Abstract
Deliberative communication can be one way of creating a school culture that supports WSA for sustainability. This chapter is based on a design-based research project that investigates students’ deliberative communication when they work with an inquiry project. The project aimed at enabling ‘green transitions’ by inquiring the school’s energy system and thus strengthening the students’ technology awareness. While handling technology as part of education for sustainable development (ESD), the students are given the opportunity to deliberate through argumentation, listening to and respecting each other as well as reaching consensus about energy technology. The student groups were given a commission by the county municipality to make the school more sustainable regarding energy sources and energy use. The students handed in their proposals to the headmaster. We argue that deliberative communication initiated by inquiry projects concerning technology that focuses on ‘green transitions’ plays a part in supporting schools to become more sustainable.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Keywords
- Education for sustainable development (ESD)
- The whole school approach (WSA)
- Technology and deliberative communication
We propose that a culture of deliberative communication is one key aspect of strengthening a whole school approach (WSA) for sustainability. Inquiring the school energy technology regarding its sustainability may strengthen the students’ energy awareness. Additionally, scrutinising the energy technology by dealing with concretes, such as technology, can support the students’ oral deliberative practices. Through argumentative and respectful discussions, potentially leading to mutual consensus about the school’s energy technology, can create school cultures that endorse WSA for sustainability.
1 Introduction
This chapter explores an in situ inquiry project in which students investigated and deliberated on how to make their school more environmentally friendly by using renewal energy sources in an effort to reduce energy consumption. We use this exploration as a starting point to discuss the project from a whole school approach (WSA) perspective.
What can a project like this contribute to making the whole school more sustainable? How can a technologically oriented ‘green transition’ provide students with opportunities to deliberate on technology?
Green transitions have become a political buzzword (Affolderbach & Schulz, 2018); however, what green transitions entail in an educational setting is less clear. We propose that students working with an inquiry project on local and renewable energy sources may exemplify such transitions and that the project can be a possibility for promoting the school’s sustainability. Moreover, student participation and planning of school strategies through group work and discussions can strengthen students’ perceptions of citizenship (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). The utilisation of renewable energy technology can be used as a foundation for a potential green transition. Here, Levinson (2010) argues the importance of engaging students in deliberative discourses concerning technoscientific issues (Levinson, 2010). Hence, participation through a deliberative discourse regarding technology that can make the school more sustainable may enhance the goal of making students into active citizens. Moreover, Mogren (2019) claims that more research on the organisational characteristics of schools in which students engage with real-life environmental challenges is needed (Mogren, 2019).
The students in this study engaged in an inquiry project on the school’s renewable energy technology to allow for a deliberative discourse. The inquiry project was given as a commission by the county municipality. The local janitor service provided vital information that the students used to solve the commission, and the students handed in their proposals to the local leadership. We suggest that inviting several stakeholders can make students’ inquiries more relevant and promote WSA because this project can create a multistakeholder discourse about the school’s energy system. Discourses, such as deliberative communication (Englund, 2000, 2006, 2015, 2016; Englund et al., 2008), can strengthen oral practices among students, which is a central aspect of the school culture (Gan & Alkaher, 2021; Mathar, 2015; Mathie & Wals, 2022). School culture is one of several important features within WSA (Hunt & King, 2015; Mathar, 2015; Mathie & Wals, 2022). Hence, this inquiry project will be used as a point of departure to argue that certain characteristics within school culture, such as oral practices, can promote and support a potential WSA for sustainability.
2 Theoretical Perspectives
2.1 WSA That Supports Sustainability and Strengthens the Students’ Citizenship
There are several ways of conceptualising a WSA. For instance, Mathie and Wals (2022) state that one can view a WSA more holistically from an education of sustainable development perspective, in which a WSA is ‘meant to be used as a thinking tool to initiate and guide an ongoing multistakeholder dialogue about how sustainability can best unfold in a school setting’ (Mathie & Wals, 2022, p. 6). From another perspective, a WSA can assess a single school regarding the current practices, difficulties, cooperation, support of interdisciplinary activities and assistance in creating new practices and actions on the route to enhancing more sustainable activities in the school (Mathar, 2015, p. 24). Furthermore, according to Hunt and King (2015), a WSA to citizenship education can be built on factors such as policy improvements, school cultures, teaching and learning and allowing students to voice their opinions (Hunt & King, 2015). Although these conceptualisations all bring valuable perspectives on a WSA, in this chapter, we predominantly focus on creating new practices (Mathar, 2013, 2015) and school culture (Hunt & King, 2015) to attain the aim of a WSA that supports schools for sustainability.
School culture consists of features such as rules, rituals, beliefs, values, traditions and norms (Deal & Peterson, 1990). These features influence how people perform and communicate. Research indicates that the successful implementation of education for sustainability (EFS) involves altering the school culture into a more sustainable everyday practice (Gan & Alkaher, 2021; Henderson & Tilbury, 2004). Thus, dialogues can play a central role in a school culture or ethos (Mathie & Wals, 2022); the culture can be developed by having the students participate in democratic discussions concerning sustainability issues, for instance, by examining the energy consumption at their school (Mathar, 2013, 2015). It is important to give students the opportunity to state their opinions and be listened to in accordance with what the students want to change in terms of the school’s sustainability, though ‘it will take time to cultivate another mindset in relation to education and learning’ (Mathie & Wals, 2022, p. 57). Enabling these democratic discussions on sustainability issues and green transitions may strengthen the students’ oral practices, which can be viewed as an important characteristic of school culture.
Through a WSA, EFS can change the school culture and practices, and this can, in turn, promote various student practices, in addition to stimulating student participation in decision-making (Gan & Alkaher, 2021). Therefore, we have chosen to see democratic discussions among the students as a practice and base of the cultivation of the students’ mindset towards sustainability issues. Furthermore, our assumption is that such cultivation can take place through deliberative communication while working with renewable energy technology. In addition, the scrutinisation of a school’s energy system corresponds well to a WSA that supports schools for sustainability (Mathar, 2013, 2015).
2.2 Participatory Citizenship and Deliberative Communication
Westheimer and Kahne (2004) state that a participatory citizen focuses on the participation and planning, for example, of school strategies and that this will require collective endeavours or efforts such as, for instance, how to participate during group discussions (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). We suggest that this endeavour can be deliberative communication. The concept of deliberation is tightly connected to communication in a democracy (Englund, 2000, 2006; Englund et al., 2008). Deliberative democracy—or participatory democracy—‘especially emphasizes responsibility and consequences, implying that socialisation into citizenship and the exercise of citizenship must be in focus’ (Englund, 2006, p. 511). Ideally, the aim of deliberative communication is to reach a joint consensus or at least agree to disagree.
There are five distinct elements of deliberative communication in a school setting (Englund, 2006, 2015). Here, the participants:
-
(a)
Are given space and time to present and challenge different views via argumentation.
-
(b)
Listen to, tolerate and respect each other’s argumentation.
-
(c)
Reach a shared will formation, such as a joint consensus, or are aware of different views or at least agree to disagree.
-
(d)
Do not accept everything as the ‘truth’, even if uttered by a teacher/authority and there are openings of challenging one’s own beliefs and practices.
-
(e)
Essentially fulfil elements a–d without teacher control. For instance, having students discuss challenges to solve or illuminate them from different perspectives.
These elements (a–c) make up the core parts of deliberative communication (Englund, 2006; Englund et al., 2008). Element (d) is about schools being an integrated part of the public sphere and, therefore, making up an arena where different views and values learned through socialisation will potentially be challenged by fellow students and teachers (Englund et al., 2008). Furthermore, deliberative communication may assist students in both shedding light and challenging those views that are nondemocratic/offensive or authoritarian because schools are a part of the public sphere. Element (e) is relevant because of group projects or plenary discussions, and element (e) is a communicative process, where meaning is established among equals without the presence of a teacher (Englund, 2006; Englund et al., 2008). Achieving these elements (a–e) may involve handling a specific theme to assess, and practising deliberation without teacher control may motivate the students ‘to reconstruct and continue the theme initiated in institutionalised deliberative communication’ (Englund et al., 2008, p. 43). Therefore, a school culture containing elements of deliberative communication related to themes such as renewable energy consumption can promote a WSA to a sustainable school.
2.3 The Use of Technology to Promote Deliberative Communication
A citizen may feel the responsibility of keeping up on technological development. Levinson (2010) argues that this will most likely occur through the process of deliberative discussions (Levinson, 2010, p. 82). According to Mitcham’s Thinking through Technology (1994), one can conceptualise technology in four dimensions:
-
(a)
Objects in technology can be tools, machines, other types of physical artefacts or technological processes (Custer, 1995). Technological objects have a ‘social side’, they have a purpose (Mitcham, 1994), and they are to be used for something by someone. Moreover, this applicability is also an important aspect of the design or redesign of technological objects (de Vries, 2016).
-
(b)
Knowledge can be defined as a justified legitimate belief (Mitcham, 1994). Legitimate beliefs regarding the craftmanship and utilisation of an artefact can be validated by adjuring to theories, laws, rules, maxims or skills ‘thus yielding different kinds of technology as knowledge’ (Mitcham, 1994, p. 194). Declarative (factual), procedural (‘know how’), conceptual (‘know that’) and metacognitive knowledge are different knowledge types that are codependent on each other and can develop symbiotically when handling technology (Barak, 2013).
-
(c)
Activities in technology can include maintaining, operating, working, manufacturing, designing, inventing and crafting (Mitcham, 1994, p. 210). These activities rely on procedural and conceptual knowledge in the processes of creating technological objects, using and judging and assessing artefacts, hence taking place while students solve tasks and disclose their findings with fellow students (Pirttimaa et al., 2017).
-
(d)
Volition is connected to choices, intentions, ambitions, motives and will (Mitcham, 1994, p. 247). Therefore, volition demands reflections and considerations regarding the design and use of technology. Moral and ethical considerations towards technology and society are at the centre of attention and can be linked to the perception of what is deemed ‘good’ (Ravanbakhsh & Taqavi, 2020).
These four dimensions are all present when dealing with technology. However, seen in light of sustainability, we draw attention to volition, especially those considerations that are connected to designing, using and assessing technology. Sandin (2013) states that the relationship between environment and technology is complicated. He further argues that there can be positions of admiration and deep scepticism towards the same technological object (Sandin, 2013). Stables (2015) takes the critique of technology a step further by claiming that environmental challenges are caused by technology—or rather that there were some side effects of the technology not deliberated upon (Stables, 2015).
We have used Englund’s five elements (a–e) in combination with these four dimensions of technology (A–D) to investigate how they might interact.
3 Research Methodology
3.1 Research Design, Data Collection and Analysis
The findings reported here stem from a design-based research (DBR) project. One of the main objectives and advantages of DBR is to initiate changes and improvements in existing educational practices (Wang & Hannafin, 2005, p. 6). This particular inquiry project was initiated by the first author in close collaboration with teachers; it was part of a physics course in which students aged 17 took part (ISCED 3). Juuti and Lavonen (2006) state that one of the characteristics that make up DBR ‘is to develop an artefact to help teachers and pupils to act … more intelligible’ (Juuti & Lavonen, 2006, p. 59). In our case, these artefacts are mainly booklets concerning renewable energy technology. The booklets structured the students’ inquiry of renewable energy technology. Our main data sources were video observations of two students collaborating over four lessons, in addition to a plenary discussion in which 12 students participated. Student dialogues from all lessons and the plenary discussions were fully transcribed.
The research design used a naturalistic approach to deliberative communication. This means that the students were not informed about the concept of deliberative communication or what it entailed before or during the inquiry project. As an analytical perspective, deliberative communication was incorporated after the empirical part of the research project has been conducted. Our analytical framework is based on Englund’s view of deliberative communication (elements a–e) and Mitcham’s dimensions of technology (a–d). The unit of analysis in a dialogue is student utterances. The data analysis is based on content analysis (Krippendorff, 2018) and involves both interpretations and measurements of the frequency of dialogue excerpts. We used the NVivo programme deductively, coding utterances by using the framework. The same excerpt could be attributed to technology dimensions and deliberative elements.
3.2 The Inquiry Project and Its Stakeholders
The task that was given to the students to delineate the inquiry project had many elements built into it. During the inquiries, the students were meant to take account of the economic, environmental, social and political aspects related to the design of a theoretical upscaled renewable energy system installed at their school.
The student inquiries in this study were based on inquiry teaching and learning methods/strategies (Bybee et al., 2006). Conducting an inquiry project requires some amount of scaffolding (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). The main scaffolding that helped the students with their inquiry was laboratory manuals, booklets with tasks and worksheets to guide the students in designing a renewable energy technology system. The scaffolding of the inquiry was to prevent students from stagnation during laboratory work and support their communication.
The municipality provided the students with the following mission:
What kind of opportunities do renewable solar energy sources offer our local school regarding energy efficiency and sustainability, and what are the positive/negative aspects of these alternative energy sources? What can we/the students do, at our local Upper secondary school to promote and enhance energy efficiency in school building using solar technolody?
In return, the municipality received the students’ solutions regarding the potential use of renewable energy technology within its building portfolio. The local janitor service was considerably involved in designing the booklets that the students worked on in each lesson. The booklets contained detailed information about the school’s former and current energy consumption present through graphs, tables and diagrams. The janitor service also provided important information about the school’s heat pump, which could not be neglected in an energy account. The cooperation with the janitor service made the student inquiry closer to reality and made it more likely that the results of the inquiry would be relevant for the school and municipality to implement.
The inquiry project consisted of four 4-hour lessons in which the students made inquiries concerning the technology to prepare for a well-informed plenary discussion.
-
Lesson 1: (1a) A presentation of the mission from the municipality. Preliminary inquiry regarding renewable energy technology and current energy supply at the school. (1b) Experimentation and collection of data from a solar collector with the aim of calculating its efficiency to be used in a theoretical upscaling (see lesson 3).
-
Lesson 2: Further scrutiny of renewable energy technology and the carrying out of an experiment concerning solar cells. Experimentation and collection of data from a solar cell with the aim of calculating its efficiency to be used in a theoretical upscaling (see lesson 3).
-
Lesson 3: Student groups worked on various energy calculations. These calculations concerned the energy outputs from lessons 1 and 2, and the students investigated the school’s energy consumption, including the school’s heat pump. Based on this information, the students designed a theoretical large-scale energy system for the school.
-
Lesson 4: Based on the inquiries the students had carried out during lessons 1–3, the groups argued for a solution to the mission. The teacher and researcher staged a plenary discussion that challenged the groups to make arguments about the different technoscientific issues they had been working on. Three groups presented their suggestions in class; the local leadership was present.
4 Research Results
4.1 Occurrence of Deliberative Communication and Dimensions of Technology in the Inquiry Project
The NVivo results show that the student dialogues contained elements of deliberative communication (a–e) in all four lessons and in the plenary discussion. The four dimensions of technology (knowledge, object, activity and volition) were also represented in each lesson. Lesson (1a) was dominated by knowledge, lessons (1b) and 2 were dominated by activities, lessons 3 and 4 were dominated by objects, and the plenary discussion was dominated by both objects and (talk of) activities.
The results indicate that working with renewable energy technology can, to varying degrees, mediate the elements of deliberative communication both in group settings and plenary discussions. The plenary discussion contained the highest level of deliberative communication throughout the project, here as dominated by elements a (participants present argumentation) and c (participants reach a joint consensus or are aware of different views). Elements a and c occurred most frequently when the students deliberated on issues concerning the objects and actions related to technology.
4.2 Excerpts of Student Discussions That Contain Deliberative Features While Working on Technology
Example 1 (the Use of Energy)
In lesson 1a, the inquiry triggered the students to reflect on energy consumption within the school.
-
1.
G1: Those loudspeakers are on, [looks in the direction of the loudspeakers] That uses electricity!
-
2.
J1: But, it’s not up to … thus we need the loudspeakers in order … [interrupted].
-
3.
G1: Need a loudspeaker, but it does not have to be switched on all the time!
-
4.
J1: No, but it is not up to the school to … thus, more up to the teacher,
-
5.
G1: Indeed, we can have … [G1 stops talking].
-
6.
J1: Yes, sustainable courses! [laughing].
-
7.
G1: Yes, then we can train all the employees at the school, [smiles].
-
8.
J1: Yes,
-
9.
G1: The light is on over there, [the science preparation room] And no one is there!
-
10.
J1: No, [looks at G1 and nods affirmative].
-
11.
G1: Unnecessary. Unnecessary use of energy,
-
12.
J1: Yes,
This excerpt can be interpreted as the students deliberating on issues regarding the energy consumption at their school in terms of objects (light sources), action (sustainability courses and turning off the light) and volition (unnecessary use of energy). In terms of deliberative communication, the students presented different scenarios (element a in lines 3 and 9); element b was present because the students listened to each other and followed up on each other’s suggestions for improvements and measurements (lines 4, 6, 7 and 11), and the students agreed (element c in lines 8, 10 and 12), though quite hasty and without substantial counterarguments. Therefore, we argue that this excerpt shows that the two students agreed that the school should be more aware of its energy consumption related to the school’s energy technology.
Example 2 (Renewable Energy Efficiency)
In lesson 4, during the plenary discussion, the students discussed different factors that could influence their choice to use renewable technology.
-
1.
Teacher: If you want to do it [continue using solar cells after down payment] forever, then it would pay off! [Teacher withdraws].
-
2.
E4: Yes, but it depends on how long the solar cells, like, really function, if they …?
-
3.
E3: … about how long they [solar cells] will last.
-
4.
E4: If there will be much better solar technology that has much better efficiency? That is also an issue to explore!
-
5.
E2: Yes, most likely that will be the case!
-
6.
E3/E4: Yes. [Speak simultaneously].
-
7.
E3: But we do not know that!
-
8.
E2: Anything else is idiotic.
-
9.
E3: We do not know that.
In this excerpt, the students were found to engage in a discussion on economic issues concerning solar cells, their cost, efficiency and life expectancy. The discussion was initiated by the teacher, who withdrew and left the students to deliberate among themselves. The discussion can be interpreted as two different views of technology. Student E2 was far more optimistic about the technological development of solar cells, whereas student E3 seemed to be more negative—or perhaps more sceptical. In other words, their approach to technology as objects and knowledge differed in this case, and they, quite amicably, agreed to disagree.
Example 3 (Heat Pump)
In lesson 4, during the plenary discussion, the teacher presented the students with the dilemma of rejecting the already installed heat pump and only focusing on the use of solar power.
-
1.
E1: I think that we can first consider the issue with sun … or the heat pump’s efficiency factor. Eh, because the heat pump has a very high efficiency factor. An efficiency factor of 2.9. That means that the energy we get from the heat pump is 2.9 times more than the energy amount we need to run the heat pump. So we are taking about a great energy output!
-
2.
Teacher: In other words, not reject the heat pump?
-
3.
E1: Yes.
-
4.
Researcher: Do anyone here disagree with research group 1?
-
5.
E3: Eh yes. No!
-
6.
Researcher: But we might say that the heat pump uses electricity from the grid?
-
7.
E3/E4: Yes. [simultaneously].
-
8.
E4: We have thought about that. We thought that it would be unreasonable to reject a facility [heat pump system with several wells] that have already been constructed. A huge facility that the school has invested a lot of money. Eh, rather one ought to replace the electric energy that the heat pump requires to function with, for instance, solar energy.
-
9.
E3: Yes.
-
10.
Researcher: So, you would also not reject the heat pump?
-
11.
E3/E4: No. [Simultaneously].
This excerpt can be interpreted as the students deliberating on issues regarding the heat pump at their school in terms of objects (heat pump) and volition (keeping the heat pump or rejecting it). The teacher and researcher scaffolded the plenary discussion to maintain deliberation among the students. The students presented different arguments (element a, lines 1 and 8) for keeping the heat pump, and there was a consensus for keeping it (element c, lines 3, 5, 9 and 11). Hence, they agreed on the role of the heat pump as an important part of the school’s energy system.
5 Discussion and Conclusion
We have used Englund’s definition of deliberative communication, here combined with Mitcham’s understanding of how to view technology as our analytical framework, to identify elements of deliberative communication during the discussions of technology. Our research results indicate that there were a vast number of technology-related discussions not containing elements of deliberative communication. However, our empirical evidence suggests that the students engaged in deliberative communication while working with technology in group settings (lessons 1–4) but to a limited degree. The plenary discussion generated the highest degree of deliberative communication while discussing technology-related issues. However, in both the group settings and plenary discussion, technology as volition was almost totally absent.
The technological dimension of volition (the ethical and moral dilemmas) was not made explicit in the inquiry design. Research has indicated that participation does not automatically enhance students’ analytical skills to criticise the causal effects of social challenges (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004, p. 264), such as technoscientific issues. For instance, one aspect related to social challenges is the question of who should have access to ‘cheap’ renewable energy technology, especially during an energy deficit. We believe that, if this challenge had also been implemented in our inquiry project, the dimension of volition during the entire inquiry project would have been strengthened; see also Stables (2015).
If a school chooses to emphasise deliberative communication, then this may influence the school culture in terms of the general practice of communication among students both in public and private domains (Englund, 2016). Tasks that stimulate deliberative communication can impact how students communicate in general, as well as their communication in class. In this research project, the students were not made aware of how to communicate in a deliberate way; even so, there were several instances where such communication occurred. If citizenship is seen as a vital part of WSA, then we would perhaps recommend a more explicit approach to deliberate communication. For instance, norms such as respect and tolerance are important both within deliberative communication and in a WSA culture (Englund, 2006; Raihani., 2011). Thus, deliberate communication can act as a way of concretising the norms of respect and tolerance, which also holds true when the topic is sustainable energy technologies. In the excerpts shown here, the students agree and disagree when they argue their case. Hence, when students are presented with the opportunity to investigate and deliberate in an inquiry project, it may strengthen their role as citizens.
Deliberative communication initiated by inquiry projects that focus on ‘green transitions’ may support a WSA by fostering schools for sustainability. This can be related to the scrutiny of the schools’ energy system, which enables the students to critically investigate sustainable resources and renewable technologies (Mathar, 2015). For instance, the students’ energy awareness concerning the school’s ability to reduce its energy consumption can be activated and stimulated while deliberating on technology from a sustainable perspective (Example 1). Furthermore, student deliberation on maintaining existing renewable energy technology because of its energy efficiency and, therefore, its potential sustainability can also strengthen the students’ energy awareness (example 3). In this project, this could have led to scrutiny of the school’s energy consumption. Sustainable energy consumption could be confronted with practical obstacles and/or organisational constraints because of the integration of a student design (Mathar, 2015).
We suggest that the involvement of several stakeholders in the development of an inquiry project can strengthen the project because of the complexity of a school’s energy system. The inquiry project can be strengthened by providing the objective (a mission) and essential information that acts as a starting point for the students’ inquiry and deliberations. This promotes a student-made design of the school’s energy technology that is ‘closer’ to reality. Also, the participation of several stakeholders can create the necessary dialogue between decision-making authorities, which can increase the probability of implementing changes at an organisational level (Henderson & Tilbury, 2004; Mathie & Wals, 2022). Additionally, an inquiry project with a multistakeholder dialogue can bring students closer to having decision-making powers (Gan & Alkaher, 2021). Students can investigate sustainable technology and discuss their findings with stakeholders inside and outside school to make the school more sustainable (Mathar, 2015), thus contributing to a green transition. According to Jasmi et al. (2019), green technologies may be utilised in issues concerning sustainability because they entail the use of an object to protect and conserve the ecosystem (Jasmi et al., 2019). Renewable energy technology may be regarded as a potential green technology that can possibly enable this ‘green transition’ at an organisational level. Nevertheless, renewable energy technology does not necessarily have to be a sustainable technology (Owusu & Asumadu-Sarkodie, 2016; Stables, 2015). An inquiry project related to energy technology can reveal the tensions between renewability and sustainability. These tensions may, for instance, amount to techno positive/negative opinions towards technology (Sandin, 2013). This can be confronted and challenged through deliberative communication (example 2), and we believe this can foster students’ energy awareness when handling a potential ‘green’ transition.
The exploration and discussion presented in this chapter have led to the conjecture that deliberative communication can strengthen the students’ citizenship. Participation is a fundamental democratic value because it gives everyone a voice, and in this case, deliberative communication is one way of cultivating the students’ mindset and ‘giving’ them a voice. Even if there are indications in the presented material that the students use their voices to form opinions on the schools’ energy system and green transition, our findings have suggested that further investigation is needed. There is a need to investigate how each dimension of technology influences the elements of deliberative communication and how this, in turn, influences the school culture, which is an important aspect within WSA. The application of deliberative communication combined with the conceptualisation of technology has turned out to be a fruitful approach and a great starting point for discussing the WSA supporting schools for sustainability.
References
Affolderbach, J., & Schulz, C. (2018). Green building transitions. Springer.
Barak, M. (2013). Teaching engineering and technology: Cognitive, knowledge and problem-solving taxonomies. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 11(3), 316–333.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., and Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Retrieved from https://fremonths.org/ourpages/auto/2008/5/11/1210522036057/bscs5efullreport2006.pdf
Custer, R. L. (1995). Examining the dimensions of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5(3), 219–244.
de Vries, M. J. (2016). Teaching about technology: An introduction to the philosophy of Technology for non-philosophers (2nd ed.). Springer International Publishing.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1990). The principal’s role in shaping school culture: US Department of education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Englund, T. (2000). Rethinking democracy and education: Towards an education of deliberative citizens. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 305–313.
Englund, T. (2006). Deliberative communication: A pragmatist proposal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(5), 503–520.
Englund, T. (2015). Toward a deliberative curriculum? Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(1), 48–56.
Englund, T. (2016). On moral education through deliberative communication. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(1), 58–76.
Englund, T., Öhman, J., & Östman, L. (2008). Deliberative communication concerning sustainability and security: A Habermas-inspired approach. In S. Gough & A. Stables (Eds.), Sustainability and security within liberal societies. Learning to live with the future (pp. 29–48). Routledge.
Gan, D., & Alkaher, I. (2021). School staff perceptions on education for sustainability and sense of community as reflected in an elementary school culture in Israel. Environmental Education Research, 27(6), 821–847.
Henderson, K., & Tilbury, D. (2004). Whole-school approaches to sustainability: An international review of sustainable school programs. Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability: Australian Government.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
Hunt, F., & King, R. P. (2015). Supporting whole school approaches to global learning: Focusing learning and mapping impact. DERC Research Paper no. 13 for the GLP. Retrieved from https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1473867/
Jasmi, N., Kamis, A., & Farahin, N. (2019). Importance of green technology, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and environmental education for students and society. Journal of Engineering Research and Application, 9(2), 56–59.
Juuti, K., & Lavonen, J. (2006). Design-based research in science education: One step towards methodology. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 2(2), 54–68.
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). Sage publications.
Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence? Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69–119.
Mathar, R. (2013). The concept of whole school approach—a platform for school development with focus on sustainable development. Resource Toolkit for Teacher Training. Retrieved from https://esd-expert.net/files/ESD-Expert/pdf/Concept-Paper-Mathar.pdf
Mathar, R. (2015). A whole school approach to sustainable development: Elements of education for sustainable development and students’ competencies for sustainable development. In R. Jucker & R. Mathar (Eds.), Schooling for sustainable development in Europe (pp. 15–30). Springer.
Mathie, R., & Wals, A. (2022). Whole school approaches to sustainability: Exemplary practices from around the world (9464471514). Retrieved from https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/566782.
Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. University of Chicago Press.
Mogren, A. (2019). Guiding principles of transformative education for sustainable development in local school organisations. (Doctorial dissertation). Karlstad Universitet, Retrieved from https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?dswid=-2823&pid=diva2%3A1368940
Owusu, P. A., & Asumadu-Sarkodie, S. (2016). A review of renewable energy sources, sustainability issues and climate change mitigation. Cogent Engineering, 3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2016.1167990
Pirttimaa, M., Husu, J., & Metsärinne, M. (2017). Uncovering procedural knowledge in craft, design, and technology education: A case of hands-on activities in electronics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(2), 215–231.
Raihani. (2011). A whole-school approach: A proposal for education for tolerance in Indonesia. Theory and Research in Education, 9(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878510394806
Ravanbakhsh, R., & Taqavi, M. (2020). Muslim scholars and technological volition. Technology in Society, 61, 101263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101263
Sandin, P. (2013). Naturalness, artefacts, and value. In M. J. de Vries, S. O. Hansson, & A. W. M. Meijers (Eds.), Norms in technology (Vol. 9, pp. 207–221). Dordrecht Springer.
Stables, K. (2015). Environment, ethics and cultures: Design and technology education’s contribution to sustainable global futures. In K. Stables & S. Keirl (Eds.), Environment, ethics and cultures (Vol. 5). Springer.
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
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.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mathisen, Ø., Johansen, G. (2024). Students’ Deliberation on ‘Greening’ the School’s Energy Supply: A Case Discussed from a Whole School Approach Perspective. In: Wals, A.E., Bjønness, B., Sinnes, A., Eikeland, I. (eds) Whole School Approaches to Sustainability. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56172-6_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56172-6_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-56171-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-56172-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)