Alleviation and solving of environmental problems requires also many kinds of instructional strategies and materials.

Before you read any more about the book, please construct your own tentative personal theory about the issue which we ponder in the title of this chapter.
First think by yourself what are instructional strategies, teaching methods, instructional materials, teaching materials best suitable for environmental education, for solving and alleviating environmental problems, to enhance education for sustainable development, good environment and higher quality of life

After you have constructed your answer, only after that, please compare you conception, your tentative theory to the ideas presented in this book on the following page(s).

Interdisciplinary projects

Many real life environmental problems are complex. Many disciplines (school subjects) have something to offer in solving or alleviating them. Themes may be water, its quality, water usage, energy production and usage, food production and quality, pollution, resources, landscape etc. These themes have chemical, physical, mathematical, biological, geographical, home economics, language arts, arts education aspects. They could and should be learned as interdisciplinary learning projects related to everyday life. Posch (1994, 23) writes about “environment as a place for interdisciplinary learning and research”. Environment and environmental problems can also be objects (not only a place) of interdisciplinary research and learning project.

Local projects and international projects

Connection to everyday life is best enhanced if local aspects are prominent in interdisciplinary projects. Local environmental problems and threats for sustainability, good environment and good life ought to be surveyed and once a year a short or long local or organizational learning project should be running. This is prone to foster continual quality improvement and high quality learning. Themes might include how best to save energy, how to decrease graffiti and other forms of vandalism, how to best cooperate with other local organizations in promoting sustainability, good environment and good life.

Local projects are often best when they are connected to international or global projects. An international GREEN-project concerns rivers and watersheds. An international Project TREE concerns forests. The problem with these international projects is that participation in them demands extra money, which most schools are lacking. GLOBE-programme is an example which has got at least in Finland necessary resource support from the National Board of Education and it is going on in many schools. GLOBE is a global learning and observation program for the environment. In practice pupils are making systematically observations and measurements of temperature, precipitation, wind, clouds etc. They make their data available to the GLOBE-project and have available data which has collected in other schools all over the globe. There is a computer program which calculates interesting summaries, diagrams based on the data.

Action projects

Some projects might be interdisciplinary, local or global, but they might only include improving understanding, awareness of environmental issues. However the point is that environmental problems and threats are sometimes so urgent, that action is needed. Best action might be informing, promoting public awareness and understanding of complexity of environmental problems and a suggestion how it might be alleviated or solved. At schools any kind of illegalities, violations of laws and human rights are dangerous. We know from history what happened when citizens and citizen groups are persecuted like in Nazi Germany. Not all kinds of changes and change agents ought to be respected.

What is needed in all kinds of action projects is that they stand continual theoretical and empirical scrutiny. On the other hand they need some kind of public support, network support or local support or both, in order to survive in school and in community. To become and act as a part of larger network may empower those in school to make necessary innovations although in the beginning local support might be scarce or lacking. Schools might be forerunners in facilitating continual reconstruction of society, in innovations, in continual quality improvement and in high quality learning.

An interesting and well-documented example of action project for environment is Bull. & al. (1988): Education in Action: A Community Problem Solving Program for Schools. The basic steps of their process are:
    planning the process
    assessing student skills
    increasing awareness
    brainstorming by students
    students develop criteria
    students choose a topic
    students research the topic
    students develop a problem statement
    students do more research
    determining alternative strategies
    students develop criteria
    students implement and evaluate the plan in achieving their goal.
Their Action Research and Community Problem-Solving (ARCPS) -program is further developed by Wals, Beringer and Stapp (1990).

Gayford (1996) has written an interesting article where four schools were involved in action research for environment. Five aspects of environmental education were suggested to schools:
energy use in the school, costs, conservation and management of energy etc;
water use in the school, conservation and management of water use etc;
recycling in the school, what kind of recyclable materials are used in the school and community, what are ways of encouraging recycling behaviour etc;
construction materials used in the school, what kinds of materials are used in school building, what alternative materials there are etc.
transport associated in the school, review of types of transport used, use of non-renewable fuels etc.

For all kinds of action projects it is wise to answer the fourteen important questions of Hungerford & al. (1996, 172), which are here presented in an partly adapted form to be useful both in individual and co-operative action projects:
  Is there sufficient evidence to warrant action on the chosen issue?
  Are there alternative actions available? What are they?
  Is the action chosen the most effective one?
  What are legal consequences of the chosen action? List them.
  What are social consequences of the chosen action? List them.
  What are economic consequences of this action. List them.
  What are ecological consequences of the chosen action?
  Do my or our own values support this action?
  What are beliefs and values of others involved in this action and issue?
  Do I or we understand the procedures necessary to take the action?
  Do I or we have the skills needed to complete this action?
  Do I or we have the courage to take the planned action?
  Do I or we have the time needed to complete this action?
  Do I or we have the necessary resources to make the action effective?
 

Simulations and models

Many real world processes are either so big or so small or time consuming that the only way to master them intellectually is to make models or simulations of them. Think about flight simulators where becoming pilots learn how to fly on an enormous jet plane. With human constructed machines and artefacts it is easier to make simulations than natural systems, e.g. biosphere or ecosystems. Also chemical molecule models and reactions are far more simpler than ecosystem level processes. It would be nice if we would know enough to make good enough world models, but history of them have taught us to be careful. There are so many unknown elements and connections that results of these models, simulations ought to be interpreted with utmost care. We know even without those models that there are unknown limits for non-renewable natural resources. There are unknown limits of how much food can be produced, how big human population the world might be able to carry etc. The point is that the limits are unknown, probably fuzzy, but real.

Children and many adults are interested in all kind of games. Simulations may sometimes be constructed as games. So there is a possibility of learning something important while playing. The problem is however transfer to real life situations. There ought to be more research whether there is any use of making simulations, playing simulation games compared to direct learning projects concerning real life environmental problems and threats, constructive actions to foster sustainability, good environment and good life.

An unwanted side effect of many game simulations is that if somebody wins others lose. This strengthens win-loose -thinking. The point is that in the real world economy by co-operation we often together win more than anybody could win alone. So there are good theoretical and empirical reasons to use win-win-strategy in real life.

Information about simulations as possible tools fostering Sustainability are available e.g. in Burrows, Mayne & Newbury (1991, 282 - 354), Bolscho and Seybold (1996, 165 - 173) and Tietenberg (1996, 2 - 15). Tietenberg (1996) presents first the well-known basic pessimist model (Meadows & al.1972) Limits to growth, which was a quantitative world model. Its predictions failed. It may be one of faulty beliefs which lead to oil crisis. It may have had many good side effects, but faulty alarms do not lead to credibility. Then he presents basic optimism model (Kahn & al. 1976). It covers time from 1776 to 2176. From earlier history it is reasoned that also in future humans create new technology and replace some materials with new often better materials. Kahn & al (1976) regard Meadows & al. (1972) as myopic, too tied to conventional technologies. The point is that future is probably not a continuation of what we have now. Probably we can partly by our imagination, creativity and decisions influence what kind of future we will have.
 

Future workshops (Zukunftswerkstätten), imaging futures and constructing better futures

Future workshop is a forum or a situation where citizens, e.g. pupils and teachers together think about possible and willed futures and about possibilities of their realisation. It was originally developed by Junk and Muellert (1983). The book is translated also to English (Junk and Muellert 1987). Later on the original book was revised and updated (Junk and Muellert 1989). Bolscho and Seybold (1996, 174 - 181) describe future workshop developments and critics in detail.

Future seminar has five phases:
Preparatory phase, in which participants learn them and methods used in future seminar.
Critics phase, where moderator makes provoking questions. Brainstorming is used.
Fantasy phase, where participants think of what kind of future would be most willed. These kind of futures can be very different than the society we have now.
Implementation phase, in which the ideas presented are tested both theoretically and empirical testing is planned. The most important question is what can I do with whom to implement vision of the better society.
Permanent future seminar. In all the phases there are intertwined intuitive-emotional and rational-analytical thinking.

Bell (1997a, 305) warns about possible drawbacks of future workshops: “...small groups being collectively uninformed about important relevant facts, inaccurate in forecasting the consequences of alternative actions, and parochial rather than universalistic in their value judgements and goals. Thus resulting plans of action sometimes may do more damage than good. Future workshops also can result in falsely raising people’s hopes, only to have them dashed again if their efforts at social change are squashed. Finally, future workshops can be incompetently or cynically run and produce very little real participation or real change.”

There are many ways we can promote thinking of better futures. It is not idle daydreaming. Beare and Slaughter (1993, 142) remind us that imaging of futures and “images of futures are much more important than is commonly realized. They powerfully affect what people believe and do in the present and they are continuously being negotiated at all levels of society.”
Axelsson (1997, 291) suggests that a new school subject “Future” ought to be made for better environment in order that teachers and students “dare to learn”. If school work is organized as projects, one aspect could almost always be how to construct better futures connecting the theme.

Fostering metaphorical thinking

Often creative thinking and creative problem solution is promoted by analogical or metaphorical thinking. Science tries to found out how things really are, not how they are metaphorically. In order to better understand metaphors and analogies and their role in thinking and creativity we have a look at some of them.

Two well-known and often used examples are ideas of the spaceship Earth and ecological footprints. These expressions have histories of their own: Boulding (1966) created expression ’spaceship Earth’. Rees and Wackernagel (1994) and Wackernagel and Rees (1996) have developed a metaphoric expression ’an ecological footprint’. Wackernagel and Rees (1996, 158) define ‘ecological footprint’: “Ecological footprint is the land (and water) area that would be required to support a defined human population and material standard indefinitely”.

The house analogy applied to abstract ideas is common in different areas of culture. Jeronen and Kaikkonen (1993-) have applied it to Environmental Education. A problem with any metaphor or analogy is that is can be only partially useful. E.g. the house metaphor may be interpreted as static structure, not a dynamic process.

Doll (1993, 169) regards metaphors useful in a) generating dialogue and b) they help people see what they do not so readily see otherwise. According to Doll (1993, 169) the creative interplay between metaphors and logic is needed in curriculum constructions.

Marshall (1988) discusses implications of two classroom metaphors: work or learning. He prefers not to use workplace metaphor. But learning in schools demands work. It is a work process owned by a learner, often a pupil. Then we introduce a third option: learning work and school is justified as a workplace of learning for both pupils and teachers.

Åhlberg (1988) has discussed metaphorical thinking as a part of thinking of educational objectives. He shows that there are two main spatial metaphors involved. The first and the most common is moving to an accurate place, to an accurate target. The implication is that there are accurate criteria when the target or objective has been reached. This is a metaphor of closed development. The second one and more rare is a metaphor of a possibility of moving always forward, a metaphor of open journey, open exploration. There are no accurate criteria when you have learned enough. This a metaphor of open development. For instance in Education for Sustainable Development there may always be better and more optimal learning ahead.

Human thinking has evolved when people were hunters and gatherers. The point then was to get something very concrete like food, protection etc. The concept of open development includes all instances of closed developments as criteria that development has taken place. For instance an accurate and in this sense closed educational objective might be ‘knowing the certain poisonous plant species’, e.g. poisonous ivy. An example of open educational objectives might be ‘knowing plant species’ as a way to promote biodiversity. There are many undescribed plant species and new ones are evolving all the time and in many senses this educational objective is totally open-ended.

Instructional and learning materials

Ordinary textbooks, workbooks and handbooks are often useful. Their quality can be checked partly by using ARRA or Analysis of Reasoning, Rhetorics and Argumentation presented e.g. Åhlberg 1998. Also researchers, teachers and subject experts in the field ought to be also used for evaluating materials.

New technology offers new possibilities. Internet and WWW offer great possibilities for spreading information and for discussion about threats and possibilities for sustainable development, good environment and good life. Also multimedia and CD-ROM might be good in facilitating understanding and actions for sustainability. In the project multimedia materials are produced and researched on.

It is possible to show how different environmental problems are connected to each other by using multimedia, including hypermedia. Main points and causes for each environmental problems can be presented. In multimedia it is possible to show what 1) an individual person or 2) a group, organization or society can do for alleviating or solving environmental problems.

On the screen there might be ordinary text and pictures. Some words, pictures, icons could be marked so that they can be recognized as “buttons” by which you can get new information about the issue. For references and sources (sources, grounds justifications, warrants, backings) of knowledge claims there ought to be always a button. So they are not always seen on the screen, but if needed, learners can check the sources and inference and their credibility.
For each environmental issue or problem there might be different links for a) evidence (Evi-buttons), b) explanations (Xpl-buttons), c) systems overview (Ovr-button) to show how this issue or problem is related to other issues and problems and to contexts, d) references (R-buttons) etc.

A teacher, a pupil, a school class, a school etc. may construct its own homepage and through it get a) a forum for discussion, b) widespread of its information, c) a tool for its network for sustainability, d) new applicants and members for its co-operative network etc.

A good overview of computers, multimedia and concept maps is presented by Jonassen (1996, 186). According to Jonassen students who engage in hyperauthoring, multimedia and hypermedia probably learn:
  project management skills
  research skills
  organization and planning skills
  reflection skills
  presentation skills.
Tennyson and Breuer (1997, 115) and Tennyson and Elmore (1997, 66) present useful tables how different types of knowledge are connected to educational objectives and instructional prescriptions. These two tables are here united and applied:
 
 

Table 1. Comparison of three basic types of knowledge and the fourth integrating option: high quality learning. (Strongly applying Tennyson and Breuer (1997), Tennyson and Elmore (1997)
 

Applying Mayer (1996, 152) we represent a table in which three different learning metaphors and an integrating approach are associated to different roles of teachers and pupils and instructional methods:
 
 
 

 Table 2. Four different views of learning and instructional methods compared (Strongly applying Mayer 1996)
 

Evaluation for sustainable development

Alleviation and solving of environmental problems requires also evaluation and assessment to promote Sustainable Development, Good Environment and Good Life.

Before you read any more about the book, please construct your own tentative personal theory about the issue which we ponder in the title of this chapter.
First think by yourself what ought to be targets of evaluation in order to best promote sustainable development, good environment and good life?
What is evaluation and what are best ways to implement it in order to promote learning for solving environmental problems and alleviating them. What ought to be targets of evaluation in order to best promote sustainable development, good environment and good life?

After you have constructed your answer, only after that, please compare you conception, your tentative theory to the ideas presented in this book on the following page(s).