207
ralistic tradition (Sandell et al. 2005). In the fact-based tradition, environmental
issues are regarded as ecological issues. Environmental problems are based on a
lack of knowledge and can be solved by learning more science. In the normative
tradition, environmental and developmental issues are primarily a question of values, where people’s lifestyles and their consequences are the main threats to the
natural world. Increased uncertainty on complex issues, such as climate change, is
an important point of departure for the pluralistic tradition. Here, environmental
issues are viewed as both moral and political problems, while environmental problems are regarded as conflicts between human interests.
The distribution of these three teaching traditions varies in different school subjects. For example, science teachers teach in a more fact-based way than social science and language teachers (Borg et al. 2012). Hence, student groups may encounter
different teaching content and approaches between different subjects. Many school
subjects are limited by the curricular goals and the organisation of education that
constrain cross- and/or inter-disciplinary efforts, as shown in the cases of the different countries in this chapter. Therefore, teachers are likely to build their conceptual
understanding of Environmental Citizenship and Education for Environmental
Citizenship on the foundation of their own subject traditions. Education for
Environmental Citizenship is multidisciplinary by nature, and this fact might be an
obstacle for subject teachers, an argument supported by Stables and Scott (2002).
Earlier studies have shown that if teachers have a holistic understanding of concepts, such as Environmental Citizenship, they will use a broader approach to teaching and learning, while a narrowed understanding is often associated with narrow
approaches to teaching (Petocz and Reid 2002).
As shown in this and other chapters of this volume, Education for Environmental
Citizenship is rooted in a Future 2 trajectory as outlined by Young and Muller
(2010), and this could hinder the inclusion of Environmental Citizenship in formal
secondary education. The reason is that the secondary school system of many countries is more rooted in a Future 1 trajectory focusing on disciplinary content knowledge, as has been exemplified in this chapter. However, Young and Muller (2010)
argue for a third curriculum principle, a Future 3 scenario, where the ‘differentiatedness’ of knowledge between different school subjects is recognised. This might be
important for Education for Environmental Citizenship because different disciplines
have different knowledge structures, for example, science and mathematics have
conceptual-rich and hierarchical knowledge structures demanding a certain learning
progression, while social science subjects tend to advance through variation or
diversification of concepts (Young and Muller 2010). Therefore, to engage teachers
of different subject specialisation, as commonly found in formal secondary
education, the subject boundaries as in a Future 3 trajectory need to be kept. In that
way the specialist knowledge of teachers of different disciplines can be used in
Education for Environmental Citizenship. The difference from a Future 1 perspective is that the boundaries between the subjects, i.e. how the concepts are interpreted
differently in different disciplines, how various disciplines generate new knowledge
differently and how their ontological and epistemological starting points might differ, are all made explicit and problematised in a Future 3 perspective. Hence, in
13 Environmental Citizenship in Secondary Formal Education: The Importance…
ralistic tradition (Sandell et al. 2005). In the fact-based tradition, environmental
issues are regarded as ecological issues. Environmental problems are based on a
lack of knowledge and can be solved by learning more science. In the normative
tradition, environmental and developmental issues are primarily a question of values, where people’s lifestyles and their consequences are the main threats to the
natural world. Increased uncertainty on complex issues, such as climate change, is
an important point of departure for the pluralistic tradition. Here, environmental
issues are viewed as both moral and political problems, while environmental problems are regarded as conflicts between human interests.
The distribution of these three teaching traditions varies in different school subjects. For example, science teachers teach in a more fact-based way than social science and language teachers (Borg et al. 2012). Hence, student groups may encounter
different teaching content and approaches between different subjects. Many school
subjects are limited by the curricular goals and the organisation of education that
constrain cross- and/or inter-disciplinary efforts, as shown in the cases of the different countries in this chapter. Therefore, teachers are likely to build their conceptual
understanding of Environmental Citizenship and Education for Environmental
Citizenship on the foundation of their own subject traditions. Education for
Environmental Citizenship is multidisciplinary by nature, and this fact might be an
obstacle for subject teachers, an argument supported by Stables and Scott (2002).
Earlier studies have shown that if teachers have a holistic understanding of concepts, such as Environmental Citizenship, they will use a broader approach to teaching and learning, while a narrowed understanding is often associated with narrow
approaches to teaching (Petocz and Reid 2002).
As shown in this and other chapters of this volume, Education for Environmental
Citizenship is rooted in a Future 2 trajectory as outlined by Young and Muller
(2010), and this could hinder the inclusion of Environmental Citizenship in formal
secondary education. The reason is that the secondary school system of many countries is more rooted in a Future 1 trajectory focusing on disciplinary content knowledge, as has been exemplified in this chapter. However, Young and Muller (2010)
argue for a third curriculum principle, a Future 3 scenario, where the ‘differentiatedness’ of knowledge between different school subjects is recognised. This might be
important for Education for Environmental Citizenship because different disciplines
have different knowledge structures, for example, science and mathematics have
conceptual-rich and hierarchical knowledge structures demanding a certain learning
progression, while social science subjects tend to advance through variation or
diversification of concepts (Young and Muller 2010). Therefore, to engage teachers
of different subject specialisation, as commonly found in formal secondary
education, the subject boundaries as in a Future 3 trajectory need to be kept. In that
way the specialist knowledge of teachers of different disciplines can be used in
Education for Environmental Citizenship. The difference from a Future 1 perspective is that the boundaries between the subjects, i.e. how the concepts are interpreted
differently in different disciplines, how various disciplines generate new knowledge
differently and how their ontological and epistemological starting points might differ, are all made explicit and problematised in a Future 3 perspective. Hence, in
13 Environmental Citizenship in Secondary Formal Education: The Importance…