184
young children can even lead to dissociation from nature and premature abstraction
(e.g. White and Stoecklin 2008; Ausubel 1964).
Hayward (2012) states that ‘as educators, parents and policy makers, we need to
pay closer attention to complex interactions of the micro- and macro-level changes
taking place in a child’s environment […] we rarely take the complex ecological
reality of a child’s world seriously’ (p. 3). Children’s ecological reality is a complex
series of nested interactive systems providing daily dynamic experiences with
diverse impacts at the micro and macro level of their lives and their surrounding
environment. These experiences are generally approached within a scientific
framework (environmental sciences), without considering primary education level
features and the need to translate the results of these experiences at a level easily
understood by children. The language of environmental sciences has not yet been
adapted to a primary education level, missing the fluidity so characteristic for
this age.
When we present children with problems beyond their cognitive abilities, understanding and control, they can ‘become anxious, tune out and might develop a phobia to the issues. In the case of environmental issues, biophobia—a fear of the
natural world and ecological problems—a fear of just being outside—can develop’
(White and Stoecklin 2008; Barbiero and Marconato 2016). These principles should
be taken into account by the Education for Environmental Citizenship since it aims
to foster environmental agency in children through teaching and learning for
Environmental Citizenship. Studies on the loss of rainforests and endangered
species may be perfectly appropriate for adolescent or older children, but it is developmentally inappropriate for younger children (Wilson 1993; Kellert 2002). We
also need to be aware that the citizenship aspect of EEC, which includes a strong
call for action to contribute to solving major complex issues, is cognitively too
demanding for children under 12 years old. Messages for action as well as the
problems they intend to solve need to designed or appropriated to the abilities and
needs of children. Furthermore, teaching children by using virtual nature or exotic
places that are by definition not part of their real life experiences can result in them
developing a conception of nature that diminishes the value of their own local
natural environments. As such, this reduces their potential to develop an internalised
call to protect those areas (see, e.g. Levi and Kocher 1999), or to develop
Environmental Citizenship based on their experiences with action for their own
local (natural) environment.
12.3.2 Social Practice Theory and the Formation
of an Environmental Identity
Social practice theory suggests that people develop their identities in different facets
of their lives, as they respond to their environment and adopt the practices (and as
such possibly also the environmental actions) of others around them (Williams and
J. Boeve-de Pauw and R. Halbac-Zamfir
young children can even lead to dissociation from nature and premature abstraction
(e.g. White and Stoecklin 2008; Ausubel 1964).
Hayward (2012) states that ‘as educators, parents and policy makers, we need to
pay closer attention to complex interactions of the micro- and macro-level changes
taking place in a child’s environment […] we rarely take the complex ecological
reality of a child’s world seriously’ (p. 3). Children’s ecological reality is a complex
series of nested interactive systems providing daily dynamic experiences with
diverse impacts at the micro and macro level of their lives and their surrounding
environment. These experiences are generally approached within a scientific
framework (environmental sciences), without considering primary education level
features and the need to translate the results of these experiences at a level easily
understood by children. The language of environmental sciences has not yet been
adapted to a primary education level, missing the fluidity so characteristic for
this age.
When we present children with problems beyond their cognitive abilities, understanding and control, they can ‘become anxious, tune out and might develop a phobia to the issues. In the case of environmental issues, biophobia—a fear of the
natural world and ecological problems—a fear of just being outside—can develop’
(White and Stoecklin 2008; Barbiero and Marconato 2016). These principles should
be taken into account by the Education for Environmental Citizenship since it aims
to foster environmental agency in children through teaching and learning for
Environmental Citizenship. Studies on the loss of rainforests and endangered
species may be perfectly appropriate for adolescent or older children, but it is developmentally inappropriate for younger children (Wilson 1993; Kellert 2002). We
also need to be aware that the citizenship aspect of EEC, which includes a strong
call for action to contribute to solving major complex issues, is cognitively too
demanding for children under 12 years old. Messages for action as well as the
problems they intend to solve need to designed or appropriated to the abilities and
needs of children. Furthermore, teaching children by using virtual nature or exotic
places that are by definition not part of their real life experiences can result in them
developing a conception of nature that diminishes the value of their own local
natural environments. As such, this reduces their potential to develop an internalised
call to protect those areas (see, e.g. Levi and Kocher 1999), or to develop
Environmental Citizenship based on their experiences with action for their own
local (natural) environment.
12.3.2 Social Practice Theory and the Formation
of an Environmental Identity
Social practice theory suggests that people develop their identities in different facets
of their lives, as they respond to their environment and adopt the practices (and as
such possibly also the environmental actions) of others around them (Williams and
J. Boeve-de Pauw and R. Halbac-Zamfir