Advertisement

“I Had to Take Action Straight Away.” Preservice Teachers’ Accounts of Pro-environmental Action

  • Lyn CarterEmail author
  • Jenny Martin
Chapter
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 14)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on actions at the heart of the STEPWISE framework. Utilising a discursive psychological perspective less usual in science education than cognitive psychology, this chapter investigates preservice teachers’ sense of responsibility for education for sustainability (EfS) or pro-environmental action. Unlike cognitive psychology, the discursive approach acknowledges cultural and relational aspects of any action in the social world and no distinction is made between social and psychological phenomena. Using a coding system developed around the Grammar of Agency, we present findings from our preservice teachers’ development as applied scientifically literate citizens to show how their pro-environmental engagement is limited to individualistic positioning. There may be implications for EfS studies, STEPWISE and other sociopolitical and STSE projects self-reflecting about the cognitive psychological assumptions that depict individual minds and knowledge as separated from their social realisation.

Keywords

Discursive psychology Pro-environmental action Applied scientific literacy Initial teacher education Grammar of agency 

References

  1. Anderson, K., & Zuiker, S. (2010). Performative identity as a resource for classroom participation: Scientific Shane vs. Jimmy Neutron. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 9(5), 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold, J. (2010, July). Identity projects and practice in a science classroom: A case study of sudents’ reflexive positioning. Paper presented at Australasian Science Education Research Association annual conference, Port Stephens, Queensland.Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, J. (2012). Science students’ classroom discourse: Tasha’s umwelt. Research in Science Education, 42(2), 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnold, J., & Clarke, D. (2014). What is ‘agency’?: Perspectives in science education Research. International Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 735–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010). Sustainability curriculum framework. Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  6. Basu, S. (2008). How students design and enact physics lessons: Five immigrant Caribbean youth and the cultivation of student voice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 881–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bencze, L. (2014). ‘STEPWISE’: Science & technology education promoting wellbeing for individuals, societies & environments. A summary for science teachers. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto. Available at: http://webspace.oise.utoronto.ca/~benczela/STEPWISE.html.Google Scholar
  8. Bencze, L. (in press). Student-led learning for ‘altruistic’ socio-political actions. In B. Shapiro (Ed.), Actions of their own to learn (pp. xx–xx). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  9. Burris, V. (2001). Small business, status politics, and the social base of new Christian right activism. Critical Sociology, 27(1), 29–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carter, L. (2012). Investigating preservice science teachers’ preferences in developing pro-environmental engagement. Paper presented at the XVth International Organisation for Science and Technology Education symposium Hammamet, Tunisia, 29th October–3rd November, 2012.Google Scholar
  11. Carter, L., Castano, C. & Jones, M. (in press). Sociopolitical activism and transformative learning: Expanding the discourse about what counts in science education. In L. Bryan, & K. Tobin (Eds.), Science education as a political issue: What’s missing in the public conversation about science education? (pp. xx–xx). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  12. Chawla, L. (2006). Research methods to investigate significant life experiences: Review and recommendations. Environmental Education Research, 12(3), 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crowell, A., & Schunn, C. (2014). Scientifically literate action: Key barriers and facilitators across context and content. Public Understanding of Science, 23(6), 718–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20, 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harré, R. (1984). Personal being: A theory for individual psychology. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell Publishers Limited.Google Scholar
  16. Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1999). The dynamics of social episodes. In R. Harré, & L. V. Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory (pp. 1–13). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 23–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin, J., & Carter, L. (2015). Preservice teacher agency concerning education for sustainability (EfS): A discursive psychological approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 560–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Muhlhaüsler, P., & Harré, R. (1990). Pronouns and people. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Palmer, J., Suggate, J., Robottom, I., & Hart, P. (1999). Significant life experiences and formative influences on the development of adults’ environmental awareness in the UK, Australia and Canada. Environmental Education Research, 5(2), 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Preston, L. (2011). Green pedagogy – guidance and doubt in teaching outdoor and environmental education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 367–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Robelia, B. A., Greenhow, C., & Burton, L. (2011). Environmental learning in online social networks: adopting environmentally responsible behaviors. Environmental Education Research, 17(4), 553–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sauvé, L. (2005). Currents in environmental education – Mapping a complex and evolving pedagogical field. The Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 11–37.Google Scholar
  25. Sharma, A. (2007). Making (electrical) connections: Exploring student agency in a school in India. Science Education, 92(2), 297–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Seah, L., Clarke, D., & Hart, C. (2011). Understanding students’ language use about expansion through analyzing their lexicogrammatical resources. Science Education, 95(5), 852–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wood, L., & Kroger, R. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Yerrick, R. K., & Gilbert, A. (2011). Constraining the discourse community: How science discourse perpetuates marginalization of underrepresented students. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 6(1), 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education and ArtsAustralian Catholic UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations