| Session | ||
30 SES 02 A: Transforming and Changing in ESE Research and Practice
Paper Session
| ||
| Presentations | ||
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Sustainable School Food Experiences: A Transformative Mechanism for Levelling up the Nation University of Exeter, United Kingdom Presenting Author:This paper addresses the imminent challenges of childhood obesity, childhood food poverty, food system induced biodiversity loss, and climate change through an examination of the integration of meals and food education provision in schools. School meals are one of the largest social safety nets in the world (Alderman & Bundy, 2012) yet school meal service has been characterised with the predominance of ultra-processed food (Parnham et al., 2022), due to the reliance on a small number of large multinational wholesale corporations (Sabet, 2022). This results in children experiencing the same narrow variety of food on the plate every day. Furthermore, despite the statutory requirement for food education since 2014, significant enhancements in provision have not materialised (Ballam, 2018). Guided by the research question on how integrated 'food experiences' during meals and education provision can serve as a transformative mechanism to alleviate health inequalities in school food, this study builds on the findings of a realist evaluation on a sustainable school food intervention in three schools in England. The study presents a new integrative approach to school food while highlighting its potential in addressing health inequalities in schools.
This study is founded on the concept of ‘sustainable school food’, which refers to a complex system that integrates the dimensions of nutrition, and environmental sustainability associated with meal provision, with food education in schools (Jones et al., 2012). Against the backdrop of a diminishing positive human connection to nature, particularly among disadvantaged populations, leading to a phenomenon which has been referred to as the ‘extinction of experience’ (Pyle, 1978). This study draws on John Dewey's philosophy of experiential learning (1932) to formulate a conceptual understanding of school food experiences which integrates meals and education provision in schools. Experiential learning theory posits that effective learning occurs through direct experience of doing and reflection, which is particularly pertinent to food education in schools. Emphasising experiential learning, the study explores how the amalgamation of meals and education facilitates transformational learning opportunities for pupils. On the one hand portraying sustainable school meals as a pedagogical tool to enhance culinary capital (Kamphuis et al., 2015), and on the other utilising food education to provide authentic learning opportunities such as cooking and farm visits (Smeds et al, 2015).
Utilising school meals as a learning opportunity is often founded in communal food sharing (Andersen et al., 2015), and social interactions (Lalli, 2022),, reflecting the principle of authenticity and relevance (Smeds, 2015). Such understanding of school food practice is founded on Dewey’s perception of learning needs and the urgency for education to meet those within the pupil’s immediate surrounding (Dewey, 1932; Smeds, 2015). Therefore, school meals can be employed as a pedagogical tool which reinforces pupils' learning on food through relevant and meaningful practice (Osowski et al., 2013).
This study posits a conceptual understanding of experiential food education, emphasising practical and relevant learning as a core component. The study explores how the meals and education provision in schools converge offering transformational learning opportunities for pupils. Such integration presents school meals as a pedagogical tool which aims to expose children to a wide variety of sustainable food, and enrich their culinary capital. On the other hand, food education embodies authentic experiences with authentic actors in authentic settings. Examples from the study included cooking school meals, with kitchen and teaching staff, in the school kitchen and engaging in food growing activities with small farmers in local farms during farm visits.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This paper draws on a large doctoral realist evaluation study of a sustainable school meal intervention enhanced by an experiential food education content in three schools in England. Data was collected using a mixed methods approach on two phases. The aim of Phase 1 was to develop initial programme theories for sustainable school food as reflected in meals and education provision through practice-embedded stakeholder input. During Phase 1, we collected and analysed data from a web-based survey to eight primary schools, semi structured interviews with 15 key informants, and in person observations in 3 schools. Following exploratory phase, a realist evaluation was conducted and data were collected using mixed methods across three case studies to generate qualitative, quantitative and comparative evidence (Pawson, 2013). Methods employed included multiple observations of food experiences during lunch and food education lessons during the intervention, semi-structured interviews with multiple programme experts, 12 focus groups with pupils across all schools as well as well as documents review of menus, kitchen recipes, and wholesale price lists. Quantitative data including records of meals uptake and collected weight of plate waste over three weeks before and during the intervention and were cross-examined with the qualitative data. Finally, comparative evidence was drawn across the three case studies which held particular significance in elucidating context-specific findings (Pawson, 2013). Data generated from each of the three cases was analysed separately for a profound in situ understanding of the phenomenon within each context. Following on from this, the data was cross-case analysed for a more holistic understanding of the phenomena. The quantitative analysis, from the life cycle analysis, financial analysis, and records of meals uptake numbers and weight of plate waste interrelated with the qualitative data drawn from the observations, interviews and focus groups (Handley et al., 2020). Both interviews and focus groups data were transcribed verbatim and contemporaneously with each round of data collection. Hand-written field notes, email correspondences were also transcribed and saved into dated and named Word files under each case. The data analysis process was iterative to accommodate the building and refinement of explanatory theories. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Findings from the realist evaluation underscore the urgency for integrative practice of meals and food education which holds transformative potential in mitigating structural health inequalities experienced by disadvantaged pupils. Experiential food education offers practical opportunities to pupils that may be otherwise limited or absent from their primary education. This paper unveils two latent phenomena within the context of school food in England, denoted as the 'illusion of choice' and the 'extinction of food experience.' The illusion of choice pertains to the apparent diversity in school meals, presenting 3-5 menu options daily. However, these well-promoted menus frequently consist of the same restricted range of ultra-processed food items and a limited variety of fresh fruits and vegetables. Consequently, this practice restricts pupils' exposure to high-quality food and inhibits the exploration of new flavours. Conversely, the concept of food education, emphasising hands-on practical food experiences, emerges as a transformative force, particularly for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. In such instances, where pupils often encounter constraints in accessing diverse food experiences beyond the school environment, hands-on food education proves to be exceptionally impactful. The study's findings underscore the transformative potential of integrated school food practices, particularly in alleviating structural health inequalities experienced by disadvantaged pupil populations. Experiential food education provides practical opportunities, such as growing, preparing and cooking food, which are often restricted for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. Sustainable school meals which are high in a variety of fresh and seasonal fruits and vegetables maximise pupils’ exposure to new food experiences, familiarise them with sustainable food choices and enrich their culinary capital. In conclusion, this paper advocates for the integration of meals and education into a new transformative approach to school food with a focus on relevance and experience. Such integration can serve as a powerful mechanism in addressing health inequalities among pupils in schools. References Alderman, H., & Bundy, D. (2012). School feeding programs and development: Are we framing the question correctly? World Bank Research Observer, 27(2), 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkr005 Andersen, S. S., Holm, L., & Baarts, C. (2015). School meal sociality or lunch pack individualism? Using an intervention study to compare the social impacts of school meals and packed lunches from home. Social Science Information, 54(3), 394–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018415584697 Ballam, R. (2018). Where next for food education? Nutrition Bulletin, 43(1), 7–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12303 Dewey, J. (1932). The School and Society. The University of Chicago Press. Handley, M., Bunn, F., Lynch, J., & Goodman, C. (2020). Using non-participant observation to uncover mechanisms: Insights from a realist evaluation. Evaluation, 26(3), 380–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389019869036 Jones, M., Dailami, N., Weitkamp, E., Kimberlee, R., & Salmon, D. (2012). Engaging Secondary School Students in Food-Related Citizenship: Achievements and Challenges of A Multi-Component Programme. Education Sciences, 77–90. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci2020077 Kamphuis, C. B. M., Jansen, T., Mackenbach, J. P., & Van Lenthe, F. J. (2015). Bourdieu’s cultural capital in relation to food choices: A systematic review of cultural capital indicators and an empirical proof of concept. PLoS ONE, 10(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130695 Lalli, G. S. (2022). The school restaurant: Ethnographic reflections in researching children’s food space. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 35(1), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1797210 Osowski, P. C., Göranzon, H., & Fjellström, C. (2013). Teachers’ interaction with children in the school meal situation: The example of pedagogic meals in Sweden. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 45(5), 420–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2013.02.008 Parnham, J. C., Chang, K., Rauber, F., Levy, R. B., Millett, C., Laverty, A. A., Hinke, S. Von, & Vamos, E. P. (2022). The Ultra-Processed Food Content of School Meals and Packed Lunches in the United Kingdom. Nutrients, 14(14), 2961. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14142961 Pawson, R. (2013). The science of evaluation: A realist manifesto. Sage Publications, Inc. Pyle, R. (1978). The extinction of experience. Horticulture, 56, 64–67. https://www.cairn.info/revue-ecologie-et-politique-2016-2-page-185.htm?ref=doi Sabet, F. (2022). Sustainable school food procurement in England: When there is a will, there is a way. In Bruce, D. & Bruce, A. (Eds.), Transforming food systems: Ethics, innovation, and responsibility (pp. 76-81). https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-939-8_10 Smeds, P., Jeronen, E., & Kurppa, S. (2015). Farm Education and the Value of Learning in an Authentic Learning Environment. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10(3), 381-404. Retrieved on 15 January 2020 from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1069262 30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Understanding Transformative Agency by Analyzing Students’ Writings on the Future University of Helsinki, Finland Presenting Author:Global sustainability crises and accelerating societal and technological development are posing new demands for education at all levels. A lack of stable future horizons can lead young people to regard the future with hopelessness, to take directionless actions and to exhibit inabilities to project themselves into the future (Cook, 2016; Rosa, 2013; Rubin, 2013). Meanwhile, the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 program calls for societal transformations that cannot be achieved without transgenerational thinking, responsibility and transformative abilities of the young (Unesco, 2017). These emerging goals of education connect to agency, the capacity for autonomous social action during which people intentionally transform their social and material worlds (Biesta & Tedder, 2007; Emirbayer & Mische, 1998; Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011). Policy documents worldwide promote agency as an educational objective in order to enhance responsible participation in the complex and uncertain world (e.g. OECD, 2018). This paper addresses one of the “leverage points” to fostering students’ agency: by analyzing and broadening the ways in which they think about the future. Indeed, agency is intertwined with futures thinking since “agency involves the idea of projection and implies anticipation” (Cuzzocrea & Mandich, 2016). Also according to the seminal work on agency by Emirbayer and Mische (1998), an individual’s capacity for action, imagination and making change in relation to structural contexts is profoundly dependent on how they perceive their own relationship to the past, future and present in different situations and moments of time. Our take on the concepts of “future” and “futures thinking” draws on the research field futures studies (e.g. Bishop, Hines & Collins, 2007; Börjeson et al., 2006; Kousa, 2011). The basics of futures-thinking in that field involve, e.g., understanding the plurality of futures, disengaging from deterministic future views, identifying and questioning assumptions to develop alternative scenarios, and understanding that small changes can become major changes over time. Research in the field has shown that positive images of the future have positive effects on an individual’s life (Bell, 1997; Rubin, 2013). Focusing on threats as well as not questioning ’automatic’ future-thinking patterns narrow down thinking and thereby limit the possibilities (Hutchinson, 1996), while the perspective of hope encourages to see alternatives and opportunities (Lombardo & Cornish, 2010). A typical approach to analyze futures thinking in the field of futures studies is that scenarios, or images of the future, can be created from various orientations (see e.g. Bishop et al., 2007; Börjeson et al., 2006; Hicks & Holden, 1995; Voros, 2003). The first type of orientation discusses what the future is likely to be (probable futures), while the two other types of futures thinking concern what the future could be (possible futures), and what it should be (preferable futures) (e.g. Börjeson et al., 2006). The study reported here employed these orientations to analyze students’ writings on the future and agency-related views in them. The study examined the following three research questions: 1. How do the different types of futures thinking manifest in students’ essays on the future? 2. What is the prevalence of different types of futures thinking in students’ essays on the future? 3. How do the types of futures thinking connect to the temporal dimensions of agency? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This paper summarises the results and outcomes of four part-studies analysing students’ writings on the future, and one part-study analysing upper secondary school science curricula from five European countries. The main corpus of the data on students’ perceptions consisted of 16-19 year old upper secondary school students’ essays on a desirable future, collected in Finland (n=58) and Italy (n=223). Additional data from the Netherlands was analysed to expand the research into younger, 8-14 years old children. Students’ narratives were analysed by qualitative content analysis and narrative inquiry, also used in earlier research on youth’s agency and views of the future (e.g. Angheloiu et al., 2020). For the curriculum analysis, a subset of European secondary-level science curricula (i.e. Dutch, English, Finnish, Italian and Lithuanian) was selected. The qualitative content analysis combined inductive and deductive coding, latter basing on the model of Futures Conciousness (Ahvenharju et al., 2018). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The analysis resulted in three categories of “future talk”, each representing a different type of futures thinking as manifested in the essays. We argue that the recognized types of future talk may offer interesting facets to understanding students’ agentic orientations. Type 1 (“Stability/extrapolation”) of futures talk demonstrates the capacities to selectively recognize, locate and implement schemas (experiences, trends, etc.) which are central to Emirbayer’s and Mische’s (1998) iterational dimension of agency. Both types 2 and 3 demonstrate a capacity for imaginative distancing (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998; Mead, 1932) – detaching oneself from constraining assumptions, schemas, habits and traditions – characteristic to the projective dimension of agency. The types of futures talk can thereby be connected, respectively, to the reproductive and transformative types of agency. Our results imply that students need practice to be able to imagine futures based on values, dreams and choices; this type of thinking (“preferable futures”) is needed to activate the projective dimension of agency. It is, however, not a single type of futures thinking but a combination of them which constitutes an effective agentic orientation -- cf. the “chordal triad” of the three temporal dimensions of agency (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998). Therefore, education developing students’ futures thinking should aim to find a balance between imaginative distancing (types 2 and 3 of futures talk) and selective recognition and implementation of schemas (type 1 of futures talk). We argue that this is crucial in order to foster students’ transformative agency in the age of sustainability crises and accelerating societal and technological development. References Bell, W. (1997). Foundations of futures studies: human science for a new era. Vol. 1, History, purposes and knowledge. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Biesta, G. & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149. Bishop, P., Hines, A., & Collins, T. (2007). The current state of scenario development: An overview of techniques. Foresight, 9(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680710727516 Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Börjeson, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K., Ekvall, T. & Finnveden, G. (2006). Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user's guide. Futures, 38, 723-739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.002 Connelly, F. M. & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational researcher, 19, 2-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X019005002 Cook, J. (2016). Young adults’ hopes for the long-term future: from re-enchantment with technology to faith in humanity. Journal of Youth Studies, 19(4), 517–532. Cuzzocrea, V. & Mandich, G. (2016). Students’ narratives of the future: Imagined mobilities as forms of youth agency? Journal of Youth Studies, 19(4), 552-567. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2015.1098773 Emirbayer, M. & Mische, A. (1998). What Is Agency? The American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962-1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294 Hicks, D. & Holden, C. (1995). Visions of the future: Why we need to teach for tomorrow. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Hutchinson, F. (1996). Educating beyond violent futures. London: Routledge. Kousa, T. (2011). Evolution of futures studies. Futures, 43(3), 327-336. Lipponen, L. & Kumpulainen, K. (2011). Acting as accountable authors: Creating interactional spaces for agency work in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 812-819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.001 Lombardo, T. & Cornish, E. (2010). Wisdom facing forward: What it means to have heightened future consciousness. The Futurist, 44(5), 34-42. Mead, G. H. (1932). The Philosophy of the Present. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. OECD (2018), The Future of Education and Skills. Education 2030: The Future We Want. Retrieved at https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf Rosa, H. (2013). Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Rubin, A. (2013). Hidden, inconsistent, and influential: Images of the future in changing times. Futures, 45, S38-S44. Unesco (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning objectives. Paris: Unesco. Voros, J. (2003). A generic foresight process framework. Foresight, 5, 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680310698379 30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Tracing Students’ Ideologies about the salmon, human and nature; An Open Schooling Intervention University of Oslo, Norway Presenting Author:The Anthropocene is an era characterized by existential ruptures to life as we know it, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and breached planetary boundaries. The important role of education in meeting these challenges has been highlighted by scholars (White et al., 2022), and it is argued that we need to rethink education for a sustainable future. In Science education, several scholars argue for new visions of scientific literacy, such as scientific literacy for change-making and transformative action (Mueller et al., 2022; Tasquier et al., 2022). When students are learning to read, write, and talk science, they are also learning to think in a scientific way; they are being encultured into the culture of science (Knain, 2014). This is because the scientific language has evolved to structure texts documenting the scientist's worldview (Halliday, 2003). The scientific language is characterized by high lexical density, use of passive voice, high use of technical and academic language, and the use of nominalizations (Osborne, 2023). This contributes to making the language effective and packed with information. However, this language can also contribute to obscure agency, such as when the process of cutting down trees is described as deforestation (Osborne, 2023). Another example of how scientific language can obscure agency was given in Knain’s (2001a) analysis of the Norwegian curriculum decades ago. Here, he showed how the description of the environmental destruction resulting from the use of DDT was described in a way that DDT, and not humans, was presented as the actor who harmed life: DDT, which killed pests and limited diseases, accumulated in the food chain and harmed life at many levels unintentionally. Knain (2001a) argues that the discourse appears to have a preserving effect. Ecolinguistics is a field that uses linguistic analysis to reveal the underlying stories, or ideologies, we live by, questions the stories that are destructive, and then tries to come up with new stories (Stibbe, 2015). Science education has been criticized for being fact-oriented, avoiding normative issues, which would rather be addressed in other subjects (Bostad & Hessen, 2019; Kvamme, Reiss, 1999). Values are an important part of education for sustainable development, but in science curricula, textbooks, and classrooms, normative and value-laden issues are often avoided to present an image of science as objective (Knain, 2001b). Bostad and Hessen (2019) argue for the importance of balancing fact-based science and ecology education with an education that fosters an emotional connection with nature. In a supporting document to the science PISA framework (White et al., 2022), it is highlighted that we need to rethink our relationship with nature and other species by adopting an ecocentric worldview that sees humans as an integral part of the environment rather than separate from it. This paper focuses on The Salmon Project, a 13-week interdisciplinary open schooling intervention co-created by teachers and researchers. Through classroom instruction and field trips to the salmon spawning site, the students engaged deeply with the lifecycle of salmon. The teaching intervention had a narrative approach, in which the students, throughout the whole period of the project, worked on developing a film script about the salmon life cycle. Focusing on students’ film, we have done a qualitative discourse analysis partly based on the framework of functional grammar (Halliday, 2003) and a social semiotic analysis based on Kress & Van Leeuwen’s framework (2006). Research questions:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The presented study focuses on a case study that was a part of the larger EU-funded Horizon 2020 project Science Education for Action and Engagement towards Sustainability (SEAS). SEAS established, coordinated, and evaluated collaboration among six open schooling networks in seven European countries. Open schooling is an innovative approach to education that bridges school and society to approach socio-ecological challenges collaboratively. The aim with the analysis is to gain insight into how a narrative approach to a science-related theme in an interdisciplinary open schooling intervention can contribute to fruitful negotiation of values, perspectives, and emotional connectedness to nature. How can education change the stories we live by? (Stibbe, 2015). We are also interested in how students' agency can be investigated through discourse analysis. According to Halliday (2003), language is a social semiotic system where functional grammar is seen as a resource for meaning-making. Kress & Van Leeuwen (2006) further developed this framework also to include multimodal representations. By studying the metafunctions of language and students’ semiotic choices, it is also possible to get insight into how they negotiate implicit ideologies. Further, language use can be an expression of agency. In our analysis of the text, we focus particularly on the use of nominalizations, modality, and the kind of processes in focus (material, mental, relational, existential). In the analysis of the film, we also focus what processes in focus and on perspective and modality. The notion of coding orientation is relevant in investigating modality. For instance, in scientific discourse, there is a high use of abstract representation, such as graphs and diagrams, and less use of realistic pictures. In a scientific coding orientation, therefore, diagrams and abstracted representations can have higher modality than pictures. In everyday discourse, on the other hand, realistic pictures and movies can have high modality as they show reality. They can often be used to trigger emotions and perspectives. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Our analysis shows that the students’ text had characteristics of scientific discourse with a high focus on material processes. This is not surprising as it focuses on the life-cycle of salmon. The language contains many nominalizations, such as spawning and migration. However, this scientific discourse was blended with a more direct and confronting discourse towards human actions. For instance: “Every year humans dump 8 million tons of plastic and waste into the ocean” points very clearly toward human actions and thereby serves as a contrast to typical science discourse, which has been criticized for obscuring human responsibilities (Osborne, 2023). This message is strengthened by a realistic picture of a river full of waste. We argue that this language use, combining scientific discourse with a discourse focusing more on humans responsibilities is an expression of agency. Learning science is about learning the language of science (Osborne, 2023). However, in order to change science education, as called for by scholars (White et al., 2022), we also need to use language in new ways to invent new stories about our relationship with nature. Our analysis of the film scripts and the movie shows that the students negotiated different ideologies about salmon, humans, and nature: Salmon as a victim, salmon as a superhero, salmon as food, salmon as a part of populations and ecosystems, and salmon as a product/business. These negotiations can be seen as a way to rethink our relationship with nature and other species (White et al., 2022). Bostad and Hessen (2019) suggest that deep ecology can serve a bridge-building function between the more fact-based ecology and normative questions and emotions. Our analysis revealed that the salmon project, as an open schooling intervention expressed through students' film scripts, blended the more scientific ecological perspective with a more emotional and normative perspective. References Bostad, I., & Hessen, D. O. (2019). Learning and loving of nature in the Anthropocene. How to broaden science with curiosity and passion. Studier i pædagogisk filosofi, 8(1), 28-42. Dillon, J., Achiam, M., & Glackin, M. (2021). The Role of Out-of-School Science Education in Addressing Wicked Problems: An Introduction. In Addressing Wicked Problems through Science Education: The Role of Out-of-School Experiences (pp. 1-8). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Halliday, M. (2003). On language and linguistics. In J. Webster (Ed.), The collected works of M. A. K. Halliday (Vol. 3).Continuum. Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Sinclair, N., Chval, B. K., Clements, H. D., Civil, M., Pape, J. S., Stephan, M., Wanko, J. J., & Wilkerson, L. T. (2016). Positioning mathematics education researchers to influence storylines. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 47(2), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.47.2.0102 Knain, E. (2001a). Naturfagets tause stemme. Norsk sakprosa. Knain, E. (2001b). Ideologies in school science textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 23(3), 319-329. Knain, E. (2015). Scientific literacy for participation: A systemic functional approach to analysis of school science discourses. In Scientific Literacy for Participation. Brill. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (1st ed.). Routledge. Mueller, M. L., Jornet, A., Knain, E., (2022). Science Education for Action and engagement for Sustainability (Summary report) University of Oslo. Retrieved from: seas-summary-report-2022.pdf (uio.no) Osborne, J. (2023). Science, scientific literacy, and science education. In Handbook of research on science education (pp. 785-816). Routledge. Stibbe, A. (2015). Ecolinguistics: Language, ecology and the stories we live by. Routledge. Tasquier, G., Knain, E., & Jornet, A. (2022). Scientific literacies for change making: equipping the young to tackle current societal challenges. In Frontiers in Education (p. 134). Frontiers in Education (p. 134). White, P.J., Ardoin, N.A., Eames, C., Monroe, M.C. (2023). Agency in the Anthropocene: Supporting document to the PISA 2025 Science Framework, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 297, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8d3b6cfa-en. | ||