The concept of Environmental Citizenship, as it has been developed in this project, calls for the development of specific awareness, attitudes, skills, behaviours and competences that need to be cultivated from early childhood for active civic participation. Primary formal education could provide opportunities for the achievement of these goals. In this chapter, we elaborate on how Environmental Citizenship, which provides the specifics of age and formal settings, could be approached and the educational strategies that could be recommended or avoided based on the existing literature. This chapter also provides an overview of the most important educational aims regarding the development of Environmental Citizenship in primary formal education. These include environmental sensitivity, a sense of justice, a basic understanding of ecological systems, necessary skills for the investigation of ecological and social phenomena, and action skills that relate to active participation in community issues. We suggest that successful educational interventions, integrated pedagogical approaches and key designing principles could promote Environmental Citizenship at primary schools. In addition, effective training and professional development programmes can equip teachers with the knowledge, values, skills and strategies necessary to implement Environmental Citizenship at this level.
- Environmental citizenship
- Primary education
- Formal education
- Pedagogical approaches
1 Characteristics of Primary Formal Education
The concept of ‘primary formal education’ reflects both the schooling period and the type of educational settings. Primary education, as an introductory schooling period, represents an important stage in children’s development. According to UNESCO (2007), this is from the age 5 to 11. From the perspective of Education for Environmental Citizenship, primary education is the appropriate period for laying the foundation of children’s future willingness to actively participate in responsible behaviour at both individual and collective levels. Some studies show that students at earlier ages of primary school are more willing to participate and show better outcomes after educational interventions aimed at developing key values and skills for Environmental Citizenship (Ampuero et al. 2015).
The concept of ‘formal education’ is, however, less straightforward. Formal education is interpreted as mandatory, usually within a school setting, and delivered by teachers (UNESCO 2012; Patrick 2010; Hofstein and Rosenfeld 1996). According to OECD (2018, p. 1), formal learning is “always organized and structured, and has learning objectives. From the learner’s standpoint, it is always intentional: i.e. the learner’s explicit objective is to gain knowledge, skills and/or competences. Typical examples are learning that takes place within the initial education and training system or workplace training arranged by the employer.”
However, the borders between ‘formal’, ‘non-formal’ and ‘informal’ education are often blurred. Teachers may use both formal and non-formal settings to achieve both intended and unintended educational outcomes; they may apply teacher-centred (instrumental) and student-centred (emancipatory) approaches (Wals et al. 2008) or combine mandatory teaching with free choice activities for motivated students. Because of this, some authors call for a ‘hybrid approach’ (Hofstein and Rosenfeld 1996).
As non-formal education is the subject of another chapter, we focus on learning that occurs as a part of primary education school curricula, and it is delivered by teachers, in school settings.
We focus specifically on the following two questions:
What are the most important educational goals regarding the development of Environmental Citizenship in primary formal education?
How can these goals be achieved in primary formal educational settings?
In this chapter, we start with a brief overview of the educational approaches relevant in developing Environmental Citizenship at primary level. Then we discuss the way Education for Environmental Citizenship is promoted by curricular materials. In the last part, we provide specific examples of educational outcomes and relevant methods for developing Education for Environmental Citizenship.
2 Education for Environmental Citizenship: Relevant Approaches
The Global Education Monitoring Report (UNESCO 2016) claims that the ‘transformation needed for a cleaner, greener planet’ demands innovative, creative and integrative thinking, and this requires interactive, discursive and experiential teaching and learning (Cotton and Winter 2010; Cotton et al. 2009). But, how should it be operationalised in the context of formal primary school education? What are the pedagogies that better prepare students to actively contribute to a sustainable future?
Studies such as Citizenship Education at School in Europe (2017) reveal the importance of directly linking together critical citizenship and environment. In this line, the approach known as ecopedagogy (Vilches et al. 2016; Misiaszek 2015, 2016; Kahn 2010) advocates a school curriculum linking the teaching and learning of environmental concepts to citizenship education.
From a socioecological perspective, Regula Kyburz-Graber (2013) claims that educational approaches intended at involving citizens in environmental issues should be participatory (an emphasis on collaboration and engagement), constructive (making people participate in the construction of meaning and solutions), critical (questioning the way things are and the way things should be) and reflective (thinking above causes and consequences and how to improve situations).
Along with the use of constructive, collaborative, critical and reflective activities (Kyburz-Graber 2013), classical models for shaping environmental behaviour reveal the importance of variables affecting the sense of ownership and empowerment (Hungerford and Volk 1990) and suggest the need for them to be taken into account when designing educational interventions to promote Environmental Citizenship.
Based on the key elements highlighted above, we can identify some pedagogical approaches with a huge potential to engage pupils in constructive, collaborative, critical and reflective activities while fostering students’ sense of ownership and engagement in environmental issues. We cite some of them below:
Service learning is an educational approach that combines educational objectives with community service in order to provide a pragmatic and progressive learning experience while meeting societal needs (López-Azuaga and Suárez Riveiro 2018; Murphy 2008; Wilczenski and Coomey 2007; Golombek 2006). This approach is likely to develop a sense of ownership and empowerment in students, who can take an active part in addressing environmental issues and improving their world around them. Service learning connected to Environmental Citizenship may provide pupils with opportunities to make relevant and authentic contributions to the improvement of local environmental issues, and to act as responsible and responsive citizens.
Project-based learning (PBL) and inquiry-based learning (IBL) are both student-centred pedagogies, which engage students in the development of a project (PBL) or an inquiry (IBL) in order to address a particular problem, while developing understanding of the issue being addressed and acquiring interesting competences (Song 2018; Chu et al. 2016). Through this approach, students may develop environmental projects relating to pollution reduction, waste management, energy saving or sustainable transports and mobility, exercising as citizens, actively committed to the improvement of their local community.
The use of socio-scientific issues or socially acute questions to address environmental problems (Karpudewan and Roth 2018; Morin et al. 2013; Simonneaux and Simonneaux 2012) is another approach where students use reasoning to evaluate different arguments and negotiate positions and solutions to particular problems. In this respect, this pedagogy offers interesting opportunities to discuss different perspectives and conflicting interests and to strengthen students’ critical thinking and sense of responsibility for a more sustainable world. The discussion of socio-scientific issues thus provides powerful scenarios to balance benefits and risks, duties and rights and to empower students in the search of fair solutions.
Currently, the discussion about which pedagogies better prepare students to face societal and environmental problems pays considerable attention to transformative learning as a developmental process, entailing concepts such as construction of meaning in diverse groups (Wals and Lenglet 2016). This is consistent with the use of constructive approaches, interaction with complex real-world learning environments (König 2015) and co-learning (Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2015) in agreement with the use of collaborative approaches.
Action-based and task-based learning are other student-centred pedagogies with a potential to integrate the key features previously mentioned and to promote transformative learning. They are especially useful in the development of pupils’ competences and problem-solving skills. Action-based interventions orient students’ thinking and action to the achievement of a particular goal and involve critical analysis and reflection. According to activity theory, the activity of the individual is described as “active transformations of existing environments and creation of new ones through collaborative processes” and “meaningfully transforming the world in accordance with ideology-driven goals and agendas” (Stetsenko and Arievitch 2014, p. 65). Here, human activity is seen as a means to transform and create environments, but also to gain knowledge about the world (Andersen 2017). Similarly, in task-based interventions, learning is planned at the same time that students are trying to solve problematic situations, but in this case, the task can be approached in many different ways, according to students’ competence level and motivations. Though action-based learning and task-based learning have been widely recognised as powerful pedagogical approaches, an analysis of curricular materials and teaching interventions for Environmental Citizenship at primary school level has revealed that these pedagogies are scarcely used (Andersen 2017).
We can say that, along with exhibiting the key features discussed before (being constructive, collaborative, critical and reflective), the pedagogies acknowledged provide interesting opportunities to develop ownership and responsibility for environmental issues along with a sense of empowerment as citizens who can actively contribute to improve the world around them.
In looking for effective ways to educate responsible citizens, some authors have applied the principles of positive psychology to design pedagogical interventions (Seligman et al. 2005), advocating the importance of promoting positive emotions, positive traits and positive reference institutions (families, schools and communities). In this line, Ampuero et al. (2015) describes an experience involving 499 primary school students intended to strengthen both affective and cognitive skills through local activities based on the principles of positive psychology, with an emphasis on the exercise of empathy and critical thinking. The intervention involved two big programmes – the ‘Life Lab’ – where students extended their school activities to their close surroundings (natural areas, gardens, vegetable markets) to improve the quality of life around them and the ‘climbing wall’ where students had to support and trust each other in order to achieve common goals. The findings showed that the interventions fostered students’ collaboration, empowerment and decision-making in local activities and strengthened empathy, care, reflective thinking and personal and collective responsibility for a sustainable future.
3 Education for Environmental Citizenship in Curricular Materials
The idea of promoting competence for Environmental Citizenship in curricular materials has been repeatedly supported. Guidelines for excellence published by the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE 2004) recommend that:
Environmental education materials should promote civic responsibility, encouraging learners to use their knowledge, personal skills and assessments of environmental problems and issues as a basis for environmental problem solving and action (p. 4).
The materials should also focus on skills building enabling students to address environmental issues (p. 4). Specifically, learners should be “provided with opportunities to develop a variety of citizenship skills, including participation in the political or regulatory process, consumer action, using the media and community service” (p. 10).
In light of Education for Environmental Citizenship a recommendation to engage students into community-based projects should also be mentioned:
Individual and community strategies for citizen involvement and provide learners with opportunities to practice these strategies through projects they generate individually in their school or in the larger community (p. 12).
From the curricular analysis perspective, such studies as the Citizenship Education at School in Europe (2017) reveal the importance to directly link critical citizenship and environment from a prescriptive point of view. Therefore, the so-called eco-pedagogy (Misiaszek 2015, 2016; Vilches et al. 2016; Kahn 2010) advocates a critical curriculum linking of the teaching and learning of environmental concepts to citizenship education.
However, these recommendations are not always met in curricular materials. The analysis of curricular materials (mainly textbooks) shows how these topics are introduced in the classroom in relation to particular topics and how meanings are presented worked and constructed. Unver et al. (2004) identified gaps in providing information about environmental issues in science textbooks for grades 6–12 in the United States. Other authors found an inadequate promotion of students’ involvement in civic participation in selected textbooks for grades 1, 2 and 8 in Chile (Acuna 2015) and the lack of skills development in environmental education textbooks for grades 5–7 in India (Sarmah and Bhuyan 2015).
Even if the concept of Education for Environmental Citizenship is supported in existing guidelines and curricular analysis, it seems to be often neglected in relevant textbooks.
4 Education for Environmental Citizenship: Valuable Learning Outcomes at Primary School
After discussing relevant pedagogical approaches and some literature about curricular materials, we focus on what educational goals should be pursued in order to promote Environmental Citizenship in primary school.
4.1 Shaping Environmental Attitudes and Values
Raising environmental concern and promoting environmental behaviours should be key educational goals for primary education. Research in environmental sociology and psychology has determined that cognitive and affective measures are important in understanding variations in environmental concern and behaviours (Hansla et al. 2008; Swim et al. 2011; Takahashi et al. 2017). In the specialised literature about environmental education at early ages, the emotional level is represented by shaping children’s values and attitudes towards nature. According to Schwartz’s theory of universal values (1992, 1994), people accenting values of universalism (as unity with nature, protecting the environment, a world of beauty, social justice and others) tend to prefer more altruistic behaviours than people accenting values of power, achievement or security. While forcing children to accept socially desirable values would be considered as an unethical teaching practice, education for Environmental Citizenship should be able to, directly and indirectly, promote those values to pupils, providing an opportunity for their reflection and consideration.
Affinity with nature, environmental sensitivity and connectedness with nature are frequent concepts in the ecopsychological literature (Cheng and Monroe 2012; Beery 2013; Kals et al. 1999). It is assumed that they form the motivational basis for students’ future interest in environmental issues and behaviour (Hungerford and Volk 1990), and so they represent a basic precondition for following-up education for Environmental Citizenship. According to Chawla (1999), frequent, direct and positive experience with nature, together with framing this experience by a reference person (parents, grandparents) valuing nature, plays the crucial role (Kals et al. 1999).
To support this, schools should provide opportunities for pupils to get to the wild and diverse environment during breaks with after-school clubs or residential programmes (Malone and Tranter 2003). An opportunity for unorganised free play in the schoolyard with elements of the ‘wilderness’, where children may be alone, find their special places and get dirty is important (Sobel 1993; Blair 2009). However, care should be exercised as according to Thomson (2007), adults with a good intention often construct school gardens as a well-organised, safe space, while children perceive their effort negatively as limiting their opportunity to free play.
Therefore, a better approach would be to do things with children rather than for them. For example, instead of designing a schoolyard for children, do it with them – invite pupils to participate in planning and reconstructing the school green area (Christidou et al. 2013). This activity may become part of school formal curricula, and it is manageable even with younger pupils. According to Skinner and Chi (2012), perceived autonomy is crucial for pupils’ motivation for garden work. In the process of decision-making, they can also develop important competences for active citizenship, such as strategic planning, cooperation with peers or anticipated results of their decisions.
In the Czech Republic, the involvement of pupils in the planning of their school garden is part of the EcoSchool programme. Such a strategy has been applied even in kindergartens. Although some teachers originally questioned the 6-year-old pupils’ ability to propose realistic ideas, pupils, being introduced to the age-appropriate method of facilitation, provided suggestions beneficial for both the local environment and their free choice activity in the garden. In addition, the participative approach had a positive impact on their environmental attitudes and feeling of empowerment (Cincera et al. 2015, 2018).
As we could see from this example, formal Education for Environmental Citizenship can be rather student – than teacher-directed. In the above-cited studies, the teacher-directed approach had a lower or even negative effect on students’ attitudes and feeling of empowerment.
4.2 Skills and Attitudes in Dealing with Environmental Problems
Certain authors maintain that exposing young children to the big, emotionally loaded global environmental problems may lead to ‘learned apathy’ or ‘ecophobia’ (Nagel 2005; Sobel 1996). In our opinion, from the age of ten onwards, children are able to individually reflect on sustainability problems in their local environment and in some cases even the global environment. Furthermore, the development of pupils’ empathy towards the victims of environmental injustice and providing an opportunity for symbolic help may open a space for follow-up community-based projects in the future.
Such an example is the Global Storylines method that allows pupils to experience various sustainability issues in a safe, play-based environment (McNaughton 2012). However, experience with the Global Storylines also documents the limits of this method. The Global Storylines is based on a method of educational drama play, where, by playing a role, students are confronted with a sustainability issue. For example, students play the role of citizens who must decide if they allow a group of ecological refugees to settle in their village. They are confronted with a risk of water scarcity as a result of increased population and consumption and need to find the best solution for both social and environmental issues.
The method has been implemented and evaluated in a set of Czech primary schools. According to the evaluation, the method proved to have a positive impact on students’ interpersonal competence and on school climate. Pupils repeatedly reflected their empathy towards marginalised or oppressed heroes presented in the role play. However, the impact on their issue awareness or action competence remained limited. One reason was that teachers, concerned with the demands of the method, highlighted its interpersonal level rather than its link to the sensitive issue (Vadurova and Slepickova 2015; Krepelkova 2018).
Again, it supports the importance of a careful, sensitive and age-appropriate approach and not to force pupils into taking bigger steps than they are prepared to.
4.3 Ecological Knowledge and Inquiry Competence
While the link between ecological knowledge and behaviour is usually interpreted as weak or non-direct, it is assumed that this kind of understanding may increase the quality of decision (NAAEE 1999; Hungerford and Volk 1990; Hungerford et al. 1980). It is reasonable to propose that students should be able to develop some basic understanding of concepts such as energy flow, food chains and food webs, species interactions and the cycling of materials. These concepts would be preferably learned outdoors either at a schoolyard or as a part of an outdoor residential (a few days long) programmes. As some authors reflect, pupils tend to develop an alternative ecological framework, contradicting scientific concepts (Abdullah 2015). Replacing these frameworks with scientifically more sound concepts may be a challenging and non-straightforward process (Abdullah 2015; Saglam and Ozbeg 2016; Hadenfelt et al. 2016). These environments could also be beneficial for the development of basic pupils’ understanding of the nature of science and acquiring basic inquiry skills.
Although this competence seems to be important mainly from the science education perspective, it could form a basis for future environmental literacy-oriented projects. Such an effort is obvious in the GLOBE programme, where students and their teachers participate in data collection and inquiry-based learning activities focused on the analysis of the local environment (GLOBE Czech 2016). While some of the schools limit their involvement with a simple data collection without further analysis (Činčera and Mašková 2009), in other schools, students link their findings with a follow-up community-based action. For example, a group of sixth-grade students from a small school in the Czech Republic analysed data about pollution of a local stream. After the analysis, they organised a collective action to clean it and planned to present their findings to the local municipality.
To link students’ investigation with a manageable action outreaching the borders of school provides an important step towards encouraging students to other actions.
4.4 Development of Action Competence
In relation to environmental behaviours and key skills for Environmental Citizenship, habits such as energy savings or recycling are worth encouraging and have received high levels of social acceptance. However more general action competences (like cooperation or decision-making skills) are needed to successfully address current environmental problems and the challenges related to an uncertain future (Jensen and Schnack 1997). Cooperation, problem-solving and skills to identify elementary casual links and feedback loops in basic social and environmental systems are key competencies worth developing in this age period, along with the ability to recognise and express values for one’s self and others (Wiek et al. 2011).
The most straightforward way for competence development is student participation in real-life projects. Different research across the globe reports on successful experiences when involving primary school students in real-life environmental projects intended at developing their action skills in relation to local issues.
For instance, in the framework of a national programme of education for sustainability in Australia, primary school students worked on a wide variety of projects (planting native reeds at the local lake, creating a community permaculture garden and conducting a trial for a turtle nesting site). Teachers used a specific approach called the ‘whole systems thinking’ to support students in the development of their projects. Evidence showed that conducting environmental education projects, with an education for sustainability perspective, was an effective, meaningful approach to develop environmental awareness of the whole systems thinking and pupils’ social, civic and environmental responsibility for local issues.
Moving from Australia to Africa and in an attempt to build the social capacity to address key environmental issues in Ethiopia, a pilot project was designed to use primary schools as change centres and teachers and students as change agents to bring about positive changes on the biophysical environment. Eleven upper-level primary schools were selected to take part in the dissemination of alternative energy know-how and technologies The results indicated that participating schools attracted the attention of individuals and community-based organisations, engaging them in the demand and use of alternative energy sources, showing that schools could act not only as centres of dissemination of knowledge about environmental but also a place where skills are developed to seek sustainable solutions to these problems (Dalelo 2008).
In Portugal, a qualitative study was conducted to understand the potential of collective initiatives to empower primary school students to take action in relation to local environmental issues. Participants were 26 third grade students and their teachers. The results showed that the students’ engagement in addressing the local issues required them to mobilise their scientific knowledge to support their actions, as well as the development of several other competences. Students became aware that acting is crucial to overcome issues that may persist and impact future generations and that only by engaging in action can change take place (Baptista et al. 2018).
However, the age-appropriateness of such a strategy for primary school pupils must be always considered. For example, the Czech programme ‘The School for Sustainable Development’ is based on principles of place-based education, i.e. linking the school curricula with the local community (Sobel 2005; Stone and Barlow 2005; Smith 2007). In the programme, students from grades 3 to 7 were able to accomplish their projects aiming to improve the local environment (e.g. planting a tree, placing a new bench or dustbin, constructing a table with information about the place). However, they did not deal with any controversial local issues, as the teachers preferred manageable, non-controversial projects that were accepted by the local municipality.
This experience demonstrates the difference between the intended curriculum and curriculum in action – while the programme was presented as issue-oriented, it was delivered in a consensual, non-controversial way. It also documents that engaging primary school learners in dealing with real controversial issues, while recommended strategy for education for Environmental Citizenship (Gruenewald 2008), could bring significant challenges on both students’ and teachers’ competence and thus required appropriate scaffolding and specific teacher professional development (Reis 2014a, b).
To summarise, the period of primary formal education is a time for building bases for the further development of Environmental Citizenship competence. We discussed the main learning outcomes related to Education for Environmental Citizenship in primary school and drew on the specialised literature to identify key features of effective educational interventions for promoting active, responsible citizens who are deeply engaged in environmental issues. Finally, we presented several pedagogical approaches with a high potential to integrate those key features and comment on some experiences that provide primary school students with the opportunities to become agents of change in their local communities. However, the successful implementation of educational interventions for promoting Environmental Citizenship at primary school required appropriate approaches and specific teacher training.
A closer look at the specialised literature suggests that further research is necessary to better understand how to support Environmental Citizenship from the early ages.
In particular, we suggest three lines of future work necessary to advance research in the field of Education for Environmental Citizenship:
Identification of successful educational interventions, effective pedagogical approaches and key designing principles for promoting Environmental Citizenship at primary school
Effective training and professional development to equip teachers with the knowledge, values, skills and strategies necessary to promote Environmental Citizenship at the primary school level
Research on the contextual factors supporting or hindering the Education for Environmental Citizenship in formal settings
Abdullah, N. (2015). The existence of alternative framework in students’ scientific imagination on the concept of matter at submicroscopic level. Macro Imagination, 6(21), 55–65.
Acuna, V. (2015). Environmental citizenship in Chilean school textbooks: A case study on environmental citizenship education in Chilean basic-education textbooks of 2012 (T). University of British Columbia. Retrieved from https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0166418
Ampuero, D. A., Miranda, C., & Goyen, S. (2015). Positive psychology in education for sustainable development at a primary-education institution. Local Environment, 20(7), 745–763.
Andersen, K. N. (2017). Evaluation of school tasks in the light of sustainability education: Textbook research in science education in Luxembourgish primary schools. Environmental Education Research, 24, 1–19.
Baptista, M., Reis, P., & de Andrade, V. (2018). Let’s save the bees! An environmental activism initiative in elementary school. Visions for Sustainability, 9, 41–48.
Beery, T. H. (2013). Establishing reliability and construct validity for an instrument to measure environmental connectedness. Environmental Education Research, 19(1), 81–93.
Blair, D. (2009). The child in the garden: An evaluative review of the benefits of school gardening. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(2), 15–38.
Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 15–26.
Cheng, J. C.-H., & Monroe, M. C. (2012). Connection to nature: Children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environment and Behavior, 44(1), 31–49.
Christidou, V., Tsevreni, I., Epitropou, M., & Kittas, C. (2013). Exploring primary children’s views and experiences the school ground: The case of a Greek school. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 8(1), 59–83.
Chu, S. K. W., Reynolds, R. B., Tavares, N. J., Notari, M., & Lee, C. W. Y. (2016). 21st century skills development through inquiry-based learning: From theory to practice. Hong Kong: Springer.
Činčera, J., & Mašková, V. (2009). GLOBE v České republice: evaluace programu. Interní dokument. Praha: Sdružení TEREZA.
Cincera, J., Kroufek, R., Simonova, P., Broukal, V., and Skalík, J. (2015, August). Environmental education research eco-school in kindergartens: The effects, interpretation, and implementation of a pilot program. Environmental Education Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1076768.
Cincera, J., Pauw, J. B., Goldman, D., Simonova, P., Cincera, J., Pauw, J. B., & Goldman, D. (2018). Emancipatory or instrumental? Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the implementation of the EcoSchool program. Environmental Education Research, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1506911.
Cotton, D., & Winter, J. (2010). It’s not just bits of paper and light bulbs: A review of sustainability pedagogies and their potential for use in higher education. In P. Jones, D. Selby, & S. Sterling (Eds.), Sustainability education: Perspectives and practice across higher education (pp. 39–54). London: Earthscan.
Cotton, D., Bailey, I., Warren, M. F., & Bissell, S. (2009). Revolutions and second best solutions: Education for sustainable development in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 719–733.
Dalelo, A. (2008). Schools serving as centres for dissemination of alternative energy know-how and technologies: Evidence from southern Ethiopia. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 17(3), 250–267.
Eurydice. (2017). Citizenship education at School in Europe. Bruselas: Education.
GLOBE Czech. (2016). http://globe-czech.cz/cz. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.
Golombek, S. B. (2006). Children as citizens. Journal of Community Practice, 14(1–2), 11–30.
Gruenewald, D. A. (2008). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802193572.
Hadenfeldt, J. C., Neumann, K., Bernholt, S., Liu, X., & Parchmann, I. (2016). Students’ progression in understanding the matter concept. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 683–708. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21312.
Hansla, A., Gamble, A., Juliusson, A., & Gärling, T. (2008). The relationships between awareness of consequences, environmental concern, and value orientations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 1–9.
Hofstein, A., & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the gap between formal and informal science learning. Studies in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269608560085.
Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8–21.
Hungerford, H., Peyton, R., & Wilke, R. (1980). Goals for curriculum development in environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 11(3), 42–47.
Jensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. (1997). The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 3(2), 163–178.
Kahn, R. (2010). Critical pedagogy, ecoliteracy, and planetary crises: The ecopedagogy movement. New York: Peter Lang.
Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 178–202.
Karpudewan, M., & Roth, W. M. (2018). Changes in primary students’ informal reasoning during an environment-related curriculum on socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(3), 401–419.
König, A. (2015). Changing requisites to universities in the 21st century: Organizing for transformative sustainability science for systemic change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 16, 105–111.
Krepelkova, S. (2018). Global storylines. Evaluacni zprava. Brno: Masaryk University.
Kyburz-Graber, R. (2013). Socioecological approaches to environmental education and research: A paradigmatic response to behavioral change orientations. In R. B. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon, & A. E. J. Wals (Eds.), International handbook of research on environmental education (pp. 23–32). New York: Routledge.
López-Azuaga, R., & Suárez Riveiro, J. M. (2018). Perceptions of inclusive education in schools delivering teaching through learning communities and service-learning. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–15.
Lotz-Sisitka, H., Wals, A. E., Kronlid, D., & McGarry, D. (2015). Transformative, transgressive social learning: Rethinking higher education pedagogy in times of systemic global dysfunction. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 16, 73–80.
Malone, K., & Tranter, P. J. (2003). School grounds as sites for learning: Making the Most of environmental opportunities. Environmental Education Research, 9(3), 283–303.
McNaughton, M. J. (2012). We know how they feel: Global storylines as transformative, ecological learning. In A. E. J. Wals & P. B. Corcoran (Eds.), Learning for sustainability in times of accelerating change (pp. 457–476). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers. ISBN 978-90-8686-203-0.
Misiaszek, G. W. (2015). Ecopedagogy and citizenship in the age of globalisation: Connections between environmental and global citizenship education to save the planet. European Journal of Education, 50(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12138.
Misiaszek, G. W. (2016). Ecopedagogy and citizenship in the age of globalization: Essential connections between environmental and global citizenship education to save the planet. International Review of Education, 62(5), 587–607.
Morin, O., Simonneaux, L., Simonneaux, J., & Tytler, R. (2013). Digital technology to support students’ socioscientific reasoning about environmental issues. Journal of Biological Education, 47(3), 157–165.
Murphy, T. (2008). Democratic schooling practices in the Republic of Ireland: The gaps between the rhetoric and reality. Irish Educational Studies, 27(1), 29–39.
NAAEE. (1999). Excellence in environmental education. In Guidelines for learning (K-12). Washington: North American Association for Environmental Education.
NAAEE. (2004). Environmental education materials: Guidelines for excellence. Washington, DC: NAAEE.
Nagel, M. (2005). Constructing apathy: How environmentalism and environmental education may be fostering ‘learned hopelessness’ in children. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 21, 71–80.
OECD. (2018). Recognition of non-formal and informal learning – Home. http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/recognitionofnon-formalandinformallearning-home.htm
Oguz Unver, A., Fortner, R., Adadan, E., Gay, K., Kim, C., Yalcinoglu, P., Bektasli, B., Cook-Hoggarth, K. L., McDonald, C., Mishler, K., & Manzo, L. (2004). A look at environmental education through science teachers’ perspectives and textbooks’ coverage. ERIC Document.
Patrick, W. (2010). Recognising non-formal and informal learning outcomes, policies and practices: Outcomes, policies and practices 2009 (35). Paris: OECD Publishing.
Reis, P. (2014a). Promoting students’ collective socio-scientific activism: Teachers’ perspectives. In L. Bencze & S. Alsop (Eds.), Activist science and technology education (pp. 547–574). Dordrecht: Springer.
Reis, P. (2014b). Acción socio-política sobre cuestiones socio-científicas: reconstruyendo la formación docente y el currículo. Uni-pluri/versidad, 14(2), 16–26.
Saglam, Y., & Ozbek, M. (2016). Children’s conceptual development: A long-run investigation. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health (JESEH), 2(2), 145–159.
Sarmah, S., & Bhuyan, S. (2015). Analysis of environmental education components in the existing textbooks from class V to VII, developed and adopted by the state council of educational research and training, Assam. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Studies (IJHSSS) A Peer-Reviewed Bi-monthly Bi-lingual Research Journal, 2(1), 271–277.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 1–65.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and content of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
Seligman, M. E., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410.
Simonneaux, J., & Simonneaux, L. (2012). Educational configurations for teaching environmental socioscientific issues within the perspective of sustainability. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 75–94.
Skinner, E., & Chi, U. (2012). The learning-gardens educational as intrinsic motivation and engagement as “active ingredients” in garden-based education: Examining models and measures derived from self-determination theory. The Journal of Environmental Education, 43(October 2013), 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2011.596856.
Smith, G. (2007). Place-based education: Breaking through the constraining regularities of public school. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701285180.
Sobel, D. (1993). Children’s special places: Exploring the role of forts, dens, and bush houses in middle childhood. Tuscon: Zephyr Press.
Sobel, D. (1996). Beyond Ecophobia: Reclaiming the heart in nature education. Great Barrington: Orion Society.
Sobel, D. (2005). Place-based education: Connecting classrooms and communities. Barrington: Orion Society.
Song, Y. (2018). Improving primary students’ collaborative problem-solving competency in project-based science learning with productive failure instructional design in a seamless learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(4), 979–1008.
Stetsenko, A., & Arievitch, I. (2014). Vygotskian collaborative project of social transformation: History, politics, and practice in knowledge construction. In A. Blunden (Ed.), Collaborative projects (pp. 217–223). Leiden: Brille.
Stone, M. K., & Barlow, Z. (2005). Ecological literacy. Educating our children for a sustainable world. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Swim, J. K., Clayton, S., & Howard, G. S. (2011). Human behavioral contributions to climate change: Psychological and contextual drivers. American Psychologist, 66(4), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023472.
Takahashi, B., Tandoc, E. C., Jr., Duan, R., & Van Witsen, A. (2017). Revisiting environmental citizenship: The role of information capital and media use. Environment and Behavior, 49(2), 111–135.
Thomson, S. (2007). Do’s and Don’ts: Children’s experiences of the primary school playground. Environmental Education Research, 13(4), 487–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701581588.
UNESCO. (2007). Operational definition of basic education. Theoretical framework.http://www.unesco.org/education/framework.pdf
UNESCO. (2012). UNESCO guidelines for the recognition, validation and accreditation of the outcomes of nonformal and informal learning. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute of Lifelong Learning.
UNESCO. (2016). Global education monitoring report. Education for people and planet: Creating sustainable futures for all. Paris: UNESCO.
Vaďurová, H., & Slepičková, L. (2015). Globální témata a inkluze v základním vzdělávání: přístup Global Storylines a jeho přínos pro žáky a učitele. In D. Zámečníková & M. Vítková (Eds.), Současné trendy v inkluzivním vzdělávání se zaměřením na žáky se speciálními vzdělávacími potřebami v ČR a v zahraničí - teorie, výzkum, praxe. 1. vydání. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
Vilches Norat, M. A., Fernández Herrería, A., & Martínez Rodríguez, F. M. (2016). Ecopedagogy: A movement between critical dialogue and complexity: Proposal for a categories system. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development (JESD), 10(1), 178–195.
Wals, A. E. J., & Lenglet, F. (2016). Sustainability citizens: Collaborative and disruptive social learning. In R. Horne, J. Fien, B. Beza, & A. Nelson (Eds.), Sustainability citizenship in cities: Theory and practice (pp. 52–67). London: Routledge.
Wals, A., Geerling-Eijff, F., Hubeek, F., van der Kroon, S., & Vader, J. (2008). All mixed up? Instrumental and emancipatory learning toward a more sustainable world: Considerations for EE policymakers. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 7, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/15330150802473027.
Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6.
Wilczenski, F. L., & Coomey, S. M. (2007). A practical guide to service learning: Strategies for positive development in schools. Boston: Springer.
This chapter is based on work from Cost Action ENEC – European Network for Environmental Citizenship (CA16229) supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology).
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Činčera, J., Romero-Ariza, M., Zabic, M., Kalaitzidaki, M., del Consuelo Díez Bedmar, M. (2020). Environmental Citizenship in Primary Formal Education. In: , et al. Conceptualizing Environmental Citizenship for 21st Century Education. Environmental Discourses in Science Education, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20249-1_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20248-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20249-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)