30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
Bio-Diversi-WHAT?! An Evaluation of Learning Outcomes of a Large-scale Zoo Biodiversity Education Program for Primary School Children
Rebekah Tauritz, Arjen Wals, Judith Gulikers
Wageningen University, Netherlands, The
Presenting Author: Tauritz, Rebekah
Context
Societies around the globe are facing increasingly urgent and rapidly changing sustainability crises such as climate change (IPCC, 2021) and the global loss of biodiversity (IPBES, 2019). Systemic change and radical transformation of sustainable societies is urgently needed if our planet is to remain inhabitable for humanity and if we want to protect the rich diversity of life on Earth (Grin et al., 2010). According to an increasing number of scholars (Leicht et al., 2018; Rieckmann, Mindt & Gardiner, 2017), if we want young people to care about the protection of biodiversity and become effective changemakers who can drive systemic change, they need to develop a diverse range of competences. Many scholars concur that facing these challenges calls for educators to stimulate re-assessment and disruption of current values and norms (Souza, Wals & Jacobi, 2019; Wals, 2020). We cannot succeed at turning biodiversity decline around without changing the worldviews that created and/or acerbated these problems in the first place. Teaching about biodiversity needs to be more than learning the meaning of the concept. Research has shown that knowledge about the loss of biodiversity and other sustainability challenges, does not automatically lead to more pro-conservation behavior (Braun and Dierkes, 2019; Mohamed Ali Khan, 2021). It is necessary for educators to seek more relational ways of teaching in which students form strong bonds with the natural world.
Theoretical framework
Biodiversity
In the context of this study biodiversity is defined as the genetic diversity within species, the diversity between species, the broad range of relationships between life forms and the rich variety of ecosystems on earth (CBD, 2000).
Head-heart-hands model
Researchers in environmental and conservation education (Ardoin et al., 2013; Gifford & Nilsson, 2014) point out that in addition to knowledge and skills, affective learning outcomes such as beliefs, attitudes, values, trust and behavioral intentions, also play an important, albeit complicated, role in stimulating environmentally responsible and pro-conservation behavior. Effective lessons need to incorporate learning objectives in the domains of the head, hearts and hands.
Real life educational encounters with animals
Sobel (1996) argues that one way to foster empathy for nature during childhood is by forming relationships with animals. Melson (2013) explains that “all living animals present perceptually and cognitively rich, multisensory experiences, embodying novelty within recurring patterns of sight, sound, touch, smell and movement” (Melson, 2013, p.107). Zoos are in a unique position to develop biodiversity education programs that provide children with real life educational encounters with animals. Despite the critique zoos get regarding animal welfare concerns, the authors believe that the educational opportunities offered by zoos to enhance the children’s relationship with the natural world should be explored. Today’s zoos consider it a core duty to help children form human-nonhuman animals relationships and understand the importance of protecting biodiversity (EAZA, 2016; Barongi et al., 2015). However, we need to know more about how zoos can contribute to developing children’s understanding of the importance of biodiversity.
This study’s main research question therefore is:
What do children learn with regard to head (knowledge), heart (emotions & values) and hands (skills) during a comprehensive education program about biodiversity and what are the differences between children whose program includes a zoo education lesson and children whose lessons are solely classroom-based?
To be able to answer this question a comprehensive and well-designed interdisciplinary education program about biodiversity was specifically developed for this study through an iterative educational design process that included collaborating researchers, zoo educators, environmental education developers, primary school teachers and primary school children. Subsequently we ran a large-scale study to investigate the learning outcomes.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedParticipants
The large-scale learning outcomes study took place in the Netherlands in 2020. Despite the Covid-19 epidemic 695 school primary children and their teachers participated. The children attended different primary school levels (group 5-8 in the Dutch school system) and ranged between age eight and twelve. This study incorporated 32 classes from 19 schools.
Interventions
Three interventions were constructed to learn about the effect of experiencing endangered animals close-up in a zoo education context: (1) four school-based biodiversity lessons plus one zoo lesson (2) five school-based biodiversity lessons without a zoo lesson (3) a single zoo outing without any lessons about biodiversity. The lesson programs were identical except for the one deviating lesson. 28 classes participated, four were in the control group that received no lessons.
Data collection
Learning outcomes were evaluated employing a mixed methods design. Children filled in pretest and posttest questionnaires, the latter was repeated after six months to study the long-term effects. The questionnaires included both closed and open questions. Additionally, student assignments were collected, and student focus groups and teacher interviews conducted after the lessons were finished. This presentation will focus on results from the questionnaires substantiated with results from the interviews.
Data analysis
Tools were developed to both capture and analyze shifts in knowledge, emotions, values, intentions and skills. For example, the word cloud in the questionnaire contained all the words and concepts the children knew that were related to biodiversity. Based on Moss and Jensen (2014) a data analysis tool was developed to evaluate the children’s ‘understanding of biodiversity’ and quantify their qualitative responses. Other analyzed knowledge items were ‘knowledge about actions that protect biodiversity’ and the children’s ‘biodiversity vocabulary’. The children were also asked about the emotional responses they experienced when thinking about biodiversity. A bipolar variation display between two extremes (e.g. happy/sad and hopeful/hopeless) on a scale were employed and was used to determine whether there was a shift in emotions in response to the lessons and in which direction the potential shift took place. To get insight into the lesson’s impact on children’s values regarding biodiversity, value statements were provided in the questionnaire and children were asked to indicate which values were most relevant to them. Tools were developed to determine significant shifts in the children’s values. Children and teachers were interviewed after the lessons and this qualitative data was used to substantiate and interpret the learning outcomes.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsDifferences in learning outcomes (knowledge, emotions, values, intentions, skills) for three interventions immediately after the lessons and six months later were observed. Effects of school level and gender were explored.
Preliminary results showed children from group 6 and up can understand what biodiversity means. Teacher interviews revealed that minimally five lessons provided enough time to process information. Repetition and diverse learning activities reinforced the meaning of biodiversity. Children indicated that observing and comparing zoo animals helped better understand biodiversity. Focus groups demonstrated rich, spontaneous learning opportunities arose when children interviewed visitors, asked whether zoos should protect biodiversity, but first had to explain what biodiversity means.
Initially most children had no idea what biodiversity meant. Data illustrates that lessons helped develop their understanding. They were able to mention more relevant phrases. This development was seen in both children who went to the zoo and those who’s lessons were all at school. Children visiting the zoo without lessons did not develop biodiversity knowledge.
The study showed children can find talking about emotions experienced in relation to complex topics such as biodiversity difficult. They need to develop language to be able to reflect on and express these emotions. Results indicate shifts such as increased concern about biodiversity after the lessons. No shift was seen in the control groups. Children generally had more intentions to protect biodiversity than before the lessons, but found it hard to formulate how. More knowledge about animals increased the desire to act. Aspects influencing that desire were: conservation status, knowledge of the animal’s role in ecosystems and interesting animal facts.
Children were asked to make basic action plans to protect biodiversity. They often mentioned not littering, collecting litter or reducing their carbon footprint. Children indicated that action planning helped them realize they could have a positive impact.
ReferencesArdoin, N., Heimlich, J., Braus, J. and Merrick, C. (2013). Influencing Conservation Action: What Research Says About Environmental Literacy, Behaviour and Conservation Results. New York: National Audubon Society.
Barongi, R., Fisken, F.A., Parker, M. & Gusset, M. (Eds) (2015). Committing to Conservation: The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy. Gland: WAZA Executive Office, 69 pp. https://www.waza.org/priorities/conservation/conservation-strategies/
Braun, T. & Dierkes, P. (2019). Evaluating Three Dimensions of Environmental Knowledge and Their Impact on Behaviour. Research in Science Education, 49, 1347-1365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9658-7
EAZA (2016). EAZA Conservation Education Standards. Amsterdam: European Association of Zoos and Aquaria.
IPBES (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo (editors). Bonn, Germany: IPBES secretariat. 1144 pages. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673
IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA, pp. 3−32, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.00
Gifford, R. & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141-57. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034
Grin, J. , Rotmans, J. and Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development. New directions in the study of long term transformative change. Routledge Studies in Sustainability Transitions. New York/London: Routledge.
Leicht, A., Heiss, J., & Byun, W. J. (2018). Issues and trends in education for sustainable development (Vol. 5). Unesco Publishing.
Melson, G. (2013). Children and Wild Animals. In: Kahn, P & Hasbach, P. (Eds.) The Rediscovery of the Wild, pp. 93-118.
Mohamed Ali Khan, N.S., Karpudewan, M. & Annamalai, N. (2021). Moving Beyond the One-Size-Fits-All Model in Describing the Climate Conserving Behaviors of
Malaysian Secondary Students. Sustainability, 13(1), 18. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13010018
Rieckmann, M., Mindt, L. and Gardiner, S. (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives. Paris: UNESCO.
Sobel, D. (1996). Beyond Ecophobia: Reclaiming the Heart in Nature Education. Great Barrington, MA: The Orion Society.
Souza, D., Wals, A. & Jacobi, P. (2019). Learning based transformations towards sustainability: a relational approach based on Humberto Maturana and Paulo Freire, Environmental Education Research, 25(11), 1605-1619, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1641183
Wals, A.E.J. (2020). Transgressing the hidden curriculum of unsustainability: towards a relational pedagogy of hope, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52:8, 825-826, DOI:10.1080/00131857.2019.1676490
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
Enhancing Relational Work within Multi-actor-governance Processes for ESD through Reflection? Insights from Reflexive Monitoring in Action in Germany
Mandy Singer-Brodowski, Janne von Seggern
Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
Presenting Author: Singer-Brodowski, Mandy
Policy efforts to increase the institutionalization of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) within national educational systems are often organized within multi-actor networks, consisting of administrative actors, representatives of civil society or educational practitioners (e.g. van Poeck et al. 2014, Nomura/ Abe 2009). They usually use “soft governance instruments” like fostering networks and dialogue or developing joint strategies (Læssøe & Mochizuki, 2015, Feinstein et al. 2013). Because these policy processes are so presuppositional, the involved actors need a high level of expertise regarding the different educational structures within one educational area (e.g. early childhood education, school education). Structures in this context represent rules and resources that can enable or constrain individual action (Giddens 1984). Following the theory of structuration, the dichotomy of agency and structure is criticized and the relationship between them is described as reciprocal and interdependent (ibid.). Translated to the policy processes of ESD this means that individual actors can influence the structures of ESD policies, especially when they are organized within multi-actor networks. At the same time, the structures influence individual actors, although it is not always clear how this is recognized rationally and consciously (Pitton/ McKenzie 2022). To better understand how the process of structuration evolves to scale or mainstream ESD within different educationals system (Mickelsson et al. 2019), it is interesting to look at the micro-politics of actors within one specific multi-actor process in order to analyze how they refer to, construe or deconstrue structures within their educational system (Singer-Brodowski et al. 2020).
One of the basic assumptions within the discourse on policy innovations for sustainability is that reflection processes and reflexivity are needed to deal with complexity and ambivalences (e.g. Feindt/Weiland 2018). Reflection makes it possible to make one's own sectoral and organizational routines explicit and to make the associated routines of action the subject of joint exchange processes. Reflexivity is either described as the ability to cultivate reflections continuously (Singer-Brodowski et al. 2020) or as the systematic repercussions of developments and dynamics in the respective political field on the political initiatives and actors who want to shape this field (Feindt/Weiland 2018). While the first definition highlights the agency-dimension of individual actors, the second definition is more in line with the structures of a respective system and how it influences the actors.
Bringing these theoretical strands together, the main research question of this paper is how policy efforts for ESD within multi-actor networks can influence national education systems and how these processes of structuration are entangled with reflection and reflexivity.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study is situated within a national multi-actor process for ESD in Germany with different working committees, where actors of various organizations are included to discuss measures for implementing ESD within the different educational areas. In 2017 they developed a National Action Plan on ESD for six educational areas with altogether 350 measures for strengthening ESD. In order to support and advise the policy process a National Monitoring is conducted at the Office of the Scientific Advisor. This monitoring includes different studies like large document analysis, quantitative survey as well as qualitative studies.
For the study that is the focus of the paper, the Reflexive Monitoring in Action approach was used as the methodological framework because it was explicitly developed for projects that aim to contribute to sustainable development through system innovations (van Mierlo et al. 2010). The use of the RMA aimed to both support a reflexive system for institutionalizing ESD and to understand how the actors negotiate the process of strengthening ESD. For this reason, we aimed at supporting actors through stimulating reflection on the one side and to better understand their micro-politics in working for an institutionalization of ESD on the other side. 13 interactive workshops were held in four ESD forums of different educational areas over a period of nine months. Due to the Corona pandemic, the workshops were organized as digital sessions and were all video recorded. The data gathered have been analyzed using videography (Tuma et al. 2013) and Qualitative Content Analyses (Kuckartz 2018). The core categories that were developed from the inductive and deductive coding procedures of the transcribed material were: systemic knowledge of the education field, strategies and practices of actors, structural interaction, reflection, and agency. The material of workshops in the different educational areas have been continuously compared to each other and discussed within 27 analysis meetings between the researchers involved.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsA first core result of the analysis was that the actors' handling of their own knowledge and non-knowledge played an important role in their ability to act: the highly complex change processes for implementing ESD challenged the committee members to create a common knowledge base from the fragmented expertise of the individuals as to how exactly this change should be brought about. Another core result stemming from the analysis was that trust and the ability to work in relations between the different sectors involved was pivotal to share their expertise and develop common expertise-based measures for further institutionalizing ESD. Regarding practices and strategies of cooperation, on the one hand, forum-related practices were found (such as the deliberate integration of new members or reflections on improving the work and impact of the forums). On the other hand, outward-looking strategies for mainstreaming ESD were identified (such as explicating a lobbying strategy). Both were closely related and also expressed in the structural patterns of interaction of the participants with each other. For example, if forum members succeeded in entangling their interests well in the forum and also in dealing with conflicts, they simultaneously demonstrated a productive culture of handling interests of those organizations that are important for ESD mainstreaming but were not yet represented in the ESD bodies. Reflections in this context helped to make tacit knowledge explicit and to translate the respective working cultures for the other actors. From the results of the analysis, questions were derived as reflection impulses for the further development of the committee work.
ReferencesFeindt, P. H., & Weiland, S. (2018). Reflexive governance: exploring the concept and assessing its critical potential for sustainable development. Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 20 (6), 661–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2018.1532562
Feinstein, N. W.; Jacobi, P. R.; Lotz-Sisitka, H. (2013). When does a nation-level analysis make sense? ESD and educational governance in Brazil, South Africa, and the USA. Environmental Education Research 19 (2), 218–230. DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2013.767321.
Giddens, A. (2013[1984]): The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration: Wiley. Available online at https://books.google.de/books?id=YD87I8uPvnUC.
Kuckartz, U. (2018). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. 4. Auflage. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Juventa (Grundlagentexte Methoden). Available online at http://ebooks.ciando.com/book/index.cfm?bok_id/2513416.
Læssøe, J.; Mochizuki, Y. (2015). Recent Trends in National Policy on Education for Sustainable Development and Climate Change Education. Journal of Education for Sustainable 9 (1), 27–43. DOI: 10.1177/0973408215569112.
Mickelsson, M.; Kronlid, D.O.; Lotz-Sisitka, H. (2019). Consider the unexpected: scaling ESD as a matter of learning. Environmental Education Research 25 (1), 135–150. DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2018.1429572.
Nomura, K.; Abe, O. (2009). The education for sustainable development movement in Japan: a political perspective. Environmental Education Research 15 (4), 483–496. DOI: 10.1080/13504620903056355.
Pitton, V.O.; McKenzie, M. (2022). What moves us also moves policy: the role of affect in mobilizing education policy on sustainability. Journal of Education Policy 37 (4), 527–547. DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2020.1852605.
Singer-Brodowski, M.; Seggern, J. v.; Duveneck, A.; Etzkorn, N. (2020). Moving (Reflexively within) Structures. The Governance of Education for Sustainable Development in Germany. Sustainability 12 (7), 2778. DOI: 10.3390/su12072778.
Tuma, R.; Schnettler, B.; Knoblauch, H. (Hg.) (2013). Videographie. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
van Mierlo, B., Regeer, B.; van Amstel, M.; Arkesteijn, M.C.M.; Beekman, V.; Bunders, J.F.G.; Cock Buning, T. de et al. (2010). Reflexive monitoring in action. A guide for monitoring system innovation projects. Wageningen [etc.]. Available online at https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/reports/395732.
van Poeck, K.; Vandenabeele, J.; Bruyninckx, H. (2014). Taking stock of the UN Decade of education for sustainable development: the policy-making process in Flanders. Environmental Education Research 20 (5), 695–717. DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2013.836622.
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
Diversifying Environmental Education and Policy Making Through Youth Co-authorship and Capacity Building
Elizabeth Rushton1, Lynda Dunlop2
1University College London, United Kingdom; 2University of York, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Rushton, Elizabeth
Anthropogenic climate change and environmental crises are the leading challenges of our time (IPCC, 2021). Such challenges have complex spatial and temporal impacts which drive social, education and health inequalities. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1989) protects young people’s rights to express views on matters affecting them, but these tend to go unheard, and youth have few opportunities to be involved in environmental decision-making affecting them (Thew, Middlemiss and Paavola, 2020). Although global youth movements have been at the forefront of climate and environment-focused advocacy, the knowledge and insights of young people are persistently marginalised in research and policy making which responds to climate and environmental crises (Dunlop & Rushton, 2022). Concomitantly, education researchers have recognised that knowledge-focused approaches to climate change and sustainability education are necessary but not sufficient (Cantell et al., 2019). Rousell & Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles (2020) have underlined the need for participatory, interdisciplinary, creative and affect-driven approaches, which respond to the social, ethical and political complexities of the climate crisis.
Moving beyond the field of education, change is also needed in relation to environmental decision making. Conventional approaches to dialogue involving publics, policy makers, researchers and other change makers tend to focus on position taking and enabling ‘non-expert’ groups to inform decision makers’ proposals. Such approaches to public dialogue infrequently provide inclusive, varied, and authentic pathways for publics, especially under-represented groups such young people to inform decision making at multiple stages. This research aims to further develop and apply a co-generative approach to public dialogue and policy engagement, rooted in co-authorship which values diversity of experiences, ideas and approaches in response to environmental and climate crises.
To achieve this aim, we examine the role of youth co-authorship and capacity building in the context of environmental education and policy making through two recent projects: (1) The Manifesto project - the British Educational Research Association Manifesto for Education for Environmental Sustainability (Dunlop et al., 2022a) and, (2) The DICEY project - Dialogue in Climate Engineering with Youth, a UKRI/Royal Society of Arts experiment in public dialogue with youth on climate interventions (Rushton & Dunlop, 2022). The Manifesto project aimed to co-create with young people (16–18 years) and teachers, an illustrated manifesto for Education for Environmental Sustainability (EfES) for the four jurisdictions of the U.K. (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales), where teachers and young people articulated a shared vision of what the future of EfES could look like and the Manifesto was launched in November 2021 (Dunlop et al., 2022a). The DICEY project foregrounded youth questions and ideas about climate interventions through a series of online workshops where young people (16-25 years) engaged in activities to generate questions for scientists, subject experts and policy makers and co-authored blogs. These questions were then put to a group of scientists and policy makers for discussion, with young people facilitating the discussion using illustrated question cards. DICEY builds on a previous project, Geo-engineering – a climate of uncertainty?, a project which brought youth from across Europe together to consider technological responses to climate change in policy making, resulting in the co-authorship of a Geo-engineering Youth Guide and Policy Brief (Dunlop et al. 2022b).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedOur approach in both the Manifesto and DICEY projects was rooted in collectivity, participation and inclusivity, with a focus on creating spaces for voices less frequently heard in discussions and debates concerning education, the environmental and policy making, where participants were positioned as ‘knowing and approving experts’ (Edwards & Holland, 2013, p. 79). As such, these projects respond to calls for more democratic and participatory approaches to research and engagement with marginalised groups, including young people (Alminde & Warming, 2020). The workshops were constructed as a form of inquiry into participants’ perspectives and priorities, with attention to the consequences of continuing or changing actions and policies with regard to environmental action and education. Participatory methods can position participants as partners in research and have the potential to actively engage individuals and groups in a way that they themselves benefit from the experience beyond the life of the research project (Edwards & Brannelly, 2017).
In both projects, we worked with an artist collaborator to create imagery that could be used to illustrate the Manifesto (Manifesto project) and the question cards created for the DICEY project. Visual art engages people in ways that academic writing cannot, allowing for new and deeper ways of seeing things, and Herbert (2021) proposes engagement with the socio-ecological imagination to envisage just and sustainable futures in the context of the climate crisis. Arts-based approaches have been used to promote the engagement and empowerment of youth (Lyon & Carabelli, 2016) and using arts to communicate research findings is a growing area of practice (Bartlett, 2015). Across both projects, there were a total of 15 workshops involving over 250 participants, which took place between April – May 2021 (Manifesto project) and January – February 2023 (DICEY project). Institutional ethical approvals were received on 9 March 2021 (Manifesto project) and 20 October 2022 (DICEY project). Contributions from over 250 participants were recorded, including workshop recordings (audio) and records of Zoom chat, Google Jamboard notes, MIRO boards and Mentimeter contributions (written), and analysed using qualitative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis research represents an opportunity to continue discussions around how to diversify environmental education and policy making such that the knowledge and insights of marginalised groups (such as youth) make a meaningful and sustained contribution. Through these two novel projects, young people are afforded opportunities to engage in environmental education and policy making through co-authorship in ways which build their capacity to both understand about the environment and to act for the environment. Participatory and arts-based approaches allow for reciprocity, intergenerational learning and co-production. As part of these two projects co-produced outputs included a manifesto, youth guide and policy brief and illustrated climate question cards. Such approaches to research and education can support youth engagement in spatially, temporally and ethically complex environment concerns which avoid polarisation and intractable position-taking. Co-authorship with youth research participants not only built a sense of responsibility and commitment, but developed young people’s capabilities and capacity to support their continued engagement and contribution. Tensions remain however in the extent to which co-production ensures that decision makers value youth questions and perspectives and the lack of financial payment to participate may exclude some groups of young people. Although world leaders and decision makers underline the place of education in responding to environmental and climate crises (UN Climate Change Conference, 2021) we argue that researchers must continue to co-produce and advocate with youth, approaches to environmental education and public dialogue which are genuinely transformative for all youth.
ReferencesAlminde, S., & Warming, H. (2020). Future workshops as a means to democratic, inclusive and empowering research with children, young people and others. Qualitative Research, 20(4), 432-448.
Bartlett, R. (2015). Visualising dementia activism: Using the arts to communicate research findings. Qualitative Research, 15(6), 755–768.
Cantell, H., Tolppanen, S., Aarnio-Linnanvuori, E., & Lehtonen, A. (2019). Bicycle model on climate change education: Presenting and evaluating a model. Environmental Education Research, 25(5), 717–731.
Dunlop, L., Rushton, E.A.C., et al. (2022a). Teacher and youth priorities for education for environmental sustainability: a co-created manifesto. British Educational Research Journal 48(5), 952-973.
Dunlop, L., Rushton, E.A.C., et al. (2022b). Youth co-authorship as public engagement with geoengineering. International Journal of Science Education (Part B) 12(1): 60-74.
Dunlop, L. & Rushton, E.A.C. (2022). Putting climate change at the heart of education: Is England’s strategy a placebo for policy? British Educational Research Journal 48(6), 1083-1101.
Edwards, R., & Holland, J. (2013). What is qualitative interviewing?. Bloomsbury.
Edwards, R. & Brannelly, T. (2017). Approaches to Democratising Qualitative Research Methods. Qualitative Research 17(3): 271–277.
Herbert, J. (2021). The socio-ecological imagination: Young environmental activists constructing transformation in an era of crisis. Area, 53, 373–380.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
Lyon, D., & Carabelli, G. (2016). Researching young people's orientations to the future: The methodological challenges of using arts practice. Qualitative Research, 16(4), 430–445.
Rousell, D., & Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A. (2020). A systematic review of climate change education: Giving children and young people a ‘voice’ and a ‘hand’ in redressing climate change. Children's Geographies, 18(2), 191–208.
Rushton, E.A.C. & Dunlop, L. (2022). Dialogue in climate engineering with youth, or ‘DICEY’. GEReCo Blogpost. Available at: https://www.gereco.org/blog/ Published 3 October 2022.
Thew, H., Middlemiss, L., & Paavola, J. (2020). “Youth is not a political position”: Exploring justice claims-making in the UN Climate Change Negotiations. Global Environmental Change, 61, 102036.
United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. United Nations, Treaty Series, 1577(3).
UN Climate Change Conference. (2021). Co-chairs conclusions of education and environment ministers summit at COP26. https://ukcop26.org/co-chairs-conclusions-of-education-and-environment-ministers-summit-at-cop26/
|
