Keywords

FormalPara Key Message

A whole institution approach for climate change education and research can be a useful framework for shifting the focus from individual learners to collective practices. This is especially true when this approach is paired with a practice theory theoretical framework. Focusing on the elements of practice that currently exist at a school (and surrounding community) enables a strengths-based approach that works with not against established practices.

1 Introduction

Climate change is one of the most pressing sustainability issues, with social, economic, and environmental implications (such as potential loss of land and livelihood, displacement and migration, eco-anxiety, grief, and climate justice–related issues) (Eriksen et al., 2011; Yohe et al., 2007). Education has been identified as crucial to address climate change (UNESCO, 2017). The majority of climate change education (CCE) and research to date has focused on instilling individual scientific cognitive clarity instead of also learning how to take climate actions together (Cook, 2019; Brownlee et al., 2013; González-Gaudiano & Meira-Cartea, 2010; MECCE Project and NAAEE, 2022; Monroe et al., 2017). Understanding climate science, however, does not guarantee belief in or action on climate change (Kahan et al., 2012; Hornsey et al., 2016). It is becoming increasingly evident that the challenges associated with climate change necessitate a paradigmatically different type of education to bolster the agency and empowerment of citizens necessary to address climate change (Brownlee et al., 2013; UNESCO, 2010; Wibeck, 2014).

Approaching CCE and research from a practice perspective and a whole institution approach may present such an opportunity. Utilizing a practice lens means educators and scholars adjust conceptual focus away from the knowledge of individual learners to the practices they collectively “carry,” (un)equally share, and mutually shape, wherein understandings, meanings, and purposes are irreducible to personal attributes (Reckwitz, 2002; Shove et al., 2012). This means emphasis is placed on communal educational activities, not individual learners (Nicolini, 2013). Such a shift in analytical focus enables a reconceptualization of learning as occurring “in the middle of everyday practical experience,” wherein social milieus create the contextual conditions within which learning occurs (McKenzie & Bieler, 2016, p. 16, also see Lave & Wenger, 1991; Nicolini, 2013). This readjustment aligns with the broader turn within the social sciences towards practice (Schatzki et al., 2001) and may hold potential for education and research to engender the large-scale transformation required by recent climate change. For the purposes of this study, a whole institution approach means that CCE is integrated within and across each of the domains of Overall Governance, Teaching and Learning, Community Partnerships, and Facilities and Operations. That is, within a whole institution approach, the focus of CCE is not only placed on individual learners, teachers, school staff, or administrators but also includes the activities of those in the entire school and local community.

This case study utilized Shove and colleagues’ (2012) conceptualization of practices to critically describe climate action practices occurring at a Kindergarten to Grade 12 (K-12) school in Canada using a whole institution approach to CCE within and across whole institution domains. In the sections that follow, the version of practice theory utilized for this research is briefly overviewed, including why it was selected for the current research, before discussing what is known about quality CCE, including in relation to a whole institution approach. The methods used for this research and key findings are then summarized before ending with concluding thoughts for discussion.

2 Practice Theory

Lave and Wenger’s (1991) conceptualization of learning as occurring within communities of practice is a common reference point for many educational practice theorists. While Lave and Wenger (1991) were not the first to acknowledge the value of experience within education, their conceptualization of learning as “legitimate peripheral participation” marked a significant paradigm shift wherein learning became conceptualized as a collective, participatory social process, as opposed to individual, cognitive acquisition (Hughes et al., 2007).

While a unified version of practice theory is nonexistent (Nicolini, 2013), there are some common components within its uptake in education. Most educational theorists of practice would agree in principle with Schatzki (2001) that practices are “embodied, materially mediated arrays of human activity (p. 11).” That is, practices are arrays of human activity in that they consist of the elements of human activity, whereby bodies and social activities are mutually constituted (embodied) in practice, a constitution that is, at minimum, mediated by material objects. This “constitutive entanglement of the social and the material” is often referred to as socio-material (Orlikowski, 2007, p. 1438). While educators have conceptualized learning as participatory outcomes of communities of practice for some time, socio-material approaches attend not only to “who” but also to “what” participates and how, as well as the resulting implications of those interactions (Fenwick et al., 2011).

The relationship between practice, change, and learning is debated (Hager, 2012), however, “understanding how practices change, as well as how they are stable and enduring, is a key issue in thinking through the relationship of practice to learning” (Hager, 2012, p. 10). Shove and colleagues (2012) account of the dynamics of practice was created due to an absence within practice theory literature of how practices change (Shove et al., 2012). Their account of the dynamics of practice also includes a focus on how practices appear, persevere, and disappear (Shove et al., 2012).

For Shove and colleagues (2012), practices are provisionally recognizable entities and performances that actively integrate the elements of which they are composed. These elements include at minimum: materials (such as objects, tools, technologies, and the body), competences (such as background knowledge, understanding, and skills), and meanings (such as ideas, emotions, aspirations, and symbolic meaning) (Shove et al., 2012). Practices exist when elements (materials, competences, and meanings) are linked, change upon the introduction or recombination of elements, and disintegrate when links between elements are broken (Shove et al., 2012). Shove and colleagues (2012) justify this reductive schematic due to its analytical capability to illustrate “the recursive relation between practice-as-performance and practice-as-entity” (Shove et al., 2012, p. 15). That is, practices are product and process, noun, and verb.

For example, driving is dependent on owning a car (material), knowing how to drive (competence), and believing that driving to work is an acceptable form of transportation (meaning) (Shove et al., 2012). Historically, the practice of driving has changed upon the introduction of more reliable cars (materials), whereby drivers no longer needed to also be mechanics (competence) (Shove et al., 2012). This introduction of a new material element (that is, more reliable cars) enabled engagement with a more diverse range of practitioners and also changed the meaning of driving from one of adventure to one of practicality (Shove et al., 2012). Additionally, many elements required for driving existed before cars were invented and were only later linked. For example, the idea in England that one should drive on the left-hand side of the road (meaning) originated from the practice of horse riding in the 1700s where one might need to wield a sword with their right hand (Shove et al., 2012). Only later was this meaning linked to the practice of driving (Shove et al., 2012).

3 “Good” CCE

Research suggests “Good” CCE should employ a whole institution approach to support a culture of climate action (Bieler et al., 2018; Hargis & McKenzie, 2021; Hargis et al. 2021; UNESCO, 2016). A whole institution approach to CCE involves engagement within and across each of the domains of Overall Governance (such as policies and meetings), Teaching and Learning (such as curricula), Community Partnerships (such as field trips and guest speakers), and Facilities and Operations (such as solar panels; see Fig. 18.1). Within the Teaching and Learning domain, a whole institution approach also includes incorporating CCE in all subjects. If CCE is only included in science classes, for example, it sends the message that climate change solutions, causes, and effects are only scientific in nature versus also requiring social and political analysis and action (González-Gaudiano & Meira-Cartea, 2010; Hornsey et al., 2016). The success of a whole institution to CCE approach also depends on involving “students, teachers, principals, school staff at all levels, and the wider community – such as families and community members – in reflecting and acting on climate change” (CCUNESCO, 2020, p. 26). A whole institution lens to CCE also aligns well with practice theory as it shifts the focus from individuals to schools and local communities working together for climate action.

Fig. 18.1
An illustration of climate change education has 4 elements. They are integrating climate action in overall governance, including climate in teaching and learning, faculties and operations contributing to climate change mitigation, and community partnerships for climate action.

This figure illustrates a whole institution approach to CCE. (Hargis & McKenzie, 2021; MECCE and NAAEE, 2022)

Full size image

Research also suggests that “good” CCE should include a focus on cognitive, psychosocial, and action-oriented learning dimensions, all of which should include a justice orientation (see González-Gaudiano & Meira-Cartea, 2010; UNESCO, 2015, 2019). The cognitive learning dimension includes a focus on developing the knowledge and learning agility needed to understand climate change causes, impacts, and solutions (MECCE Project and NAAEE, 2022; UNESCO, 2015). As student knowledge of climate change grows, students may develop eco-grief or eco-anxiety (Doherty & Clayton, 2011; Norgaard, 2011; Randall, 2009). While small amounts of concern can lead to action, without the emotional resilience needed to process climate emotions, students may feel overwhelmed and hopeless (Dooley et al., 2021; Clayton et al., 2017). Finally, action-oriented CCE is also essential, as students may disengage with climate change if it is seen as distant and unsolvable (Amel et al., 2017; Monroe et al., 2017; Rowling, 2019). Climate justice should also be integrated across all holistic learning dimensions, including as those most affected by climate change have contributed the least to the problem (United Nations, 2019; Kanbur, 2015).

‘Good’ CCE should also incorporate Indigenous knowledges (Amsler & Jeannie, in press; Ferland, n.d.; Tanyanyiwa, 2019; Mbah et al., 2021; Viswanathan, 2020). Incorporating Indigenous knowledges in CCE (and education in general) is important because Indigenous knowledges “can help us to close some gaps in our knowledge about the environment that will enable us to counter the threats to the natural environment” (Nesterova, 2020, p. 1051). Additionally, in settler colonial societies, such as Canada, including Indigenous knowledges in CCE “can support the processes of transitional and historical justice to heal the damage inflicted on Indigenous peoples during colonialism and reconciliation and the building of new, just and equal relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups” (Nesterova, 2020, p. 1051).

4 Methods

In 2016, in response to recent international calls for CCE (General Assembly resolution 70/1, 2015; UNESCO and UNFCCC, 2016; UNFCCC, 2015), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) launched a Climate Change Pilot Project within their Associated Schools Network (ASPnet). From September 2017 to May 2018, ten primary and secondary education schools within Canada participated in this international project, which entailed a whole institution approach to CCE under the direction of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO (CCUNESCO). To implement the pilot project, schools were provided with a Getting Climate Ready (UNESCO, 2016) guide. The Sustainability and Education Policy Network (SEPN) conducted an evaluation of this project using interviews and a survey (see Chopin et al., 2018; Hargis et al., 2018), which highlighted a school exhibiting promising CCE for the current case study.

The site chosen for this study was a pre-Kindergarten to Grade 12 school, which also held designations as a UNESCO ASPnet school and an EcoSchool (Creswell & Poth, 2018). While SEPN’s evaluation identified evidence of climate action practices already occurring, the current study further investigated those actions over 4 weeks.

During the 2018–2019 school year, the school used a whole institution approach to address the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), focusing on climate change during April 2019 as part of their Simply Living Simply program. The latter program was started several years previously as a whole institution approach to sustainability in the school. Data generation for the current case took place from late April to mid-May 2019. Participants included administrators, staff, teachers, students, and community members. Ethics approval was obtained through the Institutional Review Board at the University of Saskatchewan and at the school board level. All participants completed informed consent and/or informed assent forms. The total participant number was 96.

Date generation included a sensory walk of the school surrounds, observations of classroom lessons, field trips, and meetings, interviews with teachers and administrators (such as principals and vice-principals), and teacher and student focus groups. In the focus groups, teachers mapped where CCE practices were occurring at the school in relation to all four whole institution domains, and students drew pictures about the climate action practices currently happening at the school and actions they wished were happening at the school. Documents and photos from the site were also collected.

Analysis began with inductive hand coding and memo-writing to note emerging ideas (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Inductive codes included descriptive codes (which are codes summarizing the main topic discussed), In Vivo codes (which are codes using participants’ own words), emotion codes (which are codes capturing emotion), and simultaneous codes (which are two or more codes applied to a single datum). Following Saldaña’s (2016) coding recommendations, similar codes were grouped into emergent categories. The resulting themes were interrogated in relation to the chosen practice theory. This first cycle of coding preceded the development of a codebook, which included emergent themes as well as deductive codes related to practice theory and the whole institution domains (see Creswell & Poth, 2018). Once the codebook was finalized, all data were coded in the qualitative data analysis software NVivo 12.

Coded data supported theme development (Creswell & Poth, 2018). When developing themes, the method of zooming in and out (Nicolini, 2013) directed the researcher’s analytical gaze to zoom in on practices within one domain before zooming out to see how practice elements were related across domains. This method was appropriate because “practices can only be studied relationally, and they can only be understood as part of a nexus of connections” (Nicolini, 2013, p. 229).

5 Findings

The findings below are presented by the whole institution domain (that is, Overall Governance, Teaching and Learning, Community Partnerships, and Facilities and Operations) in relation to selected themes that emerged from within and across each whole institution domain. Key practice elements are indicated parenthetically (that is, competences, materials, and meanings).

5.1 Overall Governance

Within the domain of Overall Governance, the importance of distributed leadership (between teachers, students, and administrators) for CCE practices was apparent. After noting few climate actions were mapped within the domain of Overall Governance during the teachers focus group, Teacher 2 mentioned, “[The map] reflects our governance. That [climate action is] across grades…to me this is school governance.” Part of their governance structure also includes teachers “push[ing] each other on” to improve their CCE practices (Teacher 2). Teacher 10 noted, “It doesn’t feel like a push. It feels like, Whohoo!” Teacher 10 continued, “it [that is, the push] fills you with life. It enlivens.” While they all agreed that they support (meaning) each other to improve their CCE practices (such as sharing ideas and resources), several teachers noted the importance of having a key person (material) “to push the agenda gently along” (Teacher 2).

It was also understood (competence) that leadership for environmental education and CCE should be shared by teachers and students, and this style of leadership was supported by the presence of several key materials, particularly summer planning meetings, posters, and the staff room table. The central nature of the staff room table meant the teachers ate lunch together every day (see Fig. 18.2). During the teacher focus group, Teacher 2 asked one of the teachers to “put a bright star in the staff room. [It’s where] all the intelligence and energy oozes out of us.”

Fig. 18.2
2 photos. 1. A teacher's focus group map has 4 smileys, a blushing one at the center with radial crayon strokes, 2 smiley faces to its left, and a heart-eyed one on the bottom right. A text in pencil and in a foreign language appears below. 2. A dining table with 7 chairs facing a modular kitchen.

Teacher’s focus group map excerpt and picture of the staff room

Full size image

5.2 Teaching and Learning

Related to the theme of CCE content, two sub-themes were found related to a cross-curricular approach and limited inclusion of Indigenous knowledges and climate justice.

The practice of CCE at the school is sustained, in part, by a provincial initiative for cross-curricular education (material), which happened 15 years prior. Administrator 1 described how teachers can creatively (meaning) connect CCE to this provincial initiative by finding common threads across subjects:

So, you could explore about [greenhouse] gas emissions in Math and use Math to explore that. And then you could write to public officials and do your Civics and Social Studies...So that although you’re spending an hour on Math, you’re actually spending three hours on climate education in kind of a sneaky way, not a sneaky way, but in a smart way.

The benefit of knowing how to include CCE within multiple subjects (competence) was described as not only a creative way to deal with barriers related to time (which was the most frequently mentioned barrier) but also enabled students to see that climate change had meaning in their lives beyond the classroom.

While there was some inclusion of Indigenous knowledges at the school, including in relation to climate change, and climate justice, this inclusion was rare. Reflecting on the overall inclusion of Indigenous knowledges (competence) at the school, Teacher 10 mentioned, “it would be better to have more Indigenous input on ways we could be making more of a connection with the Earth.” Teacher 1 explained the history of Indigenous knowledges inclusion at the school, mentioning that since First Nations students no longer attended the school due to costs related to busing (material), there was even less focus on the inclusion of Indigenous knowledges than in years past. Teacher 6 described a children’s book about residential schools (material) that she reads to her classes (see Fig. 18.3) but mentioned it was not related to climate change. That is, while Teacher 6 acknowledged the connection between residential schools and colonialism, she did not acknowledge the connection between colonial practices and climate change (competence). In addition, while some students were familiar with climate justice (competence), this familiarity was not the norm.

Fig. 18.3
A photo of the front cover of a book, titled, Shin-chi's Canoe. Text at the bottom left read, Nicola I Campbell, pictures by Kim LaFave. It has a painting of a young boy in a top-angle view, kneeling on a large rock by the side of a river and floating paper boats.

Picture of the book read in Teacher 6’s classes

Full size image

5.3 Community Partnerships

There was also an understanding (competence) at the school of the importance of bringing everyone (at the school, in the community, and at the school board) along on the journey towards increased climate action. Teacher 2 mentioned the importance of “bring[ing] all of your staff along” by inviting them (principals, office managers, custodians, cafeteria staff) to CCE activities at the school (such as assemblies). In discussing how the cafeteria staff have joined the school’s journey towards increased CCE, she mentioned, the cafeteria staff have “started making suggestions, ‘What if we do this differently?’ They’ve switched to reusable containers [material], and they got rid of straws [material] at our behest.” Teacher 2 also mentioned the custodians have joined in by allowing them to do waste audits of recycling, garbage, and compost. She mentioned “without the cooperation of your custodial staff, [waste audits] could be a very contentious thing [meaning].”

In relation to the broader community, there was also a focus on how to communicate about climate change. The school is in a politically conservative area, so during the first few years of the Simply Living Simply program, the teachers and staff never used the word “climate change” to keep the investigation of the topic “safe.” Slowly, several staff and students came to see the connection between the program and climate change themselves. The teachers also used context-specific framings when discussing climate change (such as in relation to protecting jobs) that resonated with the community. That is, the campus and local community were ‘brought along’ through the inclusive language used to discuss climate change.

5.4 Facilities and Operations

When participants were asked what it meant to take climate action at the school, their responses usually referred to taking Facilities and Operations-related actions (meaning). Similarly, students usually mentioned Facilities and Operations-related activity when describing what the school is currently doing for climate action (such as recycling, composting, and gardening). Ideas for future climate action practices from students, teachers, and parents were also often related to Facilities and Operations activity.

The effect materials can have on facilities and operations practices related to CCE was evident during the research visit. For instance, there was evidence that the presence (or not) of particular materials significantly affected drinking practices related to CCE at the school. The school wanted to be a community where everyone uses reusable water bottles (meaning); however, they found that the water fountains needed to be refrigerated for students to use them. After refrigerated water fountains were installed, the staff asked the community for reusable water bottle donations (material) so they could give them to every student. It was important (meaning) to the staff that the onus not be put on the parents to buy water bottles.

Having facilities and operations-related materials all around the school also made it easier to use those objects as teaching moments related to climate change since the teachers knew how those materials were related to climate change (competence). Discussing these materials, Teacher 1 mentioned that she was able to, “grab [something] and say, ‘Oh you want to learn about this. Let’s talk about this.’” She also said that because they were able to have these types of conversations frequently, it meant they did not have to explain the basics of climate change as often because students were already familiar with the topic. This familiarity allowed for more meaningful conversations about climate change (meaning).

6 Discussion and Conclusion

This research has implications for how to implement a whole institution approach, in general, as well as the potential of using a whole institution approach for CCE (also see Hargis & McKenzie, 2021; Hargis et al., 2021; Mathie & Wals, 2022; Wals & Mathie, 2022). This research also indicates the potential of practice theory for researching CCE.

6.1 How to Implement a Whole Institution Approach

The whole institution approach at the school was put in place largely due to the school’s Simply Living Simply program, as well as their designations as an EcoSchool and a UNESCO ASPnet school, which have targets, programs, and resources aimed at all domains of a whole institution approach. Schools looking to implement a whole institution approach to CCE may want to create their own program (such as the Simply Living Simply program) and/or join other certification programs that have environmental and climate action targets and resources across one or more domains (such as EcoSchools Canada and UNESCO ASPnet schools).

A whole institution approach requires working with individuals from across all domains of school activity. While working with so many different people could have been a barrier to climate action, the school’s focus on bringing everyone along, wherein they invited all staff to CCE assemblies, framed messages about climate change according to their audience, shared resources, and supported each other, helped to ensure uptake of CCE. By framing climate change messages in relation to the community’s priorities, the school was able to avoid any major pushback from the community related to CCE. Context-specific framings related to climate change have also been found to have a positive effect on climate change engagement and the shifting of climate change views (Callison, 2014; Goldberg et al., 2021; Li & Su, 2018).

6.2 Overall Governance

In relation to Overall Governance, the importance of distributed leadership is a key implication for future CCE practice and research. According to Harris (2003), “distributed leadership is characterized as a form of collective leadership in which teachers develop expertise by working collaboratively” (p. 11). While distributed leadership can be implemented ‘naively’ if practitioners do not know how to lead, do not want to lead, or are prevented from leading (McKenzie & Locke, 2014), when done effectively, distributed leadership is “more than the sum of the component parts or practices” rather it is “a system of practice comprised of a collection of interacting components: leaders, followers, and situation” (Spillane, 2005, p. 15). Past research has emphasized the importance of champions in relation to environmental education (Wood et al., 2014); however, CCE had endured at the school not so much because of individual champions but because of collective and distributed efforts to take environmental action among all practitioners at the school. Distributed leadership also aligns well with a whole institution approach, which seeks collaboration across all domains of school activity, and practice theory, which shifts the focus from individuals to collaborative practices.

6.3 Teaching and Learning

Several implications for practices within the domain of Teaching and Learning also emerged from this research. The most commonly mentioned barrier at the school for CCE was time. Teachers often overcame this barrier by integrating CCE across subjects. Cross-curricular approaches to environmental and sustainability education and CCE are variously supported in the literature. Proponents of cross-curricular approaches for CCE have highlighted their potential to illustrate that multiple disciplines have a role to play in addressing climate change (Field et al., 2019; Hargis & McKenzie, 2021; Hargis et al., 2021). Critics of cross-curricular approaches have highlighted the large amounts of time and support needed to embed a topic with which teachers are not overly familiar with across subjects (Dyment & Hill, 2015; Hill & Dyment, 2016; Nicholls & Thorne, 2018). While not dismissing prior findings regarding how lack of time and support may impede the successful implementation of a cross-curricular approach to CCE, the present case illustrates that the support teachers gave each other at the school enabled them to overcome barriers related to time and to ensure that CCE surfaced across all subjects.

Finally, while the school has connected many topics to climate change, there are several key topics that have not yet been connected to climate change as strongly as they could be (such as Indigenous knowledges and climate justice). Implications for future practice, policy, and research include the importance of acknowledging that Indigenous knowledges are important for Indigenous and non-Indigenous students (Antoine et al., 2018; Kapyrka & Dockstator, 2012; Vizina, 2018), that Indigenous land-based education is CCE (Wilson in UNESCO, 2021), and that colonialism is directly related to climate change (Funes, 2022; Sultana, 2022). There were also limited discussions of climate justice at the school. The topic of climate justice, however, is very relevant for this community due to its location in an economically depressed area that is heavily reliant on farming and tourism, both of which could be negatively affected by climate change. As the impacts of climate change increasingly affect local environmental conditions and the human and nonhuman populations who reside there disproportionately, locally relevant discussions of climate justice will become an increasingly important part of CCE.

6.4 Community Partnerships

When discussing climate actions at the school, all participants referred to practices in the Community Partnerships domain. Despite living in a remote location, the school had many community partners who were essential to the climate actions occurring at the school. Prior research has also found that schools in rural locations are more likely to have community partners for environmental and sustainability education (Regier, 2019). No matter their location, schools should seek out community partners to support their climate action practices (Hargis & McKenzie, 2021).

Through the school’s focus on engaging with community partners, they created their own mini-network. The potential of networking for climate action is also illustrated in prior work (see Hargis et al., 2021). Due to this collaborative and community-driven approach to CCE, the school faced minimal backlash, despite its location in a politically conservative area. Implications for future practice and research include the potential for a whole institution approach that actively involves and works with the school and local community to overcome prior differences of opinion and to create a culture of climate action with not in opposition to existing practices.

6.5 Facilities and Operations

When practice elements were connected across domains at the school, one of the domains was usually Facilities and Operations. For instance, physical materials within the room, such as light timers and recycling and compost bins, which were functioning within the Facilities and Operations domain were also often brought into the domain of Teaching and Learning to discuss how those practices were connected to climate change mitigation, thereby strengthening and reinforcing both practices. Schools making the transition to climate-friendly Facilities and Operations practices should consider ways to bring those practices into the classroom, which will enable the school to become a living lab and can be used to educate the school and local community about (through) climate action (see Hargis & McKenzie, 2021; MECCE Project and NAAEE, 2022; UNESCO, 2016).

Most of the ideas for future climate action practices at the school mentioned by participants were related to Facilities and Operations. While necessary and important, there is also potential for new practices in other domains (Overall Governance, Teaching and Learning, and Community Partnerships). Policies can support expanded imaginaries of potential actions by suggesting actions schools can take across all domains of school activity (see Hargis & McKenzie, 2021; MECCE Project and NAAEE, 2022).

6.6 Potential of a Whole Institution Approach and Practice Theory to Support CCE

Using a whole institution framework for the current research served to direct the researcher’s gaze across the entire school and out into the local community. Pairing this approach with practice theory allowed the researcher to focus on key elements of practice instead of the individuals carrying those practices. By focusing on the elements that make up practices, and how those elements and their connections may change across time/space, the researcher was better able to see what “ingredients” for practice are available, as well as possible connection points for future practices. A whole institution approach to CCE can also enable a culture of climate action practices (Hargis & McKenzie, 2021). When climate action practices exist within and across whole institution domains, the practice of CCE is strengthened. A whole institution approach to CCE ensures that all individuals at the school and the local community are involved in climate action and correspond well with theories of practice, which focus on collaboration, not individuals.

Theories of practice harbor the potential to envisage social change regarding the major issues of our time, such as climate change through their focus on everyday practices (Buegger, 2014; Shove, 2010; Shove & Spurling, 2013). The methodological shift from following individuals to “the elements of practice” they carry (Shove et al., 2012, p. 22) enables a departure from traditional knowledge, attitude, and behavior approaches within CCE and research (Brownlee et al., 2013). This shift is necessary because “more knowledge does not necessarily equate with changed actions; but rather…it is practice itself that enables change” (McKenzie & Bieler, 2016, p. 123). By better attending to practical experience, educational approaches can “build the potential for cultural change as a response to the pressing critical issues of our times” (McKenzie & Bieler, 2016, p. 9).