We need new strategies to preserve the habitability of the planet.
by David Orr
TRADING STORIES one day about smart animals, I heard from an old farmer who described a wily fox that appeared at the edge of a clearing in which his dog was tethered to a pole in the yard. Inferring from the pattern of tracks, the empty dog dish, and the fact that the dog was bound up to the pole, he deduced that the fox had run in circles just outside the radius of the dog’s tether until he had tied the dog up, at which point he strutted in to devour the dog’s food while the helpless mutt looked on.
Something like that has happened to all of us who believe nature and ecosystems to be worth preserving and that this is a matter of obligation, spirit, true economy, and common sense. Someone or something has run us in circles, tied us up, and is eating our lunch. It is time to ask who, why, and how we might respond. (more…)
Recently Gregory Smith, Professor in the Lewis and Clark College Graduate School of Education and Counseling, received a $19,380 grant from the Gray Family Fund of the Oregon Community Foundation to train teachers in the West Linn (OR) School District on environmental issues. The Environmental Education Program seeks to encourage a strong local land ethic, sustainable communities, and stewardship of the natural environment by citizens throughout Oregon. The Fund is committed long term to institutionalizing a series of age-appropriate experiences that build a sense of place and responsibility towards Oregon and the region.
The Sustainability Education Initiative is a program of professional development coursework and activities for K-12 teachers in the West Linn-Wilsonville School District. During three courses offered in 2009, Smith prepared 50-60 teachers to incorporate sustainability issues into their classrooms and help them implement school or community projects that will enhance local natural and social environments. Participants will be eligible for small seed grants to fund start-up projects. The grant aims to increase the number of teachers implementing sustainability projects in schools, and increase student and educator awareness of local natural systems, ecologies, and social needs.
The following is part 2 of an on-going discussion on place-based education topics between Gregory Smith of Lewis and Clark College and David Greenwood of Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario (formerly of Washington State University). You are invited to participate in this discussion and can add your comments through the reply box at the bottom of the post. Read part 1 here.
Dear David,
When you wrote your 2003 article about a critical place-based education, you rightly criticized those of us who had been writing about this approach for being under-theorized. Jan Nespor and others have continued that criticism. I’m becoming increasingly aware of the consequences of not anchoring place-based education in a more explicit critique of industrial civilization. In some respects, place-based education can mean almost anything people want it to—much like the term sustainability. Once ideas gain some currency, they take on a life of their own.
I’m seeing this happen with the way school gardens are becoming synonymous with place-based education. There is nothing wrong with the creation of school gardens—in fact, helping young people learn how to grow their own food and develop more of an affinity with agricultural practices seems essential. Wendell Berry would applaud such efforts. But school gardens, (more…)
This top-ten list of advice from Jon Yoder may be of assistance for teachers just beginning to integrate environmental literacy into their classroom:
Start small and find other teachers interested in doing a community project. Support and collaboration are critical for success as you begin this work.
Don’t let issues such as transportation and funding stand in your way. Be creative and persistent and employ the resources of your community.
Getting to know community partners is a must, so be prepared to make calls and meet with potential partners. They are often more than willing to work with you and may have resources you can use.
Make sure that your class does not become a work crew. The work you do should be the work of your partner. This is not a field trip or guest presentation, but joining the authentic work of your partner.
Be organized and plan ahead. You can never foresee all possibilities, but being organized helps you become more successful with students and partners.
Promote the program. It is not about you but about the students and their capacity to serve as a resource for their community
Involve students in the selection of their work and in designing their products. This may be the first time they have some control over their learning. It can be empowering for them.
As your work expands, think of ways that the program can sustain itself when you are no longer there.
Do not worry about having to know the content or being in charge of direct instruction. You will become a facilitator and instruction comes from the community partner and the curriculum resources you organize. One of the great joys of this approach is that you often get to learn along with your students. Sometimes they can even teach you. The teacher is no longer the “sage on the stage,” but instead is the “guide on the side.”
Remember it is about community! The work students do needs to have a context to it. They should come out of their study with a clear understanding of what their community is, how it can function, and possible roles for them to participate. Do not forget that this approach also fosters community building within the classroom and students become reconnected to themselves and to each other.
Teaching the 3 R’s Through the 3 C’s: Connecting the Curriculum and Community
By Clifford E. Knapp
The exploration of the educational potential of communities through direct experiences is not a new idea. In 1912 naturalist, John Burroughs, wrote: “. . . The way of knowledge of Nature is the way of love and enjoyment, and is more surely found in the open air than in the schoolroom or the laboratory” (Burroughs, In Finch and Elder (Eds.), 1990, p. 275) In 1915 educator and philosopher, John Dewey, re-published some earlier speeches in his book, The School and Society. He wrote: “We cannot overlook the importance for educational purposes of the close and intimate acquaintance got with nature at first hand, with real things and materials, with the actual processes of their manipulation, and the knowledge of their social necessities and uses” (p. 11). Why has it taken so long for educators to expand their concept of classrooms to include community outdoor laboratories?
Today, many innovative educators are venturing into the community to enrich the curriculum and to energize the instructional program and their own teaching lives. Why are they doing this?
ALERT: You need to be a CLEARING subscriber to read the rest of this article.Join now to get your password. (enter password then hit return button on your keyboard for best results)
[password]
Evidence from current cognitive research has shown that the human brain has two primary memory systems. First, the spatial system allows for “locale” or natural memory of past experiences in three-dimensional space and is enriched over time as humans increase their categories for storing information. Second, the “taxon” memory system is used for rote learning of isolated facts and skills and requires more practice and rehearsal for retention. Outdoor learning usually capitalizes upon the personal worlds of learners by engaging their locale memory systems through direct experiences within a nearby context. Humans understand and remember best when facts and skills are embedded in this memory system (Caine and Caine, 1994, pp. 41-46).
Howard Gardner, a psychologist, author, and educator, has identified eight human intelligences that have been used by some schools to plan balanced learning experiences for students. Recently, he described the naturalistic intelligence that meets eight stringent criteria, including an identified location in the brain and documented experimental data gathered by cognitive psychologists (Roth, 1998, pp. 9-11). The naturalist intelligence accounts for how people recognize patterns in nature and culture, classify objects, and understand relationships in their environment. It is “. . . the human ability to discriminate among living things . . . as well as [demonstrate a] sensitivity to other features of the natural world” (Roth, 1998, p. 7). Trips to local areas outside the school can develop this intelligence and result in long-term knowledge acquisition and retention.
One current educational reform effort involves providing students with authentic experiences and assessments. Educational authenticity simply means creating more realistic learning situations that mirror what others are doing in the community. Some educators also advocate a philosophical approach called constructivism – instructional strategies based on research about how people learn. This involves students actively learning and explaining their reasoning behind how they arrive at answers to questions of importance. Constructivism incorporates the support of groups of learners engaged in problem solving, reflecting, and connecting the lessons to prior knowledge and past experience.
Another educational trend relates to bioregional education or place-based pedagogy Woodhouse & Knapp, 2000). As urbanization and information technologies increase, the innate, genetically programmed human need to relate to natural places has emerged from our ancient past. The scientist, E. O. Wilson, named this human affinity for nature “biophilia”. Some educators believe that without a sense of place, students can not fully know who they are and where they fit into the community. Most suburban and urban students and teachers don’t understand where their drinking water originates, can’t identify many native trees or birds, don’t know whether the moon is waxing or waning, or have ever seen the stars over the city. How can people feel whole without an awareness of their bioregion”s natural cycles and processes? Many youth are growing up with little firsthand knowledge of where they live and therefore, don’t know their ecological addresses or understand how their ecological footprints relate to their consumptive lifestyles. The only field trips many urban and suburban youth take are via the software programs chosen for their computers. Learning, conducted in the context of the community, helps students to better comprehend the relationship of the school curriculum to more of life’s pleasures and problems.
Another educationally relevant field has been labeled, “ecopsychology” or “conservation psychology” – the combination of ecology or conservation and psychology. One principle advanced by ecopsychologists is that humans need natural spaces to relieve the modern-day stresses of crowded and fast-paced living. Breathing clean air, viewing green plants, and caring for and observing animals can improve mental health and relieve some forms of stress and depression. Educators have only begun to understand the importance of direct contacts with the green islands located within steel and concrete dwelling places.
One of the most promising new outdoor education studies resulted from a 12-state research project funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and conducted by Gerald Lieberman and Linda Hoody. The study described the common features of instructional “best practices” and the factors leading to student learning in 40 K-12 schools across the United States. These schools were selected because they used natural and socio-cultural environments as integrating contexts (EIC) for learning. “Evidence gathered from this study . . . indicates that students learn more effectively within an environment-based context than within a traditional educational framework.” “. . . EIC appears to significantly improve student performance in reading, writing, math, science and social studies, and enriches the overall school experience” (Lieberman and Hoody, 1998, p. 2). Although more research is always needed, this study provides some support for teachers who believe that sometimes the community can be the best laboratory for learning and applying certain educational goals, standards, and benchmarks.
In our graduate course, “Integrating the Community into Curriculum and Instruction” we used two other community-based educational models to guide our learning. We chose the Foxfire Program (The Foxfire Fund, 1990), a nationally recognized, student-centered approach and Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound, (Campbell, Liebowitz, Mednick, and Rugen (Eds.), 1998), a program initially funded by the New American Schools Development Corporation in 1992. Both of these programs are currently operating successfully in schools across the country and have shown that a wide range of students can learn important objectives and become motivated and actively engaged in the process. Each of these programs employs several core principles and practices that reflect sound experiential-learning philosophies. These project-based models place high priority on student decision making, critical and creative thinking, and problem solving in the context of the community and local issues. School curricula that are more reality based and immersed in local contexts are becoming more accepted by school boards, parent groups, and educational leaders around the country. Several states and school districts, including the Chicago Public Schools, have required service learning programs designed to connect students to the wider community and teach civic values. These types of explorations beyond the classroom walls increase the chances that the curriculum will be more meaningful now and in the future. The following writers hope that their articles will inspire learning adventures in local areas, including school sites, businesses, agencies, industries, nature centers, museums, parks, historical sites, residences, and natural areas. Will you accept their challenge of teaching with the three C’s in mind?
References
Burroughs, J. (1912). The gospel of nature. In Finch, R. & Elder, J. (Eds.). The Norton book of nature writing. (1990). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Caine, R. N. & Caine, g. (1994). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Campbell, M., Liebowitz, M., Mednick, A., & Rugen, L. (1998). Guide for planning a learning expedition. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Dewey, J. (Fourth Impression, 1959). The child and the curriculum and The school and society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lieberman, G. & Hoody, L. (Eds.). (1998). Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as an integrating context for learning. Poway, CA: Science Wizards.
Roth, K. (1998). The naturalist intelligence. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing, Inc.
The Foxfire Fund, Inc. (1990). The Foxfire approach: Perspectives and core practices. Hands On. Rabun Gap, GA: The Foxfire Fund, Inc.
Woodhouse, J. L. & Knapp, C. E. (2000). Place-based curriculum and instruction:
Outdoor and environmental education approaches. ERIC Digest EDO-RC-00-6. Charleston, WV:AEL, Inc.
We need new strategies to preserve the habitability of the planet.
