{"id":7333,"date":"2018-10-25T06:30:10","date_gmt":"2018-10-25T06:30:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/?p=7333"},"modified":"2018-10-25T06:30:10","modified_gmt":"2018-10-25T06:30:10","slug":"ee-practitioners-perspective-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/2018\/10\/25\/ee-practitioners-perspective-2\/","title":{"rendered":"EE: practitioners\u2019 perspective 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here are further comments on the part 2 of the King's Report:\u00a0The Practitioners\u2019 Perspective<\/a>: Understanding Environmental Education in Secondary Schools. Where is it, what is it and what should the future be? \u00a0\u00a0<\/em>In this, I build on what I wrote<\/a> the other day.<\/p>\n

\n

1\u00a0<\/strong>The executive summary says this on page 1:<\/p>\n

\"Although contentious and not without issue, we propose\u00a0that the first step towards this aim is to align the status of environmental education with\u00a0numeracy and literacy education.\"<\/em><\/p>\n

If this is to be the first step, we're in for a long wait as only the DfE can do this, and there is no mention of the DfE in the report.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

2<\/strong> The Recommendations section of the executive summary says this on page 2:<\/p>\n

\"... learning opportunities need to be framed\u00a0at both the global\/systemic level and the local level. \u00a0By emphasising local considerations, students are able\u00a0to develop ownership and agency for solutions whilst\u00a0also understanding the interconnected nature of local\u00a0environmental issues in the global context.\"<\/em><\/p>\n

What happened to the\u00a0national<\/em> level? \u00a0Given that education and environmental policy and legislation are both determined nationally, isn't this an important context? \u00a0It's a strange omission.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

3<\/strong> The Key Findings section on page 6 says:<\/p>\n

\"The decline of environmental education in the science\u00a0curriculum was thought to be an outcome of the strong\u00a0emphasis on subject acquisition and a reduction of\u00a0context and application: \"I think that the specification at the moment is more on the\u00a0content, on the theory of some scientific concepts, more than\u00a0actually the application to current issues.\" (Science teacher,\u00a017_10)\"<\/em><\/p>\n

This sounds plausible, and is a (presumably unintended) consequence of government action. \u00a0It is, of course, not just EE that is affected here. \u00a0I hope the ASE \/ BA \/ etc are on the case.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

4<\/strong> Table 1 on page 6 throws up marked differences between the (small numbers of) the teachers and others consulted on whether there are sufficient or too few opportunities provided by the secondary school curriculum to pursue EE interests. \u00a011 of the teachers consulted (out of 14) thought the was too little opportunity, with only 3 saying there was enough. \u00a0 The split in geography teachers was 2 (enough) to 4 (too little). \u00a0In science teachers, it was 7 to 1. \u00a0The report comments:<\/p>\n

\"Most science teachers agreed that since the 2014\u00a0curriculum and examination changes, topics associated\u00a0with environmental education have declined, received\u00a0less of an emphasis and \u2018are falling through the gaps\u2019.\"<\/em><\/p>\n

By contrast, two geography teachers were quoted as reporting an increase in opportunities\u00a0since the curriculum changes in subject knowledge\u00a0content related to the environment. \u00a0This reported subject imbalance would likely reflect many people's views of where the opportunities lie. \u00a0 \u00a0Of course, none of this matters much if teachers are unable to recognise and take opportunities, for whatever reason.<\/p>\n

If only science teachers and geography teachers would \/ could collaborate more? \u00a0If only ... . \u00a0This plea is of long-standing and there are good reasons, many of them cultural, why this is difficult. \u00a0In the heady days in the 1970s when there were dedicated environmental science and environmental studies examination courses in secondary schools, nuclear power featured on both sides of the divide. \u00a0In science, students were taught about fission, about controlling fission, and about the structure (plumbing, etc) of reactors. \u00a0In geography, meanwhile, students were taught about the dangers and problems of fission and its by-products. \u00a0The poor students were left to bring the issues together for themselves. \u00a0They still are, as the quote from Science teacher 17_5 illustrates (page 7).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

5<\/strong> Page 8 is preoccupied with the in\/about\/for mantra, and the venerable Arthur Lucas gets a mention in despatches.<\/p>\n

This is a popular way of thinking about EE which I try very hard not to use as I find it completely unhelpful. \u00a0I know I may be alone in this. \u00a0I also cannot take seriously the idea that\u00a0about<\/em> equates with science and\u00a0for<\/em> with geography, as some of those interviewed seemed to suggest. \u00a0And as for\u00a0education in the environment<\/em>, for me, this always has to have an environmental focus if is to count as EE \u2013 otherwise it\u2019s just education \/ learning outdoors, and it\u2019s why I am so disappointed at all the emphasis that\u2019s on \u2018outdoor learning\u2019 these days, when so little has an environmental focus. \u00a0All this leads me to think that this artificial division into\u00a0in\/about\/for is as problematic as the simplistic split between goods and services these days, when so many goods come packaged with services, and so many services need a\u00a0good<\/em> to enable them to be experienced.<\/p>\n

Anyway, this comes back to a point I've already made: all this learning about \/ in \/ for \/ under \/ etc begs the question learning\u00a0what<\/em>, exactly? \u00a0Does anybody know?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

6<\/strong> Finally, for today, there is this (from pages 8 & 9):<\/p>\n

\"Interviewees highlighted that skills, such as \u2018critical\u00a0thinking\u2019, \u2018problem solving\u2019 and \u2018creativity\u2019 (often\u00a0referred to as 21st century skills) needed to be taught to\u00a0ensure that students were able to cope with unknown\u00a0futures. In practical terms, the respondents spoke about\u00a0the need for skills in the \u2018interpretation of data\u2019 (e.g.\u00a0data gathering, synthesis of secondary data, forming\u00a0predictions) and understanding data credibility and\u00a0trustworthiness: \u00a0\u00a0'<\/span>They need critical skills and increased creativity. So much\u00a0information is thrown at them in the news but they have no\u00a0way of knowing what is important or not.' (Science teacher,\u00a017_8)\"<\/em><\/p>\n

This (almost) goes without saying, but I wondered why there was no mention of the sort of\u00a0analytical argumentation skills\u00a0associated with [i] a critical understanding of argument whether in textual or verbal form, and with [ii] an ability to make a coherent argument in whatever form is appropriate. \u00a0Such literacy skills are needed now more than ever before. \u00a0At the end of the day, it is these skills that I learned at school in my teens that I use every day \u2013 not the factual stuff I learned. \u00a0It's may be why I'm now a scribbler.<\/p>\n

More later ...<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here are further comments on the part 2 of the King's Report:\u00a0The Practitioners\u2019 Perspective: Understanding Environmental Education in Secondary Schools. Where is it, what is it and what should the future be? \u00a0\u00a0In this, I build on what I wrote...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":237,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2,3,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7333","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-comment","category-new-publications","category-news-and-updates"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7333","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/237"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7333"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7333\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7333"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7333"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7333"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}