This blog was created as part of a university assignment to showcase reflections on issues in Education for Sustainability. Since completion of this subject, this blog is still in action, reflecting on environment, environmental education and education for sustainability. It is hoped through engaging in these issues there can be a change towards a better world where the environment, other species and social equity matter.
As an educator who will, hopefully, be involved in initiating envisioning exercises I feel it is important to first participate in this activity. It is only through experiencing envisioning that I have become aware of the possible thinking processes a learner may experience during this exercise. Thereby, I can anticipate what a learner may be thinking and can guide them appropriately through the envisioning exercise.
During both envisioning exercises I had moments of hesitation when I thought that my ‘vision’ may not be ‘correct’ or ‘realistic’. However, I was aware I was thinking this way during the activity and directed myself away from these hesitations to allow myself to complete the exercise. I found that if I allowed to think that my ‘vision’ was ‘incorrect’ or ‘unrealistic’ it prevented me from continuing the envisioning exercise.
Implication
I believe often, as learners, we can become apprehensive about getting something ‘wrong’ which can stop us from truly engaging in an activity. We can be so tied to being ‘right’ that we do not proceed through a task where we may see ourselves fail. I believe these feelings inhibit quality learning. Envisioning confronts these feelings and makes learners work beyond these feelings as, with envisioning, there is not ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer. Envisioning is about one’s own personal vision, it doesn’t have to be realistic and there is no room for judgment from others. Whatever the individual wants the future to be is up to them.
However, there is room for reflection on the vision. Reflection after envisioning exercise is not about whether an individual’s vision is ‘wrong’ or ‘unrealistic’, reflection is about questioning what assumptions the individual may hold about present day society as well as the future as to how their vision came about.
Action
Now that I am aware of the thinking processes that can occur during visioning I am better able to guide learners through the envisioning process. I will be able to suggest to learners to not hesitate with their vision, there is not right or wrong vision. I will also be able to suggest to learners that reflecting on one’s vision does not mean criticising and picking out where their vision may be wrong, but it is about being aware of one’s own assumptions.
This is a personal example of an Envisioning Tree. This is an envisioning exercise suggested by Tilbury and Wortman (2004). In this example I have used the potential change of the use of renewable resources. The groups affected by this change I have suggested to be Third-world producers, The Community, Employees and Industry. The consequences I envisaged for this change can be seen in the extending branches.
The is an example of a drawing I undertook of my vision of the future. In this exercise the educator/facilitator/ teacher asks learners to close their eyes and imagine they are stepping into the future. Learners are asked, what do they see? They are then asked to express this vision in any way they choose. I chose to do a drawing of the things I would like to see in the future.
Following the first workshop for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) I was confronted with my assumptions about education in general and about ESD. I was also confronted by my conflicting beliefs in regards to what I view to be the role of education and what I view to be the role of ESD.
My assumptions about education in general were confronted when the quote: ‘Sustainable development has been described in general terms. How are individuals in the real world to be persuaded or made to act in the common interest? The answer lies partly in education, institutional development and law enforcement’ (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987) was discussed.
Previously, I believed, the role of education is not to ‘persuade’ or ‘make’ someone act in a way that is perceived as desirable. I believed that education is about supplying the support of quality teaching and quality learning environment so learners become informed thinkers and decision makers, thus obtaining the ability to behave in a way that is considered ‘right’. However, with closer inspection, I have come to believe that I am viewing the meaning of ‘persuade’ and ‘make’ in the wrong context. To view these two terms in another light, we could say that providing quality teaching and learning environments is an act of subtle persuasion and making someone behave in a desired fashion. Therefore it is the job of education to ‘persuade’ and ‘make’ but to do so in a way that is not detrimental to a person’s rights.
However, it is not just the job of education, as stated ‘The answer lies partly with education…’. I view this as meaning that although education may be able to set up the support through quality teaching and learning, there will be individuals who are not ‘persuaded’ or ‘made’ to act in this context. It is then up to institutions and the law to support education in influencing individuals to behave in a way that is considered acceptable.
My assumptions about ESD were confronted when looking at the slide ‘Educational shifts proposed by EfSD’. Not only were they confronted, they were revealed to me. The revelation was in the suggestions that the process of ‘seeing people as the problem’ to sustainable development has evolved into the concept of ‘seeing people as facilitators of change’ and ‘changing behaviour’ evolved to ‘more focus on structural and institutional change’. While I nodded my head to these concepts evolving, I was also aware that at times I do see humans as the problem and I do see that we need to change behaviour. This is my own bias and cynicism at times to human behaviour. It was only through reading that we should be looking at it through a different light that I realise viewing sustainable development and environmental issues in this light is shortsighted and quite bigoted.
Similarly, if we look at changing the message of environmental issues to ‘Love, not loss’, as viewed in the IUCN advertisement, we can see that the loss message is not changing attitudes. We need to change how we view EfSD.
We could look at the changing concepts as being: if something isn’t happening, change what you are doing.
Implication
Becoming aware of my own biases and assumptions is confronting and humbling. I realise I need to start looking at education more deeply instead of the naive view or rather, head in the sand view, that education is about guiding individuals to make their own informed choices. Education is about having an agenda and I don’t think this is a bad thing depending on the context. In relation to sustainable development, environmental education and working with others, I think having an agenda is a positive way to view education.
I also realise the irony and opposing views that I have about education. While I believed it wasn’t about persuasion and making people behave in a certain way, I was happy to accept that ESD was about changing behaviour and people are the problem to ESD.
Action
Perhaps I need to take my own advice of ‘if something isn’t happening, change what you are doing’. It now seems obvious that I need to change my views about education in general and ESD as they are conflicting. I think they need to be the same. I need to stop being cynical about ‘humans’ and start seeing them as the agent for change, I also need to open my eyes to what education really is. It is about having an agenda. The reason why I started education was to have an influence on others to have compassion for that which is beyond themselves and interact positively with their world. Therefore education does have an agenda. This does not mean ‘persuading’ or ‘making’ a person act in a way that is beneficial to society is a bad thing. On the contrary, it is a good thing. Education does need to have an agenda.
If I want to be an effective educator I need to accept that I have an agenda and I need to realise my biases and work to change them. If I change them, like IUCN has with their ‘love, not loss’ message, I may grow as an educator.
Individuals envision what they wish the future to look like. This can be done in a variety of ways. Individuals are then asked questions that uncover personal beliefs, biases and assumptions.
Tasks that require individuals to imagine a better future moves away from the negativity that can be associated with Environmental Education.
Individuals are also required to question their visions.
Future trees- individuals consider the possible future impacts of a change. The change is drawn on a tree trunk with the impacted groups as the main branches and the consequences as smaller branches stemming from the main branches.
A history of the future- Individuals imagine themselves living in a more sustainable future 50 years from the present. Individuals then construct a visual history of how the change came to be.
Timelines- Personal, community or national timeline. Important past events are put on a timeline with an alternative scenario for the future built onto the timeline.
Other examples- Steps to Change, alternative futures cartoons, scenario construction.
May be confronting for those who are not used to sharing their personal views. As such tasks may need to be adapted. For example: Discussing visions in small groups and having the option to volunteer visions in a whole group structure.
Critical Thinking and Reflection
Individuals examine how they interpret the world and what influences their interpretation.
Individuals come to understand how our views can be influenced by others, media, advertising and politics.
Allows individuals to understand how our views can be shaped by outside influences and how this relates to sustainability.
Self-Reflection allows individuals to clarify values.
Questioning advertisements- What am I being sold? What qualities is it attributing to the product? How might this advertisement affect the way we think?
Reflective Journal
Bloom’s Taxonomy of higher order thinking.
Self-reflection and critical thinking can be challenging for those who have not been involved in such a process before. Open ended questioning is needed.
Individuals may be confronted by their long held beliefs and values being determined by outside influences.
Participation in Decision Making
Participations involves all members of society in decision making. It is a shared process free from manipulation or passive involvement. Involves the government, industry, community groups and individuals.
It is a learner centred and learner guided practice with the educator as facilitator.
Through interaction and dialogue learners build a deeper understanding of their values and beliefs.
Individuals build confidence, persuasion skills, negotiation skills, thinking through problems and leadership skills.
Participatory Mapping- Does not require literacy.
Effective group work- Each member of the group having a role with scenarios to work on. Each new activity group members change roles.
Roles- Leader, Scribe, researcher, presenter.
Time consuming and change can be slow.
Requires patience, commitment and willingness to put decisions in the hands of learners.
Facilitators need to have skills in conflict management and be aware of power structures within participants.
Challenges power structures present within participants.
Partnerships
Partnerships allow for combination of resources and talents. They break hierarchies and motivate action for the future.
Stakeholders work collaboratively.
Requires time and persistence.
Must be transparent at all times.
Each stakeholder must be represented.
Commitment and motivation of partners must be maintained over time.
Systemic Thinking
An alternative way of traditional ways of thinking. No longer analysing and understanding things by taking them apart.
It is interdisciplinary and participative.
A holistic way of thinking.
Problems are not looked at separately but interconnected.
It looks at assumptions, patterns and connections.
3 Parts- Perception- extending our view point beyond what we can see, Conception- recognising patterns and connections, Action- action is holistic and integrates.
What’s in a Name?- Looks at how labeling an issue can affect our perceptions, eg ‘economic issue’.
Learners name an environmental issue. It is not suggested to be local, national or global. Write topics on the board without dissuasion. Choose one that will be looked at in this activity. Divide learners into groups. Using pre-prepared cards with a label on it, hand one to each group. Eg. A label could state economic, social, ethical, political, human rights, intergenerational etc.
This is then said to the group: ‘You have defined an environmental issue. But is it only an environmental issue? In this activity, you will explore it by thinking about it in different terms too.’
Each group is asked to discuss their label in relation to their environmental issue. Each group is then asked to speak to the class as a whole about their label stating first: ‘This issue is an (their given label) issue because….’
While they speak construct a spider diagram on the board to illustrate main points.
Once each group has shared their findings with the class, question: What sort of issue is this environmental problem? (It may now been seen from many perspectives) How has the use of many labels changed how you see this environmental issue? Is there such thing as only an ‘environmental’ issue?
Children appear to think this way quite naturally but as they progress through the education system it appears to disappear.
It appears that both Jucker (2011) and Tilbury and Wortman (2004) are suggesting that the current education climate is a barrier to Sustainable Development (SD). Jucker (2011) believes that education as it currently operates promotes unsustainability while Tilbury and Wortman (2004) see that new learning approaches are being called for in education yet few educators are trained or experienced in new ways of teaching.
Through personal interpretation of these two articles, both Jucker (2011) and Tilbury and Wortman (2004) are calling for a revolution in education. One that does not follow a pattern of the traditional three R’s or a behaviourist perspective of learning that at times seems to fill current pedagogy. This revolution they are seeking, although not mentioned by Jucker (2011) and Tilbury and Wortman (2004) is already set up to happen. This can be seen through the New South Wales Quality Teaching Framework (Department of Education and Training, DET 2003). The Quality Teaching Framework sets out areas of learning that should be happening for quality teaching and learning to occur. The areas of learning that the Quality Teaching Framework describes is similar to the areas that both Jucker (2011) and Tilbury and Wortman (2004) suggest need to be apart of pedagogy for successful Education for Sustainable Development (EfSD). Jucker (2011) calls this a paradigm shift in education. It, therefore, appears that Jucker’s (2011) paradigm shift already has the necessary frameworks in education, like the NSW Quality Teaching Framework (2003), for this paradigm shift to occur. This then leads to two questions that need to be answered: If the Quality Teaching Framework is similar to the learning areas that need to be addressed in EfSD, then does this mean that quality teaching and learning should produce education that fosters sustainability? And if, as Jucker (2004) suggests, EfSD is not happening, does this mean quality teaching and learning is not happening?
Implication
There are two implications that are brought about when Jucker (2011) and Tilbury and Wortman’s (2004) articles are analysed. The first implication is that EfSD is not occurring successfully, the second is the implication this then has for the current pedagogical practices that are currently being used in education systems. As mentioned, the areas of learning that need to be addressed for EfSD to occur is similar to the areas that are suggested by the NSW Quality Teaching Framework for quality learning to occur(DET 2003). If EfSD is not occurring what is happening to learning in education? If the current education climate is not producing Critical Thinking, reflection, participation and systemic thinking which are both suggested by Jucker (2011), Tilbury and Wortman (2004) and the Quality Teaching Framework (DET 2003), what is happening in our education systems? These areas create autonomous thinking, informed decision makers and the ability to see beyond the ‘box’. These are necessary skills for a sustainable society as well as effective learning and effective life skills.
Does this mean the education system is producing an unsustainable and a non-autonomous society?
Action
Perhaps I am reading too much into the correlation between what makes quality learning and what makes a sustainable society. However, I do believe they are linked and if they are, what does this mean for the current education climate? Perhaps we do need Jucker’s (2011) paradigm shift. Yet if the framework is there in the education system already, why isn’t this paradigm shift occurring. Personally, I have not seen the Quality Teaching Framework (2003) being put into action in schools. It is still about standardised testing and getting good results in English and Mathematics.
This paradigm shift has been mentioned by Ken Robinson, a creativity expert, on a TED talk. According to Robinson, education is more about mass production of ‘educated’ individuals rather than quality learning. He suggests that the current education climate stifles autonomous thinking and thinking outside the ‘box’. Robinson suggests that the current education climate kills this type of thinking, something which he suggests children can do quite easily but as they move through the education system, they lose it. This is also suggested by Dr Stephen Sterling (2004) in Tilbury and Wortman (2004) when discussing systemic thinking- ‘children seem to think this way quite naturally, but maybe it’s knocked out of them later.’ (p.91).
So what action do we take to create a sustainable society if our education system is not delivering quality teaching? Perhaps we offer better training in the quality teaching model as well as the elements that Jucker (2011) and Tilbury and Wortman (2004) suggest are needed for EfSD. Perhaps the action needed is bigger than this, maybe it needs to be a change of values within the education system, where autonomous thinking is regarded higher than the score an individual achieves in a test. How do we change this though? For, if we want a sustainable future and where decisions are made through self-reflection and critical thinking, what is considered to be an important ‘result’ in education needs to be changed. Tilbury, D. & Wortman, D. (2004) Engaging People in Sustainability, Commission on Education and Communication IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK.
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.
NSW DET 2003 Quality Teaching in NSW Public Schools Department of Education and Training Professional Support and Curriculum Directorate, Sydney.
Robinson K 2010 Changing Education Paradigms TED Talk http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html 5 Aug 2011
