by Arjen E.J. Wals
Communication & Innovation Studies
Wageningen University
The Netherlands
email: arjen.wals@alg.vlk.wag-ur.nl
Introduction
The International On-line Debate on Education
for Sustainable Development was initiated by the Dutch Inter Departmental
Steering Group on Environmental Education. The Steering Group is a collaboration
of six ministries. These six ministries have taken the initiative to join
forces in giving an Extra Impulse to environmental education to contribute
to sustainable development in the Netherlands. The debate, supported by
and linked to UNESCO, the IUCN, EEA, the NAAEE, EEEN, WWF and LSF, was
an attempt to link environmental education from around the world in cyberspace
to reflect on ESD in relation to environmental education. This article
lays out the main goals of the debate, its structure and puts forward some
of the results.
Aim
Environmental Education (EE) is recognized
by politicians, policy makers and experts as a factor of vital importance
in achieving sustainable development. As a result, the scope of EE has
broadened in terms of the content, the target groups and the methods used.
The changing perspective provides a challenge for professionals in the
area of environ-mental education, - communication- and –participation.
Communication with international contacts shows that experts all over the world are working on ESD and that the field is developing rapidly. Exchange of information, ideas and tools can contribute to an acceleration of the development of ESD and reveal its potential strengths and pitfalls. The aim of the debate is therefore to explore the implications of the broadened scope of EE on a theoretical as well as on a practical level, and to offer concrete suggestions on the new role and practical uses of Education for Sustainable Development. Learning from experiences in other countries can be of vital importance to effective implementation of ESD in the short and long term.
Structure
An ESDebate website was created
to serve as a discussion platform for the participants. A small group of
carefully selected experts in environmental education, -communication and
–training, were asked to fill out five electronic questionnaires (one every
three weeks) and to provide relevant information about themselves (i.e.
there professional activities, favourite EE-book or website, etc.). Three
moderators analyzed and synthesized the input of each round. Every three
weeks participants could read the summary of the last round and read the
individual responses entered by the other participants. Using the feedback
button at the end of each summary and by emailing other participants individually.
In order to maximize participation, the moderators would individually email
the participants to announce new rounds, closing deadlines and to solicit
their input. Participants were promised to listed as contributors of the
ESDebate publication that will appear in Spring of 2000 (printed and on
CD-Rom).
A public guest book was created to allow the general public to respond to the debate.
To draw websurfers with an interest in
education & environment to the website, the site was linked to a variety
of international and national organizations.
| n | Issue | Input deadline | Publication of results |
| I | Concepts of education for sustainable development | September 1999 | October 1999 |
| II | Examples of good practice | October 1999 | November 1999 |
| III | Implications of good practice: how can progress be achieved? | October 1999 | November 1999 |
| IV | Theme dependent on the course of the discussion | November 1999 | December 1999 |
| V | Evaluation of ESDebate | December 1999 | January 2000 |
Outcomes
Figure 1: Four relationships
between ESD and EE
ESD = EE?
There appears to be consensus that ESD
as a force, phenomenon or tool within contemporary education, both formal
and non-formal, has to be reckoned with and has added value. Less agreement
can be found with regards to the relationship between ESD and EE. Many
view ESD as the next generation of EE which includes issues of ethics,
equity and new ways of thinking and learning. Others say the ESD should
be a part of good EE and there is no need to do away with EE as an umbrella.
Again others suggest that EE is a part of ESD. They argue that ESD is more
comprehensive than EE by including issues of development, North-South relationships,
cultural diversity, social and environmental equity. Figure 1 shows the
four relationships between EE and ESD as can be found among the participants.
Despite the differences in opinion about the relationship between EE and
ESD most participants appear to regard ESD as the next evolutionary stage
or new generation of EE.
ESD for or about?
Many participants are quite comfortable
with ESD as a tool to develop norms and values and change practices and
lifestyles. Emphasis is placed on developing so-called higher thinking
skills and personal, social and environmental competencies. Several participants
suggest that indeed some values are more sustainable than others, and there
is nothing wrong about teaching these values and to teach for sustainable
development. Some participants, however, are quite uncomfortable with ESD
as a tool to change behaviour. They argue that ESD should enable people
to determine their own pathways towards sustainable living. The emphasis
should, in their eyes, be on developing the competencies people need for
achieving this and working towards a more democratic and equitable world.
They oppose the idea of pre- and expert determined universal norms and
values of sustainability. Since nobody knows what the ethically and morally
right sustainable values of behaviours are for oneself and certainly not
for others, they feel it is more appropriate to speak of education about
sustainable development. It should be noted that some of them also object
to the whole notion of sustainable development and much rather speak of
education about sustainability. Figure 2 illustrates how the main focal
points of EE seems to be shifting.
Distinctive features of ESD
Those participants who seem to view ESD
as a successor of EE argue it is more future-oriented (careful examination
of probable and possible futures), critical of the predominant market and
consumption driven society, more sensitive to the different realities that
challenge people around the world (sensitive to context), more systemic
in dealing with complexity, more community and solidarity oriented (as
opposed to individualistic and self-promoting), less concerned with product
(behavioural outcomes), more concerned with process (creating the right
conditions for social learning), more open to new ways of thinking and
doing, and preoccupied with linking social, economic and environmental
equity at the local, regional and global level.
Some cautionary remarks were made by some participants as well. Some warn of ESD becoming a tool of policy-makers and market players. Or suggest that Sustainable Development is nothing more (or less) than a neo-colonial concept riding the waves of globalisation…
There was consensus among the participants that ESD should not just focus on school audiences, but also and perhaps foremost on situations where informal and non-formal education takes place i.e. the workplace, recreation areas, people’s homes, etc., as well as in policy and decision making processes. Some even prefer to speak of learning rather than of education, since education, in their eyes, has strong connotations with in-school and formal learning whereas, the ‘broader’ concept of learning refers to learning taking place at all levels in all situations both formal, informal and non-formal .
ESD as a force for change
The majority of the participants are of
the opinion that ESD can provide an important contribution to sustainable
development or, as some prefer, to sustainability. Most participants
have a rather utopian vision of the future and describe in various way
a better world. A few of them find creating imaginary or possible sustainable
futures an essential element of ESD for it inspires creative thinking and
gives a sense of hope. Some participants stress that it is preferable to
describe possible directions that can change over time rather than to prescribe
fixed targets to be achieved at all cost.
Some participants pointed out that the major driver of a sustainable future is a change in socio-economic structures which, in their eyes, breed inequity and over-consumption. Without such structural change, they seem to suggest, the well-organized and globally institutionalized drive to consume will be far greater than the newly emerging drive to sustain. Education is considered by most of the participants to be one of the driving forces to bring about such structural change and a more sustainable world. However, there are also some participants who seem to believe that we are a crisis-driven species. In other words: it will take a major crisis or an avalanche of smaller crises to really force humanity to pull together and rally behind more sustainable socio-economic structures and the norms and values embedded in concepts of sustainability.
There is an overwhelming richness of ideas and visions among the participants, which invite further thought and reflection. We invite you to take a closer look at them by visiting the website.
Evaluation
Preliminary evaluation results show that
about 80% of the invited participants participated in the debate. Most
of them participated in three or more rounds. Since September 1999 the
site has received over 4200 ‘hits’ from 96 countries (as of mid January
2000). Although we do not have any data as to how intensive the site has
been visited, we know from looking a the hit-frequency of similar educational
sites that this is a remarkable result. The figure below gives some indications
of the geographical spread of the hits.
Lessons learnt
In addition to several positive comments
about the debate and its format there are some reservations and objections
to the format as well. These reservations can be summarized by the following
two questions:
- Was it a debate?
- Were the right questions being asked and were they asked in the right way?
Some participants do not really consider this to be a debate. It is stated that the level of interaction between participants is too low for it to be called a debate. Most interaction takes place in between the moderators and individual participants. Some interaction does take place between individual participants as a result of ESDebate, but this interaction remains unnoticed for the larger group. In essence, the moderators are surveying the ideas of a selected group of EE-experts from around the world and summarize these ideas every round.
Indeed, technically speaking it is not a debate, but there is a lot going on between us and many of the delegates and also in between delegates. The moderators deliberately chose to use a clear structure for the ESDebate. As a preparation to the ESDebate several Internet On-line discussions were studied. The moderators felt that the level of participation in those debates varied strongly. In some cases a few participants produced extensive contributions, while many participants hardly contributed. Much reading was required to participate. Also, often a low response was found to the questions or the essays which were to be critiqued. We chose for this semi-closed group of selected participants and the round format to get a high response rate.
The language of the questions, as some participants commented, was the language of instrumental thinkers (i.e. using words like target groups, delivery, tools, marketing, etc.) and the world of positivism. Critics of such thinking argue that the same thinking lies at the root of many social and environmental problems in the world today. Addressing these problems requires new ways of thinking and alternative worldviews. The questions should reflect this, they argued. Furthermore, some participants criticized the closed questions: the statements, they argued, are often ambiguous and are stripped from context, so it is hard to know what respondents meant with their answers.
Evidently, interpreting the cumulated data becomes rather tricky in this situation. Some participants suggested that statements only have merit when the opportunity is given to clarify the answers (bringing in context and nuance). In later rounds this possibility was added. The statements were intended as appetizers and a 'quick and dirty' way to get the keyboards to heat up. From the lengthy responses to the open questions this seems to have worked. We agree that 'quick and dirty' is not the best way to get at the subtleties and nuances which are necessary in an increasingly polarized world. Particularly academics tend to have an allergic reaction to 'quick and dirty' survey methods, especially when the questions are ambiguous and open to many interpretations. A balance needs to be struck between getting quick and arousing responses and providing space for nuances, subtleties of meaning and sensitivity to alternative viewpoints.
The results of the evaluation round can be found on the site. The ESDebate site will remain accessible through the Spring of 2000. Visit: www.xs4all.nl/~esdebate/
Figure 2: The emergence
of new environmental education