Back to survival skills...
So, should we teach survival skills? I think we should, but we also need to be prudent in doing so. Clearly, adapting Neil Strauss’ experiences in survival training for young school children is ludicrous (although some may argue it is not). However, perhaps a certain kind of survival skill education is valuable to environmental education in responding to the ecological crisis.
Here, I will connect David Orr’s (1991) principles for rethinking education to survival skill education by speaking of my own experiences of camping with my family as a child. Really, “camping” meant setting up tents in provincial campgrounds with flush toilets, hot showers and grocery stores thirty minutes away. However, I believe that these are some of the experiences in nature that have led me, a “bubble-wrapped” suburban girl, to my passion for the environment. To me, making a fire, pitching a tent and catching fish for dinner are "survival skills”, even though I was not completely disconnected from city life.
Weston (2004) speaks of Driver Education as a model for environmental education because it relates to “larger personal and social practice, shared by parents and peers, already familiar in all manner of ways, and a practice that further enables their own growing independence and adulthood” (p. 36). Driver Education is a rite of passage for many teenagers (Weston, 2004). For me, being allowed to help build the fire at camp when I was old enough was an important rite of passage.
Learning the fundamental survival skill of making fire taught me cooperation with others and allowed me to feel confident and competent. This is consistent with Orr’s (1991) second principle for rethinking education.
Further, older children and my father, who showed me how to make the fire, acted as my role models, telling stories of how they played in the woods as children and their connection to children. This is consistent with Orr’s (1991) fifth principle for rethinking education.
Not only was I taught how to build the fire, but also how to put out a fire and the consequences (for other people and our environment) of leaving a fire unattended. This taught me responsibility and consideration, which is a lesson consistent with Orr’s (1991) third and fourth principles.
Of course, we built these fires outdoors, using materials from our immediate surroundings. The learning was hands on, not lecture style. Therefore, this is consistent with Orr’s (1991) first and sixth principles.
Final thoughts...
Steve, what your course has taught me most is that there are many theories out there about environmental education and no one theory is necessarily “right”. It is crucial for environmental educators to consistently challenge the status quo and trust their creativity while maintaining connections to local values and knowledge. Sometimes it may be difficult but, given the ecological crisis, it is necessary to push on.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Thoughts on David Orr (1991), Part V
Orr’s (1991) sixth and final principle for rethinking education “propose[s] that the way in which learning occurs is as important as the content of particular courses.” (p. 14). He argues that lecture-style, indoor classes isolate and disengage students from the real world (Orr, 1991). My experience in the MES program has completely changed my perspectives on what constitutes “real academia”. In particular, my experience in your class of leading a tutorial discussion outdoors where my group and I led other students (grown men and women) in play as an educational activity challenged my understanding of what is considered “good” and “right” and what “a teacher would like”.
Weston (2004) and Gruenewald (2002) offer suggestions for alternative ways of learning that actively engage students and allow them to experience the environment firsthand, not just from books.
Before I speak of their suggestions and challenges, I must acknowledge the importance of local indigenous knowledge and language. Cole (2007) was a middle-class, white teacher, teaching environmental education in rural, working-class, New Mexico. She regrets not incorporating local indigenous knowledge into her curriculum and focusing on concepts important to the dominant paradigm, particularly scientific concepts (Cole, 2007). On the same note, Rasmussen and Akulukjuk (2009) discuss the inability for the languages of academia (“modern”, colonial languages) to capture the feelings for nature that can be captured in indigenous language.
This feeling for nature, this sense of “wildness” is precisely what Weston (2004) encourages environmental educators to bring to their students and their classrooms. Weston (2004) argues that the humanized spaces we live and teach in disconnect us from our inner animals and the rest of the Earth. Hence, we do not understand the true impacts of our exploitation of the Earth (Weston, 2004). Weston (2004) provides a few suggestions for teaching in a traditional classroom, the “least promising of settings” (p. 36), that challenge the sense of disconnect and provides students an opportunity to reconnect with their animal selves and the Earth. These suggestions include: holding hands, opening windows, bringing insects, twigs, flowers indoors, and of course, going outdoors (Weston, 2004). Weston (2004) asserts that to “pull off most of these things in a classroom” (p. 45), teachers must rethink their role as teachers, be aware of the “other forms and shapes of awareness” (p. 45) that “we coinhabit this world with” (p. 45) and be comfortable with their own animal self. This is precisely what I had to do (although I didn’t realize it at the time) to be able to lead my fellow graduate students into the park for a presentation.
Gruenewald (2002) acknowledges the difficulty in implementing alternative learning. He “doubted [his] creativity as a teacher” (p. 527) and was “shut down by an administration convinced that the classroom (not the community) was the appropriate place for learning” (p. 528). However, although he states that “contemporary education... make[s] learning, Thoreau style, nearly impossible” (p. 538-539), the very act of publishing literature on the value and importance of Thoreau style learning makes him one individual in the “system” that challenges the status quo. People like Gruenewald (and Steve!) who encourage their students to learn alternatively, in ways that make sense, may not have the dominant voice, but they are able to influence and encourage others.
So, thanks for allowing us to hold our presentation outside and for me to write a blog instead of a paper. It has changed my perspectives as a student and a teacher.
Weston (2004) and Gruenewald (2002) offer suggestions for alternative ways of learning that actively engage students and allow them to experience the environment firsthand, not just from books.
Before I speak of their suggestions and challenges, I must acknowledge the importance of local indigenous knowledge and language. Cole (2007) was a middle-class, white teacher, teaching environmental education in rural, working-class, New Mexico. She regrets not incorporating local indigenous knowledge into her curriculum and focusing on concepts important to the dominant paradigm, particularly scientific concepts (Cole, 2007). On the same note, Rasmussen and Akulukjuk (2009) discuss the inability for the languages of academia (“modern”, colonial languages) to capture the feelings for nature that can be captured in indigenous language.
This feeling for nature, this sense of “wildness” is precisely what Weston (2004) encourages environmental educators to bring to their students and their classrooms. Weston (2004) argues that the humanized spaces we live and teach in disconnect us from our inner animals and the rest of the Earth. Hence, we do not understand the true impacts of our exploitation of the Earth (Weston, 2004). Weston (2004) provides a few suggestions for teaching in a traditional classroom, the “least promising of settings” (p. 36), that challenge the sense of disconnect and provides students an opportunity to reconnect with their animal selves and the Earth. These suggestions include: holding hands, opening windows, bringing insects, twigs, flowers indoors, and of course, going outdoors (Weston, 2004). Weston (2004) asserts that to “pull off most of these things in a classroom” (p. 45), teachers must rethink their role as teachers, be aware of the “other forms and shapes of awareness” (p. 45) that “we coinhabit this world with” (p. 45) and be comfortable with their own animal self. This is precisely what I had to do (although I didn’t realize it at the time) to be able to lead my fellow graduate students into the park for a presentation.
Gruenewald (2002) acknowledges the difficulty in implementing alternative learning. He “doubted [his] creativity as a teacher” (p. 527) and was “shut down by an administration convinced that the classroom (not the community) was the appropriate place for learning” (p. 528). However, although he states that “contemporary education... make[s] learning, Thoreau style, nearly impossible” (p. 538-539), the very act of publishing literature on the value and importance of Thoreau style learning makes him one individual in the “system” that challenges the status quo. People like Gruenewald (and Steve!) who encourage their students to learn alternatively, in ways that make sense, may not have the dominant voice, but they are able to influence and encourage others.
So, thanks for allowing us to hold our presentation outside and for me to write a blog instead of a paper. It has changed my perspectives as a student and a teacher.
Thoughts on David Orr (1991), Part IV
Orr’s (1991) fifth principle for rethinking education “has to do with the importance of “minute particulars” and the power of examples over words” (p. 13). Orr (1991) stresses the importance of role models and institutions that wholly represent the responsibility and integrity they teach. Orr’s (1991) sentiments are an echo of Leopold (1949, as cited in Gruenewald, 2003) who theorizes that education, even environmental education, perpetuates the dominant paradigm of disconnect from the land and ecology. When students are educated in institutions that engage in irresponsible social and ecological practices but preach responsibility and citizenship, they quickly become aware of the hypocrisy and hopelessness of their educational experience (Orr, 1991).
Many times in this course, we discussed the importance of role models in the development of environmentally conscious students/ children/ citizens. Further, we discussed that while most institutions do perpetuate the dominant paradigm of ecological passivity or hypocritical ecological practice, it is individuals in these institutions (certain teachers, parents etc.) who challenge the status quo and become the role models critically needed for environmental consciousness and action.
Much of the literature in the course discussed role models (especially in childhood) as important influences to ecological consciousness and ecological action. One author spoke louder to me, personally, than all others. This was Richard Louv (2007):
“Parents, educators, other adults, institutions- the culture itself- may say one thing to children about nature’s gifts, but so many of our actions and messages- especially the ones we cannot hear ourselves deliver- are different.” (p. 14).
This quote reminds Malone’s (2007) discussion on the “climate of fear... restricting children’s movements to such an extent that children will not have the social, psychological, cultural or environmental knowledge and skills to be able to negotiate freely in the environment” (p. 513). Malone (2007) identifies the parenting phenomenon of “bubble-wrapping” (p. 513) where out of love and protection, parents prohibit their children from autonomous outdoor play. This phenomenon of parenting translates to children who believe that “computers are more important than nature” (Louv, 2007, p. 13) and are “too busy to go outside” (Louv, 2007, p. 13).
Through review four different bodies of research on environmental behaviour in children, Chawla and Cushing (2007) conclude that adults and peers acting as role models positively influence and encourage environmental behaviour in children. Gruenewald (2002) discusses how his personal interests and behaviour was influenced by Henry David Thoreau’s Walden. Walden promoted Gruenewald (2002) to re-examine his values and challenge the status quo paradigm of middle class consumerism as a teenager. Further study of Thoreau’s works encouraged Gruenewald (2002) to practice the art of educating others through “field-based learning... and... play” (p. 535).
In my opinion, whether people find environmental role models in real life or by reading literature or through media, it is valuable to their development of environmental consciousness and action. By acting consistently with our lesson plans, we as environmental educators incite a real sense of responsibility for the environment instead of a “greenwashed” set of insignificant mantras; this is “the power of examples over words” (Orr, 1991, p. 13).
Many times in this course, we discussed the importance of role models in the development of environmentally conscious students/ children/ citizens. Further, we discussed that while most institutions do perpetuate the dominant paradigm of ecological passivity or hypocritical ecological practice, it is individuals in these institutions (certain teachers, parents etc.) who challenge the status quo and become the role models critically needed for environmental consciousness and action.
Much of the literature in the course discussed role models (especially in childhood) as important influences to ecological consciousness and ecological action. One author spoke louder to me, personally, than all others. This was Richard Louv (2007):
“Parents, educators, other adults, institutions- the culture itself- may say one thing to children about nature’s gifts, but so many of our actions and messages- especially the ones we cannot hear ourselves deliver- are different.” (p. 14).
This quote reminds Malone’s (2007) discussion on the “climate of fear... restricting children’s movements to such an extent that children will not have the social, psychological, cultural or environmental knowledge and skills to be able to negotiate freely in the environment” (p. 513). Malone (2007) identifies the parenting phenomenon of “bubble-wrapping” (p. 513) where out of love and protection, parents prohibit their children from autonomous outdoor play. This phenomenon of parenting translates to children who believe that “computers are more important than nature” (Louv, 2007, p. 13) and are “too busy to go outside” (Louv, 2007, p. 13).
Through review four different bodies of research on environmental behaviour in children, Chawla and Cushing (2007) conclude that adults and peers acting as role models positively influence and encourage environmental behaviour in children. Gruenewald (2002) discusses how his personal interests and behaviour was influenced by Henry David Thoreau’s Walden. Walden promoted Gruenewald (2002) to re-examine his values and challenge the status quo paradigm of middle class consumerism as a teenager. Further study of Thoreau’s works encouraged Gruenewald (2002) to practice the art of educating others through “field-based learning... and... play” (p. 535).
In my opinion, whether people find environmental role models in real life or by reading literature or through media, it is valuable to their development of environmental consciousness and action. By acting consistently with our lesson plans, we as environmental educators incite a real sense of responsibility for the environment instead of a “greenwashed” set of insignificant mantras; this is “the power of examples over words” (Orr, 1991, p. 13).
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Thoughts on David Orr (1991), Part III
Just a reminder for today’s blog entry. As a continuation from yesterday’s discussion on how knowledge without action is not the type of education that will enrich students’ lives, I want to re-post the Nasa saying printed in Gruner’s (2010) article on solidarity and life projects.
Nasa saying: “Words without Actions are Empty; Actions without Words are Blind; But Words and Actions outside the Spirit of Community are Death.” (Gruner, 2010, p. 96).
To me, “Words and Actions outside the Spirit of Community are Death” (Gruner, 2010, p. 96) indicate that we must produce and use knowledge (in other words, educate) responsibly and prudently. This brings me to Orr’s next two principles...
Orr’s third principle for rethinking education: “knowledge carries with it the responsibility to see that it is well used in the world” (p. 13).
When I re-read Orr’s (1991) third principle and think about the connection between knowledge and responsibility, I am immediately reminded of the precautionary principle.
“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” (UNEP, 1992).
And this quote:
“Cogito ergo sum” (“ I think therefore I am”)
- Descartes
As the species on this planet capable of “intelligent thought” (by “intelligent thought” I mean the ability to imagine and communicate these imaginations), we as humans must carry the responsibility that comes with our big brains. Orr (1991) argues that we have let our big brains get away with us and hence, “monsters of technology” (p. 13) such as Chernobyl and the Exxon Valdez occurred and no persons or parties were held responsible.
A possible method for putting Orr’s (1991) third principle into action is Cheney and Weston’s (1999) idea of an ethics-based epistemology. Cheney and Weston (1999) argue that by putting ethics before knowledge allows acceptance that we do not know everything while giving a “nonexclusive consideration of everything: people, bacteria, rocks, everything, insofar as we can.” (p. 120). They offer this epistemology as an alternative to the dominant paradigm of putting knowledge before ethics (Cheney and Weston, 1999). For example, in the dominant paradigm, we as humans base how we treat a particular animal on what we have learned about that animal and its value to us (Cheney and Weston, 1999). If we put ethics first, we literally put ourselves in that animal’s shoes and show it courtesy regardless of what we know or do not know (Cheney and Weston, 1999). This also allows us to invite knowledge rather than seek it (Cheney and Weston, 1999).
I like how Cheney and Weston’s (1999) idea of an ethics-based epistemology extends Orr’s (1991) ideas on knowledge and responsibility beyond human knowledge and responsibility for other humans. By extending ethics to a “nonexclusive consideration of everything” (Cheney and Weston, 1999, p. 120), connecting knowledge to responsibility becomes much more meaningful and shifts paradigms from an anthropocentric view to a view that simply invites knowledge of others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orr’s (1991) fourth principle for rethinking education: “we cannot say that we know something until we understand the effects of this knowledge on real people and their communities” (p. 13).
This principle for rethinking education reminds me of the article by Raudseppe-Hearne et al. (2010), titled: “Untangling the environmentalist’s paradox: why is human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade?” In this article, Raudseppe-Hearne et al. (2010) present four hypotheses regarding why the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), “a comprehensive study of the world’s resources, found that declines in the majority of ecosystem services have been accompanied by steady gains in human well-being at the global scale.” (MA, 2005 as cited in Raudseppe-Hearne et al., 2010).
These hypotheses are:
1) Human well-being is actually declining, the way well-being is measured is flawed (Radseppe-Hearne et al., 2010).
2) “Provisioning ecosystem services, such as food production” (p. 578) are much more important to human well-being than other ecosystem services. Therefore, as long as ecosystem services such as food production increase, it will compensate decrease in other ecosystem services (Radseppe-Hearne et al., 2010).
3) Technology has allowed humans to substitute ecosystem services with innovations (Radseppe-Hearne et al., 2010).
4) There is a time lag between ecosystem degradation and decline of human-well being. We have not yet experienced the full extent of the effects of ecosystem degradation (Radseppe-Hearne et al., 2010).
While the authors discount the first hypothesis and propose that the second, third and fourth hypotheses are more plausible, I disagree with their findings using evidence from Orr’s (1991) work. Orr (1991) presents the case of Youngstown, Ohio, where the economic “bottom line” was regarded in high importance. However, community bonds were destroyed and social problems developed due to disregard for “the bottom line for society” (Orr, 1991, p. 13). Clearly, an analysis of well-being that “did not access aspects of well-being that have not been measured globally, such as psychological health, social solidarity or cultural change” (Radseppe-Hearne et al., 2010) does not take into account factors of well-being that are arguably more critical than economic well-being.
I understand that Radseppe-Hearne et al. (2010) were presenting their data scientifically and they identify their limitations well. However, measuring human well-being mostly using elements related to economic capital (such as GDP and education- and here I ask, education of what kind?!) is a flawed method for measuring well-being (Radseppe- Hearne et al., 2010; Orr, 1991).
To say we really understand this concept of well-being, we must go beyond factors defined by economic well-being and truly understand the realities of life for real people in real communities (Orr, 1991).
To conclude tonight with another quote from David Orr (1991)...
Orr (1991) argues that “education is no guarantee of decency, prudence, or wisdom” (p. 8). I agree.
Nasa saying: “Words without Actions are Empty; Actions without Words are Blind; But Words and Actions outside the Spirit of Community are Death.” (Gruner, 2010, p. 96).
To me, “Words and Actions outside the Spirit of Community are Death” (Gruner, 2010, p. 96) indicate that we must produce and use knowledge (in other words, educate) responsibly and prudently. This brings me to Orr’s next two principles...
Orr’s third principle for rethinking education: “knowledge carries with it the responsibility to see that it is well used in the world” (p. 13).
When I re-read Orr’s (1991) third principle and think about the connection between knowledge and responsibility, I am immediately reminded of the precautionary principle.
“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” (UNEP, 1992).
And this quote:
“Cogito ergo sum” (“ I think therefore I am”)
- Descartes
As the species on this planet capable of “intelligent thought” (by “intelligent thought” I mean the ability to imagine and communicate these imaginations), we as humans must carry the responsibility that comes with our big brains. Orr (1991) argues that we have let our big brains get away with us and hence, “monsters of technology” (p. 13) such as Chernobyl and the Exxon Valdez occurred and no persons or parties were held responsible.
A possible method for putting Orr’s (1991) third principle into action is Cheney and Weston’s (1999) idea of an ethics-based epistemology. Cheney and Weston (1999) argue that by putting ethics before knowledge allows acceptance that we do not know everything while giving a “nonexclusive consideration of everything: people, bacteria, rocks, everything, insofar as we can.” (p. 120). They offer this epistemology as an alternative to the dominant paradigm of putting knowledge before ethics (Cheney and Weston, 1999). For example, in the dominant paradigm, we as humans base how we treat a particular animal on what we have learned about that animal and its value to us (Cheney and Weston, 1999). If we put ethics first, we literally put ourselves in that animal’s shoes and show it courtesy regardless of what we know or do not know (Cheney and Weston, 1999). This also allows us to invite knowledge rather than seek it (Cheney and Weston, 1999).
I like how Cheney and Weston’s (1999) idea of an ethics-based epistemology extends Orr’s (1991) ideas on knowledge and responsibility beyond human knowledge and responsibility for other humans. By extending ethics to a “nonexclusive consideration of everything” (Cheney and Weston, 1999, p. 120), connecting knowledge to responsibility becomes much more meaningful and shifts paradigms from an anthropocentric view to a view that simply invites knowledge of others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orr’s (1991) fourth principle for rethinking education: “we cannot say that we know something until we understand the effects of this knowledge on real people and their communities” (p. 13).
This principle for rethinking education reminds me of the article by Raudseppe-Hearne et al. (2010), titled: “Untangling the environmentalist’s paradox: why is human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade?” In this article, Raudseppe-Hearne et al. (2010) present four hypotheses regarding why the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), “a comprehensive study of the world’s resources, found that declines in the majority of ecosystem services have been accompanied by steady gains in human well-being at the global scale.” (MA, 2005 as cited in Raudseppe-Hearne et al., 2010).
These hypotheses are:
1) Human well-being is actually declining, the way well-being is measured is flawed (Radseppe-Hearne et al., 2010).
2) “Provisioning ecosystem services, such as food production” (p. 578) are much more important to human well-being than other ecosystem services. Therefore, as long as ecosystem services such as food production increase, it will compensate decrease in other ecosystem services (Radseppe-Hearne et al., 2010).
3) Technology has allowed humans to substitute ecosystem services with innovations (Radseppe-Hearne et al., 2010).
4) There is a time lag between ecosystem degradation and decline of human-well being. We have not yet experienced the full extent of the effects of ecosystem degradation (Radseppe-Hearne et al., 2010).
While the authors discount the first hypothesis and propose that the second, third and fourth hypotheses are more plausible, I disagree with their findings using evidence from Orr’s (1991) work. Orr (1991) presents the case of Youngstown, Ohio, where the economic “bottom line” was regarded in high importance. However, community bonds were destroyed and social problems developed due to disregard for “the bottom line for society” (Orr, 1991, p. 13). Clearly, an analysis of well-being that “did not access aspects of well-being that have not been measured globally, such as psychological health, social solidarity or cultural change” (Radseppe-Hearne et al., 2010) does not take into account factors of well-being that are arguably more critical than economic well-being.
I understand that Radseppe-Hearne et al. (2010) were presenting their data scientifically and they identify their limitations well. However, measuring human well-being mostly using elements related to economic capital (such as GDP and education- and here I ask, education of what kind?!) is a flawed method for measuring well-being (Radseppe- Hearne et al., 2010; Orr, 1991).
To say we really understand this concept of well-being, we must go beyond factors defined by economic well-being and truly understand the realities of life for real people in real communities (Orr, 1991).
To conclude tonight with another quote from David Orr (1991)...
Orr (1991) argues that “education is no guarantee of decency, prudence, or wisdom” (p. 8). I agree.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Thoughts on David Orr (1991), Part II
David Orr’s (1991) second principle: “The goal of education is not mastery of subject matter but mastery of one’s person” (p. 13).
I have some difficulty with this principle because of the vocabulary used. The word “mastery” implies that one who cannot achieve a certain level of work is deficient. This language is highly exclusive. What should be “mastered” and how this “mastery” is achieved is defined by the dominant cultural paradigm.
Putting my disagreements with Orr’s choice of words aside...
Orr’s (1991) second principle for rethinking education reminds me of the article by Chawla and Cushing (2007). The authors review research on promoting environmental behaviour in children and youth to deduce that “the antecedents of action are much more complex than knowledge alone” (p. 437). Steve, you have said many times that there is a difference between knowing well and doing well. I agree with you and Chawla and Cushing (2007); learning facts about the environment isn’t going to change the world. What matters are people’s values, attitudes, and mostly, their actions.
A little more on Chawla and Cushing (2007):
While I disagree with the authors’ argument that public environmental action is more valuable to youth than private environmental action, I do agree that from taking action (any action) builds a sense of competence and confidence in the individual and develops cooperation (Chawla and Cushing, 2007). To me, having a sense of competence and confidence and being able to cooperate with others is equivalent to what Orr (1991) describes as “mastery of one’s person” (p. 13).
This discussion on knowledge and action reminds me of the Nasa saying: “Words without Actions are Empty; Actions without Words are Blind; But Words and Actions outside the Spirit of Community are Death.” (Gruner, 2010, p. 96). This saying connects Orr’s (1991) second principle with his third and fourth principles.
Orr’s third principle: “knowledge carries with it the responsibility to see that it is well used in the world” (p. 13).
Orr’s (1991) fourth principle: “we cannot say that we know something until we understand the effects of this knowledge on real people and their communities” (p. 13).
I will discuss Orr’s third and fourth principles tomorrow.
-Jessica
I have some difficulty with this principle because of the vocabulary used. The word “mastery” implies that one who cannot achieve a certain level of work is deficient. This language is highly exclusive. What should be “mastered” and how this “mastery” is achieved is defined by the dominant cultural paradigm.
Putting my disagreements with Orr’s choice of words aside...
Orr’s (1991) second principle for rethinking education reminds me of the article by Chawla and Cushing (2007). The authors review research on promoting environmental behaviour in children and youth to deduce that “the antecedents of action are much more complex than knowledge alone” (p. 437). Steve, you have said many times that there is a difference between knowing well and doing well. I agree with you and Chawla and Cushing (2007); learning facts about the environment isn’t going to change the world. What matters are people’s values, attitudes, and mostly, their actions.
A little more on Chawla and Cushing (2007):
While I disagree with the authors’ argument that public environmental action is more valuable to youth than private environmental action, I do agree that from taking action (any action) builds a sense of competence and confidence in the individual and develops cooperation (Chawla and Cushing, 2007). To me, having a sense of competence and confidence and being able to cooperate with others is equivalent to what Orr (1991) describes as “mastery of one’s person” (p. 13).
This discussion on knowledge and action reminds me of the Nasa saying: “Words without Actions are Empty; Actions without Words are Blind; But Words and Actions outside the Spirit of Community are Death.” (Gruner, 2010, p. 96). This saying connects Orr’s (1991) second principle with his third and fourth principles.
Orr’s third principle: “knowledge carries with it the responsibility to see that it is well used in the world” (p. 13).
Orr’s (1991) fourth principle: “we cannot say that we know something until we understand the effects of this knowledge on real people and their communities” (p. 13).
I will discuss Orr’s third and fourth principles tomorrow.
-Jessica
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Brief hiatus
I will not be posting for the next several days and returning to the blog on Dec. 10th/ 2010.
This is due to illness and preparation for the MES I-II exam.
-Jessica
This is due to illness and preparation for the MES I-II exam.
-Jessica
Monday, December 6, 2010
Thoughts on David Orr (1991), Part I
When I think about the educational theories we explored in ED 5445, David Orr’s (1991) theory that “it is not education, but education of a certain kind, that will save us.” (p. 8) is the one theory that stuck with me the most. Orr (1991) presents six principles for rethinking education; much of the literature we read for class echoed these six principles.
Each day, I will examine one of David Orr’s principles for rethinking education (Orr, 1991) and extend that examination with contributions along the same lines of theory by other theorists.
Principle 1: “all education is environmental education” (Orr, 1991, p. 12).
Orr (1991) argues that by excluding concepts of the environment or the natural world from subjects traditionally separated from environmental studies, students are taught that they are separate from the environment. Orr (1991) describes the modern curriculum as “fragmented” (p. 11) and students educated by this modern curriculum as lacking “any broad, integrated sense of the unity of things” (p. 11).
Re-reading Orr’s work reminds me of the two contrasting Venn diagrams relating environment, society and economy.
The diagram I recall from my undergraduate degree is a slightly different version of the “Mickey Mouse” model. The “Mickey Mouse” model presented by OzPolitic (2006) views the environment, society and economy as separate concepts with no overlap and economy as the dominant concern, taking precedence over the environment and society. The model I previously learned put equal weight on all three elements of the diagram as concerns for humanity. However, the “bullseye” model now makes much more sense because it demonstrates how the economy cannot function without a society and society cannot function with the environment (OzPolitic, 2006). If education does not recognize what the “bullseye” model is trying to demonstrate, a “fragmented” (Orr, 1991, p. 11) curriculum producing “incomplete education[s]” (Orr, 1991, p. 11) will continue to exist. This allows economic concerns to trump social justice or environmental issues because schooling acts to separate the economy from the “bigger picture” concerning the environment and society.
In fact, Sauvé et al. (2007) identify that “education directly serves economic growth” (p. 47) because “education is defined as fuel for development” (p. 47). So, instead of learning to question the concept/ ideal of development, students are schooled to perpetuate a paradigm of development, where development is “a right and an obligation…[not]… an option… a choice” (Sauvé et al., 2007, p. 47).
What’s happening under this paradigm of development? “Our national accounting systems do not subtract the costs of biotic impoverishment, soil erosion, poisons in our air and water, and resource depletion from gross national product” (Orr, 1991, p. 11). By schooling to perpetuate a paradigm of development, we are just fooling ourselves with false wealth (Orr, 1991; Sauvé et al., 2007).
Do I agree with Orr’s (1991) first principle for rethinking environmental education? Yes, I do. I’m not trying to argue that every economics, fine arts and British history course should have an ecology or environmental studies course as a prerequisite. However, since I agree with the “bullseye” model (OzPolitic, 2006), I do mean that all disciplines in our current education system are relatable to principles of ecology, sustainability and environmental ethics. Not only is it critical for students to be able to relate their passions (for economics, fine arts, history, *insert any academic discipline here*…) to the “bigger picture” (Orr, 1991); I argue, from my personal experience in the MES program, that the very process of this relating one subject area to another challenges students to go beyond surface learning into deep understanding.
By learning with pedagogy produced with Orr’s first principle, “all education is environmental education” (Orr, 1991, p. 12), in mind, students would have a higher quality education where they can integrate themselves with the environment and their passions with principles of ecology, sustainability and environmental ethics (Orr, 1991).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)