student teachers' learning about subject matter and pedagogy in education for sustainable...

This article was downloaded by: [Texas State University - San Marcos]On: 24 April 2013, At: 01:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Environmental Education ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20

Student teachers' learning aboutsubject matter and pedagogy ineducation for sustainable developmentGraham Corney a & Alan Reid ba Department of Educational Studies, Oxford, UKb Department of Education, University of Bath, UKVersion of record first published: 24 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Graham Corney & Alan Reid (2007): Student teachers' learning about subjectmatter and pedagogy in education for sustainable development, Environmental Education Research,13:1, 33-54

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620601122632

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620601122632

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Environmental Education Research,Vol. 13, No. 1, February 2007, pp. 33–54

ISSN 1350-4622 (print)/ISSN 1469-5871 (online)/07/010033–22© 2007 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13504620601122632

Student teachers’ learning about subject matter and pedagogy in education for sustainable developmentGraham Corneya* and Alan ReidbaDepartment of Educational Studies, Oxford, UK; bDepartment of Education, University of Bath, UKTaylor and Francis LtdCEER_A_212196.sgm10.1080/13504620601122632Environmental Education Research1350-4622 (print)/1469-5871 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & Francis131000000February [email protected]

This article reports on an investigation of student teachers’ learning about education for sustainabledevelopment (ESD). Phenomenographic data were collected using open proformas and interviewsfrom student geography teachers taking the University of Oxford Post-Graduate Certificate inEducation (PGCE) in 2003–2004. The data analysis focuses on what the cohort of student teachersperceived as their learning about ESD and the sources that contribute to it. Extracts from the dataillustrate their conceptions of subject matter, regarding the relevance of sustainable development forschool students, its complex and contested meanings, and the challenges it presents for learning andlearners. Data on conceptions of pedagogy illustrate their depth of learning about the relationshipbetween ESD subject matter and approaches and strategies in teaching and learning, and featuresof pedagogy that illustrate interactive teaching strategies. Various school and university-basedsources were identified by the student teachers as leading to specific aspects of learning about ESD,although many of the accounts illustrate a combination of sources. Implications of the findings forteacher education and research in ESD are also discussed.

Introduction

Although interpretations of ‘sustainable development’ (SD) and ‘Education forSustainable Development’ (ESD) differ in their emphases, two general themes can berecognized. The first is that there is increasingly widespread concern about damageto environments arising from the trends and variations in people’s life chances andlifestyles, their relationships with others, and with the world around them. The secondis that developing better understandings of the issues associated with the first theme,and how they affect both the quality of peoples’ lives and the future of life on the planet,requires learning to be at the centre of efforts and initiatives to foster sustainability.

*Corresponding Author. Department of Educational Studies, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford OX26PY, UK. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13

34 G. Corney and A. Reid

Ability and capacity to address the two themes at school level depend on teachers’knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and pedagogy. Furthermore, with a raisedprofile for ESD in school curricula (for example, in England, with the revisedNational Curriculum, DfEE/QCA, 1999, a Sustainable Development Action Plan forEducation and Skills, DfES, 2003, and a Sustainable Schools National Framework,DfES, 2006), it is clear that teacher educators in initial teacher education can alsoplay an important role in helping beginning teachers develop their own professionalunderstandings and practice in this field.

This article explores these matters by discussing the findings of an ongoingdevelopment and research project that investigates the growth of student teachers’professional knowledge in ESD, in the context of the secondary school curriculum(11–18 years age range) in England, and a specific teacher education programme, theOxford Internship Scheme (see Summers et al., 2005 for further details). The studycontributes empirical findings to ongoing debates about aspects of ESD that are morefrequently discussed theoretically. It focuses on two key research questions:

1. What learning about ESD especially related to subject matter and pedagogy dostudent teachers develop during their initial teacher education course?

2. What are the sources of their knowledge and understanding, related especially tothe contributions of their school-based mentors and university-based tutors?

The phase of the research project reported here was financially supported by theTeacher Training Agency (the regulatory body for teacher training in England, nowcalled the Training and Development Agency for Schools). An initial summary of thestudy’s conceptual background and methodology provides a background fordiscussion of the findings regarding the perceptions of a cohort of student geographyteachers about the nature and sources of their professional learning. The conclusionsummarises the findings and suggests implications for developing ESD in initialteacher education courses, and for further research.

Conceptual background

The study’s conceptual background draws on the fields of ESD, geography educa-tion, and initial teacher education.

Education for sustainable development

From a teaching and learning perspective, subject matter and pedagogy are importantfor any area of the school curriculum but especially important for ESD given its value-laden nature.

Subject matter. Subject content for ESD, typically focusing on inter-relationshipsbetween environmental, economic and social factors, is complex and value-laden,and the terms used are open to differing interpretations. Initial distinction can be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13

Sustainable development 35

made between ‘sustainable development’ as a process and ‘sustainability’ as the goal(Scott & Gough, 2003). The most familiar definition of sustainable development isthat of the Brundtland Report (World Commission on Environment and Develop-ment, 1987): ‘sustainable development is development that meets the needs of thepresent without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their ownneeds’. This definition, while subject to disagreement and contestation, has becomethe focus of much further work, especially through the United Nations and itsinfluential agencies, as demonstrated through the Rio Earth Summit (1992), theJohannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002), and currently theUN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD, 2005–2014) (seeScott & Gough, 2003 for further discussion).

In the wider academic literature, O’Riordan (2003, p. 35) defines sustainabledevelopment ‘as a constant process of transformation of a society and an economytowards acting as trustees for future generations of the planet that maintain andnurture life and habitability’. In the education policy arena, the UN DESD(UNESCO, 2005: Annex II, p. 3) argues that ‘All sustainable developmentprogrammes, including ESD, must consider the three spheres of sustainability—environment, society (including culture), and economy’.

These key areas and other sub-concepts like inter and intra-generational justicecomprising conceptions of sustainable development are themselves open to interpre-tation by different interest groups and in different societies and contexts. The litera-ture on interpretations of sustainable development in relation to education (forexample, Bonnett, 1999, 2002; Elliott, 1998; Luke, 2001; Nikel, 2005; Rauch, 2002;Sauve, 1996, 2002) identifies the centrality of teachers and learners addressing threecore elements of the concept—environment, economy and society—and understand-ing how the inter-relationships between them are configured and understood (e.g.Summers et al., 2004, 2005). In their seminal book on sustainable development andlearning, Scott and Gough’s (2003) approach viewing sustainable development asconsisting of ‘a set of contested ideas rather than a settled issue’ is very appropriate.Engaging with types of continuum or bi-polar statements can help learners and teach-ers appreciate interpretations attached to a particular concept or focus. For example,related to meanings of sustainable development, Huckle and Martin (2001) contrastthe goals of ‘sustainability in a growth mode (reformist)’ with ‘sustainability in thedevelopment mode’. While Scott and Gough (2003) identify a set of tensions andparadoxes relating to sustainable development processes and educational initiatives,by juxtaposing: change versus continuity; empowerment versus prescription; ‘me’versus ‘we’; present versus future generations; human versus nature; local versusglobal; and, rich, poor and very poor.

Complexities of subject matter are also evident in studying specific issues at bothglobal and local scales, investigating, for example, possible causes, impacts, andfuture behaviour related to global climate change; health and living standards; biolog-ical diversity; or energy use. Scholarly and lay knowledge of these and other issues isevolving and thus always remain, in some sense, provisional features (Gayford, 2002)of the subject matter that are also reflected in the notion of ‘uncertainty and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13


precaution’, one of seven key concepts of sustainable development identified forlearning about sustainability in the English context (see Sterling, 2001; QCA, 2002).

ESD, a particular way of linking education and sustainable development, is alsovariously described and conceptualised, reflecting both differences in interpretationof sustainable development and educational ideologies (commonly characterised inthis field as utilitarian, liberal-humanitarian, child-centred, reconstructionalist—Slater, 1992; Fien, 1993). Again, the notion of a continuum can be helpful to educa-tors and learners in, for example, Sterling’s (2001) categorization of educationalresponses to sustainability that identify progressive degrees of response: fromaccommodation (‘education about sustainability’) though reformation (‘educationfor sustainability’) to transformation (‘education as sustainability’).

Pedagogy. The literature on specific pedagogies for ESD is more limited and lesscontested than that on subject matter (Summers et al., 2005, p. 630). Mainlyexhortational, it tends to advocate those interactive and student centred teachingstrategies that typify constructivistic learning theories (e.g. Bennett & Dunne, 1994;Tilbury, 1995), though this is rarely made explicit (Rickinson, 2006). Preferred orideal teaching strategies include the advocacy of enquiry approaches involvinginvestigation of differing viewpoints and value positions, discussion and debate, andin school geography, experiential or fieldwork activities, all of which should enablestudents to develop, express and justify their own views about sustainability issues(for example, UNESCO, 2005; Huckle, 2005; Sterling, 2001). Research evidenceabout classroom-related practice, although increasing, is still limited. Research isneeded to provide more empirical evidence about the nature of teaching and learn-ing in ESD (Hart & Nolan, 1999; Rickinson, 2001), including the knowledge,practices and preferences of experienced subject and non-specialist teachers (e.g.Cross, 1998; Taylor et al., 2003) and those in initial teacher education (e.g. Nikel,2005).

Student teachers then face a particular challenge in choosing and implementingteaching strategies for ESD, given the value-laden nature of subject matter and thegreater teaching expertise required to use ‘interactive’ as compared with ‘didactive’teaching strategies. In addition, novice teachers (like their more experienced counter-parts) often have strongly held views about sustainability issues, which may reflect notjust their life histories, previous studies or professional learning to date, but also theircontemporary engagement with the issues. Thus, a key consideration in ESDpedagogy concerns the teacher’s choice of stance related to his or her own views on agiven issue. Various stances have been described, including that of devil’s advocate,a neutral role, a balanced (committed impartiality) role, and a role reflecting statedcommitment (exclusive partiality) (Stradling et al., 1984; cf. Dillon et al., 2004).While the particular choice of stance and its appropriateness, given the subject matterand wider pedagogical variables (e.g. student mix, timetabling, prior learning, schoolethos, lesson plan, etc.) will have a bearing on their distinctive manifestation in aneducational setting.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13


Geography education

Much of the ESD literature emphasizes the holism and inter-disciplinarity of SD, andconcomitantly, ESD. However, given the subject-centred nature of secondary schoolcurricula in many countries, identifying the roles and contributions of subject teach-ers remains an important task, particularly in raising the profile of ESD amongstsubject specialists, but also in prompting consideration of existing and potentialcontributions to ESD via school subjects (Scott, 2002). There is already widespreadrecognition of the major contribution of geography teaching to ESD, and vice versa(for England, see Hicks, 2002; Morgan, 2000; Ofsted, 2003; Reid, 2000a; Smith,2005). The subject matter of geography focuses on inter-relationships betweenpeople and their physical, economic and social environments, at different scales andin different places. Its pedagogy is often characterized by geographical enquiries(Naish et al., 2002), in turn based on constructivistic approaches to learning whichenvisage students as active co-constructors rather than passive recipients ofknowledge within and outside the classroom, e.g. during fieldwork and experientiallearning. However, it should also be noted that not all teachers will want to use theirsubject to deliver other educational priorities, subjects or themes, and negotiating thisin a dynamic professional context can prove problematic for some geographyteachers, whatever their career stage (Reid, 2000b; Reid & Scott, 2005).

Initial teacher education

The most common route into the secondary school teaching profession in England isthrough a one year postgraduate certificated course in education (the PGCE),focused on a specific school subject and comprising contributions from university andschool-based teacher educators (Hobson et al., 2006).

The Oxford PGCE Course, a well-established collaborative partnership betweenschools, Oxford University and the local education authority (Furlong et al., 2000),is conceptualized on the understanding that because of the nature of their roles andthe contexts in which they work, university tutors and school-based teacher educators(the mentor) will each contribute distinctive knowledge to the student teacher (theintern) (McIntyre, 1988, 1990).

University tutors will tend to provide opportunities to acquire and work withknowledge that is often regarded as more ‘academic’ or propositional, and largelyde-contextualized and generalized (Hagger & McIntyre, 2000). In contrast, school-based teacher educators, working in a specific context and more closely with thepracticalities and exigencies of subject teaching and learning situations, will tend tocontribute ‘professional craft knowledge’ (Brown & McIntyre, 1993), the complex,multi-dimensional knowledge demonstrated in the everyday practice of teachers(see, for example, Hagger, 1997; Burn, 1997). The latter will vary from school toschool in a way that the university-input will not, and be similarly dependent on thediffering nature of the intern’s relationship with school-based teacher educatormentors.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13


The Course also recognizes that student teachers draw on their preconceptionsabout teaching as they engage with new ideas, and through reflecting on theirexperiences, actively construct their own professional knowledge, understanding andidentity (Lortie, 1975; Grossman, 1990; Putnam & Borko, 1997; Day et al., 2006).

Combining course features with the complexities and demands of their ownprofessional learning in school geography and the value-laden nature of ESD andrelated pedagogy, it can be argued that student geography teachers will faceconsiderable challenges in developing their ESD understanding and practice, and thisprovides the stimulus for undertaking the study.

Project background and methodology

Background

The project was collaboratively managed by two course tutors (the lead author beingone of these) and four mentors interested and self-selected in participating in the study.Initially, it was envisaged that this group, with eight paired student teachers in fourlocal schools, would initiate and evaluate activities for subsequent discussion andpossible expansion and implementation across the geography PGCE programmeduring the following year (the ‘pilot project’). In practice, following wider interest inthe project at the early stage by mentors, and a willingness amongst other student teach-ers and mentors to participate and try things out too, the complete cohort for that year,22 student geography teachers and their 15 mentors in 15 schools, became involved,such that the findings and analysis draw on both the pilot and full cohort phases.

ESD work on the teacher education programme involves student teachers ininter-related university and school-based activities. At the university, the focus is onmore theoretical perspectives of subject matter and pedagogy, and on discussions ofschool experience. In school, intern activities that are supported by the mentors(and occasionally university tutors) include lesson planning, teaching and evalua-tion, and discussions on ESD, the geography department and school philosophy.The research was integrated into normal course practice as far as possible, andregularly discussed at mentor and student teacher meetings, regarding progress andcontinued involvement.

Data collection

Data collection focused on gathering phenomenographic information about thestudent teachers’ conceptions, as follows:

(i) At the start of the course: the cohort of student teachers completed an openproforma to record their preconceptions about (1) teaching about SD, and (2)ESD in secondary schools.

(ii) During the course: six university-based sessions were audio recorded. In school,a discussion about ESD between the ‘pilot project’ mentors and their interns was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13


recorded, and details about the interns’ teaching noted. A written assignment wasbased on teaching, reading and reflection.

(iii)At the end of the course: the student teacher cohort completed another openproforma to record examples of learning and its attributed sources, and chal-lenges faced in learning to teach about sustainable development (not reportedhere). In addition, seven student teachers responded to an invitation to be inter-viewed.

Analysis

Data related to the research questions on student teachers’ learning and its sourceswere analysed through a process of inductive categorising (see Coffey & Atkinson,1996, pp. 26–32; Miles & Huberman, 1994, pp. 78–88). Grounded theorizingapproaches, informed by discursive phenomenographic procedures in compilingstatements, analysing them and identifying conceptions (see Larsson, 1986; Johans-son, 1996; Loughland et al., 2003; Huntly, 2004), were applied to the end of yearproforma and interviews, and also drew on previous research and activity in this areaby the lead researcher (e.g. Corney, 2000a, b). Categorization of the examples oflearning began with the responses attributed to mentor contact, but it was rapidlyrealised that through qualitative data analysis techniques of ‘splitting’ and ‘splicing’(Dey, 1993), a common explanatory system for mentor and tutor contacts could becreated which would facilitate comparison. Six themes, entitled ‘dimensions oflearning’ and sub-divided into fourteen categories (Table 1), were created to describethe student teachers’ perceptions of their learning, and these are discussed below.

Sources of learning were grouped according to attribution. Although proformaquestions were structured into mentor and tutor contacts, analysis revealed a broaderrange of sources, better characterized as school-based and university-based sourcesrespectively, and these are discussed (see Tables 2 and 3).

Analysis of data and the findings relate to nineteen of the cohort of student teachersthat completed proformas at both the start and the end of the course. The vast major-ity (17 out of 19) reported that they had studied ‘sustainable development’, five toschool ‘advanced’ (pre-university) level in their Geography A-level courses, eleven toundergraduate level, and one at masters level. One student teacher who had notpreviously studied sustainable development reported ‘little’ personal understandingof the concept, while the remaining other in the group saw theirs as ‘reasonable’.Those who studied it to undergraduate or graduate levels self-reported that they had‘reasonable’, ‘quite good’ (the majority), or ‘very good’ understanding, typically inthe form of A-level and undergraduate work on case studies of sustainable develop-ment in their geography studies. This particular cohort then, it can be assumed,began their PGCE Course with what they saw as ‘reasonable’ or ‘enhanced’ subjectmatter knowledge, which could represent a crucial conceptual foundation as theymoved from academic subject studies of SD to becoming fully fledged teachersengaging with ESD. Discussions with the student teachers over the Course, andcrosschecking claims with their GTTR forms (admissions data), were used to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13


Tab

le 1

.D

imen

sion

s of

lear

ning

, and

sou

rce

Dim

ensi

ons

of s

tude

nt t

each

er le

arni

ngS

choo

l-ba

sed

sour

ces

Uni

vers

ity-

base

d so

urce

s

I. U

nder

stan

ding

of

the

natu

re o

f su

stai

nabl

e de

velo

pmen

t fo

r te

achi

ngS

M1.

SD

is im

port

ant

and

rele

vant

to

scho

ol s

tude

nts

05

SM

2. S

D a

nd E

SD

are

com

plex

and

hav

e co

ntes

ted

mea

ning

s4

12S

M3.

The

con

cept

‘sus

tain

able

dev

elop

men

t’ p

rese

nts

chal

leng

es f

or s

tude

nt le

arni

ng6

0

II. K

now

ledg

e of

app

roac

hes/

str

ateg

ies

for

teac

hing

abo

ut s

usta

inab

le d

evel

opm

ent

PA

1. K

now

ledg

e of

tea

chin

g ap

proa

ches

in g

ener

al t

erm

s2

6P

A2.

Kno

wle

dge

of s

trat

egie

s fo

r te

achi

ng s

peci

fic

SD

issu

es0

6P

A3.

App

reci

atin

g th

e va

lue

of c

ase

stud

ies/

loca

l exa

mpl

es f

or s

tude

nt le

arni

ng a

bout

SD

61

PA

4. A

ppre

ciat

ing

the

valu

e of

fie

ldw

ork/

loca

l act

ions

stu

dent

lear

ning

abo

ut S

D4

1P

A5.

App

reci

atin

g th

e va

lue

of d

ebat

e/di

scus

sion

for

stu

dent

s le

arni

ng a

bout

SD

71

III.

Aw

aren

ess

of p

refe

rred

tea

chin

g st

ance

rel

ated

to

pers

onal

vie

ws

abou

t su

stai

nabl

e de

velo

pmen

t is

sues

OV

1.A

war

enes

s of

pre

ferr

ed t

each

ing

stan

ce6

2IV

. Aw

aren

ess

of d

esir

ed le

arni

ng o

utco

mes

LO

1. B

elie

f th

at s

tude

nts

shou

ld m

ake

up t

heir

ow

n m

inds

abo

ut S

D is

sues

66

V. A

war

enes

s of

Geo

grap

hy D

epar

tmen

t pr

acti

ce in

ES

DG

P1.

Aw

aren

ess

of t

he p

oten

tial

for

incl

udin

g S

D in

geo

grap

hy s

ylla

buse

s5

2G

P2.

Bel

ief

that

SD

sho

uld

be in

tegr

ated

rat

her

than

tau

ght

as a

dis

cret

e to

pic

50

GP

3. A

war

enes

s of

fact

ors

affe

ctin

g G

eogr

aphy

dep

artm

ent p

ract

ice

in te

achi

ng a

bout

SD

42

VI.

Aw

aren

ess

of a

pot

enti

al f

or c

ross

-cur

ricu

lar

wor

k in

ES

DC

C1.

Aw

aren

ess

of a

pot

enti

al f

or c

ross

-cur

ricu

lar

wor

k3

5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13


triangulate the self-reports. This revealed, for example, that their knowledge of SDwas largely theoretical and conceptual, rather than practical or experiential in nature.

Findings 1. Student teachers’ examples of learning and attributed sources

The student teachers’ perceptions of their learning, categorised from the examplesprovided at the end of their course, is reflected in the six learning dimensions (I-VI),sub-divided into fourteen categories (Table 1). Dimensions I-IV illustrate data abouttheir learning about aspects of ESD subject matter and pedagogy (and are discussedin more detail), while dimensions V and VI reflect matters to do with curricularorganization.

Dimension I, understanding of the nature of sustainable development for teaching,relates to features of their subject matter conceptions (SM) and it is the second largestdimension of learning (after Dimension II, on pedagogy).

SM1 identifies student teacher learning about the importance and relevance ofESD in the school curriculum, as continually emphasised in policy documents andacademic literature. SM2 (the most heavily populated category in all six dimensions)and SM3 show learning about specific attributes of subject matter. Thus, SM2reflects theoretical knowledge, illustrated in the literature on the different and shared

Table 3. University sources of learning including contact with tutors

University sources Number of examples

U1. University sessions about the background and theory of sustainable development and ESD

12

U2. University sessions about pedagogy for ESD 15U3. University sessions based on student teachers’ school experiences 8U4. Combinations 14

Table 2. School-based sources of learning

School sources Number of examples

S1. Discussion with mentor about approaches to ESD in general 13S2. Planning (student teachers’) lessons with mentor 7S3. Debriefing with mentor following student teacher teaching 2S4. Debriefing with mentor and tutor following student teacher teaching 2S5. Planning and collaborative teaching with mentor 3S6. Discussion with mentor following student teacher observation of mentor/ other teacher teaching

2

S7. Own teaching—no explicit mentor mention 11S8. Own reflection—no explicit mentor mention 4S9. Discussion with another student teacher 2S10. Combinations 12

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13


meanings of sustainable development, and SM3 reflects challenges inherent in thiscomplex, contested concept for student learning.

To illustrate SM1, one student teacher (Respondent 4) wrote of learning about ‘therelevance of a lot of SD issues which I hadn’t previously considered’, referring to avideo used during a sensitising exercise shown in a university session that provided‘about seven different case studies … (showing) how fragile the earth is’. The differentfocus of learning in SM2 is illustrated by another student teacher (Respondent 1),who wrote that ‘SD can be conceptualised as a spectrum/ continuum … ofideologies’, and provided the following interview explanation:

I had done SD a lot in my degree, and there’s these different categories, weak and strong,and so forth—it’s often like a dichotomy. But the spectrum made more sense … (because)you didn’t have to choose between two narrow categories … I made up my own spectrum,and that organised my thinking … especially how you fitted teaching about sustainabledevelopment into educational ideologies and philosophies.

This compares with the focus of learning in SM3, as stated by Respondent 17,‘SD as a term can often be too daunting, especially at Key Stage 3 [of the curricu-lum, for 11–14 year olds]. Therefore, the concept of SD can be introduced afterpupils have an understanding of one or two issues’. Further explanation was givenin an interview:

We’d had a class discussion about … more sustainable forms of tourism in Kenya. And thedebate was … high level…. Both me and the mentor said: “They really seem to have gotto grips with this issue”. Then the next lesson, when I asked them to complete a brochureon it, they really struggled. And I thought: “Oh, do they not understand?” I think it’s todo with this issue of “I know what I mean, I know examples, I can talk about it and debateit. But it’s really difficult to summarise it in my own words”. There was a very noticeabledifference between those things.

The large number of subject matter examples given by the cohort may well reflecttheir appreciation of the complexities of ESD subject matter beyond a narrower bandof topics set out in curricular guidance for geography and ESD, and the ways in whichstudent teachers need to reassess their individualized subject matter conceptions(Grossman et al., 1989) in this area to make it ‘teachable’.

In terms of attributed sources of learning, the much stronger university contribu-tion to SM2 appears to reflect the inputs of propositional knowledge by tutors, whichformed the basis of an early university session. However, the dominant universitycontribution to SM1 and the school contribution to SM3 is also an interesting featureand may reflect the relatively recent inclusion of ESD in school curricula rather thanthe theorized types of knowledge typically associated with their respective contribu-tions. Thus, the existence and impact of the ‘craft knowledge’ (McIntyre, 1988) ofteachers, in terms of appreciation of the importance of ESD in the curriculum bygeography teachers, is not apparent in examples given by interns for SM1 and argu-ably needs more time to develop in the profession, especially given competing teacherpriorities. Similarly, tutors’ knowledge of challenges for school students (SM3) alsoneeds time to develop and may reflect the limited research into learning in the fieldof ESD overall (Rickinson, 2006).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13


Dimension II, knowledge of approaches/strategies for teaching about sustainabledevelopment, comprises five categories describing pedagogy (PA) and overall, it is themost heavily populated of the dimensions.

The first two categories consist of learning about teaching approaches for ESD ingeneral terms (PA1), and strategies for teaching specific sustainability issues (PA2),which closely link subject matter and pedagogy.

For PA1, Respondent 15 wrote of learning about ‘many teaching approaches … onhow to engage students, for example, the Fair Trade game [the Trading Game,Christian Aid, 2003], the Development Compass Rose [Development EducationCentre, Birmingham, 1995], visual stimuli’. During the interviews, Respondent 6described learning about ‘the power of images and the media’ as a teaching approachfrom another student teacher in a university session:

There were six (connected) photographs … sending out images … one with two boys in acanoe paddling past a petrol pump in the ‘98 [local] floods … and ‘Chris’ said that somestudents just realised it was flooded … others (saw) deeper ironies behind the petrol stationand the contribution to global warming. You could bring so much out of it, maybe use itas a starter or a way into something.

For PA2, Respondent 17 wrote ‘the global footprints idea helped to visualizeinequalities in consumption’, while in interview, Respondent 7 explained:

… the Trading Game … (allows) students to understand difficult concepts and abstractissues—the idea of global interconnectedness and the impact countries have on each other… (the game) could probably be repeated with different focuses so that you could(compare) a more sustainable way with (current) reality, or from a Third World inequalitypoint of view, et cetera, et cetera.

The other three pedagogical categories show student teacher learning about threeparticular teaching approaches for ESD, namely the value of case studies/localexamples (PA3), fieldwork/local actions (PA4), and debate/discussion (PA5).

For PA3, one student teacher (Respondent 3) wrote ‘use case studies on a varietyof scales to help students understand the issues and conflicts’, and stressed the valueof local examples in comprehending and probing the Brundtland definition of SDduring the interview:

Using a local example makes the abstract concept of sustainable development more realand tangible for students, so they’ve got something they know about, and they can discusssustainable development in that context, and work out how sustainable a particularproject—in this case how a housing development in [the school area] could be made moresustainable.

For PA4, Respondent 12 wrote that ‘(fieldwork) gives opportunities for pupils tobecome actively involved in conserving and enhancing the local environment (which)really motivates and provides enjoyment’, referring to investigations in a local SSSI(site of special scientific interest). Respondent 2, referring to ‘the school’s sustainablegarden’, explained:

(Students) are looking at things like public participation and how you can get people fromthe school community involved in deciding whether there’s going to be a pond, where the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13


pond’s going to be, what sort of plants you’re going to plant there.… And issues of equityand justice, whether you’ve got ramps for wheelchairs … It’s when you get them to doprojects and be ‘hands-on’ that they begin to see links between a lot of issues much better… (such as) between what you do and how it impacts on other people.

For PA5, Respondent 14 wrote about learning that ‘debate and discussion arereally the most effective ways of getting into the issues’ and the interview withRespondent 17 quoted for SM3 above further illustrates this example.

Relating the types of knowledge reflected in these categories to attributed sourcesfor learning shows that PA1 (strongly university-based contacts) represents de-contextualised knowledge of broad teaching approaches in contrast to the morecontextualised, practice-related knowledge about three particular approaches in PA3–5 (heavily weighted to school-based contacts). Perhaps unexpectedly, PA2, linkingspecific SD issues with pedagogy, and therefore, representing pedagogical contentknowledge for ESD, is entirely university-based (see Shulman, 1986). This again mayreflect the relatively recent inclusion of ESD in school curricula, and that it has yet tobe sufficiently distinguished from pedagogical content knowledge for geography byconsidering the choice of case studies, how they are represented, and for whatpurposes in which particular curricular and pedagogical circumstances. Subsequently,over time, as school-based mentors’ pedagogical content knowledge increases in thisfield, university sessions on linking subject matter and pedagogy might need to changein emphasis, from introducing appropriate strategies to evaluation and discussion withinterns of school-based and research evidence of the similarities and differencesbetween pedagogical content knowledge in ESD and geography.

Dimension III, awareness of preferred teaching stance, describes student teacherlearning about managing their own personal values (OV) in teaching.

Respondent 2 wrote ‘I prefer to take the role of devil’s advocate and ask provocativequestions but not tell pupils my views on SD issues’. This preference was expandedin interview:

… talking about global warming, I wanted to get at what they felt they could do, how theymight change their behaviour … I like the idea of teachers as ‘transformative intellectuals’,acting like a catalyst in the classroom … and inspiring students to think differently.

Respondent 5 expressed a different preference, noting ‘it is impossible to teachabout SD with a neutral stance’. Again, an interview gave further insight into thisstudent teacher’s learning and understanding of their social mandate as a teacher:

When I started, I thought it was possible to teach sustainable development objectively, butthe more I (taught) … it became impossible not to have some kind of personal judgement,because … it’s very difficult to see what evidence there is to suggest that sustainable devel-opment isn’t imperative to all of us.… There are issues in geography where it’s importantto be neutral and it is more about personal choice … but with sustainable development, Iultimately want (students) to do something and think about their own behaviour … so itleads you to pushing them in that direction.

These and other examples in this dimension illustrate the form and substance ofstudent teacher reasoning, and provide evidence that can be used for assessing their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13


analytical thinking and growth of professional knowledge. The examples alsoillustrate their preferred and chosen roles for handling controversial issues as referredto in the literature (e.g. Slater, 1993; QCA, 2000), which echo similar findings ofrecent research with experienced teachers on Citizenship (Oulton et al., 2004) andscience (Dillon et al., 2004). We note the Dimension III examples mainly reflectschool rather than university-based learning, which is commonly associated withstudent teachers’ reflecting on their teaching as opposed to that arising from tutor ormentor-led inputs or discussion.

Dimension IV, awareness of desired learning outcomes (LO), is based on examplesprovided by almost a third of the student teachers. It describes their commonlyexpressed belief that ‘students should make up their own minds about SD issues’(Respondent 3), a view similarly expressed by Respondent 6 who noted ‘theimportance of allowing pupils to respond personally to the material/issues … they’revery evocative issues’.

Examples of learning in this dimension were attributed equally to school-based anduniversity-based sources.

Comparing the findings for Dimensions III and IV highlights the challenges forboth student and experienced teachers, in synthesizing prevalent views about thevalue of constructivistic learning theories in school geography and ESD, and theconcern for more ecologically sustainable lifestyles, and being able to adopt a criticalstance towards all three (see, for example, Jickling, 1992; Jardine, 2005; Jardine et al.,2005). Evaluating and critiquing the ways in which these ideas are introduced,synthesized and reflected in classroom approaches to teaching and learning in ESDremains a priority for researchers, teacher educators and student teachers.

Dimension V, awareness of geography department practice in ESD (GP), althoughthe third most populated dimension, relates to aspects of school organization andpolicy, as does the least populated, Dimension VI, awareness of a potential for cross-curricular work in ESD (CC). Given the focus of this article on subject matter andpedagogy, only an indication of student teacher learning is given through theproforma extracts that follow.

Dimension V

GP1: “ESD can be implemented in schools and there is scope to include it in existingschemes of work/lessons”. (Respondent 15)

GP2: “SD is difficult to teach in a discrete manner and cannot be the subject of onelesson. It needs to be woven into most (if not all!) schemes of work.… The issue isso broad, understanding needs to be built up over time”. (Respondent 17)

GP3: ‘Teachers are reluctant to implement the strongest interpretation of ESD (i.e.education as sustainability)’. (Respondent 7)

Dimension VI

CC1: “ESD is cross-curricular—it incorporates a lot of different themes and goes a lotfurther than just geography”. (Respondent 16, school-based source)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13


CC1: “ESD can give geography a key role in Citizenship education”. (Respondent 8,university-based source)

Attribution of sources differs; Dimension V is strongly school-based while Dimen-sion VI is more university weighted. This suggests increasing recognition of ESDwithin their curricula by geography teachers, reflected in intern-mentor discussions,and a more idealized view of ESD as cross-curricular, presented by tutors andreflecting academic literature and policy documents.

In summary, Dimensions I–IV illustrate the range of ways in which we canunderstand the features of student teacher learning about ESD subject matter andpedagogy. Dimension I, on the nature of sustainable development for teaching, illus-trates conceptions that SD is important and relevant for school students; that it hascomplex, contested meanings; and that this presents challenges for school studentlearning. Dimensions II–IV illustrate the relative depth of learning about the relation-ship between the nature of ESD subject matter and pedagogy, including interactiveapproaches to teaching and learning based on geographical enquiry and constructiv-istic pedagogies. Relating these dimensions to school-based and university-basedsources provides evidence of more de-contextualized knowledge being related tosome university sources and professional craft knowledge to some school sources.However, the relatively recent introduction of ESD into school curricula makes thereality of these theorized contributions more complex.

Findings 2. The range of sources

Sources of learning have previously been referred to in relation to the dimensions ofstudent teacher learning, and this section briefly discusses the range of sources inschool-based and university-based contexts for learning. Closer inspection of thedata to discover relationships between dimensions and sources of learning showsthat although some learning categories related to specific sources, many appear tohave been stimulated by a number of sources, and thus may be context-related orcontext-transcendent. This suggests that the student teachers’ learning drewdifferentially on these sources and contexts, and points to the individuality ofprofessional learning.

School-based sources of learning

Ten school-based sources were identified (Table 2). Six focused on the mentor (S1–S6), all reflecting normal course practice and that of many initial teacher educationcourses (see, for example, McIntyre & Hagger, 1993; Hobson et al., 2006).

Discussion between the student teacher and mentor about approaches to ESD ingeneral (S1, the largest category) took place on various occasions. One of these wasan early cohort-wide discussion about school policies and practice in ESD, and thissource was referred to in several examples of learning in the policy-focusedDimensions V and VI.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13


Joint planning of student teachers’ lessons (S2) was the next largest category. Thesediscussions appeared to take place most frequently in the first half of the second termof the course, when student teachers were beginning full class teaching; thedistinctiveness of an individual student teacher’s links between sources and learningcategories was evident.

Four references were made to debriefing of student teacher teaching with thementor, and with the mentor and university tutor jointly (S3 and S4 respectively);sources also referred to in various examples of learning about subject matter andpedagogy.

The three examples of collaborative teaching between an intern and mentor (S5)are interesting because, in our experience, such practice is limited. All related to the‘pilot project’ mentors. Arguably, they had greater exposure to ESD ideas throughtheir earlier and self-selected, in-depth project involvement, and all related topedagogical categories of learning. Such considerations were attributed to their owninterests for participating at the pilot stage, particularly in developing their own ESDpractices, yet not because they felt already expert in ESD.

Finally, the small number of references to debriefing following mentor/ otherteacher teaching (S6) may also be associated with the recent explicit introduction ofESD (QCA, 2002) into school curricula and reflect mentors’ only gradual apprecia-tion of opportunities for student teacher observation of lessons that include or addresssustainability issues.

Other school sources included student teachers’ own teaching and reflection,with no explicit mentor contact (S7 and S8), and discussions with another studentteacher (S9), features of professional learning widely recognized by teachereducators.

The category describing combinations of school sources (S10) consists mainly ofstudent teacher reflections drawing on many sources, although three of the examplesreferred to distinct types of mentor discussion and another referred to joint mentor-tutor debriefing along with other school-based sources. Combinations of schoolsources were referred to in relation to a range of learning dimensions.

University-based sources of learning

In contrast to the variety of school sources, four main university sources were referredto (Table 3). Two of the three largest categories (U1 and U2) refer to universityteaching sessions.

Sessions on the background and theory of SD and ESD (U1) included sixreferences to a preparatory reading and small group discussion activity based on sixarticles interpreting SD and ESD differently in the first term of the course, one to avideo on environmental problems shown in a second term session, and one to a semi-nar focused on educational ideologies and approaches in ESD in the third and finalterm. These university activities appeared to contribute strongly to subject matterlearning, especially categories SM1 and SM2 to do with the importance and complex-ity of SD respectively.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13


University sessions on teaching approaches (U2) included six references to a firstterm session on fair trade issues, ecofootprints and futures education led by an invitedspeaker, and five to a third term session consisting of student teacher and mentor-ledworkshops on aspects of ESD pedagogy; the remainder referred to unspecifiedpedagogy sessions. This university source contributed strongly to two pedagogicalcategories, namely PA1, teaching approaches in general terms (e.g. discussion, open-ended enquiry, using controversial issues), and PA2, strategies for teaching specificSD issues that applied general approaches to particular examples, e.g. through casestudies or examining particular points of view about SD in depth.

Sessions based on sharing and discussing student teachers’ school experiences(U3) are a feature of the course, and provide opportunities for in-depth reflectionwhich is often limited in school by practicalities and deadlines owing to teachingloads, perception of degree of fit and opportunity, support, and so forth. Sharingactivities on school ESD experiences, focusing on the student teachers’ own teaching,took place in two university sessions, one in the second and one in the third term.These sessions contributed to learning in several dimensions, not only to do withpedagogical learning.

Finally, the combinations category (U4) includes various university-based sources.Among these, reading for a course assignment featured in seven examples, all relatingto Dimension I on subject matter. Interestingly, only two references were made to acombination of university-based and school-based sources, although it is suggestedthat this may be an artefact of the way in which the data were collected, in terms ofthe deliberate structuring of mutually exclusive categories in the instrumentation.

Summarizing the findings about attributed sources of learning, various school-based and university-based activities were referred to by student teachers in discuss-ing their learning about ESD. However, although some learning categories appearedto relate to specific sources, perhaps most clearly between aspects of subject matterand pedagogy with stated university sessions, many appeared to have been stimulatedby a number of sources. Student teachers’ professional learning about any particularaspect of ESD may draw on a variety of sources. This may well illustrate the strengthand importance of their preconceptions of teaching and subject matter as influenceson their professional development, features noted in other teacher education researchin other fields (e.g. Lortie, 1975; Putnam & Borko, 1997).

Discussion and implications

First, the conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy discussed here can be regardedas exemplifying subject specific professional knowledge. Such professional knowledgecombines elements of propositional de-contextualized professional knowledge andpersonal practical professional knowledge, and research on knowledge acquisitionand use (e.g. Eraut, 2000) suggests that professional knowledge is developed throughthe interaction of the propositional and the personal-practical. This study illustratessubject specific professional knowledge for ESD especially that contributed throughstudent teachers’ professional learning in the context of school geography. Further

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13


research and discussion is required, comparing it with that arising from engaging withother subjects and cross-curricular approaches (e.g. Summers et al., 2004; Reid &Scott, 2005), and for different career stages and professional identities (e.g. Day et al.,2006).

Second, various school-based and university-based activities were attributed bystudent teachers as sources to various dimensions in their learning about ESD. Somerelationships between specific sources and dimensions of learning were evident; forexample, particular university sessions were stated as sources of learning aboutaspects of subject matter and pedagogy. However, data in this study suggest studentteachers’ learning of any particular aspect of ESD may draw on a variety of sources,and this is likely to be influenced by their preconceptions about ESD and education,as well as their experiences on their teacher education course. One subject-relatedsource for ESD subject matter and pedagogy under explored here by the studentteachers, tutors and researchers was the role of their persona as professional geogra-phers, and that of geographical fieldwork. Again, further work on these would clarifymatters, coupled to that which explores how different sources (including ideas andarguments from outside education, but grounded in a distinct SD discourse), andtheir combination or sequencing, have greater or lesser impacts on student teacherconceptions (see, for example, Barratt Hacking, 1996).

Third, teacher education courses, especially in England, are based on collaborationand partnership between university-based and school-based teacher educators.However, the way in which these professionals work together, and the nature ofcourse activities developed, varies considerably. Given the complexities and value-laden nature of ESD, the challenges for student learning, and the decisions aboutpedagogy associated with these factors, it is especially important that the partnerscollaborate closely. Such collaboration is further necessitated by the relatively recentintroduction of ESD into the school curriculum in England, and the fact that bothmentors’ professional craft knowledge and tutors’ academic propositional knowledgetake time to develop (Huckle, 2005).

Opportunities for collaboration may include discussion about course objectives,appropriate university and school experiences, and the way in which the respectivecontributions of school and university teacher educators can contribute to the interns’growth in understanding and practical expertise. Inclusion of a wide range ofactivities seems highly desirable, given the finding that learning about many aspectsof ESD draws on a variety of sources, not all of which might primarily be classed aseducational.

What might make such collaboration more complex in ESD though are claims thatas to the holistic nature of SD, and the desirability, noted in both academic and policyliterature, of crosscutting, cross-curricular and whole school approaches. Attempts inEngland to develop cross-curricular approaches in the early stages of the nationalcurriculum did not meet with much success (e.g. Whitty et al., 1996), partly becauseof the strong subject culture in secondary schools, also mirrored in teacher education.In this context, a phased approach to including ESD in teacher education courses anddeveloping the expertise of teacher educators seems more realistic. Development

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13


might proceed through school-university collaboration within and between subjectareas where teacher and tutor commitment to ESD is strongest, and, based onoutcomes from such initiatives, a wider range of subject areas might participate.Achieving coherence between contributions is essential, however (as an example, seeHuckle, 2005), and seems likely to need co-ordination at the whole school level.

Finally, two areas for further research into ESD-related teacher education wouldextend this study, although both also have implications for wider professionaldevelopment. The first relates to the apparent contradiction expressed in Dimen-sions III and IV, and could investigate how student teachers synthesize ideas aboutconstructivistic learning philosophies and ESD teaching with its value imperative ofmore sustainable lifestyles. The second concerns the development of student geog-raphy teachers’ ESD-specific pedagogies and their outcomes (educationally, and interms of actions considered and taken), and their effects on the student teacher’sconceptions both subject-specifically and in terms of wider and ongoing profes-sional learning. Both foci could provide much needed empirical evidence aboutstudent teachers’ ongoing professional development and school students’ ESDlearning, including questions related to innovation and leadership in this area, andthe role of interns and novice teachers as curriculum change agents within schoolsand subject disciplines. Both would also benefit from classroom-related, in-depthqualitative case studies, which could contribute directly to the professional develop-ment of the student and experienced teachers involved, and, through increasedunderstanding of ESD pedagogy, to teacher educator knowledge that could beapplied more widely.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank most sincerely the geography student teachers and mentorsinvolved in this research; their continual enthusiasm and involvement was an essentialfeature of the study.

Notes on Contributors

Graham Corney is a University Lecturer in Educational Studies (Geography) andFellow of St Anne’s College, Oxford.

Alan Reid is a Senior Lecturer in Education, Centre for Research in Education andthe Environment, University of Bath.

References

Barratt Hacking, E. (1996) Novice teachers and their geographical persuasions, InternationalResearch in Geographical and Environmental Education, 5(1), 77–86.

Bennett, N. & Dunne, E. (1994) How children learn—implications for practice, in: B. Moon & S.Mayes (Eds) Teaching and learning in the secondary school (London, Routledge), 50–56.

Bonnett, M. (1999) Education for sustainable development: a coherent philosophy for environ-mental education? Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(3), 313–324.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13


Bonnett, M. (2002) Education for sustainability as a frame of mind, Environmental EducationResearch, 8(1), 9–20.

Brown, S. & McIntyre, D. (1993) Making sense of teaching (Buckingham, Open University Press).Burn, K. (1997) Learning to teach: the value of collaborative teaching, in: D. McIntyre (Ed.)

Teacher education research in a new context: the Oxford internship scheme (London, PaulChapman Publishing) (New BERA Dialogues), 145–161.

Coffey, A. & Atkinson, P (1996) Making sense of qualitative data: complementary research strategies(London, Sage).

Corney, G. (2000a) Case studies in student geography teachers’ conceptions of teachingenvironmental issues, International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 9(4),305–326.

Corney, G. (2000b) Student geography teachers’ pre-conceptions about teaching environmentaltopics, Environmental Education Research, 6(4), 313–329.

Cross, R. T. (1998) Teachers’ views about what to do about sustainable development, Environ-mental Education Research, 4(1), 41–51.

Day, C., Stobart, G., Sammons, P. & Kington, A. (2006) Variations in the work and lives ofteachers: relative and relational effectiveness, Teachers and teaching: theory and practice, 12(2),169–192.

Department for Education and Employment /Qualifications and Assessment Authority (1999) Thenational curriculum: handbook for secondary teachers in England (London, DfEE/QCA).

Department for Education and Skills (2003) Sustainable development action plan for education andskills (London, DfES).

Department for Education and Skills (2006) Sustainable schools national framework (London,DfES). Available online at: http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/framework(accessed September 2006).

Dey, I. (1993) Qualitative data analysis: a user-friendly guide for social scientists (London, Routledge).Dillon, J., Grace, M. M. & Oulton, C. (2004) Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial

issues, International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411–423.Elliott, J. (1998) Sustainable society and environmental education: future perspectives and demands for

the educational system (Paper presented at Oxford University Department of EducationalStudies).

Eraut, M. (2000) Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work, British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 70(1), 113–136.

Fien, J. (1993) Education for the environment: critical curriculum theorising and environmentaleducation (Geelong, Deakin University Press).

Furlong, J., Barton, L., Miles, S., Whiting, D. & Whitty, G. (2000) Teacher Education in transition:reforming professionalism? (Buckingham, Open University Press).

Gayford, C. (2002) Environmental literacy: towards a shared understanding for science teachers,Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(1), 99–110.

Grossman, P. L. (1990) The making of a teacher: teacher knowledge and teacher education (New York,Teachers’ College Press).

Grossman, P. L, Wilson, S. M. and Shulman, L. S. (1989) Teachers of substance: subject matterknowledge for teaching, in: M. C. Reynolds (Ed.) Knowledge base for the beginning teacher(Oxford, Pergamon Press), 23–36.

Hagger, H. (1997) Enabling student teachers to gain access to the professional craft knowledgeof experienced teachers, in: D. McIntyre (Ed.) teacher education research in a new context:the Oxford internship scheme (London, Paul Chapman Publishing) (New BERA Dialogues),99–133.

Hagger, H. & McIntyre, D. (2000) What can research tell us about teacher education? OxfordReview of Education, 26(3/4), 483–494.

Hart, P. & Nolan, K. (1999) A critical analysis of research in environmental education, Studies inScience Education, 34, 1–69.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13


Hicks, D. (2002) Envisioning a better world: sustainable development in school geography, in: M.Smith (Ed.) Aspects of teaching secondary geography: perspectives on practice (London, RoutledgeFalmer/The Open University), 278–286.

Hobson, A. J., Malderez, A., Tracey, L. & Pell, G. (2006) Pathways and stepping stones: studentteachers’ preconceptions and concerns about initial teacher preparation in England, ScottishEducational Review, 37(1), 59–78.

Huckle, J. (2005) Education for sustainable development: a briefing paper for the TTA 2005. Availableonline at: http://www.ttrb.ac.uk/viewArticle.aspx?contentId=11693 (accessed 14 February2006).

Huckle, J. & Martin, A. (2001) Environments in a changing world (Harlow, Prentice Hall).Huntly, H. E. (2004) Beginning teachers’ conceptions of competence, Journal of College Teaching

& Learning, 1(5), 29–38.Jardine, D.W. (2005) “Cutting nature’s leading strings”: a cautionary tale about constructivism,

Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 38–51.Jardine, D. W., Johnson, B. & Fawcett, L. (2005) Further thoughts on “cutting nature’s leading

strings”: a conversation, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 52–61.Jickling, B. (1992) Why I don’t want my children educated for sustainable development, Journal of

Environmental Education, 23(4), 5–8.Johansson, B. (1996) What are the statements about and from where do they come?, in: G.

Dall’Alba & B. Hasselgren (Eds) Reflections on phenomenography: towards a methodology?(Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences 109. Göteborg, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgen-sis), 141–162.

Larsson, S. (1986) Learning from experience: teachers’ conceptions of changes in theirprofessional practice, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 9(1), 35–43.

Lortie, D. (1975) School teacher: a sociological study (Chicago IL, University of Chicago Press).Loughland, A., Reid, A. & Petocz, P. (2002) Young people’s conceptions of environment: a

phenomenographic analysis, Environmental Education Research, 8(2), 187–197.Luke, T. (2001) Education, environment and sustainability: what are the issues, where to

intervene, what must be done? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 33(2), 187–202.McIntyre, D. (1988) Designing a teacher education curriculum from research and theory on

teacher knowledge, in: J. Calderhead (Ed.) Teachers’ professional learning (Lewes, FalmerPress), 97–127.

McIntyre, D. (1990) Ideas and principles guiding the Internship Scheme, in: P. Benton (Ed.) TheOxford internship scheme: integration and practice in initial teacher education (London, CalousteGulbenkian Foundation), 17–33.

McIntyre, D. & Hagger, H. (1993) Teachers’ expertise and models of mentoring, in: D. McIntyre,H. Hagger & M. Wilkin (Eds) Mentoring: perspectives on school-based teacher education (London,Kogan Page), 86–102.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook(Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).

Morgan, J. (2000) Geography teaching for a sustainable society, in: A. Kent (Ed.) Reflective practicein geography teaching (London, Paul Chapman Publishing), 168–178.

Naish, M., Rawling, E., & Hart, C. (2002) The enquiry-based approach to teaching and learninggeography, in: M. Smith (Ed.) Teaching geography in secondary schools: a reader (London,Routledge Falmer/The Open University), 63–69.

Nikel, J. (2005) Ascribing Responsibility: a three country study of student teachers’ understand-ing(s) of education, sustainable development, and ESD. Unpublished doctoral thesis,University of Bath.

Office for Standards in Education (2003) Taking the first step forward … towards an education insustainable development (London, Ofsted).

O’Riordan, T. (2003) Education for sustainability, in: W. Scott & S. Gough (Eds) key issues insustainable development and learning (London, RoutledgeFalmer), 33–37.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13


Oulton, C., Day, V., Dillon, J. & Grace, M. (2004) Controversial issues—teachers’ attitudesand practices in the context of citizenship education, Oxford Review of Education, 30(4),489–507.

Putnam, T. R. & Borko, H. (1997) Teacher learning: implications of new views of cognition, in: B.Biddle, T. L. Good & I. F. Goodson (Eds) International handbook of teachers and teaching(Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers), 1223–1296.

Qualifications & Curriculum Authority (2000) Citizenship: guidance to schools (London, QCA).Qualifications & Curriculum Authority (2002) Education for sustainable development. London,

QCA.Rauch, F. (2002) The potential of education for sustainable development for reform in schools,

Environmental Education Research, 8(1), 43–51.Reid, A. (2000a) Environmental change and sustainable development, in: K. Grimwade (Ed.)

Geography and the new agenda: secondary (Sheffield, Geographical Association), 45–61.Reid, A. (2000b) How does a geography teacher contribute to pupils’ environmental education?

Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 5, 327–344.Reid, A. & Scott, W. (2005) Cross-curricularity in the National Curriculum: reflections on

metaphor and pedagogy in citizenship education through school geography, Pedagogy, Cultureand Society, 13(2), 181–204.

Rickinson, M. (2001) Learners and learning in environmental education: a critical review of theevidence, Environmental Education Research, 7(3), 208–320.

Rickinson, M. (2006) Researching and understanding environmental learning: hopes for the next10 years, Environmental Education Research, 12(3/4), 445–457.

Sauve, L. (1996) Environmental education and sustainable development: a further appraisal,Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 1, 7–35.

Sauve, L. (2002) Environmental education: possibilities and constraints, Connect: UNESCOInternational Science, Technology and Environmental Education Newsletter, 27(1/2), 1–4.

Scott, W. A. H. (2002) Sustainability and learning: what role for the curriculum? Inaugural Professo-rial Lecture, University of Bath.

Scott, W. A .H. & Gough, S. (2003) Sustainable development and learning: framing the issues(London, Routledge/Falmer).

Shulman, L. S. (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching, EducationalResearcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Slater, F. (1992) ‘ … to travel with a different view’, in: M. Naish (Ed.) Geography and education:national and international perspectives (London, Institute of Education), 97–113.

Slater, F. (1993) Learning through geography, Pathways in geography, 7 (Indiana, NationalCouncil for Geographic Education).

Smith, M. (2005) Education for sustainable development (Geographical Association, GTIP ThinkPiece). Available online at: http://www.geography.org.uk/projects/gtip/thinkpieces/esd(accessed 15 July 2005).

Sterling, S. (2001) Sustainable education: re-visioning learning and change (Dartington, Green BooksLtd).

Stradling, R., Noctor, M. & Baines, B. (1984) Teaching controversial issues (London, Edward Arnold).Summers, M., Corney, G. & Childs, A. (2004) Student teachers’ conceptions of sustainable devel-

opment: the starting points of geographers and scientists, Educational Research, 46(2), 163–182.Summers, M. Childs, A. & Corney, G. (2005) Education for sustainable development in initial

teacher training: issues for interdisciplinary collaboration, Environmental Education Research,11(5), 623–647.

Taylor, N., Nathan, S. & Coll, R. K. (2003) Education for sustainability in regional New SouthWales, Australia: an exploratory study of some teachers’ perceptions, International Research inGeographical and Environmental Education, 12(4), 291–311.

Tilbury, D. (1995) Environmental education for sustainability: defining the new focus of environ-mental education in the 1990s, Environmental Education Research, 1(2), 195–212.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13


UNESCO (2005) United Nations decade for education for sustainable development (2005–2014): draftinternational implementation scheme. Available online at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001403/140372e.pdf (accessed 14 February 2006).

WCED (1987) Our common future. Oxford, OUP.Whitty, G., Aggleton, P. & Rowe, G. (1996) Competing conceptions of quality in social

education: learning from experiences of cross-curricular themes, in: M. Hughes (Ed.)Teaching and learning in changing times (Oxford, Blackwell), 51–69.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as S

tate

Uni

vers

ity -

San

Mar

cos]

at 0

1:23

24

Apr

il 20

13

student teachers' learning about subject matter and pedagogy in education for sustainable...

Documents