30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
Exploring a Goethean Approach to a Transformative, Phenomenological Sustainability Science Education
Donald Gray
University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Gray, Donald
Current socio-environmental problems are in part, it can be argued, a result of reductive thinking in modern science, the essence of which has remained largely unchanged for three centuries. Such a reductive and quantitative approach to science, linked to a mechanical model of nature (Robbins, 2005), separates humanity from nature whereby the scientist becomes an onlooker onto something of which they are not a part. This has been contributary to the problems of the Anthropocene, posing a threat to humanity and all living things on the planet (Rockström et al., 2009). Yet, even acknowledging this, science is still seen as an important contributor to the resolution of these problems (Tortell, 2020). Nevertheless, in recent years there has been critique of the way in which some methodological aspects of scientific research are conducted (Ahn et al., 2006), particularly in relation to complex socio-environmental issues. Such thinking, it is suggested, has to be changed to develop approaches more suited to the current era (Raven, 2002). However, the current model of science is not the only possibility and there is a growing interest in more holistic approaches that result in an integrated sustainability science (Kates et al., 2001). This is similarly probed at the level of science education, with many authors suggesting that schools need to approach science in a different way to enable young people to have a much greater understanding of the complex interconnectedness of living and material processes and the way in which social and environmental issues are inextricably intertwined (Bencze, 2017; Gray & Colucci-Gray, 2014). It has been suggested that there is a need to complement the prevalent quantitative, reductive science education with a more qualitative, phenomenologically-based science process (Østergaard et al., 2008). One such approach was developed by J W von Goethe (Richards, 2002), which, it is said, can result in the metamorphosis of the scientist (Amrine, 1998) and foster a deeper sense of responsibility and care for the natural world (Seamon, 2005). Goethean science forms the foundation to much of Steiner/Waldorf educational principles (Rawson & Kiel, 2018) but is largely unrecognised in mainstream schools. The idea of imagination and insight is one key aspect of Goethean science which is developed in particular ways and involves heightened sensory awareness and artistic sensitivities (Hoffmann, 2020), but Goethean science is also a very rigorous, methodological, phenomenologically based approach that aligns very well with existing scientific methodology and has promise for a renewed approach to school and university science and our relationship with the natural world. This paper explores the possibilities for a sustainability science education incorporating aspects of the Goethean science methodology and which aligns well with current thinking in STEAM and embodied, enactive education (Colucci-Gray et al., 2017).
Using a Delphi style approach, the research undertaken for this paper explored the characteristics and method of Goethean science, considering whether this more qualitative, holistic, methodology provides any promise in complementing the dominant quantitative and reductionist approach used in the sciences and what it offers for environmental and sustainability education in schools. Consideration is given to how these can be translated into science education at primary and secondary levels and inform the perceptions of educators as to their potential efficacy and implementation.
Research Questions
1. What is the key element of Goethe’s science that stands it apart from modern mainstream science?
2. What is the role of the arts in Goethean science?
3. Is Goethean science a transformative process? If so, in what way?
4. What are the main challenges to integrating a Goethean method into mainstream school science education?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedFollowing institutional ethical approval, the methodology employed a three stage process:
Stage 1. Engaging with the literature.
The literature reviewed covered the promises and critiques of both the current scientific paradigm as well as the methodology described by Goethe and his successors. While Goethean approaches are recognised by some educational establishments e.g. Waldorf schools, they are not widely adopted in mainstream schools. Examination of any reservations displayed around Waldorf science education, as well as the perceived benefits of Goethean science, were examined to determine which aspects of Goethean science can potentially be integrated with existing pedagogies supporting sustainability science education.
Stage 2. Expert Witness Statements. Following the collation and analysis of literature, a Delphi style approach was adopted in which conversations with scholars in the area of Goethean science were held to affirm any key ideas extrapolated from the literature. These focussed on key practices embedded within the methodology of Goethean science and how these might be construed as pedagogical approaches at different levels in science education. Thirteen authors and figures in the area of Goethean science and education were approached to further the investigation of ideas and nine interviews conducted. The interviews and further email conversations enabled full exploration of ideas drawing from many different perspectives, but each with a background in Goethean scholarship.
All interviews were recorded, with permission of the participants, transcribed and in depth analysis conducted. Key ideas were drawn from the analysis of both literature and scholarly dialogue to produce a potential framework of Goethean science which can be applied to complement the current dominant quantitative and reductive scientific paradigm. The key concepts have been refined through close literature reading and expert witness statements to provide a framework for enacting the integration of reductionist, quantitative science education, with a more holistic, qualitative approach.
Stage 3. Adaptation to School Science Curricula. From the framework developed in stage two a key elements that may be feasible to adapt as complementary approaches in science education to address the given curriculum and sustainability are being developed. Given the often entrenched curricular and policy directives, particularly in secondary schools, it is important that complementary approaches must be compatible with current curricular requirements. The intention is that, if shown to have promise, such complementary approaches may be recognised and adopted into mainstream practice. A preliminary framework will be presented and discussed.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe research results suggest that Goethean science methodology, or what others have termed holistic or integrative science methodology, has the potential to cultivate the senses and generate much greater awareness of our position within the natural world and our relationships within it in a potentially transformative educational process.
While there are constraints that need to be considered and addressed in trying to integrate Goethean, phenomenological, methods into mainstream science education, some possible ways forward appear to be:
1) The need to begin in the early stages of pre- and primary school to inculcate the habits and build children’s conditions through cultivating curiosity of mind, skills of the will and sensitivity of the senses. Sensorial, embodied and enactive approaches are key, linking this with practice of drawing or detailed description of what one sees, perhaps linked with other arts-based activities e.g. poetry, drama.
a. Where possible such science should be grounded in experiential activities that take place out of doors, in natural environments making full use of sensory experiences. Such activities can then be built on in the classroom environment.
b. Much can be learned from the Waldorf approach, but there may need to be some adaptation required for mainstream at particular ages and stages.
ReferencesAhn, A. C., Tewari, M., Poon, C. S., & Phillips, R. S. (2006). The limits of reductionism in medicine: Could systems biology offer an alternative? PLoS Medicine, 3(6), 0709–0713. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030208
Amrine, F. (1998). The Metamorphosis of the Scientist. In D. Seamon & A. Zajonc (Eds.), Goethe’s Way of Science (pp. 33–54). The State University of New York.
Colucci-Gray, L., Burnard, P., Cooke, C., Davies, R., Gray, D., & Trowsdale, J. (2017). Reviewing the potential and challenges of developing STEAM education through creative pedagogies for 21st learning: how can school curricula be broadened towards a more responsive, dynamic, and inclusive form of education? BERA Research Commission, August, 1–105. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22452.76161
Hoffmann, N. (2020). The University at the Threshold. Orientation through Goethean Science. Rudolf Steiner Press.
Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., Mccarthy, J. J., Schellnhuber, H. J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N. M., Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G. C., Grubler, A., Huntley, B., Jager, J., Jodha, N. S., Kasperson, R. E., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., … Svedin, U. (2001). Sustainability Science. Science, 292(5517), 641–641.
Østergaard, E., Dahlin, B., & Hugo, A. (2008). Studies in Science Education Doing phenomenology in science education: a research review. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260802264081
Raven, P. H. (2002). Science , Sustainability , and the Human Prospect. Science, 297, 954–958.
Rawson, M., & Kiel, W. (2018). A complementary theory of learning in Waldorf pedagogical practice. Research on Steiner Education, 9(2), 1–23.
Richards, R. J. (2002). The Romantic Conception of Life. Science and Philosophy in the Age of Goethe. The University of Chicago Press.
Robbins, B. D. (2005). New Organs of Perception: Goethean Science as a Cultural Therapeutics. Janus Head, 8(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.5840/jh20058139
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., … Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
Seamon, D. (2005). Goethe’s Way of Science as a Phenomenology of Nature. Janus Head, 8(1), 86–101.
Tortell, P. D. (2020). Earth 2020: Science, society, and sustainability in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(16), 8683–8691. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001919117
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
Epochal Key Problems as a Quality Criterion for All-Day Schools Education
James Loparics
Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria, Austria
Presenting Author: Loparics, James
In the course of various UN programs (UN Decade for Sustainable Development, Sustainable Development Goals), education is addressed as a central factor for the sustainable transformation of economy and society (Venkataraman, 2009). Extended education and all-day schools seems to be particularly relevant for this area, since on the one hand there are extended time and opportunity spaces as a supplement to classical teaching and on the other hand there are synergies in terms of content, since the usual goals and methods of extended education seem to be predestined for topics and forms of action of education for sustainable development (e.g. Stoltenberg & Burandt, 2014).
If the context-input-process-outcome model of school quality (e.g., Ditton, 2000) is used, the question of the quality of extended education arises in addition to contextual factors (endowment of resources and structural factors), pedagogical process quality, and impact: What should be the topics of Extended Education? Klafki (e.g. 1985/2007) sees epoch-typical key problems (such as the climate crisis or global social inequality) as the central content and the contribution to solving these problems as the central category of general education. Supplemented by the concept of leisure needs, this results in a model for the content quality for extended education. If Klafki's model is supplemented accordingly, six dimensions of general education in all-day schools emerge: In addition to pragmatic educational goals (literacy, etc.) and subject instruction, aesthetic goals and play, epoch-typical key problems (e.g., Sustainable Development Goals of the UN) and leisure needs (e.g., recreational needs or participation needs) would have to be added. This has numerous implications for the context-input-process-output-outcome model of Ditton (2000), since in view of the complexity and magnitude of these educational goals, teaching and extended education would have to be increasingly thought of together. Also - following this way of thinking - school processes are connected to global processes of sustainable development, which brings numerous implications about the task of school and general education (which Klafki subsumes under the concerns of self-determination, co-determination and solidarity).
Subsequently, it appears relevant whether the factor of content quality in the sense of global-social problems is, first, conscious or important to educators and, second, whether indications of this educational dimension are already reflected in pedagogical processes - based on the state of research that much is known about the equipment and professional impact of all-day schools, but little about the processes. The following research question was pursued: How does the integration of epoch-typical key problems in all-day schools relate to other educational dimensions on the level of intentions and processes?
Therefore, a for the federal state of Vienna (Austria) representative study (Loparics, 2022) was conducted. The study is supplemented by qualitative data (interview and observation) to target the process level.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn the survey teachers and recreational educators (N=405) were asked about their basic and action-guiding intentions. In addition to some information about the profession (teacher, leisure educator, principal), participants were asked to first assess how important various content dimensions (basal educational goals such as writing and arithmetic, leisure needs such as contemplation and recreation, play and movement, creativity, subject content, and epoch-typical key problems) were considered to be in order to obtain values for goal intention (as distinct from action intention, Gollwitzer, 1993). Subsequently, the intention to act was queried by asking the participants to allocate 100 % of their work time to the six educational dimensions, which allows an implicit ranking. In addition, measures of correlation were calculated, and it was found that there do not seem to be any systematic correlations with regard to epoch-typical key problems, i.e., all persons involved give little importance to epoch-typical key problems compared to other educational dimensions in terms of basic or action guiding intention. The study is supplemented by qualitative data (interviews and observation) to target the process level. For this purpose, expert interviews with seven of the leading persons participating in the survey were asked about measures and contexts at the institution level and analyzed using content analysis by extraction (Gläser & Laudel, 2010). In addition, one day of instruction was observed in three all-day schools (additional observations had to be cancelled due to Corona restrictions). The qualitative data indicate that schools that set structural measures on the level of the institution in relation to the implementation of epoch-typical key issues (e.g., specific committees or in-school training) also set more educational opportunities on the process level (in the sense of extended education, Stecher et al., 2018).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results show that, in comparison, teachers and leisure time educators consider topics of sustainable development far less important than other dimensions of general education (subject content, leisure time needs, etc.). This indicates that - if schools and education are indeed to play a central role in the sustainable transformation of society - teachers and leisure educators would not only need methodological support in implementation, but there would first of all need to be a discourse on the weighting of different educational goals and their synergies. How could everyday processes in the classroom and extended education offerings be linked to sustainable development content? What do corresponding offers look like and what is their additional value? It is also necessary to consider what development processes at the level of the whole school and its management look like in the sense of the whole institution approach (e.g. Forssten Seiser et al., 2022), if sustainable development goals are to be pursued.
However, the qualitative results indicate potentials to further establish the topics, especially when working with specific school development tools. It is evident that in order to establish sustainable development issues in schools in general and especially in all-day schools, further efforts in teacher training and school development as well as innovative didactic models are necessary to achieve the required competencies and attitudes among students.
ReferencesDitton, H. (2000). Qualitätskontrolle und Qualitätssicherung in Schule und Unterricht. Ein Überblick zum Stand der empirischen Forschung. In A. Helmke, W. Hornstein, & E. Terhart (Eds.), Qualität und Qualitätssicherung im Bildungsbereich: Schule, Sozialpädagogik, Hochschule (pp. 73–92). Beltz.
Forssten Seiser, A., Mogren, A., Gericke, N., Berglund, T., & Olsson, D. (2022). Developing school leading guidelines facilitating a whole school approach to education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2151980
Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen (4. Auflage). VS Verlag.
Gollwitzer, P.M. (1993). The volitional benefits of planning. In Gollwitzer, P.M. & Bargh, J.A. (Eds.), The psychology of action. Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 287–312). Guilford. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwiYqM7Fu57mAhVipIsKHcJZDRIQFjABegQIBRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F37367746_The_Volitional_Benefits_of_Planning&usg=AOvVaw2x5cl345NNgLpBWoU66Ka_
Gollwitzer, P.M., & Bargh, J.A. (Eds.). (1993). The psychology of action. Linking cognition and motivation to behavior. Guilford.
Klafki, W. (1985). Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik: Zeitgemäße Allgemeinbildung und kritisch-konstruktive Didaktik (6. Auflage). Beltz Verlag.
Loparics, J. (2022). Epochaltypische Schlüsselprobleme als Qualitätskriterium für Ganztagsschulen (1. Auflage). Waxmann.
Opaschowski, H. W. (1996). Pädagogik der freien Lebenszeit (3., völlig neubearb. Aufl). Leske + Budrich.
Stecher, L., Maschke, S., & Preis, N. (2018). Extended Education in a Learning Society. In N. Kahnwald & V. Täubig (Eds.), Informelles Lernen (pp. 73–90). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-15793-7_5
Venkataraman, B. (2009). Education for Sustainable Development. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 8–10. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.08-10
|
