19
This article was downloaded by: [DUT Library] On: 08 October 2014, At: 16:22 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjs20 Negotiating the Complexities of Environmental Education: A Study of Ontario Teachers Michael Tan a & Erminia Pedretti a a Ontario Institute for Studies in Education , University of Toronto , Ontario, Canada Published online: 19 Feb 2010. To cite this article: Michael Tan & Erminia Pedretti (2010) Negotiating the Complexities of Environmental Education: A Study of Ontario Teachers, Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10:1, 61-78, DOI: 10.1080/14926150903574320 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14926150903574320 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Negotiating the Complexities of Environmental Education: A Study of Ontario Teachers

  • Upload
    erminia

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

This article was downloaded by: [DUT Library]On: 08 October 2014, At: 16:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Canadian Journal of Science,Mathematics and Technology EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjs20

Negotiating the Complexities ofEnvironmental Education: A Study ofOntario TeachersMichael Tan a & Erminia Pedretti aa Ontario Institute for Studies in Education , University of Toronto ,Ontario, CanadaPublished online: 19 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: Michael Tan & Erminia Pedretti (2010) Negotiating the Complexities ofEnvironmental Education: A Study of Ontario Teachers, Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics andTechnology Education, 10:1, 61-78, DOI: 10.1080/14926150903574320

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14926150903574320

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICSAND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION, 10(1), 61–78, 2010Copyright C© OISEISSN: 1492-6156 print / 1942-4051 onlineDOI: 10.1080/14926150903574320

Negotiating the Complexities of Environmental Education:A Study of Ontario Teachers

Michael Tan and Erminia PedrettiOntario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Abstract: Arguments for a stronger emphasis on environmental education are numerous and com-pelling. However, environmental education is not without its tensions and complexities, nor does ithold the prominent place in formal education that might be expected. In this article, we review someof the challenges that stand in the way of implementation, and we discuss the results of a study con-ducted with teachers in Ontario. We set out to explore the current status of environmental educationin Ontario classrooms. Specifically, we (a) investigate teachers’ reported beliefs and practices aboutthe environment and environmental education and (b) identify challenges to implementing environ-mental education. For this study we carried out an Internet-based survey questionnaire, netting over300 completed responses, and interviewed 24 teachers from across the province. Our findings suggestthat there is a significant gap between teachers’ views of what environmental education should beand what they currently practice. Challenges and complexities identified by participants include over-crowded curriculum, lack of resources, lack of alignment between curriculum and existing ministryexpectations, low priority of environmental education in schools, access to the outdoors, apathy, andthe nature of sociopolitical action.

Resume: Il y a de nombreux arguments en faveur d’une plus grande place pour la formation environ-nementale. Cependant, la formation environnementale n’est pas privee de tensions et de complexites,et elle n’occupe certainement pas la place a laquelle on pourrait s’attendre dans la formation sco-laire. Dans cet article, nous passons en revue certaines des questions qui posent probleme et nousanalysons les resultats d’une recherche en ce sens menee aupres des enseignants ontariens. Nousnous proposons d’explorer la situation actuelle de la formation environnementale en Ontario, et plusprecisement d’analyser les opinions et les pratiques des enseignants en matiere d’environnement etde pedagogie environnementale, afin de cerner les problemes qui entravent la mise sur pied d’uneformation environnementale. Pour cette etude, nous avons administre un questionnaire par Internetgrace auquel nous avons obtenu plus de 300 reponses completes, et nous avons interviewe vingt-quatre enseignants de toute la province. Nos resultats indiquent qu’il a une difference significativeentre la formation environnementale souhaitee par les enseignants et les pratiques actuelles de cesmemes enseignants. Parmi les problemes souleves, mentionnons un curriculum surcharge, le manquede ressources, un desequilibre entre le curriculum et les attentes actuelles du ministere, le peud’importance accorde aux questions environnementales dans les ecoles, l’acces reduit aux activites al’exterieur, l’apathie et enfin la nature meme de l’action sociopolitique.

Address correspondence to Erminia Pedretti, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, 252 Bloor St. W., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V6. E-mail:[email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

62 TAN AND PEDRETTI

INTRODUCTION

Environmental education, now more than ever, has reached a high degree of prominence inthe public imagination. Climate change, pollution, deforestation, and loss of biodiversity arebut a few of the pressing problems that confront us daily. It comes as no surprise, then, thatthere has been a proliferation of calls (internationally and nationally) for a stronger emphasis onenvironmental education (see, for example, Reshaping Education for Sustainable Development,United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 1992; Educationfor Sustainability, UNESCO, 2002). In Canada, an Ontario government–commissioned reportstates: “Schools have a vital role to play in preparing our young people to take their place asinformed, engaged, and empowered citizens who will be pivotal in shaping the future of ourcommunities, our province, our country, and our global environment” (Bondar et al., 2007, p. 6).These calls have grown into the form of a provincial policy document outlining the promotionand implementation of environmental education across the curriculum:

Ontario’s education system will prepare students with the knowledge, skills, perspectives, and prac-tices they need to be environmentally responsible citizens. Students will understand our fundamentalconnections to each other and to the world around us through our relationship to food, water, energy,air, and land, and our interaction with all living things, The education system will provide oppor-tunities within the classroom and the community for students to engage in action that deepen thisunderstanding. (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2009, p. 6)

There has also been an extensive review of the Ontario science and technology curriculum at theelementary and secondary levels (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2007, 2008a, 2008b), resultingin a shift toward a vision of science education that has emphasis on the environment, and a science-technology-society-environment (STSE) approach. In addition, two new environmental sciencecourses have been added to secondary education in Ontario. It is within this context of curriculumreform and a renewed commitment to environmental education that this study emerged.

Although many educators have welcomed environmental education with open arms, environ-mental education remains a challenging subject; more difficult yet is the task for teachers acrossall subject areas who now have to incorporate environmental issues into their teaching, especiallyif they have had little prior experience or training in teaching with/through the environment. Inthis article, we review some of the complexities that stand in the way of implementation, andwe discuss the results of a study conducted with teachers in Ontario. In general, we set out toexplore the current status of environmental education in Ontario classrooms. Specifically, we(a) investigate teachers’ reported beliefs and practices about the environment and environmentaleducation and (b) identify challenges to implementing environmental education. In the followingsection we review three complexities that impact environmental education: structural regularitiesof schooling, pedagogical approaches, and place-based education.

THE COMPLEXITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

The Structural Regularities of Schooling: Stevenson’s Gap

Of the many complexities surrounding the introduction of environmentalism in the classroom,perhaps the most significant and challenging are those that arise from the structural regularities of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

THE COMPLEXITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 63

schooling and its raison d’etre. In a book chapter significant enough to merit a reprint in a recentjournal twenty years after its initial publication, Stevenson (2007) discusses the relationshipbetween environmental education and democracy (see also, for example, Hart, Jickling, & Kool,1999; Orr, 1991; Russell, Bell, & Fawcett, 2000). If, for example, the aim of schooling in generalis to further the democratic imperative and offer students choices unto their own destinies, theirexposure to different perspectives is important to ensure their rational, defensible decision making.Stevenson explains that for environmental issues, there are several possible solutions. If we areserious about getting students to choose, they need to have action competence because it wouldbe highly ingenuous to offer choice but no way to act on it. Students need practice in makingthese decisions and competence in what amounts to political organization in order to enact theirchoices. In effect, schooling needs to provide students with such practice.

Stevenson (2007) identified four areas of contradiction: (a) philosophical intent—schoolshave had a stable structure almost globally for over two centuries as the primary agent of socialreproduction, whereas environmental education demands a (politically) revolutionary approach;(b) classroom pedagogy—schools are biased toward individualistic, lecture-styled approachesof synthetic material, whereas what is required is a focus on cooperative, real-world problemsolving of current situations; (c) school organization—is biased toward mass credentialing andthe efficient processing of students, which is anathema to problematic inquiry, ambiguity, contra-dictory stances, and associated psychological unease; and (d) curriculum ideologies—where thehigh status, “public” knowledge being taught in schools is at odds with the “private” knowledgeslike aesthetic appreciation and other intangible emotional connections to nature. As an exampleof the somewhat powerful nature of curriculum ideologies at work, Barrett (2007) studied howone teacher (Jeff) was at pains to incorporate a version of environmental education that he desiredfor his students. He was held back by reservations that his planned activities were not rigorousenough. Jeff had planned for his students to be out in nature and to appreciate nature for whatit is, to learn to love and appreciate the natural surroundings as they are without imposing someanalytical lens to it. However, in reflecting back after the outing, he says:

I’m sure there’s emotional things going on there too, but I think most of the kids walk by and say,“Oh look at all the dead trees. Are we done yet?” So on a cognitive level, there is certainly somethinggoing on there, there’s a rift. On an emotional level there’s probably a rift too. On a psychologicallevel there’s probably a rift too. I think maybe I think more of the cognitive level than the other ones,but. . . . (Barrett, 2007, p. 214)

It is not surprising that several of our interviewees reflected similar opinions and experiences.More of this will be discussed later.

Pedagogical Approaches to Environmental Education

Sauve (2005) outlined 15 approaches to environmental education, which she termed currentsthat inform approaches to pedagogy. She described each current by its dominant conception,primary aims, approaches and strategies, provided some example activities, and posed criticalquestions. Of the 15, perhaps the forms most recognizable and commonly practiced are thatof the naturalist, problem solving, value centered, and scientific currents. The naturalist currentis interested in reconstructing a link with nature and typically employs strategies that immersestudents into nature with sensorial games and discovery activities. The problem-solving current

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

64 TAN AND PEDRETTI

conceives of environmental issues as problems that need solutions and is oriented toward guidingstudents’ development of skills from diagnosis to action. Problem-solving activities tend to havea cognitive, pragmatic approach, and example activities include case studies, issue analysis,or projects. The value-centered pedagogical approach is concerned with changing the valueorientation and moral commitment of student for a set of environmental values. The scientificcurrent views the environment as just another object of study, with the aim for students todevelop competence in the environmental sciences, using issues “as a hook” (Sauve, 2005,p. 17).

These four approaches or currents (as well as the remaining 11) carry particular strengthsand weaknesses. The naturalistic current is likely to be rejected by science teachers who arenot teaching a biological science unit. Even for teachers who might be conducting a lesson ontaxonomy, the lesson intent is different from the naturalist current in that the science teachermight be interested in applying a scientific framework and professional vision (Goodwin, 2000)to what would otherwise simply be a disordered mess. Furthermore, it is argued that the nat-uralistic current does not go far enough in moving students toward agency or action. The nat-uralistic current is essentially interested in stimulating students’ emotional connections andaesthetic appreciation of nature. In the problem-solving current, posing environmental issues asproblems that need solving risks focusing students on its negative aspects, the “tragedy, malfea-sance and ignorance” (Gruenewald, 2008, p. 316) associated with the doomsday scenarios oftenused to attract sympathy for causes. This approach also underestimates the capability of naturalsystems to recover when humans stop interfering while setting up the false idea of a naturalenvironment that is dependent on humans and technological interventions when the reverse isprobably true, that our interventions often cause runaway spirals. Finally, a problem-solving cur-rent implies that there are neat solutions that can be applied to what are often complex and messyissues.

As for the value-centered current, the obvious risk factor here is the uneven power relationshipsextant in the teacher–student relationship and difficulties inherent in trying to change the valueorientation of students. Teachers must be careful indeed concerning the distinction betweeneducation and indoctrination. Taking a classical interpretation from Green (1964), indoctrinationis seen as the process of changing a person’s beliefs and ideas without going through the rationalthought processes for acceptance. With these definitions in place, we can begin to distinguishefforts to introduce environmental consciousness along a spectrum from one end of teachingactivities where students are veritably moved to accept preformed conclusions to the other wherestudents are free to disagree and query the information presented. The scientific current is highlyproblematic not only because of the metaphor of a hook (as in fishing hook) as a device that holdsits creature against its will but because of the implication that the sciences do not have any intrinsicvalue for learning in itself. On balance, however, if the language of hook is removed, the useof an environmental context can make subjects real for students and make learning meaningful.Educators, however, run the risk of making use of environmental contexts as a means to an endand not an end in itself.

Sauve’s (2005) currents offer different lenses or frameworks from which environmental educa-tion can be conceptualized, critiqued, and practiced. These currents assist us in understanding howteachers position themselves with respect to environmental education and how that ultimatelyinforms their praxis. Palmer (1998) provides a similar typology of environmental educationpractices over the years.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

THE COMPLEXITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 65

Place-Based Education

One contemporary idea that has attracted much attention among the education community is theuse of local and environmental issues to contextualize what had hitherto been abstract concepts(see, for example, J. Dillon, Rickinson, Sanders, Teamey, & Benefield, 2003; Roth & Barton,2004). In a sense, these movements parallel studies in placed-based education (McKenzie, 2008;Smith, 2007; Zandvliet & Fisher, 2007) that recognize the importance of the local over approachesthat focus on a generalized, abstract social good that often finds expression in some relief effortin remote corners of the world. In considering the local, the sense of affiliation to place is ofparamount importance. Without an affiliation for place, many argue that we cannot possibly hopeto impart to our students a sense of their own agency and capacity to effect change (Louv, 2005;Smith, 2007). Smith, for example, summarizes the typical approach of place-based education as“Cultural journalism, expeditionary learning, problem-based learning, and contextual teachingand learning. Placed-based education is also frequently associated with service learning, civiceducation, and project-based learning” (p. 190).

For educators, then, a curriculum choice that arises out of such an approach would be toconsider the environmental aspects affecting the local community. Researchers have found somesuccess, with teachers reporting increased student enthusiasm and involvement. For example,Yoon (2005) found a situation in which students were invited to provide their reasoned opinionsconcerning a beaver dam that was causing property damage, and Barton and Osborne (2002)worked in an urban context to assist a class of underprivileged minority youth in their project torecover a lot in New York City that was initially “abandoned, full of litter including such items asripped open garbage bags, faeces, broken bottles, and crack vials” (p. 171). By way of summary,place-based learning requires being outside the walls of the classroom in an attempt to connectwith natural and human communities and engage in action and agency.

The complexity presented here by place-based education efforts arises out of the need tobalance local perspectives and powerful knowledges (Young, 2008), for which parents oftenmake great sacrifices to send their children to school. Young describes powerful knowledges asthe following:

Powerful knowledge refers to what the knowledge can do or what intellectual power it gives to thosewho have access to it. Powerful knowledge provides more reliable explanations and new ways ofthinking about the world and acquiring it and can provide learners with a language for engaging inpolitical, moral, and other kinds of debates. (p. 14)

Oversimplifying the matter; in the above cases, if all that the students learn in school werelimited to the localized contexts available to the students, surely something would be missingfrom their curricula? Granted, the situation is never so stark, and placed-based educators certainlydo not advocate local-context-only approaches. Rather, the complexity here is to recognize that itis possible to go too far in either direction. Environmental issues seem to offer ideal placed-basededucation opportunities, balancing local and global contexts with powerful knowledges. In thisstudy, we find incidences where teachers report their felt desire to localize and contextualize theirteaching. Though this is certainly a positive development and desirable change from a possiblyextreme position of decontextualized abstractness, we note that teachers may move too far froma position of equilibrium, and we wonder whether teachers are aware of compromises inherentin their chosen locations along this continuum. We will discuss this further in a later section.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

66 TAN AND PEDRETTI

THE STUDY

Our data collection consisted of an online survey and a series of interviews. Due to the expanseof the province and the scale of the project, the ideal of a large-scale, stratified random samplingscheme (see, e.g., Creswell, 2008) was not feasible. Instead, we elected to distribute the surveyquestionnaire via an initial convenience sample and subsequently use a snowball sampling strategy(Creswell) by distributing the online Web address widely among our contacts throughout theprovince and then inviting them to forward the Web link to their associates. In the design of thequestionnaire, we spent a considerable period generating a large bank of questions and statementsthat reflected our research interests before performing an analysis of the emergent categories of ourquestions. These questions were next coded, and the final questionnaire was formed by creatinga reduced set of questions representative of each of the categories. Once we were satisfied withthe questionnaire, a face validation was performed by a faculty colleague, before two roundswere piloted, the first with a class of part-time graduate students, many of whom were full-time teachers, and the second with a small sample of the intended survey population. Feedbackfrom these groups was integrated into the final version of the questionnaire and then distributedthroughout the province.

The questionnaire consisted of 93 statements/questions divided into nine sections: (a) de-mographic information; (b) personal beliefs about the environment; (c) classroom beliefs andpractices; (d) school context beliefs and practices; (e) the gap between beliefs and practice;(f) opinions on professional development; (g) perceived challenges to effective environmentaleducation; (h) environmental education practices; and (i) open response section. The majority ofthe questionnaire consisted of 5-point Likert-scale type opinion responses, from strongly disagreeto strongly agree, along with a neutral response. For our analysis, we converted their responsesto an ordinal scale, with 1 representing strongly disagree, to 5 for strongly agree; neutral wasscored 3.

As part of the open response section, we invited survey respondents to be interviewed. Twenty-four interviews were conducted, 17 over the phone and 7 in person. Interviews were used toaugment survey data. The protocol was developed in tandem with the survey questionnaire andincluded sections on demographic information, environmental education practices and challengesencountered, and sociopolitical orientation to (environmental) education. The interview wasdesigned to be semistructured, because we wanted to be open to any issues that surfaced fromthe interviewees, along with the original intent of providing them with an opportunity to expandupon aspects of the questionnaire. After transcription of the interview recordings, the text wascoded, and thematic categories were inductively generated by grounded theory techniques (see,e.g., Charmaz, 2005; Glaser & Strauss, 1977).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We obtained a total of 377 respondents, of whom 303 (80.4%) completed the full questionnaire.Because this was an Internet-based questionnaire, the possibility existed that careless users mighthave entered data more than once or began the survey and then abandoned it. All usable responseswere included in the analysis, and the statistics are reported based on the number of valid responsescollected, per question (i.e., n varies across the questionnaire responses reported here from 303

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

THE COMPLEXITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 67

to 377). We considered limiting responses to one per computer to prevent the possibility of ballotstuffing, but we decided against it, because there could be teachers who had to make use of sharedcomputing resources, and it would also be improbable that anyone was sufficiently motivated todeliberately attempt to skew the survey results. In any case, checking the access logs and the datasubmitted, there were no untoward signs of data manipulation. The questionnaire also includedopen-ended response sections. In quotations of text below, survey responses will be attributed torespondent numbers, in contrast to our interviewees, who have been given pseudonyms.

Respondent Demographics

Sixty-nine percent of the respondents identified themselves as female. Twenty respondents de-clined to respond to this question, one of whom left a comment: “Gender question allowed foronly 2 answers. The question and answers should instead reflect that there are more than twogenders” (respondent 161). The majority of our respondents possessed a bachelor of educationdegree (82.2% of all responses). Fifty-three percent of respondents possessed a second degree,47.3% held a bachelor of arts degree, and 34.3% held a bachelor of science degree. A significantminority possessed a master’s of education degree (9.6%), and a small handful (2.8%) possesseda doctorate.

Because the survey was initially spread from Toronto, it was not surprising that 36.3% ofrespondents were from that city. This result is compatible with the observation that Toronto, thecapital city of Ontario and one of the largest cities in North America, has a population density thatwould dwarf the other cities of Ontario. Fifty-eight percent of respondents identified their schoollocation as urban, and 18.5 and 23.4% report being in rural and suburban locales, respectively.Sixty-eight percent of respondents taught (or worked) at public English school systems, and23.3% were at Catholic English schools. Another 5.2% were at independent schools. In termsof age profile, our respondents were mostly in the 41–50 (30.4%) and 31–40 (29.9%) age range,with 24.5% aged more than 50 and 15.2% between 20 and 30. Significantly, the majority ofour respondents had more than 10 years of teaching experience (56.5%), followed by teacherswith 5–10 years of experience (25.0%) and beginning teachers (less than 5 years, 18.5%). Moreteachers identified as secondary level teachers (54.0%) than elementary (46.0%).

TEACHERS’ BELIEFS ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

To a large extent, teachers expressed a sense of urgency about environmental issues; a major-ity of the respondents (a) agreed that they were aware of local environmental issues (ratingaverage = 4.32, SD = 0.735); (b) disagreed that the dangers of environmental destruction wereoften overstated (2.00, 0.975); (c) disagreed that the environment has sufficient ability to recoverfrom damage caused by humans (2.27, 1.07); (d) agreed that technology can reduce the envi-ronmental impact of economic development (3.61, 0.874); (e) considered themselves allies ofenvironmental causes (4.29, 0.726); and (f) disagreed that they were doing enough to alleviateenvironmental degradation (2.68, 0.940). It appears that public education efforts and media mes-sages by pro-environmental groups have had a significant effect on our respondents, to the point

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

68 TAN AND PEDRETTI

that some of them expressed views bordering on guilt. Comments demonstrating respondents’urgency and passion include:

This [the environment] is the most important issue of the coming century. Though I’m concernedabout desensitization through repetition and hypocrisy. (Respondent 330)

The bottom line is that we cannot afford to keep our students in the dark. If we don’t teach studentsabout their environment and the many stresses currently facing ecosystems, we are leading themto believe that there are no environmental problems, and we can all carry on over-consuming andwasting resources in a “business-as-usual” manner. We might as well teach them that aliens are goingto come and save the day. (Respondent 191)

Also present were opinions that expressed obvious frustration with the status quo and re-spondents who disagreed with political decisions not to act on environmental issues. Worthy ofmention was the following response to the open-ended section of the questionnaire:

Given the ever-decreasing window of opportunity to act (before we’ve truly reached the “tippingpoint” and it simply becomes too late), if we don’t act NOW, it will be too late for our children . . .

and any attempt at EE will thus be a total waste of time.

I believe that YOU CANNOT CALL YOURSELF AN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATOR UNLESSYOU FIRST PUBLICLY DEMONSTRATE YOUR COMMITMENT TO CHANGE IN YOUR OWNLIFE. FURTHER, TO BE AN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATOR, YOU MUST ALSO DEMON-STRATE THAT YOU ARE SEEKING TO CHANGE THE LIVES OF YOUR PEERS, because ifdon’t make drastic changes in the here and now, it will soon become “too late.” (Respondent 1,formatting in original)

With the Internet and E-mail textual convention of all capitalized text being interpreted asshouting, this respondent has made it abundantly clear that he believes very passionately inenvironmental issues. This response, however, was as rare as it was forceful, with most respondentsexpressing concern in rather more measured tones. We think it is fair here to claim that fed a steadydiet of “tragedy, malfeasance, and ignorance” (Gruenewald, 2008, p. 316), it is not surprising tofind that teachers’ attitudes toward the environment tend toward strongly felt emotions.

With respect to environmental education, the teachers who responded agreed that environ-mental education is a high status topic for them personally (rating average 4.09, SD = 0.905).Teachers were mixed, however, when responding to the question of whether environmental ed-ucation was well implemented in their school (3.18, 0.993). Furthermore, they did not agreethat environmental education was a high priority in their schools (average rating = 3.02, SD =1.14; most respondents [99] chose disagree). Many, through the open-ended question invitingcomments about environmental education in general, expressed frustration with past practicesand policy:

Words cannot express my frustration over the decline in support for outdoor and environmentaleducation in the last few decades. In this time, we have seen numerous outdoor education centresclosed and programs discontinued. While the Bondar report, and the latest version of the Ministryof Education’s Science Curriculum show an increased interest in OEE [Outdoor and EnvironmentalEducation], these are paper documents, and much of the damage has been done. (Respondent 264)

We teach it, but our school board does next to nothing to show leadership. [Respondent 330]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

THE COMPLEXITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 69

In contrast, many teachers felt that environmental education was fairly well implemented in theirown classrooms (3.54, 0.993), although they were quick to point out the numerous challengesinherent to teaching environmental education (these will be discussed later).

When asked what environmental education should be about, most of our interviewees spokeabout the importance of changing students’ practices, habits, and values:

I think it’s important to generate interest and awareness of environmental issues early to turn studentsinto adults that act, and for lack of a better word, the sooner you can “indoctrinate” people with theideas, the earlier they are willing to act, and see the benefit of their actions. (Interviewee Peter)

. . . I asked myself the question, whenever I’m teaching, am I actually indoctrinating the students?And I think at an elementary level, I sort of am. So, with that in mind, one of the things . . . andthis is probably going to sound bad, but I think one of the things that I believe is that I need toalmost indoctrinate the students in terms of a moral environmental approach to living. Looking at theenvironment and how we impact the environment. So it’s almost sort of an indoctrination approach Itake. Again, that sounds worse than it probably is. (Interviewee Andy)

I believe that if the teacher feels passionate about environmental issues s/he can pass on theirsentiments to their students. As a holistic educator I believe in transformational learning. Throughtheir learning experiences students need to be transformed into better human beings who can bestewards of the environment. Through my involvement in environmental committees, I have providedopportunities for students to become sensitized to environmental issues. (Respondent 123)

It was not surprising to find that the pedagogical currents (Sauve, 2005) that were reflectedby most of our interviewees were the value-centered and naturalist currents. Considering thevalue-centered current, a number of issues emerged (especially when teachers expressed strongcommitments to particular value orientations). For example, to what extent are value orientationsnegotiable? What values do educators adopt? Though these teachers use the term indoctrinationfairly loosely and in a semi-humorous fashion, we could not help but discern a certain sense of fi-nality behind their comments. Are they suggesting, for instance, that the need to recycle, conserveenergy, and reduce personal consumption is not up for contention, and that they perceived theirtask as converting students to their cause? Though we do not disagree with the fundamental intentbehind many of these attempts at modifying students’ values, we worry about the distinction be-tween indoctrination and education (Green, 1964) and how that plays out in classrooms. Certainly,it would not take much to uncover, for example, the history of well-meaning recommendationsmade with the best scientific knowledge that did not end well.

Respondents disagreed with the statement that “teachers should be neutral with regard toenvironmental issues” (rating average = 1.96, SD = 0.958) and instead should advocate aparticular stand (3.43, SD = 1.04). However, this sentiment was not echoed in the interviews, withalmost all our interviewees mentioning that it was important to remain neutral in the classroom,to “teach both sides” and to allow their students to “decide for themselves.” For example:

I’ll tell them both sides of it, and if they ask “which one do you prefer?” and I’ll say, “I’ll tell youwhich one I prefer, but you don’t have to think the same way,” because I don’t want to have the parentscall here and have me lose my job [laughing]. But they know from what you do and observing howyou live, what your beliefs are, but I would never ridicule anyone or say “that’s good,” and “that’sbad.” I just say, “here are the both sides of it, and this is the one I would prefer, but you can choose to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

70 TAN AND PEDRETTI

do what you want to do. That’s what free will is. And then you live with the consequences. If it isn’tthe right thing, we’ll have consequences to live with.” (Interviewee Jessica)

Because I’m a science teacher, I think they understand the science of it. And that isn’t enoughthat they understand the long-term impact on the eco-system and that they understand the societalimplications and to some extent the political implications. So for the political ones, I might talkabout the lakes that have dried up and that effect that it’s going to have as people start goingthirsty [. . .] I don’t dwell on it because I teach science, not politics, but I’ll bring it in. (IntervieweeRachel)

Last week we watched a film [. . .] called Mickey Mouse Monopoly. And it talks basically about theimages and the use of imagery in Disney movies, and the portrayal of women and the portrayal ofrace and the commercialization. [. . .] the whole class was just like, “well, they’re corporations, theycan do whatever they want. They just want to make money. And that’s fine, just let them make money,however they want.” And I was astounded. [. . .] I think today I’m actually going to come out of myshell and I’m going to say, “you must be mad!” And talk to them a little bit more about that. You havea responsibility to allow freedom of expression of any opinion in your classroom as long as it’s nothateful. And I think if a teacher is too political, you’re going to scare off a lot off a lot of discourse,and you’re going to scare off a lot of students who are maybe not thinking in the way you think. Andit’s important that, even if you think differently from your teachers, your opinion should be valued.So, I try to keep it [my opinions] out. If they want to know, I’ll tell them, but I really try to keep myviewpoints more to myself. (Interviewee Teresa)

The quote from Teresa brings up, again, the perplexing question of what teachers shoulddo with students who do not agree with them. What respect would we be demonstrating forstudents’ autonomy and right to choose their future paths if we limit their possibilities to choicescomfortable to the teacher? Conversely, if teachers do support students’ decisions against socialnorms, what about their responsibilities in loco parentis—and for societal good in general?Surely, there are some cultural practices for which there is some agreement? Most unsatisfyingfor the moment, perhaps the best we can do is to flag this potential pitfall and remark that thereis probably no one-size-fits-all answer. Teresa is an experienced high school teacher, and herexcellent rapport with her students allows her to accommodate and question challenging andopposing views in her class. However, this may not always be the case for more novice teachersor teachers who are uncomfortable with discussions that involve taking up value positions and/oradvocacy. Here, then, we see Stevenson’s gap (2007) at work; school is organized around theprimary aim of social reproduction, which is at odds with the ambiguity and contradictory stancesinherent in environmental education.

The Gap Between Beliefs and Practices

One of the most interesting findings to emerge from this study is the discrepancy betweenteachers’ beliefs and practices of environmental education. We asked the respondents to rate a setof statements with respect to what environmental education is about in their schools, and whatenvironmental education should be about. The data are presented in Table 1, with rating averagesand standard deviation in brackets:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

THE COMPLEXITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 71

TABLE 1Differences in Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices in Environmental Education

In my school, Environmental educationenvironmental education should mainly

is mainly about: be about:

Nature study 3.45 (0.95) 3.81 (0.91)Studying the influence of technology on the

environment3.27 (0.90) 4.07 (0.70)

Studying the influence of lifestyles on theenvironment

3.69 (0.77) 4.34 (0.65)

Studying the influence of (global) trade flows onthe environment

2.98 (0.93) 4.07 (0.76)

Raising student awareness 4.07 (0.73) 4.56 (0.57)Developing critical thinking skills to evaluate

environmental issues3.75 (0.90) 4.64 (0.51)

Environmental activism 3.25 (0.96) 4.04 (0.86)

As can be seen by the variation in the standard deviations, there appears to be a stronger degreeof consensus with all the ideal-case statements, whereas there were more varied opinions for thecurrent state. This points to the respondents’ views of the poor state of current environmentaleducation and a desire for more and better environmental education. It is also interesting to notethat of the choices presented to them, “raising student awareness” was the statement that had thelargest degree of agreement (62.4%) for the statement “environmental education is mainly about.”In comparison, for the statement “environmental education should mainly be about,” 65.2% ofrespondents agreed that it should be “developing critical thinking skills to evaluate environmentalissues.” These questions had an open response field so that respondents could provide additionalcomments or feedback. What follows are some selected comments from the question, “In myschool, environmental education is mainly about”:

having personal experiences that connect kids to nature. (Respondent 21)

understanding how a healthy environment functions and how to live more harmoniously with thenatural world and to maintain good human health through a healthy ecosystem in which we live.(Respondent 103)

experiencing the aesthetics of the natural environment. (Respondent 159)

We’re terrified of critical thinking in the [name withheld] District School Board. (Respondent 131)

As for the question “Environmental education should mainly be about,” some highlighted com-ments are

immersion in natural environment, make connections so that students care and may be inspired toaction. (Respondent 54)

engaging learners to appreciate and understand the real science/connections to their outdoor envi-ronment so they can better understand the impact that their daily lives has on their environment (tobecome ecosystem thinkers!). (Respondent 102)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

72 TAN AND PEDRETTI

social justice and the socio-economic environment; gender issues and gender and the world environ-ment. (Respondent 214)

Using the pedagogical currents (Sauve, 2005) discussed earlier, we see that teachers’ practices(as self-reported) reflect predominantly the naturalistic and value-centered currents. However,when asked about what environmental education should or could be, respondents broadened theirvision to include frameworks that reflect praxis, eco-advocacy, and eco-justice (Palmer, 1998;Sauve, 2005) orientations. These frameworks are rooted in an environmental education that istransformative and political.

PERCEIVED CHALLENGES TO EFFECTIVEENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Participants reported that the most significant challenges to effective environmental educationwere the overcrowded curriculum (rating average = 3.95, SD = 1.02), followed closely by lack ofcurriculum resources (3.37, 1.10), lack of curriculum alignment to existing ministry expectations(3.20, 1.08), and low priority for environmental education in the home school/department (3.13,1.20). We were not surprised to find that an overcrowded curriculum and lack of resources turnedout to be major challenges and that such challenges are perennial in the landscape of educationgenerally (see, for environmental education examples, Hart, 2003; Russell et al., 2000). Duringthe design phase, we had almost decided on removing these choices because we felt that theseoptions were too easy and would reveal very little new information; after all, these challengescome with the terrain of teaching and it was almost a job description to have to work with limitedtime and resources. Still, we eventually left these choices in, because environmental educationdid pose problems even for the most experienced of teachers. Interview data supported thesethemes and revealed three additional challenges: accessing and using the outdoors in general, andoutdoor education centers in particular; student apathy; and the nature of sociopolitical action.These latter three themes will be discussed in more detail below.

Accessing and Using the Outdoors

Our data suggest that teachers would like to use the outdoors (as well as outdoor educationcenters) as a way of connecting to the environment, reflecting a naturalistic current (Sauve,2005). Interviewees spoke strongly about the power of nature:

To get them [students] in a place where they might not be familiar with and to learn about that place.I’m a firm believer in outdoor education, locally. I think students really need to understand localbeliefs and values, and what’s going on in the land around them before they look at a broader picture.(Interviewee Jonah)

Our high school is right in front of an old growth forest, one of the last ones in our area. So, we areable to use that . . . It’s such a small area, and so many people want to kind of monopolize that placeand use that place for teaching, to just explore nature, to hike, whatever. . . . Whatever chance I get Iwill take my class outside. I think what our job should be as environmental education educators is tosomehow make it personal, make it individual and make it community oriented, because I think that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

THE COMPLEXITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 73

if students understand what they can do as individuals, if they can understand what they can do as acommunity . . . take small steps . . . that will filter to a more broader context. (Interviewee Terry)

Here we are reminded of the importance of place. Through place-based education (Smith, 2007),students are provided with authentic opportunities to address community and environmentalissues. These educational experiences seek to develop in young people a sense of affiliation withthe places where they live (Gruenewald, 2008; Smith) and enhance “young people’s familiaritywith what is beautiful and worth preserving in the territory they call home” (Smith, p. 192).Without this affiliation to nature (or place), students may not develop the forms of care that arerequired for environmental and social stewardship. However, accessing and using the outdoorsis fraught with challenges and contradictions. For example, consider the following: when askedwhat environmental education meant to her, our interviewee Jessica said:

I would say to actually show them how easy it is to compost, and how to do it properly, and get themset up. Show people how to do the hands-on things so that they can make their changes now at home.[. . .] Everyone has become where they buy everything from the store and they don’t even know thatthey can grow it themselves. I would like the curriculum to show them how to be able to make jamsand preserves of fruits and vegetables so that they can be more self sufficient, for a day when it mightcome that there may be no food and they’ll have to go with what they have in the area.

To be sure, this sentiment was not shared by many of our interviewees but is included here as agenuine sentiment that illustrates a potential issue with place-based approaches. Though Jessicahas nothing but the best of intentions, one wonders what might be missing (and conversely whatmight be gained) from a curriculum that teaches jam- and preserve-making to a class of Grade 9and 10 academic science and applied mathematics students. Clearly, the contentious question ofwhat constitutes powerful knowledges (Young, 2008) is at issue here, as well as the centrality ofcurriculum ideologies (Stevenson, 2007).

Another interviewee, Ashley, spoke at length about the structural regularities of testing pres-sures and an overcrowded curriculum (Stevenson, 2007), even at the kindergarten level, thatprofoundly influenced her ability to bring students outside.

Going outside, instead of doing reading and writing and math is really hard to justify. Some Principalswill say, “Why are you going outside?” “Why aren’t you doing your lessons?” “What are they learningoutside? Shouldn’t they be doing reading in the classroom?” That kind of thing. I don’t worry aboutthat too much, I take them out anyway . . . but it’s difficult justifying it in the program [. . .] Unlessit’s directly related to some teaching task, it’s really hard to go outside. . . . And it’s getting worseactually, because our schools are really concerned about data and reading scores and test scores andthings. Any time not spent specifically learning those skills, is very difficult to justify. That’s why Iwork some of my writing program into it so then it’s easier to justify going out, and I can say to thePrincipal, “we’re looking for [materials] for our writing,” or “this is part of our science curriculum”or “we’re learning to use scientific tools by using our telescopes and magnifying glasses.” So if it’spart of the curriculum, and it sits a little better, then the Principal is more likely to let it go. But it’shard sometimes.

Furthermore, teachers talked about the pragmatic challenges of bringing students outdoors. Walterexplains the resource challenge:

Walter: Probably they’re logistical and financial in that . . . just go back to my tree thing. There wasa time if I wanted to go and take my class to go see a tree, we had to walk three blocks to get there,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

74 TAN AND PEDRETTI

we kind of gathered up our supplies, as lean as they might have been, and we just simply alerted theoffice that “by the way, we’re going to walk over to so and so to look at the White Pines over therethat are there and try to determine their heights. We’ll be back in an hour.”

Michael: You can’t do that nowadays, can you?

W: Nowadays, we have to look at filling in paperwork several days before the event, sending homea letter to the parents, yada yada yada. So there’s an administrative set of hoops we had to jumpthrough. I might be hyperbolizing that particular incident [. . .] but there’s still a general permissionform that the parents have to sign to allow teachers to go on neighbourhood trips. . . . If I do want togo on a geology trip, I have to look at hiring a bus and these days with school budgets being whatthey are, that is not as financial possible as it might have been in a more financially open time. Andthen, of course the finances too limit me [. . .] Here I’ve got 30 kids and we’re surrounded by half adozen nice stately White Pine trees but we only have enough tools to do the measurements of one ortwo at a time.

Perhaps due to the strong naturalistic framework underlying teachers’ beliefs, many felt adeep commitment to bringing their charges out to natural surroundings. In bringing their studentsoutdoors, they hoped to “unplug” them (Louv, 2005) from the artificial world of electronicdevices, and “reconnect” them with nature (to use the favored terminologies). With increasingtechnological miniaturization, however, unplugging students and getting them to appreciate thelatent, quiet joy of nature is becoming harder and harder. Here is our interviewee Marcus:

I’ve caught students . . . we went to the Adirondacks with my group of grade 12s. You would thinkgrade 12s are mature enough that they are going to listen to the rules. And all of a sudden I’m ina yurt in the Adirondack and those grade 12s, there’s seven of us, including myself, and these boyssneak their phone and they watch a movie on the iPhone. And I’m sleepy enough that I don’t feel likerolling over and giving them a lecture, but I’m going, “my gosh, we’re on the Adirondacks, there’snothing around us, there’s all kinds of noise in the forest. The water is rushing and they could justbe listening and falling asleep.” No, they’re chitchatting and they pull out this iPhone and they’rewatching a movie on it, all cuddled up in their sleeping bag.

Certainly, this vignette illustrates the students’ unwillingness to appreciate a quiet connectionwith nature as much as it shows the advances made by technology.

Apathy

Apathy (exhibited by both teachers and students) was reported by eight of our interviewees.Walter and Andy both reported being exasperated at their colleagues’ apparent hypocrisy, such aspreaching about the dangers of climate change while continuing to drive their cars even thoughthey do not live too far away and finding recyclable aluminum drink cans in garbage. Waltersingled out one particular colleague who buys green-labeled, fair-trade products, uses a stainlesssteel drinking bottle, but “drives the biggest SUV in the parking lot.” As for students, Fayereported of her students:

I don’t know if it’s my school in particular, or just this age group, but I’m really finding there’s a lot ofapathy to environmental issues among high school students. I find it very disturbing. I would say, 80to 90 percent of the students really don’t seem to care at all and they don’t think that climate changeis going to affect them in any way, [and] it doesn’t matter what kind of factual evidence I share with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

THE COMPLEXITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 75

them [. . .] when we have discussions after the movie, students really don’t think that these issues aregoing to have any impact on their lives. Most of them. [. . .] I’d say 80 to 90 percent of the studentsare completely apathetic to the issues. They really don’t care. They are quite happy to turn a blindeye. They don’t care. They don’t want to know about it. They think I’m just a weird “tree hugging”teacher and they think I’m nuts. They just want to text message their friends and tune out reality. AndI find that really alarming.

Somewhat paradoxically, she teaches at a Near North community, with abundant access tonature and opportunities for place-based learning. She hypothesized that this apathy was the casebecause the local community had a deeply ingrained preference for powered forms of recreation,quad-wheeled motorcycles in the summer and snowmobiles in winter. As such, she felt that itwas hard for students to resist the peer pressure and use forms of recreation and transport thatwere less damaging to the local environment.

Sociopolitical Action and Environmental Education

Much of environmental degradation is intimately connected to sociopolitical action; for example,the effects of environmental degradation are often unfairly distributed. Secondly, laws often needto change in order for environmental destruction to be mitigated. From our study, we found thatteachers agreed that environmental education should include a social justice perspective (ratingaverage = 4.20, SD = 0.72) and an action component (4.36, SD = 0.62), and they agreed thatschools should take action on important social issues (4.19, SD = 0.80) and that the major roleof schools is to transform society (3.48, SD = 0.95). What is interesting to note is that theseresponses reflect what should be, the ideal. All but one interviewee could describe actually beingable to carry out some form of action besides the relatively safe activity of writing letters tocorporations or government ministries:

So the course [that I teach], they have one assignment where they have to actually . . . throughout thesemester they have to take part in three different environmental actions. They can attend a protest,they can attend an information session, they can do a petition, they can write a letter to a politician.Anything they really want. They can do some kind of a drive at the school and then they write areport about what those actions were and what they got out of it. And also, for their major ISU[Individualized Study Unit] they are writing a report on an environmental issue, and they have to doan action for that, as well. And that becomes part of their report. Kind of like a combination. This iswhat I’ve learned. This is what it’s all about. Now, what am I doing to make it better? (IntervieweeTeresa)

In practice, results revealed tensions and contradiction around the idea of taking action andpromoting advocacy and transformation. This finding is not surprising (see, for example, Cross& Price, 1996; Oulton, Dillon, & Grace, 2004; Pedretti & Little, 2008). Resistance by teachers tosociopolitical action is understandable. Adopting a praxis orientation opens a veritable Pandora’sbox: questions of ideologies, values, and indoctrination, to name a few, must be dealt with andworked through. As Pedretti et al. suggested, the notion of a sociopolitical curriculum provides avery different vision of teaching and learning for educators and students—transformation ratherthan transmission, action rather than passivity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

76 TAN AND PEDRETTI

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

In summary, our data suggest that teachers are, on the whole, supportive of environmentaleducation. They embrace it as an idea whose time has come. However, environmental educationis fraught with challenges and complexities for teachers. First, the thorny question what shouldenvironmental education be about must be carefully considered and weighed. At a policy level,different ideologies underlie proposals for environmental reform. At a praxis level, personalcurriculum ideologies and pedagogical currents translate to very different classroom practicesand purposes. Given the range of views about environmental education and pedagogical currentsavailable (for example, naturalistic, conservation, or advocacy approaches), educators should begiven the time and resources to consider their personal frameworks, available conceptualizations,and the implications of different approaches.

Second, acknowledging that there is a range of curriculum ideologies and practices, mostprominent in this study was the desire to move toward an environmental education that, inthe words of these teachers, “change[s] students practices, habits and values.” However, theinclusion of values and sociopolitical action in the context of environmental education causedmany educators to pause, as they tried to negotiate the inherent complexities. Whose valuesshould they advocate? As teachers, how do they position themselves amidst controversy? Howdo they respond to positions that they might find disagreeable or simply dangerous? Whatis clear is that educators need frameworks and training in these matters in order to beginto unravel complex questions. This education needs to be provided not only in faculties ofeducation but through continuing in-service and professional development opportunities. It ishoped that there will be a significant departure from the historical precedence of low priority inmost institutions with only the few faculties of education that actually offer such training (Lin,2002).

Third, environmental education cannot be treated as the simple insertion of topical environ-mental issues to a current teaching unit; difficulties exist even at the factual content level, aswell as at the level of value judgments. For example, a focus on issues and problems can eitherpresent a view of the environment that is unnecessarily bleak and that requires continual humanintervention or mislead students into overly simplistic solutions that neglect the sociopoliticalnuances that often accompany environmental issues. To complicate matters, educators may feelthat environmental education may not be wholly compatible with certain subjects (e.g., historyand English) or may clash with value orientations that they hold (for example, the clash betweenholistic and mechanistic worldviews of science, mathematics, and technology), the specifics ofwhich could fill another paper.

Fourthly, if environmental education is to be successful, curriculum resources need to bedeveloped to assist teachers in accomplishing their tasks efficiently and effectively. School boardswill need to follow up on mandates to teach with sufficient resources, including, but not limitedto, time off for professional development, physical equipment, and funds for field trips and theirrelated expenses.

Finally, as we see it, the questions that need careful consideration belong to the realm ofcurriculum and schooling (J. T. Dillon, 2008): who is to be educated, for what ends, and how dowe think and act it? Though deceptively simple at the outset, any serious analysis will reveal thatthere is more than meets the eye. Structural regularities of schooling often obfuscate attemptsat more progressive, transformative goals of education in general and environmental education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

THE COMPLEXITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 77

in particular. If schools continue to serve their duties as gatekeeper to privileged positions, andagents for cultural reproduction, the prospects of a diminished gap are not good indeed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study would not have been possible without the generous support of Social Sciences andHumanities Research Council of Canada. The authors are also grateful to Katherine Bellomo andGabriel Ayyavoo for their assistance and insights throughout the project.

REFERENCES

Barrett, M. J. (2007). Homework and fieldwork: Investigations into the rhetoric-reality gap in environmental educationresearch and pedagogy. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 209–223.

Barton, A. C., & Osborne, M. D. (2002). Reconstructing the harsh world: Science with/for social action. In W. Roth & J.Desautels (Eds.), Science education as/for sociopolitical action (pp. 167–184). New York: Peter Lang.

Bondar, R., Dudar, E., Foster, A., Fox, M., Mahler, C., Schwartzberg, P., et al. (2007). Shaping our schools, shaping ourfuture: Environmental education in Ontario Schools. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social justice studies. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 507–536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Cross, R. T. & Price, R. (1996). Science teachers’ social conscience and the role of controversial issues in the teachingof science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 319–333.

Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Sanders, D., Teamey, K., & Benefield, P. (2003). Improving the understanding of food, farmingand land management amongst school-age children. London: Department for Education and Skills.

Dillon, J. T. (2008). The questions of curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(3), 343–359.Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1977). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago,

IL: Aldine.Goodwin, C. (2000). Practices of seeing: Visual analysis: An ethnomethodological approach. In T. van Leeuwen & C.

Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 157–182). London: Sage.Green, T. F. (1964). A topology of the teaching concept. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 3(4), 284–319.Gruenewald, D. A. (2008). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Environmental Education Research,

14(3), 308–324.Hart, P., Jickling, R., & Kool, R. (1999). Starting points: Questions of quality in environmental education. Canadian

Journal of Environmental Education, 4, 104–124.Hart, P. (2003). Teachers’ thinking in environmental education: Consciousness and responsibility. New York: Peter Lang.Lin, E. (2002). Trend of environmental education in Canada: Contemporary issues and future possibilities. Canadian

Journal of Environmental Education, 6, 45–66.Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature deficit disorder. New York: Algonquin.McKenzie, M. (2008). The places of pedagogy: Or, what we can do with culture through intersubjective experiences.

Environmental Education Research, 14(3), 361–373.Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007). The Ontario curriculum, Grades 1–8. Ontario: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008a). The Ontario curriculum, Grades 9–10. Ontario: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008b). The Ontario curriculum, Grades 11–12. Ontario: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.Ontario Ministry of Education. (2009). Acting today, shaping tomorrow. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.Orr, D. (1991). What is education for? The Learning Revolution, 27, 52–59.Oulton, C., Dillon, J. & Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal

of Science Education, 26(4), 411–423.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4

78 TAN AND PEDRETTI

Palmer, J. A. (1998). Environmental education in the 21st century: Theory, practice, progress, and promise. London:Routledge.

Pedretti, E. G., & Little, C. (Eds.) (2008). From engagement to empowerment: Reflections on science education forOntario. Toronto: Pearson.

Roth, W. M., & Barton, A. C. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Russell, C., Bell, A., & Fawcett, L. (2000). Navigating the waters of Canadian environmental education. In T. Goldstein &

D. Selby (Eds.), Weaving connections, educating for peace, social and environmental justice (pp. 196–217). Toronto:Sumach Press.

Sauve, L. (2005). Currents in environmental education: Mapping a complex and evolving pedagogical field. CanadianJournal of Environmental Education, 10, 11–37.

Smith, G. A. (2007). Place-based education: Breaking through the constraining regularities of public school. Environ-mental Education Research, 13(2), 189–207.

Stevenson, R. B. (2007). Schooling and environmental education: Contradictions in purpose and practice. EnvironmentalEducation Research, 13(2), 139–153.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1992). Reshaping education for sustainable develop-ment: Environment and development issues. Paris: Author.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2002). Education for sustainability: From Rio toJohannesburg: Lessons learnt from a decade of commitment. Paris: Author.

Yoon, S. (2005). Motivating the unmotivated: Relevance and empowerment through a town hall debate. In S. Alsop, L.Bencze, & E. Pedretti (Eds.), Analyzing exemplary science teaching: Theoretical lenses and a spectrum of possibilitiesfor practice (pp. 53–62). London: Open University Press.

Young, M. (2008). From constructivism to realism in the sociology of the curriculum. Review of Research in Education,32(1), 1–28.

Zandvliet, D., & Fisher, D. (2007). Sustainable communities, sustainable environments: The contribution of science andtechnology education. London: Sense Publishers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:22

08

Oct

ober

201

4