged in systemic thinking. According to Clugston (2010) The Earth Charter ‘affirms the three pillars of sustainable development’ (p.160) and reveals how each one is interconnected. This is reaffirmed by Preston (2010) in quoting Martin Luther King Jr ‘We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garmet of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all’ (p.189). In other words, through clarifying our values through the Earth Charter we become aware of the interconnectedness of everything on earth.

Lastly, I have learnt that education is not, nor will it ever be value free. Therefore it is important to clarify one’s values. The Earth Charter gets individuals to question the notion of anthropocentrism and look at thinking about things through a notion of care for the ‘community of life’ (Clugston 2010)

I believe many would question this notion of caring for the ‘community of life’. The idea of clarifying ones values through a document that clearly has a hidden agenda. Yet if Preston (2010) is correct when he suggests that education is not value free, is it not a good thing to clarify ones values? And if we were to clarify our values, is it really that worrying to clarify them through a Charter that seeks to achieve a betterment of all Earth’s life?

In relation to questioning my assumptions about ‘idealism’ I have come to the conclusion that this notion of mine is not really my belief. It has been influenced through dialogue with others over the notion of sustainable development and their reactions to what it means. While I do believe the Earth Charter shows an ‘ideal’ world I do not think ‘ideal’ is such an unachievable goal. I have questioned myself of this notion through dialogue with others, but after reading these two articles I think we need some positive thinking. I am reminded of a quote that was used in a workshop I attended on Sustainability by Henry Ford ‘If you think you can you are probably right, if you think you can’t you are probably right too’. This notion of ‘idealism’ and it being unrealistic was revealed to me when Clugston (2010) quoted Rose Marie Inojosa  ‘The Earth Charter encourages everybody to search for a common ground in the midst of human diversity and to embrace a global ethic that is shared by an ever growing number of people throughout the world’ (p162). When I read this statement I was filled with the questions I had been asked about idealism by many when I talk about sustainable development and having a world of social, interspecies and intergenerational equity. Now I view this as too much of de Bono’s (1995) Black Hat thinking. If we all thought that it was too ideal we would never get anywhere.

I think people underestimate the power of one individual. I know through this notion of ‘idealism’ that many feel that they cannot make a difference. However, now I will ask those who question their ability to think in this way. ‘Imagine if everybody thought this way of thinking (The Earth Charter) was too idealistic, would we achieve sustainable development. Now, imagine everyone believed The Earth Charter could be achieved. What sort of world would it be?’

This power of the individual is supported by Fein (2003) in his article Learning to Care: Education and Compassion. He alludes to the fact that often environmental education forgets about personal change; that is the individual side of sustainable development. Perhaps we need more focus on the transformation of the individual not just governments and big industries.

Perhaps we can achieve a sustainable world, it just requires a different way of thinking.

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

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

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.

Some useful Resources for Values Clarification and the Earth Charter

We Value - This website provides an assessment framework to measure values. According to the website it makes values-based indicators easily accessible to as many organisations as possible. It may be possible to use this to assess the process of values clarification within education programs.
Guide for using Earth Charter in Education - Although the website would not let me download this file, it would be a useful tool in developing values clarification programs in education.
Earth Charter Virtual Library

The Earth Charter - A summary

According to The Earth Charter Initiative Website (n.d.) The Earth Charter is a document that sets out four ethical principles that set out to achieve a just, sustainable and peaceful world society. The main aim through these principles is to instill in all individuals a sense of shared responsibility for the well being of all human life, non-human life and future generations.

Listed below are the four principles and a summary of their outcomes and indicators.

Principle One – Respect and Care for the Community of Life-  This principle aims to achieve a care and compassion for that which is beyond the individual self. It seeks to achieve a sense of respect and responsibility for all life, non- human and human and to achieve this an awareness of how systems on earth are interrelated needs to be achieved. It seeks to build democratic, peaceful and just societies through the building of the notion of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It aims to that we need to recognise the actions we partake in today have the potential to affect future generations and the need to hand down our values and traditions to the generations to come.

Principle Two- Ecological Integrity – This principle sets out outcomes and indicators that look at protecting and conserving biological diversity. It seeks to instill the notion that we have a responsibility for the actions we take and the potential impact these will have on the environment. Similar to principle one, we are to be aware of the interrelatedness of all biological forms on this planet and the possible affect one action we make in one area could impact another area. Through this awareness we are to consciously seek to do no harm to the environment and its life giving resources. It also mentions the importance of transparency of scientific knowledge and the recognition of traditional cultural knowledge that contributes to protection and conservation.

Principle Three – Social and Economic Justice – Social and Economic Justice looks at the need to eradicate poverty, social inequities like gender inequality, discrimination, inability to access education, and the lack of distribution of wealth within and among nations. It seeks to achieve trade that supports sustainability and the rights of those individuals who are involved in the trading process. It aims to make multinational businesses accountable in their actions and to be transparent in their activities.

Principle Four – Democracy, Non-Violence, and Peace- This principle seeks democratic processes, the involvement of all stakeholders in decision making processes, the freedom of individual expression and opinions, to gather in peaceful assembly and the right to a fair justice system. It seeks to eliminate corruption and empower communities so they are able to care for their environment. It aims to achieve education for all children and youth that allows them to feel empowered to achieve sustainability and that recognises the importance of moral and spiritual education in achieving this goal. It seeks to prevent the unnecessary suffering of all animals, domesticated and wild, at the hands of humans and aims to eliminate the uninhibited taking of non-targeted species. Lastly, this principle seeks to achieve cooperation between nations and people, to prevent armed conflict, to seek military resources being converted to achieve peaceful purposes including aims to help restore environments. Overall, to recognise the need for peace and to achieve peace.

Personal Opinion of the Earth Charter

When I first read the Earth Charter my impression was that it is a very idealistic declaration. This cannot be achieved. Perhaps I need to question where this cynical assumption is coming from, what thinking am I using in coming to this conclusion or, is this thinking being influenced by others?

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.

With all your power. What would you do?(Flaming Lips- Yeah Yeah Yeah Song)

Power and Partnerships

Observation

In class, we talked about power and the ability of partnerships to disseminate power if partnerships are affective. Although we mostly looked at power and partnerships in relation to stakeholder engagement, I find this notion can cross over into the formal education setting. In particular, the power within the partnership between student and teacher.

After reading through an excerpt from Friere’s (1972, 2003) Pedagogy of the Oppressed and an article entitled The Real Challenge of ESD by M.G. Jackson (2011) it became apparent that educators and consequently education systems have the ability to ‘oppress’ or ‘liberate’ (Friere 2003) learners. I have come to the conclusion, after reading these two texts, that ‘oppression’ or ‘liberation’ is dependent upon the predominant world view that the educator is operating in as well the educator’s philosophy on learning.

To first discuss Friere’s (2003) Pedagogy of the oppressed, Friere (2003) talks about two philosophies of education, one is the ‘banking’ approach to learning and the other is ‘Problem Posing’ approach to learning. According to Friere (2003), educators who follow a ‘banking’ approach to learning see learners as merely empty vessels with no prior knowledge, whose sole purpose is to sit, listen and absorb information. This type of philosophy does not view learning in terms of systemic thinking or critical thinking. In fact, the ‘banking’ concept sets out to achieve conformity and acceptance of dominant world views (something Jackson discusses). He calls this view of learning necrophilic. Without directly alluding to the notion of unsustainability, necrophily creates an unsustainable society. This is revealed in Friere’s (2003) reference to Fromm’s explanation of necrophily. ‘The necrophilis person is driven by the desire to transform the organic into the inorganic….he loves control, and in the act of controlling he kills life.’ (p.61) This quote from Fromm reveals the power imbalance between educators who hold this philosophy and their learners and consequently between humans and the living planet. The ‘banking’ concept overpowers learners and moulds them into the educator’s view of the world, to control. For control is what the ‘banking’ concept sets out to achieve and in doing so creates learners who set out to achieve the same goal in their interactions with the world.

In contrast, Friere (2003) wishes for an education system that uses ‘problem-posing’, this concept seeks to change the imbalance of power between the educator and the learner. As he states ‘The teacher is no longer…the-one-who-teaches, but who is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach’ (Friere 2003 p63). Unlike the ‘banking’ concept it seeks to create sustainability, ‘arguments based on ‘authority’ are no longer valid; in order to function, authority must be on the side of freedom, not against it’ (Friere 2003 p63). It fosters critical thinking and reflection on how we, as humans, interact with our world.

While Friere(2003) looked at the two different partnerships  between learners and educators, Jackson (2011) looks at how education systems are designed to perpetuate the dominant world view or unsustainability and offers a way to overcome this disempowerment of learners. He offers two steps to be taken. The first step he refers to as ‘transformative learning’ in which assumptions about how an individual views the world and how this relates to the dominant world view is questioned. New world views are visualised (similar to envisioning) and these new views are put into practice. The second step is developing new formal educational programs. According to Jackson (2011) ‘the purpose of formal education is to perpetuate an existing cultural model.’ (p.29) Jackson (2011) proposes new formal educational programs that are born from the development of alternative world views that come from the ‘transformative learning’ process. He suggests that they should encompass Sterling’s ‘third-order’ thinking in which learners question their current dominant social paradigm and develop new ways of viewing the world.

Jackson (2011) questions whether or not society would accept this transformation in education. I tend to agree with him as I find myself asking whether or not the power balance within his model of education is equal. Is there a hidden agenda from the educator? Then again, perhaps my questioning is influenced by the unconscious hold the dominant world view has over me?

Implication

There is a power issue in the partnerships between learner and educator and formal education and the dominant world view. The power can be balanced or tipping towards those with the control (educator and the dominant world view). Even I find I am influenced by the dominant world view that would suggest that there is nothing wrong with the current formal education system. Yet there is. When the power in partnerships is imbalanced like those between learner and educator or formal education system and the dominant world view, it creates unsustainable practices. Power has to be equal for Sustainable Development to succeed.

Action

I need to be more aware of how the dominant world view affects my thinking. I have to start thinking outside the box. I need to realise that our partnerships with each other and the environment is not equal. Power is imbalanced, this is evident in the social inequities present in society and our lack of regard for our species when it comes to meeting our own needs. I have to stop hesitating when thinking that perhaps there is nothing wrong with the current world view and that these new ways of thinking are too radical. Imbalances of power cannot be the right thing. Power needs to be equal in all partnerships, within formal education and outside. I need to bring this thinking to the table as an educator.

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

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

Critical Thinking and Consumerism

We may be drawn to this ad through the empathy and compassion we feel for the polar bear and the loss of its habitat due to global warming, but is this ad really about helping the environment?
Using Tilbury and Wortman's (2004) Critical Thinking we could ask these questions to find out what this ad is really selling us:
What are your first impressions of this advertisement?
What things in this advertisement caused you to form these impressions?
What assumptions do you hold about sustainability that this ad was able to bring to the surface?
What do you think you are really being sold?
What do you think were the assumptions of the advertisers in relation to Sustainable Development and audience context when creating this advertisement?
These questions may draw about what is really being sold in the advertisement as well as the hidden assumptions that we may hold about sustainability as well as the assumptions of the advertisers.

In contrast we could compare this advertisement with the one shown above:

In comparing the two advertisements we could ask:
What are the assumptions of sustainability behind each advertisement ?
Does this advertisement change your perception of the previous advertisement? Why/Why not?
Which advertisement do you think is truly showing sustainability or are do they both have hidden agendas?

De- Bono's (1995) Six Thinking Hats could also be used to bring about how the learner might be thinking about these advertisements and what is influencing their type of thinking. It could also bring about questions in regards to whether or not changing the way we think changes our perception. For example: if you are operating under the Red Hat when looking at these advertisements, one might perceive them as being both good advertisers who are trying to do their bit on the quest for sustainability as the polar bear brings out an emotional response, particularly with the polar bear hugging the man in the first ad. However, if we change our view and look at them from Black Hat thinking one might become skeptical about the ads and wonder what really is the message behind the advertisements.

De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats - Creating Critical and Reflective Thinking.

Taken from http://www.workplacehealthcare.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/de-bono-hats.jpg

According to Tilbury and Wortman (2004) Critical Thinking and Reflection ‘challenges us to examine the way we interpret the world and how our knowledge and opinions are shaped by those around us.’ (p. 32) they also suggest that it challenges us to question our current way of thinking. I believe De Bono’s (1995) six thinking hats is a tool that can be used to start learners thinking about the way they think. This also ties in with Bennet’s (2006) creating Multiple Historical perspectives.

Although De- Bono (1995) may have created the six thinking hats to develop an individual’s creativity, I have come to interpret the six thinking hat system as a way to develop an awareness of how we think and how our thinking can influence the way we perceive a given situation.

In the six thinking hat system each coloured hat represents a different way of thinking.  WHITE Hat = Facts/ Figures/ Information: Thinking about what information do I have and what are the facts about what I am thinking about.

BLACK Hat = I like to call this hat the What if…? Hat, this hat looks at what could be the negative consequences, where should caution be taken in the given situation.

YELLOW Hat = Positives: This hat requires thinkers to look at the positives of a situation. I like to think of this hat as the ‘optimistic’ hat.

RED Hat = Emotions/ Feelings: Looking at a situation through how the thinker is feeling towards the situation.

GREEN Hat =  Creativity/ New Ideas: This hat requires thinkers to think about the possible eventualities of the situation. What new ideas could come out of this situation?

BLUE Hat= I like to refer to this hat as the Metacogntion hat (Thinking about the way you think). This hat requires learners to think about how they are thinking during a situation. It creates awareness of an individual’s current thinking.

I believe these hats are a good way to create an awareness within individuals of their own thinking. Which, in turn, can lead to reflective thinkers. I also believe it is a useful tool in creating holistic thinking as it can be suggested to learners that the way we think affects the way we interpret a situation. If, as individuals, we use all six thinking hats when looking at a situation then we are more likely to have a more valid view of the situation as we are not being influenced by one form of thinking, we are looking at it from multiple view points.

Activities using the six thinking hats may involve learners being given a scenario or situation for example Australia’s Carbon Tax or a new development being built next to a protected habitat. Learners may be given a particular hat to think under, using their hats they are required to note down the ways they might view the situation or scenario from that way of thinking. Following this learners share their notes on their particular way of thinking, this may lead to a discussion about whether or not learners can see themselves falling under one particular hat in their thinking, discuss how their view of the situation is influenced through thinking under their given hat, discuss what type of view would occur if an individual wore all six hats.

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

If teachers and their students are not engaged in critical thought….education is likely to result in indoctrination rather than ethical insights based on core values such as acceptance..appreciation of cultural diversity, respect for human dignity and universal human rights, responsibility for world community, and respect for the earth. (Bennet 2006)

Multicultural and Global Education (is it another name for EfSD?)

Observation

The above quote is taken from a chapter of a book entitled Comprehensive Multicultural Education: Theory and Practice. In this chapter Bennet (2006) looks at developing lessons that are inclusive of all cultures and their perspectives. She mentions ‘rethinking the curriculum’ and states six goals that Multicultural and Global Education seeks to achieve. These goals are : 1. Develop Multiple Historical Perspectives (awareness of all cultural viewpoints) 2. Strengthening Cultural Consciousness (An awareness that a personal view is not universal, that an individual’s point of view is influenced by their culture) 3. Strengthen Intercultural Competence (An awareness of the assumptions that may be held about other cultural backgrounds, emphasis on creating compassion and empathy.) 3. Combat Racism, Sexism and all form of prejudice and discrimination 6. Increase awareness of the state of the planet and global dynamics 7. To build social action skills. She also states that lesson planning in Multicultural and Global education follows the same process as effective lesson planning, however ‘multicultural and global lessons are based on a special rationale that clarifies the instructor’s values and goals (Bennet 2006 p.326).

As well as the mentioned goals, Multicultural and Global education emphasises Critical Thinking. This can be seen in the quote given at the start of this reflection. According to Bennet (2006) critical thinking is ‘essential’ in Multicultural and Global education as it makes learners aware of their own assumptions and biases. Critical Thinkers question given ‘truths’ and seek to see a given situation from all perspectives.  It also causes learners to stop and think about how they are thinking (metacognition).

Implication

It is interesting to note that although Bennet (2006) does not refer to Sustainable Development, in a sense her Multicultural and Global education is Education for Sustainable Development. Although there is more of an emphasis on understanding and awareness of cultures and beliefs, she appears to acknowledge that social and cultural equity goes hand in hand with environmental degradation, governance and development. Her last goal is also ‘Social Action’; a goal that is also of Education for Sustainable Development. Critical Thinking is emphasised, this is an element of Education for Sustainable Development.

It is also interesting that Bennet (2006) suggests ‘rethinking the curriculum’, something that is suggested by Sterling (2004) in Tilbury and Wortman’s (2004) Engaging people in Sustainability and Jucker (2011).

Does this further validate a need for a new ‘Educational Paradigm’?

Action

I find at times when I hear a suggestion for a ‘shift’ in societal norms, like the current practice of education, there is a moment of hesitation. I believe this moment of hesitation comes from the fact that as a ‘critical thinker’ I question something that is suggesting a radical shift. The reasoning behind this questioning is that like myself, who holds assumptions and biases, could these radical shifts also hold assumptions and biases? Having said that, I do believe we need to be looking more deeply into what is learnt in the current education system. Living in a world where there is still social inequity and degradation of the environment cannot be the right way of living. Why shouldn’t we not live and learn in a world that fosters critical thinking, social equity, care for the environment and social action? Would an ‘education paradigm shift’ to this be an infringement on our rights and freedoms? On the contrary, I think it would create deeper learning experiences and, as suggested by Bennet (2006) compassion and empathy.

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.

Resources taken from an Education for Sustainability Workshop

The following activity involved learners reading the definitions of Sustainable Development and highlighting the key words that resonated with the learners. Learners then have to state what Sustainability means to them.

The following image is of a handout given that shows how values, attitudes and behaviours are related and how these affect Sustainability.

These three activities followed from the above hand out. The first activity required learners to think about what is most important to them. Using the list of values on the sheet, learners were required to write down three of their three most highly valued values. Following this activity, learners were then required to analyse one of their core values.

The last activity involved working in a pair. Learners were required to take one of two positions. One of the learners had to hold a photograph of a situation. They were first required to be an outsider looking onto the situation. The other learner asked them the questions in Step One. The learner holding the photograph was then required to put themselves in the position of those in the photograph and answer the questions in Step Two. The third step involved the learner holding the photograph to reflect on the experience.

These activities were apparently taken from Murray P 2011 The Sustainable Self : A Personal Approach to Sustainability Education

Resources taken from an Education for Sustainability Workshop

In May of this year I attended a workshop held at the Graduate School of the Environment, Macquarie University. The workshop, entitled Education for Sustainability, was run by Sandra Nichols and involved a two hour session looking at the concept of Sustainability and our personal perceptions of Sustainability. I have attached resources taken from this research that can be used when conducting Education for Sustainable Development.
This first resource is a list of practices an individual can take to achieve a sustainable lifestyle.

This second resource is of two pictures. We were required to give our thoughts of each picture. The picture depicting the ship, we were required to state what sustainability issues we could see in this picture. Responses were mainly in regards to the process of shipment being an unsustainable form of transporting goods. The reasons for this response ranged from the potential that the ship could be carrying oil, with oil being a natural resource that is at present depleting and with the possibility of the ship causing an oil spill. The use of fuel to transport goods was also mentioned, as well as the possible damage to the ocean floor due to anchoring, disturbance to marine biodiversity and the possibility of pollution from the waste of those on board.
The second picture depicting the blurred image of a car traveling into a deserted area where there is no fuel, we were required to state what we thought was the message behind the image. Personally, I stated that I believed the message was that as a society we a traveling fast into the future without stopping to have a look at the potential consequences of our actions. The blur symbolises this lack of reflection as well as our lack of a vision for the future. The desolate landscape reveals that the future is lacking in resources and we are traveling into this future with one resource that will eventually run out. This is seen in the image of the sign post.