30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
Gardening Positive Affect on delinquent behavior of at Risk Children
Anna Iris Didas, Konstantinos Kofiatis
University of Cyprus, Cyprus
Presenting Author: Didas, Anna Iris
The purpose of this research is to study if the engagement of vulnerable 13-15 years old students in outdoor activities, such as gardening, can reduce delinquent behaviors and help them integrate to a larger extent in the educational system
School delinquency has entered the daily agenda of teachers and appears more and more frequently in today's schools at all levels of education (Panoussis, G. 2013). The forms it can take are varied and carry different weight. We recognize verbal and physical violence towards classmates and teachers as school delinquency (Bika, 2011; Artinopoulou, 2013). According to Bunia (2018), delinquency can be categorized into direct - that is, more physical - but also indirect- violence, which includes verbal violence and/or social exclusion, school bullying - from mockery to sexual harassment - as well as other negative behaviors that they deviate from the school rules. Bernardos (2003) categorizes school delinquency in school misdemeanors such as for example indiscipline regarding dress code and generally decent appearance - earrings, intense coloring, extreme haircuts - but also indiscipline in moral matters such as inappropriate behavior, swearing, impudence and lies (Bounia 2018, Ericson, 2001, Rigby 2001). Skavdis (1995) define school delinquency as any behavior that hinders the educational process from absenteeism and indifference to disturbing the classroom and using the mobile phone while prohibited. Tzifas (2005) on the other hand focuses on behavioral problems such as copying and lack of cooperation, misbehave and indifference with the aim of becoming the focus of attention.
It has been argued that certain forms of environmental education can positively affect youth’s development and well-being, including delinquency, school failure, and child maltreatment, as well as enhancing happiness, health, high quality relationships with adults (Doyle and Krasny 2003; Schusler and Krasny 2010; DuBois et al. 2017). More specifically, it is proposed that recreational, social, and stewardship activities as well as collective actions and participation in decision making, and intergenerational co-operation and support that are incorporated into environmental education projects could enhance informal socializing, trust, and associational engagement which are considered as important elements of youth’s personal and social development. These conditions can be achieved in programmes such as community gardening, tree planting, stewarding parks or urban farming (Delia & Krasny 2018; Weissman 2015). Moreover, these projects can be the means by which low-income, vulnerable and at risk youth can engage with nature and potentially learn about the environment, while fostering positive youth development as youth engage with community environmental action (Schusler and Krasny 2010). These programs may not always include a series of planned educational activities, however they warrant study as an important means by which urban youth engage with and learn about their environment
Within the above line of reasoning, the present research investigates whether highly vulnerable children can, through engagement with nature and activities outside the classroom, reduce incidents of delinquent behavior. In addition, it investigates if it is possible for these children to show examples of assimilation in the school environment and regulations.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe sample of the specific research was initially two students, one boy studying at the first grade of the high school (13 years old) and another boy 15 years old. They both had many absences from school, low performance and experience difficult family situation including incidence of domestic violence, alcoholism and indifference. As a result, children get along very bad at school. The absences have far exceeded the permissible ones. Even when they come on time often refused to enter the classroom. After a month two more children were added to the project, both in the third grade of the high school with many absences due to expulsions because of disrespect to the teachers and various acts of violence and last but not least complete indifference to the lessons. The last two students had already failed one schoolyear and they were repeating it. The four children received coupons for snacks paid by the school and their clothes and shoes were showing negligence.
The first author of the paper was a stuff member of the Immediate Intervention Group of the Ministry of Education. The role of this group is to be in daily contact with highly vulnerable children during school hours and to intervene when necessary. The intervention often took the form of the immediate removal of the delinquent student from the classroom and helping them to redefine their relationship with the school environment and their role within it. When this was happening the educational process followed a routine without distractions, while the delinquent children have the time to engage in more experiential activities which will help them to adapt more easily.
During their stay with the Immediate Intervention Group the students had to follow subjects such as physical education, art, and environmental education. The lessons were gradually transferred from the classroom to the school garden. At the same time it was made clear to them that to continue the program in environmental education, they would have to be consistent in the main school subjects such as mathematics, language, and physics.
The research was qualitative. A diary was kept by the first author, where daily observations, thoughts and characteristic instances were recorded. Unstructured interviews with the participating children were taken at the beginning, the end and about the middle of the programme.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAbsenteeism dropped noticeably and it was now clear that the children cared about their image as students.
Arriving at exact time for school was another noticeable change. Everyone agreed to come at 7:30 instead of 10:30 and to do extra lessons so they could pass schoolexams. School before the program was a pain, now it's purposeful and interesting. The teachers thanked us as it was the first time, they had seen the specific students trying.
After Christmas holidays participating children came up with the idea to take part in contests with monetary prizes from the ministry because that way they would collect money for materials and instruments they need for gardening: Outside the classroom and in the nature, participating students relaxed, calmed down and managed to accept responsibilities, take initiatives and participate in collective tasks.
In addition, complaints from professors about inappropriate behavior and disciplinary councils that resulted in expulsion stopped. A boy began to attend math after school courses, but above all children acquired a desire for inclusion and purpose. Their gardens were on the one hand their own work and on the other hand they had the approval of everyone in the school from students who were jealous and wanted to join to teachers who really admired the effort.
Apparently many factors played a role in children's transformation, but among them, the sense of competence, cooperation and social approval, as well as the opportunity for outdoor physical activity made the difference.
ReferencesArtinopoulou, V. (2010). School mediation. Educating students to manage violence and bullying. Athens: Law Library.
Bernados, M. (2003). The aggression of the child at school and in the family, electronic address: www.specialeducation.gr
Bika, H. (2011). Forms of Student Aggression in Middle School: A Case Study. School of Philosophy, Ioannina.
Buna, A. (2018). Gender dimensions of school violence. Pedagogical Department of Kindergarten Teachers, Ioannina.
Delia, J., & Krasny, M. E. (2018). Cultivating positive youth development, critical consciousness, and authentic care in urban environmental education. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 2340.
DuBois, Β., Krasny Μ., Smith J., (2017): Connecting
brawn, brains, and people: an exploration of non-traditional outcomes of youth stewardship programs, Environmental Education Research, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2017.1373069
Ericson, N., (2001) Addressing the Problem of Juvenile Bullying, Government Printing Office, DC
Krasny, M., Kalbacker, L., Stedman, R., Russ, A., (2015)
Measuring social capital among youth: applications in environmental education, Environmental Education Research, 21:1, 1-23
Panousis, G. (2018). What and who is behind school violence. In: Th. Thanos, I. Kamarianos, A. Kyridis & N. Fotopoulos (Eds.), Sociology of Education. Introduction to basic concepts and topics (pp. 531-631). Athens: Gutenberg.
Rigby, K. (1996). Preventing peer victimization in schools. In C. Sumner, M. Israel, M. O'Connell, & R. Sarre (Eds.), International Victimology: Selected 176 papers from the eighth International Symposium (pp. 303–309). Griffith, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Schusler, T. M., and M. E. Krasny. 2010. “Environmental Action as Context for Youth Development.” The Journal of Environmental
Education 41: 208–223.
Skavdis, D. (1995), "Compliance" and "reaction" in the Greek school of Secondary Education, New Education, 74, 36-47.
Thanos, Th. (2017). School violence, bullying and student delinquency. In: Th. Thanos, I. Kamarianos, A. Kyridis & N. Fotopoulos (Eds.), Sociology of Education. Introduction to basic concepts and topics (pp. 531-631). Athens: Gutenberg.
Tsatsakis (Eds.), School violence and school bullying. Methodological issues, dimensions, treatment (pp. 19-24). Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis
Tsifas, A. (2005). Discipline and Penalties in Education, East, no. 15003, p. 4, 10.2.05.
Weissman, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial endeavors:(Re) producing neoliberalization through urban agriculture youth programming in Brooklyn, New York. Environmental Education Research, 21(3), 351-364.
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
Making with Soil: Researching Research Practices for Sustainable Research.
Laura Colucci-Gray1, Alba L'Astorina2, Rita Giuffredi2, Andrea Caretto3, Raffaella Spagna3, Alice Benessia3
1University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom; 2Istituto per il Rilevamento Elettromagnetico dell'Ambiente Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (Irea-Cnr); 3Pianpicollo Selvatico - Centre for research in the arts and sciences
Presenting Author: Colucci-Gray, Laura
Curriculum knowledge is tied to a disciplinary organization set to create ever-increasing specialization; producing knowledge that is efficient in solving disciplinary and technical problems, but often unsuitable for dealing with complex, socio-environmental issues. New ways of practicing research, and of thinking its role in society, appear necessary to overcome the empasse, and to enable the production of knowledge which is relevant, contextual and inclusive of a plurality of legitimate perspectives (Benessia et al., 2012).
This paper draws on a recent project, BRIDGES (Building Reflexivity and Response-ability Involving Different narratives of knowledGE and Science) focussed on a specific socio-ecological dimension of the current global health crisis – the fertility of soil. Since the early 2010’s, the UN has identified soil degradation as one of the most critical planetary concerns, alongside climate change and biodiversity loss; moreover, soil fertility is relevant to several SDGs (1, 2, 11, 12, 15) with SDG 15 Life on Land being an issue that is particularly relevant to the Italian context, where 14 hectares of cultivable soil per day are lost to urbanisation (Munafo, 2019). However, alternative views exist on what constitutes ‘fertile soil’ (FAO, 2019) and how it can be measured, according to different disciplines, operating at different levels and time-scales. In addition, decision-making processes about the different uses of soil will need to balance economic considerations with questions about the health of people and ecosystems. Hence, the governance of soil is a trans-disciplinary issue involving diverse fields of knowledge and practices, a plurality of languages, methods and scales.
In these circumstances, the ‘post-normal’ turn has garnered momentum in policy studies and in the scientific community itself (Waltner-Toews et al., 2020) as well as in education (Colucci-Gray, 2014) as a participatory model of decision-making advocating for an “extended peer community”, with a wider set of stakeholders, each one holding a partial but legitimate perspective. Yet, such approaches are not mainstream. For example, Meijer et al. (2016) reported that while the new "epistemology of the European identity" in policy-related science is formally requiring a full integration of all social actors in decision-making, researchers consider these as “peripheral activities” without straight-forward value for them. A “tacit hierarchy between science and society”, bearing the idea that “certain kinds of knowledge are better than others” makes on a par relationships difficult. Indeed, such contradictions are linked to dominant narratives that express wider imaginations about the world, what is to be valued and the place and agency of humans versus others more than humans. Held tacit, these narratives define and demarcate the horizons of possible and acceptable action: they project and impose classifications; they distinguish issues from non-issues, and actors from non-actors. Hence, for a change to occur both “research cultures and research practices have to be reconsidered, decoupling from the desire for control over Nature and the future, and recovering the relational dimension of “how humans ask and respond to each other, taking more seriously the experimental craft of all kinds of practitioners, not only humans” (Haraway, 2016, p. 68).
Drawing on demarcation as a powerful heuristic tool, this paper inquires into the narratives of research arising from the experiences of a group of multidisciplinary researchers involved in arts-based practices of digging in the soil. The study looks at how participants came to understand and redefine the parameters of their research work, focusing on:
1. What cultural and social norms underpin the ways in which researchers talk about and legitimise their ideas of research?
2. To what extent does the artistic dimension enable a reflection on the intrinsic values of human dependency from soil?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA group of 15 multidisciplinary researchers – all members of the project team – took part in a 3 day residential stay in the rural centre for research in the arts and sciences “Pianpicollo Selvatico” (http://www.pianpicollo.org/pages/about). Arts-based practices engage participants across a range of communicative dimensions: from the abstract, cognitive level of classical scientific demarcation, to the aesthetic, embodied and affective level of contextualised inquiries (Barone and Eisner, 2011).
Specifically, the activity was proposed and led by two artists and involved participants in ‘digging’ in the soil across three sites: the meadow; the vegetable path and the woodland. For each dig the task was the same: to adopt a stance of attention and attentiveness (Patrizio, 2020); the archaeological gaze which collects without categorising; sets aside without judging; tells a story by keeping open the possibilities for other stories (Haraway, 2016). The process of digging being a metaphor for the wider practices of research, comparing and contrasting the more focussed and instrumental attitude of the ‘looking for’ with the exploratory and relational dimensions of looking in, order to improve one’s own way of observing and one’s own doing. Adopting artistic methods involving making with materials, we sought to overcome the classical dichotomy of ‘neutral observation’ - as a detached stance from the world - versus ‘participation’ - that presumes being a part of the world. A participatory sensory ethnography approach was adopted; each participant made soil artefacts and took photographs; discussions amongst us were audio and video-recorded, and all data was put in a shared repository. Here we draw upon the approach of Taylor et al (2022), thinking with things in order to think with theory, to recount the different stories of the dig via sharing a selection of objects, each one speaking to the particular experience of working and being with soil. Stories and photographic narrations were diffracted to bring forth the vitality and potentiality at the heart of research – to re-animate research practice, each object having potency, a vital part of the entangled web of space and time (Taylor et al., 2022). The insights from these encounters illuminate the expectations, contradictions and possibilities of changing posture and modulating one’s gaze in order to act within a transdisciplinary space.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings“An object’s vibrancy is often fugitive, ephemeral, momentary and yet an object can unleash forceful, affective, and powerful effects. Posthuman object pedagogies invite risk and discomfort, in their challenge to do research against the grain in the cracks, interstices, middles and muddles” (Taylor et al., 2022, p.219). Also in our digging, the stories carried by our objects brought back an intensity of affect, which continued to reverberate in the memories, the voices and our own bodies. For some, digging was inevitably connected to finding something, supposed to be mysterious, difficult to get to, precious. Research in this sense was a quest leading to a result. But other narrations of research were also possible. Turning the gaze towards one’s hands, our stories spoke about the need to get close and into contact; the awareness of entering an entangled set of relations, even if such relations were not all immediately apparent. Each tool afforded different ways of making community with soil, whilst the different soil environments themselves called for different modes of digging. For us all involved in professional research across multiple disciplinary contexts, the central question was the same one: how do we move from data driven approaches to context-sensitive modalities, which allow openness and the possibility of the unknown? How do we cultivate the qualities of research as a practice of attention that sustains and nurture relationships within a diversity of settings and situations? How do we continue supporting ourselves and others to take the time to dig, to make space to dig, and to bring testimonies of each other’s experiences? In the project we learnt the importance of taking time and taking time for oneself, to perceive the value of moving away from a model of expertise to making-with soil and with its stories.
ReferencesBarone, T. and Eisner, E.W. (2011). Arts-based research. London: Sage
Benessia, A. et al. (2012) ‘Hybridizing sustainability: Towards a new praxis for the present human predicament’, Sustainability Science. doi: 10.1007/s11625-011-0150-4.
Colucci-Gray, L. (2014) ‘Beyond evidence: a critical appraisal of global warming as a socio-scientific issue and a reflection on the changing nature of scientific literacy in school’, Cultural Studies of Science Education. doi: 10.1007/s11422-013-9556-x.
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) (2019) Soil erosion: the greatest challenge to sustainable soil management. Rome.
Haraway, D. (2016) Staying with the trouble. Makin Kin in the Chthulucene. London: Duke University Press
Meijer, I. et al. (2016) Monitoring the Evolution and Benefits of Responsible Research and Innovation (MoRRI) – a preliminary framework for RRI dimensions & indicators - Paper for the OECD Blue Sky Forum 2016 – final version, 15, July 2016.
Munafò, M. (ed.) (2019) Consumo di suolo, dinamiche territoriali e servizi ecosistemici. Edizione 2. 08/19.
Patrizio, A. (2020). The ecological eye. Manchester: MUP
Taylor, C., Hogarth, H., Barratt Hacking, E., & Bastos, E. S. R. (2022). Posthuman Object Pedagogies: Thinking with Things to Think with Theory for Innovative Educational Research. Cultural and Pedagogical Inquiry, 14(1), 206.
Waltner-Toews, D. et al. (2020) ‘Post-normal pandemics: Why COVID-19 requires a new approach to science – STEPS. Centre’, steps-centre.org. Available at: https://steps-centre.org/blog/postnormal-pandemics-why-covid-19-requires-anew-approach-to-science/
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
Environmental Motivation of Students Participating in a School-Garden Project: A Qualitative Study with Elementary School Vulnerable Children
Anthi Christodoulou, Konstantinos Kofiatis
University of Cyprus, Cyprus
Presenting Author: Kofiatis, Konstantinos
We studied the development of environmental motivation in a group of vulnerable elementary school children who participated in a school kitchen garden project.
Within the theory of Environmental and Sustainability Education (ESE) motivation is an important subject of research as it is considered the condition where a person has or acquires intrinsic and extrinsic incentives (motives), to involve into pro-environmental behavior and actions (Christodoulou and Korfiatis, 2019; Darner, 2012). From an educational point of view, the aim is to support those types of motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic) who are more strongly connected with students’ personal development and well-being. Indeed, various studies in the domain of environmental and sustainability education have shown that integrated and intrinsic types of motivation for participation and action are connected with empowerment, self-efficacy and ownership, as well as with a longer sustaining of a behavior or action (Dutta and Chandrasekharan, 2017; Murakami, Su-Russell and Manfra, 2018).
The Self Determination Theory (SDT) of motivation pays particular attention to factors or conditions that enhance motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Specifically, the SDT states that in order to foster motivation, the basic psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness must be supported (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Karaarslan et al., 2014). However, very few studies have analysed the actual conditions under which specific motivational projects have been implemented, i.e., if participants had indeed experienced the conditions that supposedly constitute the cornerstones of a motivational approach. Εvidence derived from those studies is quite interesting even though reveals contradictions. For example, Legault and Pelletier (2000) report that children who were part of an EE project engaged in ecological behaviors motivated less by extrinsic motives than did children who were part of a control group. Contrary to these results, Boeve-de Pauw and Petegem (2017) have found that 6th grade as well as 12th grade students participating in the well-known eco-school project developed external rather than internal environmental types of motivation. Karaarslan, Ertepınar, and Sungur (2014) argue that the various institutional EE projects promote rather non self-determined pro-environmental behaviors. In this way they emphasize the development of extrinsic motivation. As a result, Karaarslan et al. (2014) comment, many EE campaigns fail in enduring participants’ motivation toward the environment. In another study, Renaud-Dube et al. (2010) argue that elementary school children are more likely to exhibit external rather that self-determined types of environmental motivation, but it is important to increase autonomous environmental motivation at that age. Therefore, there is a need to study how psychological variables affect vulnerable young students intention to act for the environment and for sustainability (Uitto, Boeve-de Pauw, and Saloranta, 2015; Boeve-de Pauw, and Petegem, 2017).
School garden projects are considered as ideal contexts to fulfill vulnerable students psychological needs. For example, school gardens enhance students’ competence and relatedness (Pollin and Retzlaff-Fürst, 2021; Christodoulou and Korfiatis, 2019), empower their sense of autonomy, by controlling their own survival needs (e.g., food, land, tools) (Okvat and Zautra, 2011), and promote their social well-being and the quality of the natural environment (Tidball and Krasny, 2011).
Within the above line of reasoning, this study aims to answer the following questions: 1. How the development of the psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness affect vulnerable students’ environmental motivation? 2. Are there other conditions – except of those three psychological needs – that influence students’ environmental motivation and future environmental intentions?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThirteen students from an urban elementary school, aged 6-12 years old, participated in the kitchengarden project. Students were characterized by medium educational level, low environmental motivation, limited interaction with nature, low socio-economic background, and high level of obesity.
Project activities were based on students’ thoughts and decisions during the implementation of the project. Students worked in mixed capacity groups of three to four members. The project was designed with aim to enhance participating children satisfaction of their basic psychological needs, according to SDT: their sense of autonomy by making their own choices about maintaining their garden and managing their crops; their sense of competence by collecting good quality and fresh vegetables; and their sense of relatedness by discussing problem-solving activities and making group decisions (Korfiatis & Petrou, 2021).
Data were collected by: (a) pre and post-test interviews, (b) schoolteachers observations and (c) students self-reported reflective Notes.
Pre- and post – interviews aimed to identify students’ environmental motivation before and after their participation in the project. Post interviews aimed also to identify how students perceived the various characteristics of the project and their future environmental intentions. Teachers observations and students self-reported reflective notes aimed to record data about students’ participation in project’s activities (their considerations, initiatives, worries, difficulties, emotions).
Content Analysis used to analyse the data gathered with the above-mentioned methodological tools. The analysis of the pre- & post- interviews was based on the five SDT types of motivation (External Regulation, Introjected Regulation, Identified Regulation, Integrated Regulation, Intrinsic Regulation) and open coded analysis was used to analyse teachers observations and students self -reported reflective notes. An interpretivism approach was adopted to compare the RT member observations and the Students Self -Reported Reflective notes, and to generate interpretations about the influence of the phycological needs on students’ environmental motivation, and other possible conditions affecting their future environmental intentions.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe satisfaction of the three psychological needs according to SDT influence children’s environmental motivation.
This is how an 8 years old girl describe the satisfaction of her needs: “I felt autonomy because we were given the choice of where to create our kitchen garden, and what we would like to cultivate…I felt relatedness because me and my team members were working together, sharing our thoughts to take care of our crops…I felt competence by seeing our goal being accomplished, or by offering veggies to the lady who prepares our lunch at school…I would certainly create a kitchen garden again in our school or in my house yard”.
However, our findings suggest that there is more about enhancing students’ environmental motives from only creating the conditions under which they will satisfy the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness.
An example from teachers observations: They were considered about a boy’s non-participating behavior during the project even though he stated that his three basic psychological needs were satisfied. Personal discussions with him revealed that specific family issues (low-income, failure to cover basic survival needs) did not let him focus on his school participation in general and on the school-garden project in particular.
Another 9 years old boy stated: “I would like to create a vegetable garden, only if somebody provides me help”. Supportive environment is emerged as an important condition affecting certain students’ environmental intentions (Patrick et al., 2007).
The present study recommends that specific personal or social conditions (Cicek-Senturk & Selvi, 2019), are important factors that influence environmental motivation. These factors might be of significant importance when vulnerable children are concerned and the theories of motivation should include them in their explanatory frameworks
ReferencesBoeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2017). Because my friends insist or because it makes sense? Adolescents’ Motivation towards the Environment. Sustainability, 9(5), 750.
Christodoulou, A., & Korfiatis, K. (2019). Children's interest in school garden projects, environmental motivation, and intention to act: A case study from a primary school of Cyprus. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 1-11.
Cicek-Senturk, O., & Selvi, M. (2019). The Development of Environmental Motivation Scale at Secondary Schools and Analysis of Different Variables of Students' Motivation towards Environment. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(4), 218-236.
Darner, R. (2012). An empirical test of self-determination theory as a guide to fostering environmental motivation. Environmental Education Research, 18(4), 463-472.
Dutta, D., & Chandrasekharan, S. (2018). Doing to being: farming actions in a community coalesce into pro-environment motivations and values. Environmental Education Research, 24(8), 1192-1210.
Karaarslan, G. Sungur, S. & Ertepinar, H. (2014). Developing preservice science teachers’ self-determined motivation toward environment through environmental activities. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 9, 1-19.
Korfiatis, K., & Petrou, S. (2021). Participation and why it matters: children’s perspectives and expressions of ownership, motivation, collective efficacy and self-efficacy and locus of control. Environmental Education Research, 27(12), 1700-1722.
Legault, L., Green-Demers, I., Grant, P., & Chung, J. (2007). On the self-regulation of implicit and explicit prejudice: A self-determination theory perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), 732-749.
Murakami, C. D., Su-Russell, C., & Manfra, L. (2018). Analyzing teacher narratives in early childhood garden-based education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 49(1), 18-29.
Okvat, H. A., & Zautra, A. J. (2011). Community gardening: A parsimonious path to individual, community, and environmental resilience. American journal of community psychology, 47, 374-387.
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents' perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of educational psychology, 99(1), 83.
Pollin, S., & Retzlaff-Fürst, C. (2021). The school garden: A social and emotional place. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 567720.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.
Tidball, K. G., & Krasny, M. E. (2011). Urban environmental education from a social-ecological perspective: Conceptual framework for civic ecology education. Cities and the Environment (CATE), 3(1), 11.
Uitto, A., Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Saloranta, S. (2015). Participatory school experiences as facilitators for adolescents' ecological behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 55-65.
|
