Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T14:55:59.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preparing Action Competent Environmental Educators: How Hard Could It Be?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2013

Wendy Nielsen ,
Peter Andersen ,
Amy Hurley ,
Vanessa Sabljak ,
Amy-Lee Petereit ,
Vanessa Hoskin  and
Garry Hoban
Wendy Nielsen
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
Peter Andersen*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
Amy Hurley
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
Vanessa Sabljak
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
Amy-Lee Petereit
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
Vanessa Hoskin
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
Garry Hoban
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Peter Andersen, Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, Wollongong NSW 2522, Australia. Email: petera@uow.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article describes an interpretive study that evaluated a new subject in teacher education called ‘Education for Sustainable Development’. The study evaluated the subject for its ability to prepare pre-service teachers for their roles as environmental educators. We used perspectives in place-based pedagogy and critical thinking to underpin the subject design and our analysis. Data sources include instructor journals, planning documents, interviews with students and student thinking books. Interpretive analysis of the data corpus was a collaborative process that involved both subject instructors and students who took the subject. Themes that emerged from the research were centred around: (1) how the students built connections between primary school education and environmental education; (2) how students developed action competence through the activities in the subject; (3) how students were challenged to think differently about themselves as educators; and, (4) how the subject design presented its own challenges for both instructors and students.

Keywords

pre-service teacher educationenvironmental educationaction competence
Type
Feature Articles
Information
Australian Journal of Environmental Education , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , December 2012 , pp. 92 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ARIES. (2009). Mainstreaming sustainability into pre-service teacher education in Australia. Retrieved from http://www.aries.mq.edu.au/projects/pre-service2/Pre-Service_Teacher_Ed2.pdfGoogle Scholar
ARIES. (2010). Mainstreaming education for sustainability in pre-service teacher education in Australia: Enablers and constraints. Retrieved from http://aries.mq.Edu.au/projects/pre-service3/Pre-Service_Teacher_Ed3.pdfGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, P., Sharpley, B., & Malcolm, S. (2004). The Waste Wise Schools Program: Evidence of educational, environmental, social and economic outcomes at the school and community level. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 20 (2), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australia Government Department of the Environment. (2005). Education for a sustainable future: A national environmental education statement for Australian schools. Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.auGoogle Scholar
Cutter-Mackenzie, A., & Edwards, S. (2006). Everyday environmental education experiences: The role of content in early childhood education. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 22 (2), 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In Wittrock, M. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119–161). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance and real-life problems of innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1986). The first year of teacher preparation: Transition to pedagogical thinking? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18 (3), 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Teacher preparation: Structural and conceptual alternatives. In Houston, W.R. (Ed.), Handbook on teacher education (pp. 212–223). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Fullan, M., & Miles, M. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 73 (10), 745–754.Google Scholar
Gaylie, V. (2009). The learning garden: Ecology, teaching, and transformation. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gough, A. (2006). A long, winding (and rocky) road to environmental education for sustainability in 2006. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 22 (1), 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhall, A. (1987). A political history of environmental education Australia: Snakes and ladders. In Robottom, I. (Ed.), Environmental education: Practice and possibility (pp. 3–21) Melbourne, Australia: Deakin University.Google Scholar
Gruenewald, D.A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Reseacher, 32 (4), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, B.B. (2002). Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research, 8 (3), 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, B.B., & Schnack, K. (2006). The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 12 (3–4), 471–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsson, B., Andersson, M.M., & Osbeck, C. (2010). Bringing environmentalism home: Children's influence on family consumption in Nordic countries and beyond. Childhood, 17 (1), 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leggo, C. (1997). Living un/grammatically in a grammatical world: The pedagogic world of teachers and students. Interchange, 29 (2), 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, E., Mansfield, C., & Baudains, C. (2008). Getting down and dirty: Values in education for sustainability. Issues in Educational Research, 18 (2), 138–155.Google Scholar
MacGillivray, L. (2002). Do what I say, not what I do: An instructor rethinks her own teaching and research. Curriculum Inquiry, 27 (4), 469–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, K. (2005). Science thinking books: Children talking, thinking and drawing their way into science. Hong Kong Journal of Early Childhood, 4 (1), 15–20.Google Scholar
Miles, R., Harrison, L., & Cutter-Mackenzie, A. (2006). Teacher education: A diluted environmental education experience. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 22 (1), 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgensen, F., & Schnack, K. (2009). The action competence approach and the ‘new’ discourses of education for sustainable development, competence and quality criteria. Environmental Education Research, 16 (1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NSW Department of Education and Training. (2008). Environmental education policy for schools (Policy Reference No. PD/2002/0049/V02). Sydney, Australia: Author.Google Scholar
NSW Government. (n.d.). Sustainable schools NSW. Retrieved from http://www.sustainableschools.nsw.edu.auGoogle Scholar
Rodgers, C.R., & Scott, K.H. (2008). The development of the personal self and professional identity in learning to teach. In Cochran-Smith, M., Feiman-Nemser, S., McIntyre, D.J., & Demers, K.E. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 732–755). New York: Routledge/Taylor.Google Scholar
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
UNESCO. (2009). Review of contexts and structures for education for sustainable development. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/desdGoogle Scholar
Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68 (2), 130–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar