Investigating teachers’ pedagogical approaches in environmental education that promote students’ action competence

1. Aims, objectives and research questions

Introduction

There is currently no mandatory requirement for New Zealand schools to teach Environmental Education (EE). However, in 1999 the Ministry of Education published the Guidelines for Environmental Education in New Zealand Schools (Ministry of Education, 1999). The Guidelines are intended to assist teachers and schools to plan and provide education “in, about, and for the environment” in a way that integrates with learning objectives from the seven mandatory learning areas of the New Zealand Curriculum Framework (Ministry of Education, 1993). As such, schools are encouraged to develop EE programmes through a process of school-based curriculum development. More recently, a concept of education for sustainability has been promoted that broadens EE approaches to include concepts of human rights and social justice for sustainable development (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment [PCE], 2004; Tilbury, Stevenson, Fien, & Schreuder, 2002).

In 2002–2003 a national research project (commissioned by the Ministry of Education) was conducted to investigate the practice of EE in New Zealand schools (Bolstad, Cowie, & Eames, 2004). This project provided evidence that in teaching EE some teachers were developing studentcentred pedagogical approaches. The study also reported a general under-emphasis on the dimension of education for the environment. The project report concluded that further research was needed to “evaluate whether EE teaching practices promote long-term learning value for students (i.e., whether it acts to develop students’ ‘action competence’ and ability to be decision-makers with regard to environmental issues in the present and the future)” (p. 72).

An action orientation is seen as a key feature that defines EE (Fien & Greenall Gough, 1996; McLean, 2003; Tilbury, 1995). The concept of action competence acknowledges this orientation (Breiting & Mogensen, 1999; Jensen & Schnack, 1997). Action competence refers to students’ abilities to act with reference to environmental concerns, as active participants in EE. It includes the ability to identify problems, make decisions about solutions, and take action that develops the students’ competence to participate in future action on environmental issues. Development of students’ action competence can be seen as promoting democratic and participative education that can be valuable across all aspects of schooling.

Aims and objectives

This research was conducted in five New Zealand classrooms that were delivering EE. It was focused on the development of student environmental action competence in response to particular pedagogical approaches used during the delivery of EE in those classrooms.

The research involved five teachers, each working together with a Regional Environmental Education Co-ordinator (school adviser). These research partnerships planned the delivery of an EE unit, the teacher delivered it, and the teacher and co-ordinator collaborated in researching the outcomes.

The aims of the research project were to:

• inform future teaching and learning classroom practices in EE;
• build research capability in the Regional Environmental Education Co-ordinators and teachers, particularly for EE; and
• widen the understanding of teaching and learning of EE in the school community and education sector.

These aims had the following objectives:

1. To investigate which pedagogical approaches used by teachers in EE lead to student action competence. Regional Environmental Education Co-ordinators conducted the research in partnership with classroom teachers. Together they planned an EE unit and the use of pedagogical approaches within it. The teacher implemented the unit and, together with the researcher, evaluated it, focusing particularly on the development of students’ action competence.
2. The co-ordinators were mentored through the research process by experienced researchers. This enabled the co-ordinators to develop their own research practice. They worked alongside teachers to scaffold the teachers’ research and pedagogical capability into their EE practice. Through their partnership with teachers, the co-ordinators modelled the action research process and gained the teachers’ full participation. This contributed to the teachers’ understanding of research and informed both the co-ordinators’ and the teachers’ own practice.
3. To use the findings of the research to inform future teaching and learning of EE in schools. This objective is being achieved through the co-ordinators disseminating their research-informed practice to other schools with which they are working, the co-ordinators sharing their findings with the national group of environmental education co-ordinators, the teachers sharing their experiences with their colleagues, and the co-ordinator and teacher jointly disseminating their findings by means of conferences and published articles.

Research questions

The research question that originally guided this project was:

• What pedagogical approaches are successful in promoting student action competence in environmental education?

This research imperative led to the following questions that were explored in the course of project:

• What skills relevant to achieving action competence did students possess before the unit?
• What pedagogical approaches did teachers select before and during the unit, and why?
• What skills relevant to achieving action competence did students demonstrate during and after the teaching and learning?
• What, in the opinion of the teachers, led to any changes in students’ skills relevant to achieving action competence during and after the unit?

2. Research design and critique

Environmental education research

Research in EE is a nascent field, having evolved out of a need to better understand an intensely practical endeavour. This understanding requires a theoretical base and empirical data to support the theory, hence the need for research. Early research in EE typically employed a positivistic approach to collecting quantitative data (Marcinowski, 2000)—for example, statistics that were thought to show either the need for or the outcomes of some educational design. However, in parallel with the acknowledgement of the vital social and cultural components of EE has been the realisation that a positivistic approach using controlled variables and experimentation is not fruitful in examining the complex realm of EE (O’Hearn, 1982).

Consequently, environmental education researchers have turned towards approaches that are known as naturalistic or interpretive (Guba & Lincoln, 1994) to probe more deeply into the rich interconnections and complexities that underlie their discipline. These approaches seek to understand the natural settings of the research, and delve into the experiences of people and their interpretations of the world around them.

A move towards interpretive research has concomitantly taken researchers away from the use of quantitative methods and promoted interest in qualitative methods of data collection, which attempt to understand the meanings that people have for phenomena in their world (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). A perceived lack of published rigorous research in EE led educators in North America to a workshop with the intention of establishing guidelines for research in EE (Smith-Sebasto, 2000). Debate over the nature of research in EE and the respective merits of the qualitative and quantitative methods raged, but ultimately led to the initial development of guidelines for qualitative research (Smith-Sebasto, 2000). These guidelines addressed how to pose research questions, data collection methods, and issues of credibility, trustworthiness, and ethics. While they have been criticised as being in need of refinement (Marcinowski, 2000), they provide a useful basis for research that is recognised in the design of this study.

Research design

This project utilised a case study design (Bassey, 1999; Merriam, 1998). Such a design permits researchers to gain an in-depth understanding of the issue and to explore meaning from a number of angles (Merriam, 1998). It allows the influence of context to be acknowledged and explicated. The case study involves a study of a particular case through the collection of data in a variety of ways. Analysis of data seeks to fully describe the interactions and practice within the context, and to provide insights and reasons for the findings. Multiple sources of data allow triangulation of the findings, which enhances its validity and reliability. Conclusions on the case can be drawn which, when situated in the context of the case, permit the reader to decide to what extent the findings can be generalised to another context.

A number of researchers (Bolstad, Eames, Cowie, Edwards, & Rogers, 2004; Fien, 2001; Hart, 1998; McLean, 2003) have previously used case studies to investigate EE. Recent critiques of the use of case study research into sustainability and EE have argued that researchers have rarely underpinned their studies with theory or adequately described their methods (Corcoran, Walker, & Wals, 2004). These authors argued that a case study “should provide a critical analysis of practice and be documented in such a way that it can have transformative value to others” (p. 9). They further note that inter-case study research that seeks trends across contexts would be of value. Other critics have cautioned that case studies need to clearly describe what they are a case of (Dillon & Reid, 2004; Kyburz-Graber, 2004), and that they should contain triangulation within analysis of the data (Kyburz-Graber, 2004).

This study comprised five case studies of New Zealand classrooms, in an action research model (Wals & Alblas, 1997). The study involved mentors, researchers (co-ordinators) and practitioners (teachers) working together in the design, implementation, and evaluation of an EE unit. Mentors provided the direction for the project, support and advice in methodology and evaluation, and oversight of reporting. The researchers and practitioners (see below) collected and analysed the research data. The work was informed by a literature review carried out by the mentors.

The primary research data collectors in this study were Regional Environmental Education Coordinators. These co-ordinators normally work with their schools to provide advice and support in the delivery of EE. Much of their practice is not informed by their own research, and this study represented an excellent opportunity to develop a research culture in their practice. Each coordinator identified a teacher in one school who was willing to partner them in this research.

Rickinson and Robinson (1999) have noted the value and difficulties of researcher–teacher partnerships in conducting EE research. They saw the value of combining the diverse understandings of theory and practical experience in EE and, equally importantly, the greater understanding by the researcher of what it means to be researched, and the benefits of “forced” reflection brought on by being the subject of the research (this notion became apparent in this study—see Section 5, Building Capability and Capacity). They noted that difficulties resulted from a lack of common expectations at the outset, unacknowledged concerns by each party, and certain aspects of research design. These findings were considered before the design of this study was completed, and are discussed further under the heading “Research critique”, below.

In the first phase of the study (March 2005), the environmental education co-ordinators and the teachers met with the team leader and mentors in to discuss case study methodology and agree on a consistent approach to the research.

In the second phase of the research, each co-ordinator met with their teacher partner to discuss the EE unit that the teacher would deliver to their class. These discussions included student interest and perspective, as befitted a participative approach. This meeting also included discussion of appropriate pedagogical strategies for the teacher, as described in the literature. The teacher and coordinator then co-planned the research strategy for their classroom. The co-ordinator’s research began with an interview with the teacher about their views on environmental education, pedagogy, and action competence. Together, the co-ordinator and teacher gathered information from the students in the teacher’s class concerning students’ views about the environment before starting the EE unit.

In the third phase of the research—implementing the EE unit—the teacher kept a journal, recording observations on classroom activity and in particular elements of student critical thinking, input and decision making. The co-ordinator spent time observing the classroom and talking to the students and the teacher. The co-ordinator also analysed documents that were relevant to the EE unit (i.e., teacher unit plans and school policies).

In the fourth phase of the research, the teacher and the co-ordinator evaluated the unit with regard to development of students’ action competence. This involved interviewing the teacher about their experiences in the unit, interviewing students in groups about their views of EE, and analysing student work. They drew conclusions on their case study, and reflected on what their teaching experience in the unit could contribute to an understanding of students’ action competence in a New Zealand context. The co-ordinator and teacher collaborated in writing up the case study. The mentors played a key role during this phase, providing support and advice to the co-ordinators for the evaluation. A summary of each of these case studies appear in the appendices.

In the final phase of the research, the environmental education co-ordinators and the teachers met with the team leader and mentors in November 2005 to discuss the findings of the six case studies and draw general conclusions. The mentors then met to summarise the outcomes and write an overview.

Validity and reliability were enhanced in this study by the multiple methods of data collection used, echoing the call for data triangulation made by Kyburz-Graber (2004). These methods included student and teacher interviews, observations, and document analysis. Ethical approval was gained from the University of Waikato Human Research Ethics Committee. Where necessary, applications were made to partner institutions and approval was gained before collection of any data.

Research design critique

This project progressed very smoothly. The partnerships were built on solid foundations. At each level of partnership, a positive relationship already existed between the partners. The mentors were known to and, in most cases, had previously worked with the co-ordinators who conducted the research. Each co-ordinator chose as a research partner a teacher with whom they already had a professional working relationship. While in most cases the mentors had not previously met the teachers involved, relationships were developed through the team meetings and through the coordinators, who acted as links. In one or two cases the research partners said that careful selection of partner would be a major factor in any future research they did.

The teacher–co-ordinator research partnerships generally worked well, as all parties were genuinely committed to the goals of the research. Early on these were clearly negotiated and discussed in order to create ownership among all involved. These discussions mitigated the issue raised by Rickinson and Robinson (2001), discussed earlier. On the other hand, the design of the study clearly recognised the practice of each of the parties in the partnership. The teachers’ mandate was to specify the unit that would be taught and to deliver the unit according to their practice. The co-ordinators had input into the unit planning, but then stepped back from their advisory capacity to take on the role of researcher. Naturally, there was potential conflict in these roles, and the mentors were careful to discuss them with the co-ordinators before the unit was begun. The mentors were also careful to discuss with the co-ordinator–teacher research partnerships the need for objectivity and rigour in research, to avoid reporting only the good news. We also needed a critical analysis to enhance our confidence in the findings (Corcoran et al., 2004).

The case-study approach allowed clear stories of contextualised practice to emerge, and some rich data that provided insights into the conditions for the development of action competence. Importantly, each case stands alone and provides an example of what EE can be like. The inter-case study analysis (Corcoran et al., 2004) described in the findings sought to determine commonalities and differences across the cases. Some themes emerged that can illuminate general practice in EE to develop action competence.

Feedback from the researchers and teachers at the end of the project indicated that they would have liked a little more direction early on in the project, an opportunity to meet as a team to discuss how to analyse the data, and more time to complete the report-writing phase.

The next section describes and discusses the findings of this project.

3. Findings

This section begins a review of the literature that framed this research. This opens with some background on the development of EE, nationally and internationally. In particular, it reviews some of the recent New Zealand literature about EE in school settings. The focus then turns to action taking and the concept of action competence. The section concludes with a look at theorising and research about pedagogies that may be useful in enhancing action taking in EE. The literature review is followed by presentation of the framework of action competence and the pedagogies that could enhance its development as agreed by the research team for use in this study.

A summary of each case study is then presented. The themes that emerged from the analysis are discussed and the responses to the research questions are analysed. The section concludes with implications for future practice.

Literature review

A background to environmental education

From the early beginnings of the environmental movement that arose in response to major environmental issues in the 1960s and early 1970s, a series of international meetings called for education that would lead to protection of the environment. An intergovernmental summit in Tbilisi, Georgia, in 1977 led to an international declaration calling for EE that included opportunities for people to be actively involved in working towards the resolution of environmental problems (UNESCO, 1978). This focus on existing environmental problems was only mildly effective (Bolstad, 2003) and was reoriented in the 1980s to include consideration of the environment, future economic and social development, and political contexts (World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987). This transformation was cemented in place at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The resulting document, Agenda 21, called for education for sustainable development which, among other things, would involve a multidisciplinary approach to school curricula that would acknowledge social, cultural, and environmental dimensions, and actively involve students in planning environmental activities to improve and protect the environment for the future (UNESCO, 1992). This movement towards education for sustainability (PCE, 2004; Tilbury, 1995; Tilbury, Stevenson, Fien, & Schreuder, 2002) began to have major policy impacts in many countries, including New Zealand (Bolstad, 2003).

These impacts began to take shape in a meaningful way in the late 1990s. The publication of the New Zealand Curriculum Framework (Ministry of Education, 1993) had left EE on the margins. The environment as a context was mentioned in the science, social studies, and technology curricula, but it was left to schools whether or not to include it. In the mid 1990s, the Ministry for the Environment published significant statements on the need for EE at all levels of society, including compulsory schooling (Ministry for the Environment, 1995, 1996). These included a call for informed participation in decision making. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Education commissioned the writing of guidelines for environmental education in schools, which were eventually published in 1999 (Ministry of Education, 1999). These Guidelines for Environmental Education in New Zealand Schools represented the first official mandating of EE in New Zealand and, although they were recommendations and not requirements, it was a significant step forward.

The Guidelines framed EE in terms of five aims (awareness and sensitivity, knowledge and understanding, attitudes and values, skills, and participation and action), four concepts (biodiversity, sustainability, interdependence, and personal and social responsibility for action), and three dimensions (education in, about and for the environment). As can be seen, action taking was seen as a fundamental part of EE by the Guidelines. The document provides a planning guide for EE programmes, ideas for integrating EE into the seven learning areas, and—crucially—a guide to how an “action approach” may be adopted in EE.

Interestingly, the New Zealand approach until now has been to conceive of these endeavours as environmental education in schools, resisting the trend towards education for sustainability. In part, this may be due to educators’ lack of understanding or agreement on what sustainability means, and concomitant concerns about students’ ability to come to terms with the concept. This may have led to the current Guidelines positioning of sustainability, which has been addressed by Barker (2001), and a criticism of its Guidelines description as “confused green woolliness” (Birdsall, 2005). In view of this uncertain position of the term “sustainability”, and the prevailing use of the term “environmental education” in the school sector, the latter term is used in this report.

Since the introduction of the Guidelines, growth in EE in schools has been slow but steady. Professional development provided by the Ministry of Education from 2001–2003 led to a number of pilot schools delivering pilot EE programmes. Then, in 2003, 17 Regional Environmental Education Co-ordinators were appointed to Colleges of Education to act as school advisers (McConnell, 2003). Their role was to upskill teachers in the use of the Guidelines, and to support teachers in the pilot schools.

In 2002–2003, a national study of the development of EE in New Zealand schools and kura found evidence of involvement at all levels of the compulsory education sector (Cowie et al., 2004). In many schools the initiative was at the individual teacher or syndicate level, and only a few schools reported adoption of a whole-school approach to EE.

A separate initiative that is proving to be successful in developing whole-school approaches to EE is the Youth Enviroschools programme (Keown & McGee, 1999; Keown, McGee, & Carstensen, 1995). Developed in Hamilton by local government, it has now spread throughout the country. The programme emphasises a whole-school approach to EE and sustainability, and has recently introduced an awards scheme (Chidlow, 2003). The programme has been particularly successful in helping students to take action for the environment.

Action in environmental education

As noted earlier, an action component for EE has been implied from its beginning. Lucas (1979) described EE in terms of in, for and about, and it has been claimed that EE should ultimately be directed towards education for the environment (Fien & Greenall Gough, 1996). An action orientation is also seen as critical in the reorientation towards education for sustainability (Tilbury, 1995). Additionally, as described earlier, the New Zealand Guidelines highlight action taking as one the five aims of EE, one of the three dimensions (and a fundamental part) of personal and social responsibility for action, and one of the four concepts (Ministry of Education, 1999; Russek, 2003).

Therefore, the rhetoric and theorising support the crucial role of action taking by students as part of EE in New Zealand. A national survey of schools involved in EE revealed some teacher reports that students took action in their EE programmes (Cowie et al., 2004). The most frequently mentioned activities were recycling, worm farming, gardening, and composting. Additionally, a number of recent articles have highlighted the actions taken by students in the Youth Enviroschools programme (Crawford, 2003; Hooper, 2003; Oliphant, 2002; “Student-driven environmental focus”, 2004).

Yet there is evidence that student action taking is not a consistent part of EE in New Zealand. The national school survey of 2002–2003 showed an underemphasis on education for the environment among respondents’ descriptions of EE (Cowie et al., 2004). Only 62 respondents (18 percent of a total of 344) mentioned action taking as part of their description of what EE is. When asked about their purpose in delivering EE to students, only a slightly greater proportion (33 percent, n = 261) mentioned educating students to take action for the environment. The report of the survey concluded that teachers lack the time to plan and take action with their students, and sometimes lack the equipment and resources to facilitate student action such as creating gardens or planting trees.

Some New Zealand research studies have suggested factors that can enhance student action taking in EE. Vowless (2002) studied two schools in the Northland region and concluded that successful education for the environment needs to include practical action as a component of the learning, and that the goals and outcomes of the educational programme need to be achievable. Chapman (2003, 2004) notes that a critical evaluation of values is necessary for student action taking, and provides evidence from his study of a recycling and waste management project in a small school on the West Coast of the North Island. The potential for student action taking to be transformational was identified by Papprill (2004) and McLean (2003). In her investigation of education for the environment in Otago primary schools McLean (2003) noted two criteria required for action— students being involved in the decision making process, and the resolution of environmental issues as the focus for learning.

These few recent studies aside, the literature review for the national school study of EE (Bolstad & Baker, 2004) concluded that there was a general lack of research, both nationally and internationally, investigating the perceptions or learning outcomes of students engaged in education for the environment. This study aims to address that deficit by investigating student outcomes in the area of action competence.

Action competence

The notion of action competence was first posed in the 1990s by researchers in the Royal Danish School of Educational Studies. Jensen and Schnack (1997) defined action competence as the ability to act—in this case, with reference to the environment. They argued that “the aim of environmental education is to make students capable of acting on a societal as well as a personal level” (p. 164). In order to do this, students need to study the root causes of environmental problems within the context of their society (Wals, 1994). Jensen and Schnack (1997) further argued that education is not about simple behaviour modification without understanding, but about creating a democratic process of participation in which students decide for themselves the action they will take.

In this paradigm, actions are considered to be consciously taken and targeted, since they are intentions based on experiences. Action is not seen as behaviour change—the process of influencing students in a predetermined direction (Breiting & Mogensen, 1999; Courtney-Hall & Rogers, 2002). Equally, action is seen as different from activity, in which students undertake environmental tasks that do not involve solutions to the underlying environmental problem. (An example of an activity would be litter collection, whereas an action would be addressing how to prevent littering.) Action competence, then, is a process in which students identify environmental issues, determine solutions, and take actions in ways that develop their competence for future action to solve or avoid environmental problems (Jensen, 2002).

Jensen and Schnack (1997) noted that actions could be direct or indirect. Direct actions contribute directly to solving environmental problems, whereas indirect actions are those which seek to influence others to contribute to solving the problems. The authors are careful to emphasise, however, that any action taken should be placed in the context of the problem to be solved. They noted that in classroom work actions are often taken at the individual, class, or even school level, but that unless students are made aware of the greater problem their action is helping to solve (i.e. turning lights off helps reduce overall consumption of unsustainable energy sources), education may be limited. It is important that children not only take action but also understand why they are taking that action (Palmer, 1995).

Jensen and Schnack (1997) identified four aspects of action competence:

• knowledge and insight of the environmental problem;
• commitment to solve the problem;
• a vision for the future without the problem; and
• action experiences to draw upon.

A further component noted by Breiting and Mogensen (1999) is student confidence in their ability to influence environmental outcomes. Jensen and Schnack (1997) conclude their discussion of action competence by calling for further research into how these components are constructed and interconnected through teaching. This study is an attempt to contribute to that call, by examining the pedagogies that could lead to development of student action competence in the classroom.

Pedagogies for action competence

This section examines theoretical ideas in education that have been used to guide the development of pedagogies in EE. It focuses particularly on pedagogies that could encourage learning for action taking and, more specifically, for the development of student action competence.

Behaviourism was for many years the dominant theoretical approach to education. In this approach, the goal of education is to change the behaviour of the student in response to teaching. More recent theoretical ideas have focused rather on cognition (knowing and understanding) to explain how students learn. Ideas such as constructivism suggest that learners develop their own personal constructs through learning experiences, and that teaching should attempt to help them examine these constructs in the light of new knowledge to reach new understandings of the current state of knowledge in society. This approach has been broadened to emphasise the social nature of the learning process, and sociocultural perspectives have highlighted the role of social interactions and participation in communities of practice in learning.

The trend away from behaviourism in education in general has not been so evident in EE. It has been noted that claims that the aim of education is behaviour change have appeared relatively recently in the environmental education literature (Courtney-Hall & Rogers, 2002; Kyburz-Graber, 1999). These claims, Courtenay-Hall and Rogers argue, risk directing teaching towards indoctrination, removing the opportunity for student critical thinking.

In the early 1990s EE theorists and researchers turned to constructivism and critical education. Klein and Merritt (1994) argued for a strong fit between EE and constructivism. They identified the components of a constructivist pedagogy as work on real problems, student-centred instruction facilitated by a teacher, group interaction during learning, and authentic assessment. These components parallel EE in requiring students to take an active role in learning to improve investigation and critical thinking skills (Klein & Merritt, 1994).

The need for the development of critical thinking skills in EE led some theorists to suggest socially critical theory as underpinning pedagogy (Fien, 1993; Huckle, 1991; Robottom, 1993). As KyburzGraber (1999) notes, a critical approach to EE “allows young people to explore social issues in the real world by questioning values, perceptions, conditions and opinions” (p. 416). This, she notes, creates meaningful, contextual knowledge that opens up discussion on all sides of issues. The approach, it is claimed, is concerned less with the aim of teacher-directed behaviour change and more with the development of independent, self-thinking learners. Kyburz-Graber (1999) describes the teaching and learning situation in terms of a partnership in which reflection is crucial. Socially critical theory has been used to describe emancipatory action research as a form of pedagogy for EE. In this form, students identify environmental problems, conduct investigations, collate data, suggest solutions, and develop and implement action plans. Each step involves critical reflection on the social and political contexts for the problems. Such critical thinking and reflection on discursive social practices affect teachers’ ability to meet specific teaching and learning objectives in EE. A programme that has emphasised this area is the Environmental and School Initiatives (ENSI), which focused on teacher professional development and provided insights from cases in 20 countries into the value of underpinning both curriculum development and professional development with research (Kyburz-Graber & Robottom, 1999). The programme supported the use of reflective action research that led teachers to develop their own pedagogy for EE. It also encouraged students to participate in action research as they investigated local environmental issues.

Proponents of the socially critical approach to EE recognise it as challenging existing teaching and learning practices—in particular, the traditional transmissive practice of teaching and the position of the learner as a passive receiver. It encourages both teacher and learner to question the practices that have led to current environmental, social, and political problems. This could create some difficulties, as teachers struggle to adopt a socially critical stance in the face of organisational and social constraints (Gayford, 1991; Walker, 1997). Indeed, Walker (1997) goes so far as to argue that the reason for the lack of success in the growth of EE in schools has been the inability of teachers and students to come to terms with the advocated socially critical approach, claiming that it is too difficult. In a similar vein, Bonnett (1999) has questioned the practicality of value-free teaching of sustainability, as advocated by some (e.g., Jensen & Schnack, 1997), in a world that is values drenched. Fien and Corcoran (1996) identified these challenges as the “social change objectives” of EE, which require its practitioners to adopt pedagogical approaches that are markedly different from traditional teaching styles, alerting teachers to the transformative nature of environmental education, and encouraging them to be critically reflective practitioners. Support could come from school-based communities of reflective practitioners, including both experienced and beginning teachers (Law, 2005).

The ideas of constructivism and critical education are contained in a recent move to promote transformative learning as a way forward for EE pedagogy. Transformative learning (Mezirow, 2000) has been generally characterised as involving active construction of knowledge, attitudes, and values through the processes of critical reflection and reflective discourse. These processes involve cognitive as well as affective domains, uncover underlying assumptions, integrate collective experiences, examine alternative perspectives, and arrive at tentative judgements (Feinstein, 2004). Feinstein’s (2004) study of adult students from different cultures indicates that these processes could lead to transformation in EE.

Stephen Sterling (2001) has been a powerful advocate for transformative education towards sustainability. He articulates an ecological view of systems thinking that emphasises extension, connection, and integration. In this view, teaching and learning is seen as oriented to process, development, and action, and involving mutually informing, active participation. Learners construct their own meanings through critical, collaborative enquiry supported by reflection.

A small number of researchers are also examining sociocultural views of learning, such as situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991), for help in understanding learning in EE. Hogan (2002) argues that to become an environmental practitioner—one who acts on behalf of the environment— entails developing an understanding of the social world of environmental practice. Her study of senior high school students in the USA was underpinned by situated learning theory, which posits that learning occurs in social interactions and increasing participation in a community of practice. In this case, the community was a citizen-run environmental management and advisory council. Hogan found that, with careful planning, students can learn the meaning of environmental practice (or action) in sociocultural ways, through involvement with environmental agencies. She notes that, for younger students, this type of learning could be brought about by involving them through schoolbased programmes in the social and cultural practices of environmental agencies.

Research into learning in EE has provided some evidence of useful pedagogy for action in EE. In his extensive review of studies between 1993 and 1999 focused on learning in EE, Rickinson (2001) noted that targeted classroom programmes can be effective in “altering students’ environmental attitudes, knowledge and actions” (p. 264). The author described two studies, those of Ramsey (1993) and Bogner (1999), that appeared to encourage students to act in an environmentally friendly way. Ramsey’s (1993) study examined the impact of an instructional strategy based on issue investigation and action training, and reported that overt environmental behaviour and knowledge (and perceived knowledge) of environmental action skills were significantly improved in the 14–15year-old students. Bogner’s (1999) study investigated how an experiential programme that focused on both cognitive and affective domains influenced changes in Swiss secondary students’ attitudes and intentions to act concerning a locally endangered bird. However, Rickinson (2001) cautions that these studies do not show any evidence of long-term impact on the learners. He quotes only one study, that of Bogner (1998), in which any durable change was evident in students’ willingness to plan and take action for the environment. The impact on the 11–13-year-old students in this study appeared to last at least six months.

Rickinson’s (2001) review also noted a small number of studies that examined how particular pedagogical strategies affected students’ environmental learning. Evidence from these studies suggests that approaches such as teacher role modelling and experiential learning, and social constructivist activities such as collaborative learning, discourse reasoning, and argumentation, were all effective. Rickinson concluded that, while there is some evidence that certain pedagogical approaches are effective in facilitating positive learning outcomes, more empirical work is needed in this area, particularly in investigating student action taking.

The lack of theoretical work underpinning EE research is a theme picked up by Dillon (2003). Indeed, he criticises Rickinson’s (2001) review for not examining the empirical work it discusses in the light of learning theory—a criticism which is partly justified. Dillon (2003) argues for greater consideration of learning ideas such as constructivism and situated cognition in theorising about how students learn environmental knowledge, attitudes, and actions.

Action competence concerns the ability to act with reference to environmental problems, through informed student decision making underpinned by critical thinking about the root cause of problems and reflection on experiences at both a personal and societal level. Such a transformative approach to EE appears to offer the best way of developing pedagogy to enhance students’ action competence. Such an approach would offer students experiences that would help them to identify and resolve problems, think critically, and reflect as they work collaboratively towards action. A recently published example (Lewis, 2004) of this type of pedagogical approach, and one that led to genuine student participation and ownership, points to the importance of student-centred learning in which the role of the teacher is that of facilitator.

This review of the literature helped the research team frame their planning of the EE unit to be taught, the research data gathering tools, and the analysis of the data that were collected. This framework, which included notions of action competence and pedagogies that could be used in the classroom to develop it, is discussed in the next section.

The research framework

At the project meeting in March 2005, the research team debated the components of action competence. The team started with the components of knowledge and insight of the environmental problem, commitment to solve the problem, a vision for the future without the problem, action experiences to draw upon, and student confidence in their ability to influence environmental outcomes (Breiting & Mogensen, 1999; Jensen & Schnack, 1997), and delved deeply into what these components would look like in the classroom. First, the notion of competence itself required some definition. In the current review of the New Zealand curriculum it has been described as the “ability to successfully meet complex demands in a particular context through the mobilization of knowledge, cognitive skills but also practical skills, as well as social behaviour components such as attitudes, emotions, and values and motivations” (Rutherford, 2004). When considering taking action for the environment, we agreed that students need to be involved in deciding what to do, and that what is done should be focused on solving an actual problem. In linking these ideas of competence in taking action together, we identified five components that underpin action competence:

• Knowledge and understanding for decision making—students require knowledge on which to base soundly reasoned decisions. This knowledge could include technical, social, political, historical and economic factors.
• Planning and taking action—students require the skills and confidence to identify and solve problems, set goals, gather information, communicate, and manage time and logistics to take action (indirect or direct).
• Participation—students require skills in making decisions in a way that is consultative, democratic, collaborative, and co-operative.
• Emotional response—to be able to decide the appropriate action to take, and their own personal responsibility and commitment, students need to understand their own and others’ attitudes and values towards issues.
• Critical thinking and reflection—students require the skills to be able to think critically about the causes of issues and the possible actions that could be taken, and to make meaning by reflecting on their knowledge, actions, participation, attitudes, and values.

The challenge for us in this research study was to be able to determine the students’ development of these elements through teaching and learning in EE. This dimension of the study led to some promising ideas of how the development of action competence can be determined in students. This involved collection of data on student action competence both before and after the unit (see “Response to the research questions”, below).

The other dimension of interest is the use of particular teacher pedagogies and strategies to foster the development of action competence. The five elements that we identified led us to consider that a transformative mode of teaching and learning was likely to be more appropriate for developing action competence than the transmissive mode. As discussed above, a number of authors have previously argued for transformative learning in EE (Sterling, 2001).

We explored the possible pedagogies that could lead to a transformative mode. A “pedagogy”, we understood, was more than just “what the teacher does”; pedagogy also refers to the values, aims, and philosophy of education—it is a “method of teaching interpreted in its widest sense” (Winch & Gingell, 1999). We recognised that transformational learning may involve at least six pedagogies and strategies, which we described as:

1. Experiential learning. This is an over-arching concept that appears to be useful in the transformative approach. Characteristics of experiential learning include:
   • involving students in meaningful experiences, decision making, and taking action for an agreed purpose;
   • helping them to think critically and reflect upon their experiences;
   • engaging them in questioning and discussion;
   • acknowledging and valuing their prior knowledge and experiences; and
   • assisting them to develop knowledge to inform their decision making (Law, 2005).
2. Enquiry learning. This is a process of identifying and solving problems, thinking critically, and reflecting to gain understanding or make informed decisions.
3. Co-operative learning. Students work together and share knowledge, ideas, and opinions. This involves both class and group work, and emphasises learning through social interaction.
4. Reflective practice. The teacher analyses the state of learning and makes strategic decisions for future implementation, either consciously (usually afterwards, by hindsight) or intuitively (on the spot, in the classroom). The students also need to consciously reflect on their learning, values, attitudes, and actions for the environment.
5. Student-centred learning. The learner is placed at the centre of the learning experience. In environmental education this is seen in holistic (not merely cognitive) terms.
6. Affective-aware teaching. As well as considering cognitive learning, the teacher needs to be aware of how individual learners or groups of learners feel about a situation. This component also acknowledges the dimensions of values and attitudes in teaching and learning.

We recognised that these pedagogies and strategies are not mutually exclusive, and that some combination of them was likely to prove most effective. When the research team reached agreement on this framework, the task for the teacher–co-ordinator partnerships was to decide how they would use it to plan and deliver the EE unit, and research how the unit may help students develop action competence. The partnerships were given autonomy to choose which pedagogies and teaching strategies they felt were most appropriate for developing action competence in their unit.

The next section provides brief summaries of the five case studies and their outcomes.

The case studies

Five case studies were conducted in classrooms throughout New Zealand. The classrooms represented included a range of levels between Year 1 and Year 9, and different types of school. The stories that emerged from each case study are summarised below (the case studies are described in more detail in the appendices). To protect the identity of the participating schools for ethical reasons, the names used here are pseudonyms.

1. Te Wähapü School. A term-long unit entitled “Healthy water—who is responsible?” was delivered to a Year 7, ethnically highly diverse class in a decile 1B intermediate school in a large city. The unit was underpinned by knowledge development through English language competence, a matrix of Gardners’ multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1999) and Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956), experiential learning, and action learning. The context for learning was situated in the culture and history of the local environment, helping students to make connections between their backgrounds and that environment. Allowing students to make a choice about context, content, and resources empowered and emotionally engaged them in their progression towards action competence. Students worked collaboratively, and communicated verbally and through PowerPoint presentations with peers and other adults. This built up their self-confidence and self-esteem. Importantly, they learnt that when they presented well-written and accurate information other people listened to them, and that they could make a difference to their school and wider environment. The boys’ engagement in learning was observed to improve.
2. Green School. A class of Year 1 children in a decile 9 primary school in a small city were taught a term-long unit on the topic of “our space”, which focused on a review of the appearance and use of the junior courtyard area. A strong culture of EE drives the school-based curriculum. The unit was delivered using a mixture of teacher role modelling, co-operative learning, and experiential learning pedagogy. Teacher role modelling was the most significant pedagogy, which is hardly surprising considering the age of the children and the need to consistently show them a good deal to get them started. The case study at Green School suggested that, while at this age the children were less likely to engage in critical thinking, some did become emotionally engaged, which led to decision making and greater willingness to be involved in activity, if not action. It may not be possible to develop all components of action competence with this age group.
3. Coast College. A six-month case study followed the teaching of an EE unit “Clean, green New Zealand: Yeah, right!” to a Year 9 combined English and social studies class from a decile 9, coeducational secondary school in a small town. The unit was underpinned by experiential, enquiry, and co-operative learning pedagogies and strategies such as brainstorming, teacher-facilitated discussion, scaffolding in research skills, and the use of action planners. The students were encouraged to make decisions about whom to work with, identify local issues, and choose and take their actions. The teacher experienced a certain amount of risk in allowing students more control over their own learning. These strategies led to students demonstrating emotional engagement, increased confidence in their abilities, and greater willingness to give opinions. This was shown by their ongoing concern about environmental issues (such as the pollution of New Zealand lakes, litter in the school, and waste management and water use in the community) and enhanced engagement in subsequent units not related to EE. The boys’ engagement improved.
4. City School. A unit entitled “Seeing our city with new eyes” was facilitated in a mixed Years 5–8 group of students in a decile 6 special-character school in a large city. The special character of the school revolves around a collaborative teacher–student relationship, with students taking an active role in planning their own, largely individual, learning path. Within this context, the teacher planned an enquiry to build awareness of the city neighbourhood and its associated environmental resources, challenges, issues, and concerns. The pedagogy used was enquiry learning, incorporating critical thinking and reflection (with some teacher scaffolding to plan actions). A matrix was developed for evaluating student action competence and was used to map development over the unit. Student engagement was related to how much support they received in their enquiry, and the continuity of their learning. The findings highlighted the importance of achievable action taking for students.
5. Beach Head School. A two-term unit on eco-housing for birds in the school environment was delivered in a sole-charge, decile 4, rural primary school. The school caters for 22 Years 1–6 students. The unit was part of a long-term plan that immerses students in EE projects and is characterised by a flexible timetable, continuity of learning, and a strong relationship with the community. The unit was underpinned by the notion of place-based education, with elements of experiential learning, enquiry learning, and student-centred learning. This created experiences that were meaningful for the students and based in their milieu, with a high degree of their input into decision making and action taking. On the one hand this was risky for the teacher, but on the other it was empowering for the students. The boys’ engagement improved.

The data from these five case studies were then subjected to a cross-case analysis. This was initiated at the team meeting in November 2005, drew on the perspectives of all participants, and was further refined by the mentors. Several themes emerged and are discussed in the next section.

Emergent themes

The following themes arose from the analysis of the case studies for similarities and differences. Most of these themes flow across all five cases, but some emerged from a smaller number of the cases. The themes are discussed and exemplified with instances from the data within the cases.

The role of the teacher

Three themes emerged under this heading.

Teacher decision making on pedagogy
The teachers in the project exhibited a range of decision making with regard to the pedagogies they chose. Decisions ranged from a deliberate and carefully planned use of specific pedagogies at certain points in the unit, through the use of pedagogy embedded in the class or school, to the relatively free use of a range of strategies not constrained under pedagogical goals. Evidence suggested that choice of pedagogy affected student development of action competence. The deliberate planning and use of pedagogies that were seen to hold potential for that development were the most successful in achieving student action competence. This was exemplified by the teacher at Te Wāhapū School in her comment about teaching EE in her class that “I have to have a differentiated programme so that all the different learning styles are accommodated for”.

The pedagogies that teachers chose
This appeared to be an important factor in contributing to the students’ development of action competence. In all cases the teachers employed a blend of pedagogies and a range of teaching and learning strategies to achieve their pedagogical goals. There was evidence that teacher craft—an ability to know what will work in the classroom, which in turn is a reflection of their own practitioner theories (Walker, 1997)—was highly influential in student learning. This was exemplified by the teacher at Te Wāhapū School, who blended Bloom’s taxonomy and Gardner’s multiple intelligences with experiential, enquiry, and co-operative learning to successfully engage her ethnically diverse class (see Appendix 1). It seems clear that no single pedagogy provides the key to teaching EE, but that certain pedagogies offer good opportunities to students to develop action competence. These are discussed further in the next section, “Implications for practice in environmental education”.

The changing relationship between the teacher and the students
It was evident from the data collected that as the EE units progressed the teacher and student roles changed. There was evidence of a shift from a traditional teacher–student relationship (in which the teacher is the provider of knowledge and the students are the receptors) to a more facilitative coengagement model. This was particularly marked in the junior secondary school setting at Coast College, where students became strongly engaged, worked independently of the teacher and collaboratively with each other, and freely gave up their own time to continue working on their action. In particular, two girls in the Year 9 class spent many hours gathering information and help from the community to learn how to create a video on their topic, a task that continued beyond the end of the unit. In contrast, students at the younger end of the age spectrum tended to be more reliant on teacher direction. This theme is discussed in more detail below.

The student approach to learning

Three themes emerged under this heading.

Students’ emotional engagement
In all five case studies, the students showed significant emotional engagement. In some cases this manifested as student excitement at experiential activities, both in the classroom and outside it. At Beach Head School, all the primary-level students took ownership of “their bird” as the one they were studying for the unit on building eco-birdhouses. The students also exhibited an understanding of their moral responsibility for their school and community environment, commenting that “we have to make responsible decisions. We don’t want it to be just another city area”. In the older students, evidence of changed attitudes and values was recorded. At Te Wāhapū School this was evident in the way that the students behaved on their school camp, taking collective responsibility for keeping the camp clean. Images of polluted streams in New Zealand shocked the Year 9 students at Coast College, changed their thinking about a “clean, green New Zealand”, and stimulated their action taking. The shift in their attitudes towards the environment was evident in a post-unit survey.

Student participation
Students demonstrated significant levels of active involvement in their learning and encouraged other students to become involved also. The students at City School were used to an environment in which they were considered partners in their own learning. With facilitation from their teacher, this helped them to make excellent progress in their EE-based inquiries within their city. At Coast College the students developed a sense of what they needed to learn themselves, as evidenced by their questions, which were about where to find resources, not what to do next. At Beach Head School the primary students liked the opportunity to make their own decisions, commenting that “we have a vote or group talk and what most people say is what we do”.

Student collaboration
The small-school environment at Beach Head led to Years 1–6 students working together, with significant mentoring of the younger children by the older ones, which helped everyone to participate. They demonstrated support for each other—for example, when one student commented to another about a suggestion to use harakeke as a nest-building material, “That’s a good idea! We should try that with our bird house”. Student interaction at Te Wāhapū School was significant when they were constructing their own action plans. Students were constantly slipping in and out of different groups to help out when people’s partners were absent. There was co-operation and collaboration. The groups formed were mixed in gender. Everyone knew about everybody else’s projects and students defined their own roles within their group. At Coast College, the secondary students remarked how they really enjoyed working together, in ways they saw as different from the approaches used in their other classes. The students also helped each other across their groups, particularly with computer skills.

The assessment of action competence

The team’s initial planning in March 2005 identified five components of action competence that were to be examined in the research (see the section on the research framework, above). The coordinator–teacher partnerships were not given any guidance on how they would assess the development of these components in students. This was to encourage the partnerships to develop their own measures using their own knowledge and skills in classroom assessment techniques. Their experiences in this project have indicated that assessing the development of action competence is a complex process. The multidimensional nature of action competence, incorporating the cognitive, affective, and behavioural domains, calls for assessment tools that are equally multidimensional. Several models for assessment were developed in the course of the research that provided a view of student action competence. The model developed by the City School partnership appears to offer a potentially useful framework and is discussed in more detail in the City School case study in Appendix 4.

Action taking

It became apparent during this study that action taking in EE needs to be both manageable and achievable. In one case, an otherwise successful and well planned unit failed to elicit student action because of the complexity of the issues. In this case (at City School), the teacher found that a facilitative mode in the classroom did not sufficiently support the students in their planning and taking action, and in fact hindered the development of the students’ action competence. It was evident that more scaffolding was required. Such scaffolding was provided to the Year 9 students at Coast College and contributed to empowering the students to take their actions. These students and those at Te Wāhapū continued with their actions long after the unit had finished, either at school, in the home, or in the community, indicating that the action competence development may have been durable (Rickinson, 2001). The teacher at Beach Head School was careful to ensure that the students’ plans for actions were achievable for all levels, with help from the older students. In contrast, it proved difficult for Year 1 students at Green School to take meaningful action, as is discussed below under “Age-related development”.

The school structures

Two themes emerged under this heading.

The continuity of learning
The length of the unit taught and its continuity proved to be decisive factors in the development of student action competence. All the units were taught over at least one term, and sometimes two. Participants saw this time frame as vital to allow development of student understanding and collaboration (including decision making), and for planning and taking action. When the unit was part of a long term plan, such as at Te Wāhapū and Beach Head Schools, it was possible to make strong links with prior learning and develop holistic views. This continuity of learning seemed important for student engagement. This was achieved even in the secondary school environment, where students regularly change their learning focus. The teacher attributed this success to the fact that the EE unit was taught within an integrated English/social studies class, which meant that double teaching periods were available as well as more periods per week, allowing focus to be maintained. In contrast, City School experienced difficulty with student focus as the unit was regularly interrupted for days at a time while students pursued other learning goals.

School support for EE
While school support did not appear to be a determining factor, it did nevertheless impact on the students’ learning. The underlying philosophy of both Beach Head and Green Schools includes a commitment to EE. This provided a sort of immersion for the students in EE ideas and practice, and was credited by the teacher at Green School as contributing strongly to the development of some of the components of action competence among her 5-year-old students. The other three schools had each had some exposure to EE ideas in the past, but did not exhibit a whole-school approach to EE. At both City School and Coast College, the teachers were seen largely as lone operators in EE. At City School, the lack of support for EE may have contributed to hindering the development of student action competence, as the teacher and students were unable to gain a dedicated focus on their EE work. At Coast College, however, the lack of school support was not an inhibiting factor, and may have been overcome by a combination of teacher enthusiasm and good planning.

The impact of the learning environment

The learning environment was regarded as an influence in all the case studies, with the setting for the EE unit being a key factor. For example, at Te Wāhapū School the use of the culturally and historically situated local environment was important in developing connections for the ethnically diverse students between their cultural history and the locality of the school. At City School, an emphasis on the local environment of the school also provided engagement early on in the unit, when the students had a sense that they could bring about change. The Coast College students were offered a range of learning environments that satisfied their interests and motivated them to take actions that were relevant to them. Finally, the two schools that included junior primary students, Beach Head and Green Schools, naturally chose the school environment as their focus, which gave the students a sense of place that they could be proud of.

Gender achievement

In three of the case studies, particular achievement by boys was reported. These reports noted the improved engagement of boys in experiential activities, group work, and action taking. At Te Wāhapū School, all six students in the two groups that attained the highest level of action competence were boys who had some of the lowest PAT scores in the class. At Coast College, a visit from the head of department during the unit elicited the surprised comment that “the boys [were] as engaged as the girls”. Also during this unit the teacher received an email from the mother of a previously quiet boy who usually contributed very little in class to say that her son, for the first time, was talking about his learning at school and was busy researching information locally to help with planning his group action. He was researching types of plants best suited for the local environment and had rung several people in the community to gain some support for his group’s issue. Finally, at Beach Head the boys responded well to the physical activity that came with taking action.

The role of culture

This theme is mentioned because of its absence rather than its presence. In only two schools was culture seen to be a factor in the EE unit that aimed to develop students’ action competence. At Te Wāhapū School, culture was evident in the use of the Mäori history of the local waterways, and the connections made to the students’ own culture. At Beach Head School, the strong links to the local Mäori community were a foundation for the school activities rather than an overt influence on the unit taught. In both these cases, elements of local and student culture were recognised during the unit and contributed to the engagement and understanding of the students. In each of the other three cases, there appeared to be no clear recognition of the role of culture in environmental education. What influence this lack of recognition of culture may have on the future development of action competence is unknown.

Age-related development

This theme was particularly evident in the case study on the Year 1 class at Green School. The case study indicated the difficulties of developing all five components of action competence in such young children. In particular, the children seemed to require much teacher direction to plan and take action, raising doubts as to whether that action could easily be identified as intentional. It is likely that 5–6-year-old children can develop knowledge and understanding for decision making, participate, and carry out limited critical thinking and reflection. It is undeniable that students of this age can have an emotional response, even though they may not be able to clearly explain their attitudes and values. The focus of this case study, and the findings among the older, secondary school students, led us to consider the idea of age-related development in action competence and whether it is possible to identify such a progression.

Development of language and meaning

The case study at Te Wāhapū School raised the issue of the link between language and meaning and the development of action competence. In a class where over 50 percent of the students were not native English speakers, the teacher found that it was essential to focus on vocabulary and associated meanings in order to provide a foundation for learning in EE. This focus paid dividends, not only in improved language competence, but in strong student engagement in the unit when language no longer posed a barrier to learning.

Implications for practice in environmental education

From the emergent themes we identified the following implications for EE practitioners.

• Teachers need to:
  • think pedagogically and be able to consider the most appropriate pedagogies that would underpin their teaching of particular units. They need to acknowledge the relationship between the theory and practice of teaching. A greater focus during pre-service teacher education and in-service professional development on pedagogy may be necessary;
  • be aware of their role in relation to their students as they move between the functions of teacher and facilitator of learning;
  • be aware of the affective domain in their students’ learning and their action taking; o be prepared to allow and support students in directing their own learning and taking risks; o guide and support student action taking in EE;
  • understand that effective EE requires time for students to have experiences to reflect upon, work collaboratively, and plan and take action;
  • recognise the multicultural nature of New Zealand society in delivering EE. The development of action competence is both enabled and constrained by the culture of the student, the teacher, and the school. Language is a key factor in this;
  • consider what aspects of action competence can be developed in the age group of the children they are teaching. In particular, they need to consider the degree of teacher direction required to assist the children to take action; and
  • be aware that language and meaning underpins the development of action competence.
• Specific professional development may be required to help teachers gain pedagogical knowledge for student action taking.
• Teachers need a well constructed tool to assess the development of action competence. A matrix such as that employed in the City School study holds promise, but requires more work to determine its validity.
• Teachers may be most successful in delivering EE through integrated units.
• The Guidelines for Environmental Education in New Zealand Schools need to be revised to acknowledge modern views of sustainability and sustainable development, and to take into account New Zealand’s increasingly multicultural society.

Response to the research questions

This section addresses the research questions directly.

What skills relevant to achieving action competence did students possess before the unit?

As described earlier, the research team saw the concept of action competence as including five components. The response to this question is discussed in terms of those elements.

1. Knowledge and understanding for decision making. Students in most of the case studies lacked specific knowledge about their topic before the unit started. Only the students at Beach Head School had some foundation in knowledge about their topic (eco-housing), because of prior learning at the school.
2. Planning and taking action. The students exhibited a range of capability in this component. Students at Te Wāhapū and Beach Head Schools had already been exposed to planning actions. Some students at Coast College and City School indicated that they took environmentally friendly actions outside school. The students at Green School had been involved in lots of environmental activities at school.
3. Participation. In all the case study classes, levels of participation were generally low. While students at Beach Head already had experience at decision making and group work, the students in the other four schools had generally only been exposed to group work.
4. Emotional response. Before the unit started the emotional engagement in the topic issue was generally low. This seemed to vary between students, depending on what sense of connection they felt towards the issue (at Te Wāhapū School, for example, the students who had never been to the sea had difficulty expressing an attitude towards it).
5. Critical thinking and reflection. Before the unit students across all case studies showed low levels of critical thinking. As noted earlier, this was not surprising for younger children, but was also evident in the intermediate children. The students at City School, who had been exposed to development of these capabilities previously through the school’s focus on enquiry learning, felt that they were well developed in this area.

What pedagogies did teachers select (before and during the unit) and why?
As discussed under “Emergent themes” above, pedagogy selection by the teachers in this research ranged from deliberate planning of specific pedagogy throughout the unit to a looser choice of strategies not clearly linked to particular pedagogy. Where there was conscious planning, the teachers selected predominantly experiential, enquiry, and co-operative learning to underpin their teaching. These pedagogies had been identified by the research team as potentially successful in developing student action competence. The teachers saw experiential learning as important in developing an emotional response, and in planning and taking action. Enquiry learning was valued as developing critical thinking, reflection, knowledge, and understanding for decision making. Cooperative learning was thought to enhance student participation. What is clear from the research experience and this analysis is that no single pedagogy offers the solution to developing student action competence. Rather, it is the teacher’s skill in combining pedagogies and using deliberately chosen strategies that is important in determining student outcomes. This was clearly seen in the eclectic combination of pedagogy that suited the ethnically and academically diverse class of Te Wāhapū School, and in the need for greater teacher input for the much younger children at Green School,

What skills relevant to achieving action competence did students demonstrate during and after the teaching and learning?
The development of action competence will again be discussed in terms of the five components introduced earlier:

1. Knowledge and understanding for decision making. In all cases the students showed evidence of significant development in the knowledge and understanding of their topic. This ranged from a greater understanding of the issues affecting the “clean, green New Zealand” image at Coast College, to identifying that natural-looking birdhouses were more likely attract birds than miniature dolls houses, to the 5-year-olds at Green School learning about what might work in their courtyard.
2. Planning and taking action. In some ways, this component can be viewed as the most significant for development, defining as it does the unique goal of EE. Not surprisingly, then, it was also seen to be the hardest outcome to achieve, and one that required intensive teacher management (see “Emergent themes”, above). The development in the case studies ranged from significant to not achieved. At Coast College the students planned actions during the unit and continued to take them after the unit had been completed. Significant progress towards action was seen at both Te Wāhapū and Beach Head Schools, where strong engagement of the students led to effective action taking. However, at City School the difficulty of taking the actions that had been planned resulted in no action, while the young children at Green School engaged in activity but not action, leading to a consideration of whether students at this age are capable of taking intentional, self-directed action.
3. Participation. All the case studies reported an increase in participation during the EE units. This was characterised by a strong commitment to learning, self-directed research, collaboration within and between groups, a sharing of ideas and skills, and an increase in confidence in making decisions. There was evidence of a genuine desire among the students to work together to provide a solution to the issues with which they were engaged.
4. Emotional response. In most cases there was evidence of the development of an emotional response, characterised by changes in attitudes and values towards the environment. At Coast College School a pre- and post-unit survey indicated a shift in student thinking about their responsibility for, and plans for involvement with, the environment. At Te Wāhapū School the students’ experiences during the EE unit developed in them a strong sense of enjoyment and connection with the environment.
5. Critical thinking and reflection. There was evidence of development in these areas in some case studies. Students demonstrated reflective ability as they began to explore their own impact on the environments, and showed more complex thinking as they learned more about the sources of environmental problems. They indicated that they were able to consider other perspectives and understand the complexity of finding solutions that are both socially and environmentally desirable.

What did teachers feel led to changes in students’ skills relevant to achieving action competence during and after the unit?
While the nature of this study and the methodology employed does not allow the establishment of causative relationships, it is possible to make inferences that merit further investigation. Factors suggested by the teachers included:

• development of students’ knowledge and language, enabling them to engage with the issues and to communicate their ideas to others;
• the use of a combination of pedagogies that suit the students’ needs and the context of the EE unit;
• provision of experiences in the environment, to enable students to develop emotional engagement and a sense of connection with the issue;
• progression from teacher direction to teacher facilitation in a more transformative learning style that encourages students to take more ownership of their own learning; and
• scaffolding in planning and taking action, so that they become both manageable and achievable.

Summary

This research has provided some insight into the teaching and learning approaches that can develop action competence. Its focus on five case studies has delivered five rich stories about the enactment of EE in the classroom. While these stories are highly contextual and resist generalisation, some themes have emerged within them that are worthy of further consideration and research. This study has provided a potential framework for understanding action competence and assessing its development in students, and some classroom-based evidence of the types of pedagogies that can be successful in achieving student outcomes in EE.

4. Limitations of the project and recommendations for future research

This section briefly discusses some of the limitations of this project, and makes recommendations for future research in this area. The limitations focus mainly on aspects of the study design and the teachers’ and researchers’ experiences.

Limitations

In a study involving a large number of researchers it was imperative that some measure of commonality be imposed in terms of understandings of research intentions, case study design, data collection, and analysis and reporting of the case. It was also understood that this project required research capability to be developed by relative research novices who needed guidance. On the other hand, EE is concerned with the development of critical thinking practitioners (Corcoran et al., 2004) and—as the researchers were all adults—about self-directed learning. It was hoped that the researchers would develop their own “action competence” for research through a process of guided experiential learning. The research design, therefore, was structured to provide sufficient scaffolding and support, yet allow exploration and discovery.

On the whole, this design worked well. At the completion of the project the researchers were generally satisfied with the way the research had progressed, and claimed that they had learnt a lot. In some cases the researcher felt that the study design did not allow for enough research direction, so that valuable time was lost in what was a very short-term project. In particular, some researchers felt that more support was needed during the analysis of the research data, to help make sense of the findings. An additional team meeting in the middle of the project to share ideas and provide stronger direction might have achieved this. There is a sense, too, that having a clearer common framework for data collection might have resulted in greater rigour across all case studies, but possibly at the expense of the emergent findings particular to each case.

The design of the study, with three levels of involvement in the research, had both strengths and weaknesses. It drew together experienced researchers as mentors, researchers who were relatively inexperienced in research, and teachers who mostly had no experience in research. This design provided excellent opportunities for scaffolding in research thinking and ability across these dimensions, but also tended to stretch the research wisdom thinly. The design placed the researcher as the key link between the mentor and the teacher, and this worked well when communication was regular and help was sought at appropriate times.

Recommendations for future research

Several issues emerged at the conclusion of the project that suggest directions for future research (see Findings, “Emergent themes” and “Responses to the research questions”). Research is needed into:

• the development of an assessment tool for action competence and how teachers use this assessment tool in their classroom;
• whether there is a correlation between students’ age and their ability to take action for the environment, and therefore (by definition) to participate in environmental education;
• how school-wide approaches to EE (such as the Youth Enviroschools programme) meet the key competencies being advocated in the revision of the curriculum framework;
• boys’ approach to EE and how that can be used to foster their achievement at school;
• teacher and student perceptions of the role of culture in EE;
• EE in kura kaupapa;
• age-related student progression in EE, to help teachers understand what can be achieved at each level of schooling. This requires more researched examples of EE at each schooling level, from preschool to Year 13; and
• the durability of change through EE. As Rickinson (2001) noted, there have been few studies of the long-term impacts of learning in EE. Research is needed on whether development of action competence under the guidance of a skilful and passionate teacher is durable in the face of competing academic and social pressures in the following years of a student’s life.

5. Building capability and capacity

The project team

Project director	Chris Eames	The University of Waikato
Mentors	Barry Law	Christchurch College of Education
	Miles Barker	The University of Waikato
Researchers
	Hilary Iles	The University of Auckland
	Jock McKenzie	Massey University
	Rosemarie Patterson	Dunedin College of Education
	Pam Williams	Victoria University
Teachers
	Faye Wilson-Hill	Christchurch College of Education
	Cathy Carroll	Green School*
	Melanie Chaytor	Coast College*
	Tracey Mills	City School*
	Ngaire Rolleston	Te Wāhapū School*
	Anne Wright	Beach Head School*

*These affiliations are pseudonyms to protect the identity of the schools involved for ethical reasons.

Building the capability of the researchers

This project has provided an opportunity for a group of educators who have typically found it difficult to undertake research into their practice, and yet who are working under an increasing expectation to conduct research, to engage in research. This group, the Regional Environmental Education Co-ordinators, fulfilling school advisory roles, have experienced the achievements and challenges that research has to offer.

The structure of the project allowed the researchers to design and implement their own research under the guidance of research mentors. The framework of the project allowed the researchers to be involved initial planning and their viewpoints to be considered, such that they had a sense of ownership about their research. Feedback at the end of the project indicated that they had learnt a lot about the constraints of carrying out research, the need for careful planning on data gathering and writing up findings, the difficulty of finding enough time to collect data and think critically about findings, and the success of research partnerships that work well.

One issue germane to this study was the convergence of the researchers’ roles as both researcher and professional developer. The research team was careful to explore that area before undertaking the research project, and to help the researchers see the difference in these roles. A key benefit the researchers found in these dual roles was that they learnt about their own practice in a very meaningful way.

Building the capability of the teachers

This project provided an opportunity for teachers to work closely with researchers already known to them and to engage in a form of action research. Through this engagement and their involvement with both the planning and the analysis of the research findings, the teachers experienced how research could inform their practice. Their feedback suggested that they had found being involved in the research both challenging and (sometimes) frustrating, but ultimately rewarding and inspiring. They noted that it had caused them to think more deeply about their own practice, to reflect upon why they do what they do (Rickinson & Robinson, 1999). They felt they had learnt a lot about the process of research, and were empowered at being able to generate knowledge for their own profession.

Enhancing researchers’ understanding of teaching and learning

This project enabled researchers to take an in-depth look at classroom practice and gave them the opportunity to question teachers on their practice. It sought to investigate the outcomes of what teachers do, and understand the complexity of the learner and learning within an educational setting. The findings of the study, emphasised by the emergent themes described in the findings, indicate that the researchers have developed a greater understanding of the issues of teaching and learning in EE.

Teachers’ expertise as researchers

This project provided an opportunity for the teachers to gain expertise in research. Feedback indicated that teachers valued the research process, experienced the constraints of a research time frame, particularly when working within a budget, and came to understand the rigorous nature of research. Opportunities to be involved in the data collection and analysis helped them to understand how these processes are conducted. The teachers emphasised the need for regular face-to-face meetings as a research team to ensure a consensual and consistent approach to the research. Some teacher participants would have liked to have more time for writing up their case study.

Final comment

We believe that this study has been successful in a number of ways. It has brought together a large group of educators across New Zealand to focus on a single topic. It has provided opportunities for school advisers and teachers to be involved in research. Ultimately, it has given us some insight into the complexities of teaching EE in our classrooms, and pointers towards the work that still remains to be done.

A final implication of this study relates to the broader goals of education. This study has provided some evidence for the value of a transformative approach to education. When students were allowed to have a strongly participative role in their own education, under the expert facilitation of a pedagogically strong teacher, their achievements in developing competence in EE were significant. While this approach to teaching and learning was undoubtedly challenging for the participants in the project, the dividends are clear. Policy makers, professional developers and teacher educators need to consider making a commitment to fostering this transformative approach in all areas of our students’ schooling.

6. References

A presentation on this study was made to the annual conference of the New Zealand Association for Environmental Education (Auckland, January 2006) and a paper appears in the conference proceedings.

Barker, M. (2001). Learning for the environment—how can science educators contribute? New Zealand Science Teacher, 98, 7–14.

Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Birdsall, S. (2005). Lakes, light bulbs and linkages: Learning about sustainability and sustaining the learning. Auckland: The University of Auckland.

Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.B., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.

Bogner, F.X. (1998). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables of environmental perspective. Journal of Environmental Education, 29(4), 17–29.

Bogner, F.X. (1999). Empirical evaluation of an educational conservation programme introduced in Swiss secondary schools. International Journal of Science Education, 21(11), 1169–1185.

Bolstad, R. (2003). Environmental education: Roots in the past, visions of the future, opportunities in the present. set: Research Information for Teachers, 2, 10–13.

Bolstad, R., & Baker, R. (with Barker, M., & Keown, P.). (2004). Environment education in New Zealand schools: Research into current practice and future possibilities. Volume 2: A review of national and international research literature on environmental education practices. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Bolstad, R., Cowie, B., & Eames, C. (2004). Environmental education in New Zealand schools: Research into current practice and future possibilities. Volume 1: Summary of the research findings. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Bolstad, R., Eames, C., Cowie, B., Edwards, R., & Rogers, N. (2004). Environmental education in New Zealand schools: Research into current practice and future possibilities. Volume 4: Case studies of environmental education practice in eight schools and kura kaupapa Mäori. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Bonnett, M. (1999). Education for sustainable development: A coherent philosophy for environmental education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(3), 313–324.

Breiting, S., & Mogensen, F. (1999). Action competence and environmental education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(3), 349–353.

Chapman, D. (2003). Education for the environment—hang on a minute, mate! New Zealand Journal of Geography, 115, 21–25.

Chapman, D. (2004). Imparting values: More than a dilemma. New Zealand Journal of Geography, 117, 17–23.

Chidlow, H. (2003). Enviroschools awards go national. Education Today, 2(2), 9.

Corcoran, P.B., Walker, K.E., & Wals, A.E.J. (2004). Case studies, make-your-case studies, and case stories: A critique of case-study methodology in sustainability in higher education. Environmental Education Research, 10(1), 7–21.

Courtney-Hall, P., & Rogers, L. (2002). Gaps in mind: Problems in environmental knowledge behaviour modelling research. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 283–298.

Cowie, B., Eames, C., Harlow, A., & Bolstad, R. (with, Barker, M., Keown, P., et al.). (2004). Environmental education in New Zealand schools: Research into current practice and future possibilities. Volume 3: A critical stocktake of the characteristics of effective practice in environmental education in New Zealand schools and kura kaupapa Mäori. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Crawford, D. (2003). Gully reinvented as resource. Education Today, 2, 8–9.

Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dillon, J. (2003). On learners and learning in environmental education: Missing theories, ignored communities. Environmental Education Research, 9(2), 215-226.

Dillon, J., & Reid, A. (2004). Issues in case-study methodology in investigating environmental and sustainability issues in higher education: Towards a problem-based approach? Environmental Education Research, 10(1), 23–37.

Feinstein, B.C. (2004). Learning and transformation in the context of Hawaiian traditional ecological knowledge. Adult Education Quarterly, 54(2), 105–120.

Fien, J. (Ed.). (1993). Environmental education: A pathway to sustainability. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Fien, J. (2001). The learning for a sustainable environment project: A case study of an action network for teacher education. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 17, 77–86.

Fien, J., & Corcoran, P.B. (1996). Learning for a sustainable environment: Professional development and teacher education in the Asia–Pacific region. Environmental Education Research, 2(2), 227–237.

Fien, J., & Greenall Gough, A. (1996). Environmental education. In R. Gilbert (Ed.), Studying society and environment: A handbook for teachers (pp. 200–216). Melbourne: Macmillan.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.

Gayford, C. G. (1991). Environmental education: A question of emphasis in the school curriculum. Cambridge Journal of Education, 21(1), 73–80.

Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–116). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hart, S. (1998). Visions of the future: A case study of twenty-five students from a Year 10 social science class in a small rural Queensland state high school. Unpublished Masters thesis, Griffith University, Queensland.

Hogan, K. (2002). A sociocultural analysis of school and community settings as sites for developing environmental practitioners. Environmental Education Research, 8(4), 413–437.

Hooper, J. (2003). Enviro school in Ashburton. Organic NZ, 62(1), 50–51.

Huckle, J. (1991). Education for sustainability: Assessing the pathways to the future. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 7, 43–62.

Jensen, B.B., & Schnack, K. (1997). The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 3(2), 163–179.

Keown, P., & McGee, C. (1999). The final report of the Enviro-school monitoring project. Hamilton: University of Waikato.

Keown, P., McGee, C., & Carstensen, M. (1995). The Enviro-school project baseline survey. Hamilton: University of Waikato.

Klein, E.S., & Merritt, E. (1994). Environmental education as a model for constructivist teaching. Journal of Environmental Education, 25(3), 14–21.

Kyburz-Graber, R. (1999). Environmental education as critical education: How teachers and students handle the challenge. Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(3), 415–433.

Kyburz-Graber, R. (2004). Does case-study methodology lack rigour? The need for quality criteria for sound case-study research, as illustrated by a recent case in secondary and higher education. Environmental Education Research, 10(1), 53–65.

Kyburz-Graber, R., & Robottom, I. (1999). The OECD-ENSI project and its relevance for teacher training concepts in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 5(3), 273–291.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Law, B. (2005). Experiential learning in the context of educating for a sustainable future. set: Research Information for Teachers, 3, 15–20.

Lewis, M.E. (2004). A teacher’s schoolyard tale: Illuminating the vagaries of practicing participatory action research (PAR) pedagogy. Environmental Education Research, 10(1), 89–115

Lucas, A. (1979). Environment and environmental education: Conceptual issues and curriculum implications. Sydney: Australia International Press and Publications.

Marcinowski, T. (2000). The NAAEE workshop on developing guidelines for qualitative research in environmental education: An analysis of premises, processes and products. Environmental Education Research, 6(1), 27–35.

McConnell, B. (2003). Teachers get new advisors. Education Today, 2, 10.

McLean, T. (2003). Environmental education in Otago primary schools: education for the environment? set: Research Information for Teachers, 1, 4–9.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation (pp. 3–34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ministry for the Environment. (1995). Environment 2010 strategy: A statement of the government’s strategy on the environment. Wellington: Author.

Ministry for the Environment. (1996). Learning to care for our environment: Perspectives on environmental education. A discussion document. Wellington: Author.

Ministry of Education. (1993). The New Zealand curriculum framework. Wellington: Author.

Ministry of Education. (1999). Guidelines for environmental education in New Zealand schools. Wellington: Learning Media.

O’Hearn, G.T. (1982). What is the purpose of evaluation? Journal of Environmental Education, 13(4), 1–3.

Oliphant, F. (2002). Putting the environment into our schools. New Zealand Environment, 14, 10–11.

Palmer, J. (1995). Environmental thinking in the early years: Understanding and misunderstanding of concepts related to waste management. Environmental Education Research, 1(1), 35–45.

Papprill, J. (2004). Teaching for a sustainable future: Work in progress at Christchurch Girls’ High School. New Zealand Journal of Geography, 117, 24–28.

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. (2004). See change: Learning and education for sustainability. Wellington: Author.

Ramsey, J.M. (1993). The effects of issue investigation and action training on eighth-grade students environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 24(3), 31–36.

Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical review of the evidence. Environmental Education Research, 7(3), 207–320.

Rickinson, M., & Robinson, L. (1999). Environmental education research in the classroom: A shared methodological reflection by the teacher and the researcher. Environmental Education Research, 5(1), 1–14.

Robottom, I. (Ed.). (1993). Policy, practice, professional development and participatory research: Supporting environmental initiatives in Australian schools. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Russek, L. (2003). In, about, for—environmental education. Education Today, 2(2), 14.

Rutherford, J. (2004). Key competencies in the New Zealand curriculum: A snapshot of consultation. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Smith-Sebasto, N.J. (2000). Potential guidelines for conducting and reporting environmental education research: Qualitative methods of enquiry. Environmental Education Research, 6(1), 9–26.

Sterling, S. (2001). Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change. Bristol, UK: Green Books. Student-driven environmental focus for Auckland secondary school. (2004). Education Today, 3, 12–13.

Tilbury, D. (1995). Environmental education for sustainability: Defining the new focus of environmental education in the 1990s. Environmental Education Research, 1(2), 195–212.

Tilbury, D., Stevenson, R., Fien, J., & Schreuder, D. (Eds.). (2002). Education and sustainability: Responding to the global challenge. Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K.: IUCN Commission on Education and Communication.

UNESCO. (1978). Final report: Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education, Tbilisi (USSR) 14-26 October 1977. Paris: United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

UNESCO. (1992, June). Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Chapter 36: Promoting education, public awareness and training. UNESCO, Rio de Janeiro.

Vowless, K. (2002). Education for the environment—what is it and how to do it. New Zealand Journal of Geography, 113, 20–23.

Walker, K. (1997). Challenging critical theory in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 3(2), 155–162.

Wals, A.E.J. (1994). Action taking and environmental problem solving in environmental education. In B. B. Jensen & K. Schnack (Ed.), Action and action competence as key concepts in critical pedagogy (pp. 135–162). Copenhagen: Royal Danish School of Educational Studies.

Wals, A.E.J., & Alblas, A. (1997). School-based research and development of environmental education: A case study. Environmental Education Research, 3(3), 253–267.

Winch, C., & Gingell, J. (1999). Key concepts in the philosophy of education. London: Routledge.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future: The Brundtland Report.New York: Oxford University Press.

The appendices for this online version of the report have been removed. However, you can access them here

Acknowledgements

The research team gratefully acknowledges the support of the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative in funding this research, and the New Zealand Council for Educational Research for administering the funding and supporting the research.

We are grateful to the University of Waikato for their administrative support.

We are particularly grateful for the participation of the schools, the support of their leadership, and for the involvement of their staff and students.