Midterm+questions

// How could insights from Sir Ken Robinson’s RSA inform ecological education? Based on the Environmental Values Survey (2006) what challenges do you think might arise from attempts to incorporate Robinson’s ideas into K-12 eco education? What positive outcomes might result? //

Sir Ken Robinson’s RSA animation calls for a change in educational paradigms. While he focuses his talk on general public education in the United States, the information he shared can be applicable to ecological education as well. He blames standardization of the education system for the decline in divergent thinking—a skill only geniuses and kindergarten students have seemed to master.

Applying divergent thinking to brainstorming solutions to environmental issues could create revolutionary approaches to solving difficult problems. Unfortunately, where divergent thinking is most prominent, the students are too young to grasp the full concept of environmental issues.

Where the current model of education is based on economic motivation, it would be interesting to remodel the system to promote environmental education. Students are being medicated (anesthetized) in order to get them through the standardized education system, which is based on an old view of education based on the interests of industrialization. The structure of education could be reformed to be structured around subjects that interest students (“wake them up”) and play into issues that are important without killing the inherent innovative thinking that we are all capable of at a young age (before we are educated).

Based on the information in the Environmental Values Survey, it is clear that as a country we can not unanimously agree on environmental issues based on political bias, which also plays a major role in reforming education systems. Based on this information, it seems that it would be nearly impossible to convince politicians of both parties to agree that the public education system needs less standardization and test-based learning (which ensures students are learning an adequate and predetermined amount of math, science, English, and history), and more options to allow students to do what they please. While general knowledge of these subjects are important, they have dominated time and resources of public education, leaving nothing left for eco education or personal interests of the students.

I don’t believe that just incorporating more eco education into the public education system is the solution; I think that giving the students the options to explore what interests them is the proper approach. Eco education is just one factor and one subject that would benefit, and by opening eco education up to interested students it would allow them to continue thinking about environmental issues throughout their primary education into college.

// What arguments are made in the articles by Orr, Lakoff, Paige and Ridley/Low about ways environmental sustainability should be framed? Explain which arguments you find compellings, and why. What are some differences between Orr and Ridley/Low on why eco education is valuable and the values that should motivate and be built into eco education. Briefly describe one activity for K-12 students that would effectively frame environmental sustainability in a way suggested by one of these authors. //

In //Framing Sustainability//, Orr acknowledges that our world’s problems with sustainability will not be solved any time soon. He insists that our job is to frame the sustainability problems in a way that suggests they can someday be solved. He uses an example of Abraham Lincoln to show that it is important to preserve the larger framework, and that framing is a way of defining an end result that can be achieved if many smaller steps are taken along the way.

The Lakoff article describes framing as a system of semantic roles and the relationships between them. He argues that “frame-circuits have direct connections to the emotional regions of the brain.” Because political ideologies of environmental issues are systems of frames they must acknowledge how to activate the ideological system through ideological language in order to be successful. Lackoff writes, “without a clearly framed social movement, the moral compromise behind the political compromise can be hidden.”

The Brown article, written two years later but in response to Lackoff’s 2010 article discusses a key quote from Lackoff, arguing that people in environmentalism often “still have the old, false view of reason and language. As a result, they may believe that if you just tell people the facts, they will reason to the right conclusion.” Brown supports Lackoff’s argument that emotional and frame-driven reasoning are key parts in understanding issues. She believes that framing is important when arguing for environmental issues, and that most citizens do not have the “scientific” frame which would allow them to understand the implications of climate change, and that framing is necessary in order to appeal to the common citizens’ emotions, values and contexts if we expect them to make a change.

Ridley and Low find their approach to environmental framing realistic: people are selfish, so let’s make environmental issues a selfish topic. In the way that the previous authors suggest that framing must appeal to the citizens’ emotions, Ridley and Low suggest framing must appeal to the citizen’s selfishness. Because global warming is a global problem, many people ignore responsibility, expecting someone else to help solve the problem. But by directly relating the damages of climate change to the individual person, we can encourage them to take responsibility in order to better their own world, and as a consequence, better the world as a whole.

I think an interesting activity for K-12 students would be to adopt an environmental issue—anything from how the meat industry affects climate change, to pollution caused by factories, to over fishing in the oceans or the declining populations of endangered species—and track the issue down the line to see what the consequences will be if the issue is not rectified. Something like dolphin hunting has direct consequences to the surrounding ecosystem, and I suspect the chain of consequences can eventually be tracked down to us as humans. I think allowing a student to pick an environmental issue, something they have interest in, and outlining the consequences of the chosen issue down to the human would be a good exercise. Then the student could go backwards and construct (or frame) an argument for change in the issue they selected based on their research of how the topic affects humans, as well as every other step along the way.

// What attitudes and cultural constructs in the United States will environmental educators need to work against? Reference at least two assigned readings. Briefly describe at least one activity for K-12 students that would work against these attitudes and cultural constructs. //

Even in 2014 there are still a large percentage of politicians and public figures that shamelessly deny that global warming is a real thing. Because of biases in the media, the greater population will never be able to tell what the “true” story is.

In the Low and Ridley article published in //The Atlantic// in 1993, they start by explaining that conventional wisdom suggests that getting people to care about the environment and drop their selfish ways is the real struggle, but the authors suggest the key is tapping into man’s inherent self-interest.

The authors write “at the center of all environmentalism lies a problem: whether to appeal to the heart or to the head—whether to urge people to make sacrifices in behalf of the planet or to accept that they will not, and instead rig the economic choices so that they find it rational to be environmentalist.” Unfortunately for the world, economic outcomes outweigh moral responsibility, and that a country or company that “cuts corners” on pollution control is actually rewarded with cost advantage over its rivals.

The American Environmental Values Survey, published in 2006, outlines how Americans sided on environmental issue, categorized by their political views. On all issues, Democrats tend to side with the environmentalist beliefs, while Republicans do not, with many issues demonstrating a dramatic 20% difference between the two groups. Why does politics play such a strong role in an issue that affects all citizens equally?

It is rare that once an opinion is formed it will change easily; many students adopt the political views of their parents or of their immediate surroundings and carry that through to adulthood. I think the key in environmental education is exposing the issues to the children at an early age, when they have the capacity of caring for the environment and larger world around them without interference of political or economical bias.

Allowing the students to work together as a class to adopt roles of the key players when it comes to environmental issues (the environmental activists, the corporate bias, the republican-centered and democratic-centered media, etc.) is a good way to discuss environmental issues and be made aware of the presence of bias in the media which pollutes the information before it gets to its viewers. This allows the students to understand the importance of twisting the facts for influenced parties but also allows them to look at the overall issue objectively.

I think allowing the students to work together collaboratively is a key factor in this project. If the students were given individual assignments to research the various biases influencing environmental issues in the media, they would miss a lot of information.

// Explain how Annie Leonard argues that we "aren't broke," and should have plenty of money for public education in the United States. Building on her brief video, drawing on resources you've encountered in this class, how might you "go fix it"? //

In Annie Leonard's video The Story of Broke (2011) she builds on information from her previous episodes to explain why there is still plenty of money to build a better future. She argues that her taxes, the money she is investing in a better future, are going to unjust causes.

Leonard claims she feels good about paying taxes and the better future it promises, including better schools, jobs and a cleaner environment built with clean energy. She explains that unfortunately, the money she pays in taxes for a better future get lost along the way and instead of improving these systems, the government actually takes away money from these systems (including schools, social security, Medicare), which break them down. Leonard decided to explore what happens to the money raised by taxes, and explains it in her video.

“Where is all that money going,” she asks. The military gets the biggest cut, which amounted to 726 billion dollars in 2011. The next portion of the money goes to helping the “dinosaur economy” which actually takes away from building a better future by building a worse one, through supporting corporations and other systems, which produce pollution and greenhouse gasses. The government gives spending subsidies to big corporations which in the long term, may help our economy run, but also bails out companies when a problem comes up that they can’t afford to fix on their own.

Tax subsidies are given to oil and gas companies, which keeps billions of dollars from cycling back through the tax system. The subsidies given to these companies help them continue their industry, which a lot of times has long term costs to our population—and not an exclusively economic cost. The pollution being caused by these companies is creating more problems related to asthma and cancer. And after all of these subsidies, which are afforded by our tax dollars, not a lot of money is left for the school systems and other systems, which actually improve our lives. But the big companies are equipped with lobbyists and prepared to give campaign distributions which puts their supporters in office, which continues the cycle of giving money to the wrong causes.

Leonard suggests the proper response to this and the way to fix this is by being more protective over our tax dollars, explaining what exactly we want our money to go to and if the politicians don’t answer we should vote them out. We can redirect subsidies to better causes—the ten billion that goes into oil and gas companies can go to renewable energy projects. By holding polluters financially responsible for toxic spills, which cost about 140 million dollars a year, we can invest our money in developing safer materials. Instead of subsidizing garbage incinerators, we can aid recycling programs to help America reach zero waste. All of these projects create less pollution, less waste, as well as millions of new jobs, all toward a better future. Being more aware of the biases in government is a key first step in fixing this problem. It also takes being passionate and active in pushing better-future systems.

// What are the promises and pitfalls of "backward design"? How could backward design relate to the affordances of teacher vs. student centered learning (see the School documentary) //

The regulation of the education system has resulted in a structure of backward design, where the state delegates the expected results, dictates acceptable forms of evidence that the results are being achieved, and then designs a curriculum intended to make that happen. Regulation of the education system is important but this method seems to be taking away from the quality of the education. While it is important to make sure that every student is going to school and learning a sufficient amount, the state's attempt at monitoring the process is hurting our students and education system. The "acceptable evidence" the state has to see in order to understand that their children are provided most efficiently (for the benefit of the state) in the form of "standardized tests". This method assumes that in order to produce the same results, the same process must be used to achieve them. Unfortunately children have very different learning techniques, and teachers have very different teaching techniques.

I think backward design forces the trend of teacher-centered learning, because the teacher is told to teach a certain material to gain certain results through certain approved methods. This method may be better for ensuring that all students are achieving the results on their own, instead of relying on their piers to get them through a tough subject. When a student does not understand, the evidence shows that clearly and the teacher knows immediately where the problem is.

Unfortunately it is somewhat necessary for students to experience group-work, not only to build communication and collaboration skills but also because there is evidence that shows this can aid the learning process. Students retain more information when they have the opportunity to teach it to their piers, which is a positive attribute in the long-term. However, some students are lost in the commotion of a chaotic classroom when collaboration is taking place. It may be difficult for the teacher to supervise all the children, and as a result, some students may end up learning nothing from the process, instead being overshadowed by their more active piers.

Ultimately, there is no right answer, but I also believe there is no wrong answer. While it is necessary to ensure that teachers are doing an adequate job and students are retaining an adequate amount of information, no one technique is ideal for students and teachers world-wide. Education reforms are always happening but I fear the push toward regulation is contradictory to a functional system, where each scenario is a unique situation that must be thoughtfully designed and executed. I do think an important step of backward design is deciding what the desired results are, just so there is consistent focus, but the steps in between will vary greatly.