Following up on “PART I: Education and the challenge of building a more sustainable world” that I summarized here, and the first part and second part of the summary of “PART II: Choosing teaching content and approaches”, and my first part of a summary of
here comes my last bit of summary of this book!
Petra Hansson writes about how to use reading and writing in teaching about sustainability. One problem we often encounter is that students are so deeply socialised into fact-based traditions, that they feel very uncomfortable and out of their depth when they are asked to interpret and make personal choices of priorities, for example when reading literature. They are expecting that there is a correct answer that the teacher wants them to find, and cannot imagine that there are many valid answers, especially when it comes to the effect that a text has on them in connection to their own experiences etc, as long as they can explain the reasons behind their choices. That each student might take something different away from reading the same text, and that that is exactly what a teacher might want, seems weird when students are used to science text books where there is exactly one correct way of understanding. But sometimes, meaning is only created when students respond to a text, for example by writing reflections about a text. The author suggests four pedagogical steps to make that happen:
The author writes “students need to be accustomed to a view of reading and writing as not only being tools for extracting and expressing knowledge about the state of the world but also as means for discovering multiple perspectives of experiencing the world, with the final aim of developing solid and firm opinions that can be used in real-life sustainability discussions“.
Next chapter by Sund and Pashby:
Even though one advice for teaching about sustainability is to focus on local challenges, this might be good advice for when people are first exposed to the topic or reluctant to see the relevance for them personally, but it does hold forever since sustainability is a global challenge. But thinking globally is obviously even more complex since then much larger contrasts between rich and poor, much more different impacts like sea-level rise or desertification, very different cultures, all come together, and this creates the risk of an “us” and “them” thinking between the Global North and Global South that separates between who causes and is a victim, helps and needs help, etc.. Also the SDGs, meant and commonly used as starting point when teaching about sustainable development, are not without criticism, for example because they basically propagate for “business as usual” and implicitly uncritically support values like individualism and competition, as well as contributing to colonial systems of power.
The authors offer a didactical reflective tool (“DiRe tool”) for teaching global issues which contains the four key aspects of a critical engagement with global issues:
While using such a tool is obviously a lot more vague and challenging than following the learning outcomes suggested with the SDGs, it also opens up for much better outcomes.
The next chapter is by Lundegård on
The author suggests value-clarifying exercises to help students see that they always have choices, that there is no absolute right or wrong, and also let them become aware of the choices they do make without consciously reflecting about their values. In the example, students are instructed to read up on topics like climate change and gene technology, and present on it. They then present two conflicting options and ask their peers to position themselves in the room according to their opinions (“taking a stand”, a bit similar to sociometry, but potentially also with the option to opt out), and then articulate their arguments, elaborate on them, discuss, and maybe even change position at some point. All of these are helpful steps in encouraging students to “become someone” — letting themselves become visible in relation to a topic under debate. And when the topic is culturally (i.e. corresponding with other activities within society) and personally (meaningful for learners) authentic, then teaching is relevant for the here and now and these types of debate can last long beyond the end of a lesson.
The next chapter by Pernilla Andersson elaborates on methods for embodied experiences:
In working for sustainability, we are faced with uncertainty and complexity in wicked problems where there are no guidelines for how to make the correct decision (and where there most likely isn’t even one). So how do we make decisions then, and how do we help students learn how to make decisions? A method described in this chapter is ‘Four Corners’, which lets students to experience the political dimension of sustainability issues:
Another method for embodied exploration of decision-making is “Forum Play”, a role play with these steps:
In some situations, it is not clear how to go on, and routines don’t work any more. Those moments can become traumatic (as someone loses trust in how things have always worked) but also freeing (since they gain a little independence from their socialisation). In those moments students have to rethink who they want to become, and that can be painful. The author suggests a didactic model for how to think about “business as un-usual”
And with this, we have reached the book’s last chapter, by Tryggvason and Mårdh:
The authors define “political emotions” as those bodily experiences that a person is aware of, that deal with a) the us/them boundary and b) very different versions of what society should look like. In contrast to a diffuse mood, emotions are directed at someone.
As teachers, we need to deal with emotions that students experience in response to our teaching, and trying to suppress them is not a good idea. However, they can also not take over everything all the time, so what can we do? The authors suggest two strategies, simplification and circulation.
Simplification is a strategy for getting students into feeling their political emotions as to get students (more) engaged in discussions and possibly carrying them beyond the classroom. Simplification is really about reducing the complexity of the discussion by taking moves that simplify
But of course, both those moves and more generally, what decisions a teacher makes, come down to the teacher’s values etc, and are in the end executing power over what opportunities for learning are presented to the students.
But there is this second strategy:
Circulation is a strategy for keeping students’ political emotions alive, to maintain and orient them into a direction that the teachers deep constructive for the discussion. Here, the author suggests two types of moves:
And with this, we have read the whole book! Phew! Feels like an achievement, even though it was totally meaningful all the time, to the point where I kept reading despite a lot more important and urgent tasks piling up.
So my plan are two next steps, which I am sharing for accountability:
Van Poeck, K., Östman, L., & Öhman, J. (Eds.). (2019). Sustainable Development Teaching: Ethical and Political Challenges (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351124348
In a nutshell: "Sustainable Development Teaching - Ethical and Political Challenges", edited by Van Poeck, Östman, Öhman (2019) - Adventures in Oceanography and Teaching says:
[…] read this book, but if you are short on time, check out my summary posts (part I, IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB) or the blogpost below for a super boiled-down summary of my takeaways from the whole book. I […]