“Different teaching traditions in environmental and sustainability education”

by Öhman and Östman.

Within disciplines, there are usually strong traditions of how different subjects are being taught. Often, those traditions are so deeply entrenched that it is hard to imagine (and even harder to accept) that there might be other ways of teaching the same content. In this chapter, three different traditions (fact-based, normative, and pluralistic) are presented with the intention of helping the readers choose the appropriate approach consciously rather than just following a tradition. The discussion follows two premises: That sustainability issues are value issues and that they should be dealt with democratically.

The three traditions are different in how they approach sustainability (how much trust is put in science, how much changes we should make as individuals, how much changes overall are necessary), didactics (the motives, e.g. preserving culture vs creating change; content, e.g. what is most central; and methods used in education, e.g. do we see the student as passive or active), facts and values (should we teach values, or just facts, and do facts exist without values?), and democracy and education (paradox: we want autonomous subjects that still follow our basic values and norms). With this in mind, here are the three traditions:

The fact-based tradition sees sustainability as a knowledge-based problem. If everybody knew more, we could find technological solutions to the problem. Therefore, in this tradition teaching is focussed on facts, mostly in STEM subjects, and to some extent labs and field trips; and student interests can be incorporated. The assumption here is that the scientific method is value-free, therefore values are seen as subjective and belonging in students’ private lives, not class. When the education is completed, students have learned enough to become democratic citizens.

The normative tradition sees the moral implications in scientific findings, and experts from scientific fields should advise us on how to act. It is an individual responsibility to live a sustainable life based on the expert advice. Value conflicts are solved through discussion between experts and politicians, and trickle then down into policy documents and syllabi, but lessons aim to connect it to students’ real lives and experiences in group- and problem-based approaches, often in the field and co-created.

The pluralistic tradition acknowledges the conflicts between interests, values and ideologies on almost all issues — the interpretation of facts, what effective or suitable solutions might look like, etc.. Science can inform, but not guide decisions since so many stakeholders are involved. In teaching, this means highlighting different views and values that can and should be rationally and openly, critically and democratically discussed. In teaching, discussion is quality-controlled by the teacher, and methods like role play or panel debates help practice democratic processes.

As teachers, we of course come from within one of those traditions, and work in a context that has its tradition. So how do we choose how to teach? Looking back at the premise that sustainability issues are value issues and that they should be dealt with democratically, each tradition has strengths and weaknesses.

The fact-based tradition has the strength that students come out with a solid scientific basis, know how to fact-check and evaluate facts, and how to work with facts. It has the huge disadvantage that there has been no discussion of values or differing perspectives, and this leads to authority being assigned to the person with the most facts (the teacher) over everybody else. So there is no practicing of democracy or co-creation, and instead a belief in a society run by experts, and technological solutions.

The normative tradition encourages specific views and moral responsibilities to problems. This can be very effective in changing individual behavior and creating committed groups working towards common goals. But it also gives a large power and responsibility to the teacher to teach the correct values and norms, which doesn’t exist in such an absolute form, but this might not always be discussed. The focus here is on socialization, not subjectification (as discussed here), as the teacher is the moral authority who knows best, and everybody else follows. This is not democracy.

The pluralistic tradition makes students aware of all the different values and interests involved in the debate, including the students’ own. Students develop their abilities to discuss, argue and listen, reflect, find their own position, and engage in democratic processes. However, this takes a lot of time and the outcomes are unpredictable. The teachers need to encourage both students’ free will and at the same time strong commitment, they facilitate the catalyst in a process.