Developing Habits of Environmental Thoughtfulness Through the In-Depth Study of Select Environmental Issues Robert B. Stevenson, State University of New York at Buffalo, USA Abstract As the range and complexity of global environmental issues has broadened, and the scope of environmental education has expanded, demands have increased to cover more environmental topics and concepts in the school curriculum. However, if students are to develop enduring habits of environmental thoughtfulness, then a focus is needed, not on the broad coverage of many topics, but on the in-depth and authentic study of a few environmental issues. In this paper, after offering a rationale for in-depth study, I examine the problems and possibilities of constructing curricular and pedagogy with such a focus by describing the beliefs and practices of teachers who have emphasized in-depth study as a means to promoting student thoughtfulness. Résumé En raison de la complexification des questions environnementales globales et de l’élargissement de la portée de l’éducation relative à l’environnement, les demandes se multiplient pour intégrer au curriculum scolaire davantage de concepts et de contenus environnementaux. Toutefois, s’il importe d’aider les étudiants à développer des habitudes durables de réflexivité environnementale, il convient de s’intéresser non pas à l’augmentation de la quantité des contenus traités, mais plutôt à la qualité d’une authentique étude en profondeur de quelques questions environnementales choisies. Dans cet article, après avoir développé un argumentaire en faveur d’une approche en profondeur, l’auteur analyse les problèmes et les possibilités d’un curriculum et d’une pédagogie axés sur une telle approche. A cet effet, il décrit les croyances et les pratiques d’enseignants Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 2, Spring 1997 183 qui ont exploité l’étude en profondeur comme moyen de favoriser la réflexivité des étudiants. Some environmental educators have perceived pressures from two sources as demanding a considerable expansion in the environmental topics and concepts studied in schools. First, environmentalists who are concerned about the increasing variety and complexity of environmental problems facing both local communities and our global planet have advocated that more facts and concepts related to these concerns should be covered in the school curriculum (Milbrath, Hausbeck, & Enright, 1991). Second, the contemporary concept of environmental education articulated by international policymakers and academics seems to have been interpreted by many teachers as requiring a similar response. For example, several studies in different countries have indicated that teachers of environmental education programs focus on broad information about the environment (Ham & Sewing, 1987/88; Spork, 1992; Yantzi-Sammel, 1996). Yet a focus on the broad coverage of many environmental facts and topics is, I believe, a misplaced educational response. Given that little attention is given in school programs to “investigating and clarifying environmental viewpoints” (Spork, 1992, p. 150), such a focus suggests that environmental problems are superficially treated with students developing little understanding of the complexities involved and little capacity for thoughtful decision-making on environmental issues they may encounter. The broad coverage of many topics, in whatever subject or field of study, represents the traditional resolution in schools of the age-old curriculum dilemma of breadth versus depth of content coverage. In this paper I argue that to promote enduring habits of environmental thoughtfulness in students and to develop their capacity for making informed decisions and taking intelligent actions on environmental issues, a focus instead is needed on the in- depth study of a few (rather than many) environmental issues (rather than topics). I begin by briefly tracing the historical evolution of conceptions of environmental education in order to illustrate its consistently broadening scope during the course of this century. Then I discuss the nature of the curriculum dilemma that the current scope of 184 Robert B. Stevenson environmental education poses for teaching at all levels: whether to focus on the broad study of many environmental topics (or issues) or the in-depth study of only a select few issues. After advocating a need to move more toward the second alternative, the problems and possibilities of developing curricular and pedagogical practices that focus on the in-depth study of environmental issues are examined by drawing on two projects: an environmental education teacher development project in Europe and a research study on the teaching of higher order thinking in social studies in the United States. In particular, I focus on the pedagogical beliefs and practices of teachers in these projects who emphasized in-depth and authentic study with their students. The Broadening Scope of Environmental Education The origins of environmental education in North America can be traced, first, to the promotion of nature and outdoor study, essentially in primary schools, and later to the conservation movement and outdoor education. The primary purpose of nature study, which gained prominence through the publication in 1891 in the U.S. of Wilbur Jackman’s Nature Study for the Common Schools (Stapp, 1974), was (and remains) to develop an understanding and appreciation of the natural environment through first-hand observations. The conservation movement introduced a concern for the preservation, initially, of single species and later of areas of natural significance through sound management. So conservation education, which was first introduced into public schools in North America in the late 1920s, broadened the scope from studying natural resources to also developing an understanding and a concern for managing those resources. These movements, along with outdoor education, were rooted in liberal-progressive educational philosophies (Robottom, 1985) and had modest environmental and educational goals. None challenged the dominant socio-economic and political structure of Western industrialized societies (Stevenson, 1987). Reviews of school programs indicated that their goals of developing knowledge and appreciation of the natural environment were commonly included in elementary and high school science and social studies curricula (Childress, 1978; UNESCO, 1977). Developing Habits of Environmental Thoughtfulness 185 Then in the 1960s came warnings from environmental writers (e.g., Carson, 1962; Ehrlich, 1968) of imminent ecological disasters and the emergence of the environmental movement. A call for educating present and future generations to take action to alter the current habits of misuse of the environment gave rise (following the United Nations Conference on Human Environment in 1972) to a third developmental phase of education relating to the environment, now widely termed “environmental education.” The Belgrade Charter (UNESCO-UNEP, 1976) and the Tbilisi Declaration (1978), which were products of conferences sponsored by UNESCO’s International Environmental Education Program, introduced three additional dimensions into the concept of environmental education. First, the term “environment” was expanded beyond the natural to include the built and beyond biophysical factors to consider social, cultural, economic, and political aspects. Second, local environmental issues were framed within a global or “spaceship earth” consciousness (as exemplified in the popular motto, “think globally, act locally”). Finally, educational aspirations went beyond developing students’ knowledge and awareness of environmental concerns to active involvement in investigating and working toward the resolution of environmental problems. Thus, the goals of environmental education were to provide opportunities for students to actively participate in maintaining and improving the environment through the critical appraisal of environmental situations and issues, the formulation of an environmental ethic and the development of the motivation and skills to act on one’s values and commitments (Stevenson, 1987). A number of writers also argued that, in order to be able to act upon their environmental awareness and values, students need to develop knowledge of the political process and skills in political advocacy (Huckle, 1986). Thus, as well as the concept of “environment” expanding, for some educators the scope of knowledge, skills and values for understanding and investigating the environment had broadened beyond environmental literacy to include political literacy. A fourth phase of reconceptualizing and broadening environmental education emerged in the context of international attention to the notion of sustainable development. Although environmental education reports in the 1970s, such as the Belgrade Charter (1976), recognized that issues of social justice are closely 186 Robert B. Stevenson linked to environmental decision-making—a relationship that is exemplified, for example, by the concentration throughout much of the U.S. of hazardous waste disposal sites in communities of color—this issue became more central. For example, the Brundtland Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) focused on the single theme that “many present development trends leave increasing numbers of people poor and vulnerable and at the same time degrade the natural environment” and concluded that “humankind required new, more ecologically sustainable and socially just approaches to development” (Fien, 1995, p. 22). Peace education also was given central prominence when the World Conservation Strategy for the 1990s argued that education has a vital role to play in ensuring that people learn, accept and live by the principle that “living sustainably depends on accepting a duty to seek harmony with other people and with nature” (ICUN, 1980, p. 8). In other words, improving the quality of life for everyone demands building communities of trusting, caring people who can co-exist peacefully throughout the globe. Put simply, the imperatives underlying the concept and processes of sustainable development have created a new agenda for environmental education that forges a close connection with development education (Fien, 1995). Thus, education for sustainability has been conceptualized as linking not only conservation and development education, but also peace and human rights education (O’Donoghue & McNaught, 1991). The introduction of these aspects of sustainable development has further broadened the scope of environmental education. To summarize this potted history, environmental education can be viewed as having broadened on several different dimensions in progressing from nature study (with its focus on knowledge about natural systems), through conservation education (and its concern for understanding and appreciating the management of such systems) and environmental education (which addresses understandings, values and action skills related to the biophysical, sociocultural, economic and political factors that affect our use of the environment) to education for sustainable living for all people on the planet (with its concern for socially just and peaceful approaches to development). Developing Habits of Environmental Thoughtfulness 187 An important caveat should be added. The history of environmental education presented here represents this writer’s construction of the international discourse among policymakers and academics and is not necessarily recognized either in practice or by all policymakers and writers. Although I believe a strong argument can be made for the appropriateness of the broad conception presented here, environmental education is a contested concept and conceptualizations certainly vary. For example, some people hold one of the earlier conceptions that have been outlined or have an apolitical focus regarding the scientific aspects of environmental problems. Nevertheless, current readers of major journals in the field, such as Environmental Education Research, the Australian Journal of Environmental Education, and this journal, will recognize that many contributors, at least implicitly, frame their work within the broad conceptualization that has been outlined. Although the objectives of nature study and conservation education could be relatively easily accommodated in the goals, curriculum and structural organization of schools, the broader concepts of environmental education and education for sustainability present a more formidable challenge. Incorporating their multiple dimensions in school programs is proving to be a challenging task for educators. For example, an interdisciplinary approach to the study of real problems is demanded, yet school curricula emphasize the discipline-based study of abstract problems. One Response: A Call for the Broad Coverage of Environmental Topics One response to addressing this broad conception of environmental education is to increase the number and variety of environmental topics, problems and concepts that are included in the school curriculum and to expand the interdisciplinary perspectives from which these topics and problems are studied. Numerous sets of curriculum materials on a wide range of environmental topics and problems have been produced, especially in the United States, to encourage teachers to include such topics in their curriculum planning (e.g., Project Learning Tree, Project WET, Project WILD). State/provincial and/or district curriculum policymakers tend to 188 Robert B. Stevenson take a conservative middle course and acknowledge the significance of environmental concerns but identify only some very general, widely recognized global environmental problems, such as pollution or extinction of wildlife, in their subject area curriculum guidelines. In other words, curriculum documents include relatively well-defined and commonly accepted environmental problems that do not generate substantial or controversial disagreement, at least in the community in which the school is located. This emphasis on abstract, global (rather than actual, local) problems contributes to a situation in which many teachers include broad environmental topics or problems by independently covering discrete elements of knowledge (e.g., facts, concepts, events) about the topic or problem. These responses by educational policymakers and teachers, I would argue, are based on what has been termed “an addiction to coverage,” an addiction to trying to teach everything we consider important and worth knowing (Newmann, 1988). Human- environment interactions then are viewed as one of many significant areas of human experience that should be squeezed into the school curriculum. The vast quantity of knowledge that has been accumulated about these interactions is set alongside the immense wealth of knowledge generated in other domains to compete for space in the curriculum. This addiction to coverage is based on two erroneous assumptions. The first is that we can keep up with the knowledge explosion and select a comprehensive representation of all the valuable knowledge that has been produced (Newmann, 1988). The second assumption is that exposure to information and ideas equates with learning (which is further assumed to produce changed attitudes and behaviors). For example, there seems to be a common belief that merely exposing children to more environmental subject matter will result in their better understanding and appreciation of our environmental problems, despite research to the contrary (Gayford, 1996; Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Jordan, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1986). The consequence of these assumptions is that knowledge is reduced to trivial, fragmented bits and understanding is confined to the simple and superficial. Learning, therefore, becomes defined as the mindless acquisition of information that remains inert or unused (except for short term recall for quizzes and tests) and, therefore, is Developing Habits of Environmental Thoughtfulness 189 quickly forgotten. A grade 11 student expressed this concern rather eloquently in describing his social studies class: A lot of time it’s a total skim; it’s very bad. A classic example is this course in European history. We covered 2000 years. Every week we had a 30 page chapter due. We had 50 dates a week to memorize. The pity of it all is that now I don’t remember anything. I worked so hard, and now . . . there’s like maybe five dates I remember, when I probably learned three or four hundred dates all year. I can’t even remember a lot of the major guys we studied. (Newmann, 1988, p. 346) A focus on the extensive coverage of many topics pressures teachers to gloss over the complexities and nuances of concepts and to omit alternative and opposing viewpoints on problematic issues: crucial omissions in environmental education which is full of inherently difficult and complex concepts that are abstract, fluid, and subject to different interpretations (Jickling, 1992). In the rush to include as much information as possible, teachers also tend to synthesize material for students instead of requiring them to construct their own understandings. Little time is available for students to engage in careful and sustained thought about the assumptions, evidence and inferences underlying knowledge claims;1 to analyze the values underlying particular viewpoints; and to explore the personal or social significance of a topic or issue. The superficial treatment of environmental topics may result in better players of an environmental version of Trivial Pursuit, but is unlikely to produce individuals who are able to thoughtfully and critically appraise environmental situations, to formulate their own moral code in relation to these situations, to act rationally and responsibly on their value choices (Stevenson, 1987). The Alternative: An Emphasis on In-Depth Study of Select Environmental Issues An alternative to the broad coverage of environmental topics is the in-depth and authentic study of select environmental issues. The term “issue” is used to refer to any problem about which there is significant disagreement among people affected by the problem as to the appropriate solution.2 An “environmental issue” has been 190 Robert B. Stevenson defined as “a socially or ecologically significant problem, somehow related to the environment, about which there are differing human beliefs and values” (Ramsey, Hungerford, & Volk, 1989, p. 26). Environmental policy issues usually involve three types of questions: moral or value questions, questions of definition, and questions of fact and explanation (Oliver & Newmann, 1970). Disagreements can arise over the answers to any or all of these types of questions. For example, experts may (or may not) agree on the factual question of how much soil erosion and vegetation damage is caused by trail bikes in a national park, but resource managers or citizens may not agree on the value question of whether or not a high impact recreational activity is appropriate in such an area. “In-depth” means that students spend a sustained period of time examining and debating these questions, while “authentic” signifies that students, through systematic inquiry, construct their own meaning and produce knowledge that has an immediate social value in making a judgment on a specific issue that is real and meaningful to them (Newmann & Wehlage, 1995). Therefore, in an in-depth, authentic study of an environmental issue students: identify an issue within their local environment that is meaningful or significant to them; conduct a sustained, interdisciplinary inquiry or investigation into that issue; and by constructing their own understandings and values, develop a defensible position on the issue, and make judgments about appropriate actions that should be taken. Why should in-depth study of only selected environmental issues be emphasized? First, studying a real issue rather than a topic is not only more meaningful and motivating to students, but provides a focus and direction for contextualizing and connecting information and ideas and thereby reducing the likelihood of fragmented and superficial treatment of subject matter. Second, intensive, in-depth study is much more likely to involve students in analytical and critical thinking, to enable them to develop deep and sophisticated understandings of environmental issues (including the value positions underlying such issues), and to cultivate habits of environmental thoughtfulness. The development of these capacities and habits of thoughtful inquiry and moral deliberation on environmental issues is, I would argue, a more important and more enduring outcome than merely acquiring discrete content knowledge about the environment. Developing Habits of Environmental Thoughtfulness 191 Developing such habits, however, requires time not coverage: when a sustained amount of time is devoted to the study of a single topic or issue, complex explanations, alternative and opposing viewpoints and subtle nuances can be examined. But merely spending more time on a single issue does not guarantee that students will be involved in careful and complex thought. For example, you could survey all the major environmental issues, in a boring, non-critical, non-thinking way or you could focus on the water quality of a local creek in a boring, non-critical, non-thinking way. If the intensive study of specific issues is to be justified, then students must go beyond the acquisition of environmental information as presented by the teacher or text and be challenged to construct their own understandings by analyzing and interpreting that information (Newmann, 1989). Depth for the sake of depth is no more valuable than coverage for the sake of coverage. The time needs to be used for students to be involved in experience-based learning that “is not a matter of the children simply taking in the principles of environment-friendly behavior without thinking; they need to discover the environment, study situations and carefully seek solutions” (Axelsson, 1993 cited in Elliott, 1995, p. 22). Thoughtful, in-depth analysis of an environmental issue does not mean a neglect of content, but in fact demands in-depth knowledge of subject matter, as well as skills in processing information and attitudes or dispositions of thoughtfulness (e.g., being reflective, open-minded). Rather than teaching specific content or process objectives one by one, however, various understandings, skills, and dispositions are developed by students as the need for them is encountered during the process of in-depth study. In other words, they are acquired in the context of a specific inquiry, although sometimes particular information and skills may be needed prior to an investigation. There is, of course, a downside or negative consequence to emphasizing the intensive or in-depth study of a few select issues and that is that many significant environmental facts and concepts are likely to be omitted from the curriculum. The dilemma is to find an appropriate balance. However, the predominant resolution of this dilemma at all levels of education, especially at the secondary and post-secondary levels, has been on the side of coverage (see Newmann, 1988; Sizer, 1984; Stevenson, 1992). A 192 Robert B. Stevenson