206
example, in a professional development programme at the Weitzman institute in
Rehovet, Israel, the three-stage model of SSIBL was used to teach investigate
inquiry and civilian responsibility relating to the case of placing defibrillators at
public places in order to rescue fellow citizens with cardiac arrest. The teaching
module was developed based on students’ questions related to a known case were a
football player collapsed during a game and suffered severe injuries.
Besides specially designed teacher development programmes, Education for
Environmental Citizenship also needs to be enacted within the existing structures of
secondary schooling. In the next section, we will investigate this issue further.
13.4 Moving Towards Education for Environmental
Citizenship in Secondary Schooling
Many teachers around the world want to develop their teaching and work interdisciplinary, but they feel they do not have the time because they need to keep up with the
curricula. A recent report on teachers’ perspectives on the state of environmental
education in England has identified the tension between teachers’ perceptions of
environmental education as a subject that can promote active Environmental
Citizenship and current perceived focus of the curriculum as emphasising the learning of subject knowledge (Glackin et al. 2018). Earlier research has shown extensive
differences in how teachers from different school subjects enact various aspects of
Education for Environmental Citizenship, such as social or ethical topics (e.g.
Levinson and Turner 2002). In some school subjects, environmental topics are marginal or absent (e.g. Mathematics, Psychology), but they have a much higher profile
in others (e.g. Environmental Science, Geography) (Dawe et al. 2005). Levinson and
Turner (2002) also found differences between science and humanities teachers’
understanding of the aim of their teaching. Humanities teachers are more confident
when covering ethical and social issues, while science teachers are more focused on
presenting the ‘facts’ of their subject. The same can be seen relating to the use of
teaching methods; Humanities teachers have been shown to use class discussions
more frequently than science teachers (Oulton et al. 2004). Summers et al. (2005)
also found that science teachers compared to geography teachers to lesser extent use
teaching methods that are more suitable to sustainability education. Corney (2006)
showed that upper secondary school trainee teachers in geography felt that they lack
the necessary subject expertise to teach sustainable development. These results from
various studies show that teachers of different subjects in secondary education understand and teach issues relating to the environment, sustainability and citizenship quite
differently. The teachers of the various school subjects transform the curricular content in different ways, although addressing the same topic (Gericke et al. 2018).
Previous research in Sweden has shown that teachers of different school subjects
and subject areas have different approaches to environmental and sustainability
education. Teachers in Sweden typically teach environmental issues according to
three different selective traditions (Sund and Wickman 2011). The three Swedish
selective traditions are the fact-based tradition, the normative tradition and the pluN. Gericke et al.
example, in a professional development programme at the Weitzman institute in
Rehovet, Israel, the three-stage model of SSIBL was used to teach investigate
inquiry and civilian responsibility relating to the case of placing defibrillators at
public places in order to rescue fellow citizens with cardiac arrest. The teaching
module was developed based on students’ questions related to a known case were a
football player collapsed during a game and suffered severe injuries.
Besides specially designed teacher development programmes, Education for
Environmental Citizenship also needs to be enacted within the existing structures of
secondary schooling. In the next section, we will investigate this issue further.
13.4 Moving Towards Education for Environmental
Citizenship in Secondary Schooling
Many teachers around the world want to develop their teaching and work interdisciplinary, but they feel they do not have the time because they need to keep up with the
curricula. A recent report on teachers’ perspectives on the state of environmental
education in England has identified the tension between teachers’ perceptions of
environmental education as a subject that can promote active Environmental
Citizenship and current perceived focus of the curriculum as emphasising the learning of subject knowledge (Glackin et al. 2018). Earlier research has shown extensive
differences in how teachers from different school subjects enact various aspects of
Education for Environmental Citizenship, such as social or ethical topics (e.g.
Levinson and Turner 2002). In some school subjects, environmental topics are marginal or absent (e.g. Mathematics, Psychology), but they have a much higher profile
in others (e.g. Environmental Science, Geography) (Dawe et al. 2005). Levinson and
Turner (2002) also found differences between science and humanities teachers’
understanding of the aim of their teaching. Humanities teachers are more confident
when covering ethical and social issues, while science teachers are more focused on
presenting the ‘facts’ of their subject. The same can be seen relating to the use of
teaching methods; Humanities teachers have been shown to use class discussions
more frequently than science teachers (Oulton et al. 2004). Summers et al. (2005)
also found that science teachers compared to geography teachers to lesser extent use
teaching methods that are more suitable to sustainability education. Corney (2006)
showed that upper secondary school trainee teachers in geography felt that they lack
the necessary subject expertise to teach sustainable development. These results from
various studies show that teachers of different subjects in secondary education understand and teach issues relating to the environment, sustainability and citizenship quite
differently. The teachers of the various school subjects transform the curricular content in different ways, although addressing the same topic (Gericke et al. 2018).
Previous research in Sweden has shown that teachers of different school subjects
and subject areas have different approaches to environmental and sustainability
education. Teachers in Sweden typically teach environmental issues according to
three different selective traditions (Sund and Wickman 2011). The three Swedish
selective traditions are the fact-based tradition, the normative tradition and the pluN. Gericke et al.