30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
Out-Smart? Provision of Environmental and Sustainability Education Outdoors Post-Covid and Professional Learning
Greg Mannion1, Claire Ramjan2, Stacey McNicol1, Matthew Sowerby1
1University of Stirling, Scotland, United Kingdom; 2University of the West of Scotland, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Mannion, Greg;
Ramjan, Claire
Introduction & Policy Context
Many practitioners and educators in Environmental and Sustainability Education (ESE) provide opportunities for learning in outdoor environments. The links are being made between the theoretical and practice traditions of ‘outdoor education’ (OE), ‘outdoor learning, (OL), ‘out-of-school learning’ (OSL), and LoTC (Learning outside the Classroom LoTC) (see Dyment and Potter 2015, Hill et al 2021). Some particular forms of science education, geography fieldwork and play in early years are in some countries seen as more directly relevant to ESE. However, outdoor provision can also include subjects such as mathematics, art, literacy and history with potential links to ESE as a cross-curricular form. As the terms ‘outdoor learning’ and ‘outdoor play’ gain in use internationally, we need surveys of provision to understand links between OL and ESE, and if there is change over time.
In Scotland, we have had over a decade since the publication of Curriculum for Excellence through Outdoor Learning (2010). Focusing on ESE, the policy Learning for Sustainability (LfS) positions outdoor learning, sustainable development education, and citizenship education as a three-way ‘entitlement’ for all pupils. Our current study sets out to inform our understanding of the degree of progress towards this outdoor entitlement.
In the Scottish context, the Educational outcomes of Learning for Sustainability: literature review (Christie & Higgins 2020) provide us with valuable summaries of the possible outcomes of LfS provision and a basis for supporting increased provision of OL as part of LfS. Beames and Polack (2019) partly pre-empt findings here. They looked at inspection reports in Scotland (2011 – 2018) wherein OL ‘grounds, local green space or local community during school hours’ appeared in ¾ of primary schools’ inspections.
Literature
Some studies (for example: in Canada, see Asfeldt et al. 2020; in Hungary, Fuz 2018; in England, Prince, 2019; in New Zealand, Hill et al 2020) have sought to conduct empirical research at national and international levels of outdoor learning provision but the links between OL and ESE provision remain somewhat obscured. In Scottish educational settings, access to outdoor learning experiences is defined as an entitlement for all pupils and some studies explore pupil and teacher experience in ESE (see also Mannion et al 2013, Lynch and Mannion 2021, Ruck 2022). Through the implementation of Curriculum for Excellence and other policy drivers such as Learning for Sustainability, there is the requirement that all teachers are able to demonstrate a commitment to taking learning outdoors (Christie et al 2019).
Young people’s own research about outdoor provision and LfS are increasing in scope and criticality. Teach The Future – an amalgam of young people’s environmental groups – have called for the existing commitments to outdoor learning to be fulfilled; they emphasise the need for ‘connection to nature’ and learning about the ‘climate emergency and ecological crisis (Teach the Future 2020). In addition, a Children’s Parliament inquiry (Children’s Parliament, 2022) remind civic bodies that young people have a right to an education that helps them develop respect for the natural environment. They called for all children to have the chance to learn outdoors throughout the school year, learning regularly about climate change and sustainability outside in nature.
Building on previous surveys (2006 and 2014), our current 2022 survey is set to find out to what extent, in what ways OL/OE and ESE provisions are now changing in schools and pre-schools during the global Coronavirus pandemic. Quay et al (2020) question the future of outdoor and environmental education in Covid times and suggests that there is need to embrace the possibilities that increased outdoor learning may bring.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethodology
This research demonstrates a unique cross-sectional analysis of evidence collected in May and June periods in three years, 2006, 2014 and 2022, enabling us to create an unprecedented comprehensive account of a changing picture over a 16-year period. We report here on circa 200 outdoor learning events provided by staff working in 19 early years centres and 25 primary schools randomly sampled across in diverse catchment areas. Raw data were collected by teachers themselves for each individual outdoor learning visit, event, or trip made over a two-month period (schools), and for a two-week period (nurseries) in each of three surveys. The dataset comprises hundreds of reports on individual outdoor sessions or lessons with evidence for each event on duration, location, cost, focus and other aspects. This rich dataset proves a rich and reliable account of what comprises ‘outdoor learning’ in terms of duration, location, focus including when and how ESE was addressed. The recent survey also asked additional questions about the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic for outdoor learning provision, and the confidence levels and professional learning experiences of teachers.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsFindings & Conclusion
Survey results indicate sustained uplift in outdoor provision in early years but considerable decline in the primary school sector when comparisons are made with previous surveys.
• Early Years’ provision outdoors has increased compared to 2014. The survey showed that on average 39% of the time at nursery was spent outdoors. This figure has risen from 23% in the 2006 survey, and from 36% in 2014.
• Primary School outdoor provision has decreased compared to 2014. In 2014, the duration ‘per pupil per week’ was 30 minutes. In 2022, this was 7 minutes. Covid restrictions meant residentials were very uncommon, but this did not account for all of the decline.
• Use of grounds, off-site visits to locations beyond the grounds and beyond the local area by schools were all down in 2022. Less than 30% of outdoor events addressed Learning for Sustainability in schools.
• Considerable numbers of staff across primary and early years reported a lack confidence in facilitating outdoor learning (OL) and Learning for Sustainability (LfS). Staff in receipt of lower levels of training also report lower confidence in OL and LfS.
• A little over half of all practitioners surveyed felt that provision had increased compared to pre-Covid. Just less than a third of respondents felt that provision has decreased.
• Schools providing more OL time tended also to be smaller in roll size.
Post-Covid, what comprises ‘Outdoor ESE’ becomes less elusive through empirical study of this blind spot. Taken together, the survey provides a critical starting point for understanding what might be needed for further development in provision of ESE outdoors. Professional learning is clearly one area for development but we must consider the situated nature of practice to eke out specific recommendations for a given schools or early years centre.
ReferencesReferences
Asfeldt, M., Purc-Stephenson, R., Rawleigh, M. & Thackeray, S. (2020) Outdoor education in Canada: a qualitative investigation. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, DOI: 10.1080/14729679.2020.1784767
Christie, B., Higgins, P., King, B., Collacott, M., Kirk, K. and Smith, H., (2019). From rhetoric to reality: Examining the policy vision and the professional process of enacting Learning for Sustainability in Scottish schools. Scottish Educational Review, 51(1), pp.44-56.
Dyment, J. E., & Potter, T. G. (2015). Is outdoor education a discipline? Provocations and possibilities. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 15(3), 193–208.
Faskunger J, Szczepanski A, Åkerblom P. (2018). Teaching with the sky as a ceiling: a review of research about the significance of outdoor teaching for children’s learning in compulsory school [Internet]. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press.
Füz, N. (2018). Out-of-school learning in Hungarian primary education: Practice and barriers. Journal of Experiential Education. doi:10.1177/1053825918758342
Hill, A., North, C., Cosgriff, M., Irwin, D., Boyes, M., & Watson, S. (2020). Education outside the classroom in Aotearoa New Zealand - A comprehensive national study: Final Report (Report). Christchurch, New Zealand: Ara Institute of Canterbury Ltd.
Power, S. C., Taylor, C., Rees, G., & Jones, K. (2009). Out of school learning: Variations in provision and participation in secondary schools. Research Papers in Education, 24(4), 439–460
Prince, H. E. (2019). Changes in outdoor learning in primary schools in England, 1995 and 2017: lessons for good practice, Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 19:4, 329-342
Lynch, J. & Mannion, G. (2021). Place-responsive Pedagogies in the Anthropocene: Attuning with the more-than-human, Environmental Education Research, 27(6), 864-878. DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2020.1867710 [Available via online from 4th Jan 2021: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1867710].
Mannion, G., Fenwick, A., Lynch, J. (2013). Place-responsive pedagogy: learning from teachers’ experiences of excursions in nature. Environmental Education Research, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp 792-809.
Quay, J., Gray, T., Thomas, G. et al. (2020). What future/s for outdoor and environmental education in a world that has contended with COVID-19? Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education 23, 93–117.
Ruck, A. & Mannion, G. (2021) Stewardship and beyond? Young people’s lived experience of conservation activities in school grounds, Environmental Education Research, 27:10, 1502-1516, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2021.1964439
Zink, R., & Boyes, M. (2006). The nature and scope of outdoor education in New Zealand schools. The Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 10(1), 11–21.
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
Fitting The Outreach In: Interrogating School Strategies For Integrating Student-led, Community-based Projects
Paul Vare, Cathy Burch
University of Gloucestershire, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Vare, Paul;
Burch, Cathy
In the face of world-changing threats, including climate change, biodiversity loss and rising global inequality, young people in secondary schools continue to receive a formal curriculum dominated by instruction in discrete academic subjects culminating in high stakes examinations. In this way, students may learn about these issues but cannot seek to address them as agents in their own right. Against the rigid confines of this approach, there is a parallel tradition of schools trying to engage young people in community-based action projects (Öhman & Östman 2019). Empirical studies into the effects of student-led such programmes suggest that they can help to develop young people’s sense of agency, support mental health and develop a wide range of attributes including effective team working, communication skills and resilience (Trott 2021; Bramwell-Lalor et al 2020; Vare 2021). Despite these evident benefits, incorporating such projects into the regular timetable of schools remains extremely difficult. Where examples exist, such as the Extended Project Qualification available to ‘A’ Level (ISCED Level 3) students in England and Wales, they are not usually part of the compulsory education offered in mainstream schools.
This paper builds on earlier work that investigated the impacts of student-led, community-based projects that were conducted under a European Union-funded programme (Vare 2021). It reports on a study conducted with teachers and students from five secondary schools, one each in Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Spain and Turkey. Rather than focus on the impact of these projects on students, this research looks more deeply into how such projects were actually accommodated within the timetables of the participating schools and the extent to which schools were able to integrate the approach beyond the time-limited, externally-funded programme.
The research objectives therefore were threefold:
-
To identify ways in which student-led projects could be integrated into already full secondary school timetables
-
To gain a critical understanding of how this ‘fitting in’ of projects served the purposes of the school and staff members involved
-
To explore any drawbacks associated with the various strategies adopted by different schools.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis research started with short online focus group discussions that took place four times over the two-year period of the EU-funded project that aimed to facilitate student-led, community-based projects. Regular online project meetings and associated documentation also provided supporting evidence throughout the duration of the project. Further data were gathered during informal interactions with the teachers and senior leaders during a student-focused workshop at the end of the project. Analysis of these data led to a final round of one-to-one, online, semi-structured interviews with teachers and senior leaders from five participating schools, each in a different European country. In this way we were able to gain rich data from our interviewees concerning their perceptions and experiences (Wellington 2015). This led us to construct a series of micro case studies based on thematic analysis of the interviews and an analysis of the key features of each school's approach. The micro case studies led us to develop a typology of approaches to – and perceived benefits of – student-led, community-based projects.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsDepending on the characteristics of a particular school (e.g. private vs publicly funded) and administrative arrangements (e.g. degree of municipal control), we found that schools chose to emphasise different benefits of the student-led project approach according to their own situation. In this way, each school reveals the relative importance of its different critical communities, be they paying parents, education authorities and (in all cases) the learners themselves. Schools also reveal their values in the relative emphasis given to project work, positioning this variously as a route to higher academic achievement, vocational skills and/or engagement in wider community and environmental concerns. While paying attention to their critical communities, in each case an element of necessary subversion, a slight ‘bending of rules’, is required in order to facilitate these projects within the confines of rigid timetabling and legal structures. This in turn can be seen as teachers successfully modelling to their students a constellation of competences (e.g. creativity, decisiveness, action) that align well with sustainability-related learning outcomes (UNESCO 2017; Vare et al 2019). There is, however, a balance to be struck between making such subversive behaviour explicit and risking the disapprobation of their critical communities. Given the nature of formal education in neoliberal societies, teachers and school leaders continue to require a degree of courageous professionalism (Rate 2010; Knight 2020) in order to provide potentially transformative educational experiences for their students.
ReferencesBramwell-Lalor, S., Ferguson, T., Hordatt Gentles, C., Roofe, C. & Kelly, K (2020) Project-based Learning for Environmental Sustainability Action, Southern African Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 36, 57-71
Knight, R. (2020) The tensions of innovation: experiences of teachers during a whole school pedagogical shift, Research Papers in Education, 35:2, 205-227, DOI: 10.1080/02671522.2019.1568527
Öhman, J. and Östman, L. (2019) Different Teaching Traditions in Environmental and Sustainability Teaching, in: K. Van Poeck, L. Östman and J. Öhman (eds), Sustainable Development Teaching: Ethical and Political Challenges (New York, Routledge), pp. 70–82.
Rate, C. R. (2010). Defining the features of courage: A search for meaning. In C. Pury & S. Lopez (Eds.), The psychology of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue (pp. 47–66). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. DOI: 10.1037/12168-003
Trott, C.D. (2020) Children’s constructive climate change engagement: Empowering awareness, agency, and action. Environ. Educ. Res. 26, 532–554
UNESCO – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2017) Education for Sustainable Development Goals: learning objectives. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444_eng
Vare P. (2021) Exploring the Impacts of Student‐Led Sustainability Projects with Secondary School Students and Teachers. Sustainability, 13, 2790. DOI: 10.3390/su13052790
Vare, P.; Arro, G.; de Hamer, A.; Del Gobbo, G.; de Vries, G.; Farioli, F.; Kadji-Beltran, C.; Kangur, M.; Mayer, M.; Millican, R.; et al. (2019) Devising a Competence-Based Training Program for Educators of Sustainable Development: Lessons Learned. Sustainability, 11, 1890. DOI: 10.3390/su11071890
Wellington, J., (2015) Educational research: Contemporary issues and practical approaches. Bloomsbury Publishing.
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
Between Resonance and Evidence – Meaning-making through out-of-school Encounters in Education for Sustainable Development
Annegret Jansen, Kirsten Gronau, Ulrike-Marie Krause
University of Oldenburg, Germany
Presenting Author: Jansen, Annegret
Relevance
Late-modern societies are confronted with the task to find a way out of unsustainability which ultimately makes learning a task for society as a whole (UNESCO, 2013; Van Poeck et al., 2018). Educational processes in the context of sustainability and citizenship education are challenging for several reasons. Regarding the contents of learning, complex issues must be communicated, interdisciplinary knowledge must be integrated and uncertainty about the “right way” must be endured. This complexity is potentiated not least through its sociality and perspectivity. The learning subject is politically addressed within the context of education for sustainable development. Enabling learners to participate in society and to take action for sustainable development also means supporting them in their political decision-making.
Theoretical framework
As a cross-curricular educational task, education for sustainable development has to be integrated in all subjects. To achieve this, different didactic approaches can be appropriate. For topics that negotiate the political, economic and social dimensions, a “pluralistic perspective” (Öhman, 2008; Östmann, 2010) is highly connectable. Moreover, reconstructive studies show that promoting co-construction processes of the students and the discursive exchange on different positions in class is more efficient than explicit or implicit moral appeals which are more likely to be rejected by students (Asbrand & Wettstätt, 2014). Learning for sustainability goes beyond the mere transfer of knowledge and focuses on the students as political subjects with their attitudes, ideas and beliefs (Block et al., 2019). Learning as a process of meaning-making (Östman et al., 2019) takes this into consideration. The didactic approach of the so-called “citizenship consciousness” (Lange, 2008) also follows the idea that students’ ideas about political and social reality produce meaning, which enables the individual to orient and act in the world. Learners introduce their ideas into the educational settings, although little is known about the processes that take place to create political meaning around sustainability.
Conceptual framework
Based on the socio-constructivist assumption that dealing with opposing points of view leads to cognitive conflicts and thus further development or reorganization of one's own cognitive structures (Piaget, 1989; Vygotsky, 1978), a seven-week learning unit on "Global transformation as reflected in the region: What should agriculture of the future look like?" was conducted in three political education courses in the upper secondary school and evaluated in an intervention study. One didactic focus was to make the systemic lines of conflict perceptible in their regional relevance (Östman et al., 2019). Therefore, out-of-school meetings with regional actors (local farmers and representatives of an NGO) were integrated to show and discuss conflicting perspectives on the topic.
Research questions
Based on these theoretical assumptions, the question arises which processes of reflection and meaning-making were initiated by the learning unit and to what extent the learners succeed in meaningfully abstracting the concrete experience of the out-of-school encounters in the context of a political and social reality and gaining political insights.
The study should provide answers to the following research questions:
- Which processes of reflection were initiated by the teaching project and what role do the out-of-school encounters play in this?
- Which political processes of meaning-making can be reconstructed in the learners' reflections?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn order to explore longer-term processes of political meaning-making, episodic interviews (Flick, 2011) were conducted six weeks after the end of the intervention in class with a total of eleven students. The format of the episodic interview focuses on experiences in a subjective and meaning-making perspective and is based on the assumption of distinction between semantic and episodic knowledge: While semantic knowledge is built around concepts and their relationships to one another, episodic knowledge consists of memories of situations. Therefore, an interview guideline was developed that combines open questioning and narrative to take both forms of knowledge and their connection in meaning-making into account. The interview is structured in two parts: First, students describe and reflect on their learning process, asking what they particularly remember and how their view on the discussed issues has developed. The next part focuses on memories of the controversial out-of-school encounters; students are asked to share their insights and transfer them to other complex issues on sustainability. A qualitative evaluation will be performed through content analysis (Kuckartz, 2018) and analysis of argumentation (Kuhn & Udell, 2007; Petrik, 2011). In the first evaluation phase, case portraits are developed, followed by reconstructions of the students' meaning-making in their reflections in the next stage.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results presented illustrate the didactic potential of out-of-school forms of learning, but also draw attention to possible problems and pitfalls. The students describe the out-of-school- encounters with the regional farmers and environmental activists as significant for their personal learning and judgment process; the descriptions show an experience of relevance and resonance. The political meaning generated in the context of the real encounters differs greatly between the individual students, since the out-of-school experience is encoded and decoded in the light of their own preconceptions and in conformity with pre-existent opinion. In the reflections of the students, the regional actors function as evidence for their own opinions.
The results are to be discussed with regard to didactic implications for the integration of out-of-school experiences in political education. To avoid a “naïve” pedagogy of experience, taking up the interplay between induction and deduction afterwards in school and initiating a pluralistic discourse about the experiences is crucial in order to break up the supposed unambiguity of the out-of-school experience that shapes some students' meaning-making.
ReferencesBlock, T., Van Poeck, K., & Östman, L. (2019). Tackling wicked problems in teaching and learning: Sustainability issues as knowledge, ethical and political challenges. In K. Van Poeck, L. O. Östman & J. Öhman (Eds.), Sustainable development teaching: ethical and political challenges (pp. 28-39). Routledge.
Flick, U. (2011). Das Episodische Interview. [Episodic Interviewing]. In G. Oelerich & H.-U. Otto (Eds.), Empirische Forschung und Soziale Arbeit (pp. 273-280). Berlin: Springer VS.
Kuckartz, U. (2018). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. [Qualitative content analysis. Methods, Application, Computer Support]. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning, 13(2), 90-104.
Lange, D. (2008). Bürgerbewusstsein. Sinnbilder und Sinnbildungen in der Politischen Bildung. [Citizenship consciousness. Symbolic images and meaning-making in political education]. Gesellschaft – Wirtschaft – Politik (GWP), 3/2008, 431-439.
Öhman, J. (Ed.) (2008). Values and democracy in education for sustainable development: Contributions from Swedish research. Malmö: Liber.
Östman, L., Van Poeck, K., & Öhman, J. (2019). Principles for sustainable development teaching. In K. Van Poeck, L. O. Östman & J. Öhman (Eds.), Sustainable development teaching: ethical and political challenges (pp. 40–55). Routledge.
Östman, L. (2010). Education for sustainable development and normativity: a transactional analysis of moral meaning‐making and companion meanings in classroom communication. Environmental Education Research, 16(1), S. 75-93.
Petrik, A. (2011). Argumentationsanalyse: Methode zur politikdidaktischen Rekonstruktion der Konfliktlösungs- und Urteilskompetenz [Argumentation analysis: a method for reconstructing competencies in conflict resolution and judgment in political education]. In B. Zurstrassen (Ed.), Was ist los im Klassenzimmer? Diagnostik, Evaluation und Erforschung des sozialwissenschaftlichen Unterrichts (pp. 108-128). Schwalbach/Ts.
Piaget, J. (1989). The child’s conception of the world. Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2005). Proposal for a Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development as follow-up to the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) after 2014. General Conference 37th Session, Paris. 37 C/57.
Van Poeck, K., Östman, L., & Block, T. (2018). Opening up the black box of learning-by-doing in sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.12.006
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wettstädt, L., & Asbrand, B. (2014). Handeln in der Weltgesellschaft. Zum Umgang mit Handlungsaufforderungen im Unterricht zu Themen des Lernbereichs Globale Entwicklung. [Acting in a globalized society. Invitations to act in lessons on topics of global education]. Zeitschrift für Internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik, 37(1), 4-12.
|
