Teaching
Sustainability:
The
Critical Need for Head, Hands, and Heart
William
Benjamin Rogers
“All
parts of the university system are critical to achieving a transformative
change that can occur only by connecting head, heart, and hand” – Anthony D.
Cortez
Abstract
A shift towards sustainability in higher education
has begun, built largely on efforts to reduce the ecological impact of college
campuses and offer interdisciplinary environmental courses. These efforts are
vitally important to the creation of a sustainable campus, yet they do not
comprise a complete solution to the challenges of unsustainable development
that threaten our common future. In that universities are self-replicating
entities (Sipos, et al., 2008), a failure to redesign pedagogy and curriculum
will result in no change to the historically unsustainable trajectory of higher
education. Thus, to achieve campus wide sustainability, new pedagogies must
allow for students’ transformative acquisition of sustainable environmental,
economic, and social principles (Moore, 2005). To this end, experiential
learning is vital to the success of sustainability education. Through case
studies of service learning for sustainability and experiential learning for
sustainable agriculture, the present analysis will demonstrate the efficacy of
integrative pedagogies in generating of affective, process, and cogitative
knowledge.
Background
In
1987, a report from the Brundtland Commission warned members of the United
Nations (UN) that, in the past century, “the relationship between the human
world and the planet that sustains it has undergone a profound change” (UN,
1987, p.230). Its authors underscored the gravity of ecological and climate
degradation, noting that these problems were of human origin. More than a mere
alarm bell, the report offered a path forward: for the world to renew its
intergenerational contract, economic growth, environmental stewardship, and
social equity should comprise the goals of sustainable development.
Missing
from Brundtland was a blueprint for sustainability. If global patterns of human
settlement, agricultural production, manufacturing, trade, economic
development, and environmental management were to shift, what would replace
them? Who would design these systems? Lacking a template for what Senge (2010)
describes as the ‘sustainability revolution,’ world leaders found need for a
cohort of sustainability scholars. Two decades after Brundtland, UN
representatives met in Bonn, Germany for the World Conference on Education for
Sustainable Development. There, signatories to the Bonn Declaration agreed: “we
need a shared commitment to education that empowers people for change” (UNESCO,
2009, p.1-2). Institutions of higher education were identified as laboratories
for sustainability education, thereby emphasizing their importance in the
coming revolution.
In
both curricular design and pedagogical approach, universities have historically
been ill suited for the production of sustainability leaders. As educator
Anthony Cortese (2003) notes, “it is people coming out of the world’s best
colleges and universities that are leading us down the current unhealthy,
inequitable, and unsustainable path” (p.16). Campuses have failed to
mass-produce sustainability champions, in part because knowledge is organized
into ‘traditional,’ specialized disciplines. Courses emphasizing sustainability
rarely fit within these ‘traditional’ structures, requiring “a paradigm shift
toward a systemic perspective emphasizing collaboration and cooperation”
(Cortese, 2003, p.16). Thus systems-thinking—a common approach within
sustainability—demands a radical change in the disciplinary structure of higher
education.
Dismantling
the heuristic of academic disciplines is not enough to secure high-quality
sustainability education. In addition to restructuring the scaffolding of
education, academics must work to reformulate its pedagogy (Moore, 2005).
Whereas the ‘traditional’ paradigm of education often involves surface-level
learning, meaning the rote memorization of specialized knowledge,
sustainability education demands greater breadth of content and depth of
analysis (Warburton, 2003). This may be achieved through deep learning: a
reflexive process of examining the key principles and paradigms of a system
(Warburton, 2003).
Shifts
in pedagogy must also be accompanied by the recognition of multiple learning
outcomes. Surface-level learning places emphasis on cogitative outcomes, such
as the recall of memorized facts and statistics (Warburton, 2003). In contrast,
depth learning surpasses surface-level learning, producing affective outcomes
in addition to cogitative gains (Shephard, 2008; Sipos, et al., 2008;
Warburton, 2003). Affective outcomes may include new values, ethics, and commitments
to the subject matter being analyzed (Shephard, 2008). Applied to
sustainability, affective outcomes encompass a person’s internalized sense of
environmental justice, value for sustainable living, and commitment to
environmental stewardship.
If
a learner can achieve such affective outcomes, she or he has engaged in
transformative learning. Transformative learning is defined as “a process of
affecting change within a frame of reference” (Moore, 2005, p.82). As outlined
by Moore (2005), this process involves the critical examination of one’s habits
of mind and point of view, which together comprise an individual’s framework
for understanding. Extending this to sustainable education, transformative
learning might involve reflections about consumerism (a habit of mind) and the
products one purchases (a point of view) within a broader global context
(Moore, 2005). By connecting the individual to a larger problem, transformative
learning has the potential to change an individual’s behavior (e.g., less consumption)
while conferring knowledge of sustainability.
To
understand transformative sustainability education, it is helpful examine
successful programs from higher education institutions. A search for
experiential sustainability education yields seven possible examples of
transformative programs (Battisti, et al., 2008; Brundiers, et al., 2010;
Crowfoot & Santone, 2004; Domask, 2007; Fourie, 2003; Parr & Horn,
2006; Santone & Crowfoot, 2004; Sipos, et al., 2008). From these programs,
three are profiled to demonstrate the geographical and pedagogical diversity of
integrative sustainability education.
Case Studies
Service Learning for
Sustainability
Service learning is a pedagogy connecting
classroom-based learning with community service through structured research,
dialogue, and reflection (Fourie, 2003). Though numerous models of service
learning exist, they share in common the opportunity engage in hands-on
learning. Here, I describe two such programs for sustainability: the Michigan
Community Scholars Program in the United States and the Mangaung University
Community Partnership Program in South Africa.
The
Michigan Community Scholars Program (MCSP) comprises a residential
living-learning community, wherein participating undergraduates elect
coursework from a variety of service learning seminars (Crowfoot & Santone,
2004). One such seminar, titled “Environment, Sustainability, and Social
Change,” is the product of student recommendations for undergraduate
sustainability education. Offered only to freshman, the course seeks to
identify ‘unsustainability’ and teach sustainable living to oftentimes
environmentally-naïve students. This is, necessarily, a transformative learning
process, wherein participants engage in critical reflection about their own
privileges and lifestyles (Crowfoot & Santone, 2004). Through classroom
dialogues, field trips, presentations from local sustainability practitioners,
and service learning, students are immersed in experiences that place
sustainability within a community context (Crowfoot & Santone, 2004).
As
a course capstone, MCSP seminar participants elect a community-based project.
Santone and Crowfoot (2004), the instructors, outline a particularly successful
project below:
Working with middle school
students in her hometown, [an art] student combined an in-class quilt-making
project on the local importance of the Great Lakes with research and
presentations on related local and global water issues. Her project included an
on-campus display of the quilt and how it was created, followed by a display at
the school where it was done. To conclude the project, she donated the quilt to
a museum in her hometown focused on the Great Lakes. (Santone & Crowfoot, 2004, p. 156)
In this example, the student’s
quilt connects campus and community as a tangible representation of
sustainability. Course feedback confirms that students enjoyed this creative
mode of self-directed, transformative learning (Santone & Crowfoot, 2004).
Through reflection and service, MCSP students glean knowledge of environmental
issues and commit to sustainability.
Whereas
the Michigan seminar emerged from student interest, the Mangaung University
Community Partnership Program (MUCCP) in South Africa responded to community
demand for medical services (Fourie, 2003). Formed in 1991, the MUCCP initially
offered healthcare (provided by student volunteers) to communities near the
university (Fourie, 2003). The project was initially limited to medical and
nursing students, but it later grew to include students studying psychology,
entomology, agricultural management, and leisure science (Fourie, 2003). Today,
it extends even further, reaching undergraduate and postgraduate students from
eight university departments.
Under
the guidance of faculty, students complete projects of high priority to the
Mangaung community. These include efforts to increase vegetable production,
provide family planning education, change health behavior, prevent HIV/AIDS,
and promote child health, all within the framework of sustainable development.
As university and community stakeholders, educators focus on community needs
and foster “integrated and iterative processes of learning by and from the
community” (Fourie, 2003, p.35). Environmental issues are a lesser focus of the
MUCCP, whereas elements of social sustainability (including health and social
security) compose its largest impact. Students, responding directly to
community need, report a greater understanding of challenges to sustainable
development after serving and learning from their community. Thus, bridging
academics and action, MUCCP students and their MCSP counterparts learn
sustainability through direct community service.
Experiential Learning for
Sustainable Agriculture
Another
model for sustainability learning can be found in university sustainable
agriculture programs, which have a long history of experiential learning
(Battisti, et al., 2008). In that modern farming practices take root in
industry, not nature, students of sustainable agriculture must challenge their
worldview and engage in transformative learning (Battisti, et al., 2008). The
Student Experimental Farm (SEF) at the University of California, Davis, formed
in 1977, was an early source of transformative learning opportunities in
agriculture (Parr & Horn, 2006). Over time, SEF participants formed
community action projects, helping organize a rural apprenticeship program and
providing farmer outreach (Parr & Horn, 2006). The farm gave students the
opportunities to model and teach sustainable agriculture:
In the larger-scale market
garden, students grew organic vegetables for sale to an on-campus
student-operated restaurant, and collected and composted the kitchen waste from
the restaurant. Through the children’s garden program, students provided grade
school classes from the region with hands-on farm and garden tours focusing on
agricultural and environmental topics.
(Parr & Horn, 2006, p.427-428).
Involvement with the closed-loop,
zero-waste market garden and similar projects enabled SEF students to engage
both their heads and hands in the realization of an ecologically sound system
of agriculture.
Today,
students may elect a new major in sustainable agriculture. Following faculty
recommendations, the major is specifically designed to allow for the “inclusion
of social sciences, field-based experiential learning, and a
systems-orientation within the curriculum” (Parr, et al., 2007; Parr &
Horn, 2006, p. 428). Guiding the curriculum are seven pedagogical principles
that underscore the vital need to connect classrooms, farms, and communities
for sustainability education (see Table 1). Indeed, agro-ecological educators
rank this tripartite interaction as the most important cogitative outcome for
students of sustainable agriculture, which is on par with their ranking of
farming experiences (process knowledge) and social awareness (an affective
outcome) as essential learning objectives (Parr, et al., 2007).
Table 1: Seven guiding principles of sustainable
agriculture education at the University of California, Davis (adapted from Parr
& Horn, 2006, p.429)
Principle
|
Definition
|
1.
Interdisciplinarity
|
“Integrating natural
and social science knowledge, skills, and understanding through
interdisciplinary coursework”
|
2.
Experiential learning
|
Learning through “purposeful
activity, integrating theory and practice.”
|
3.
Systems thinking
|
Discovering “connections
between agriculture, social institutions, and the environment.”
|
4.
Skill development
|
Cultivating among
students “a broad range of practical and social skills, in addition to
knowledge and theory.”
|
5.
Linking the real world with classroom
|
Providing students
with “real-world contexts and engagements”
|
6.
Community building
|
Reaching out to form
“healthy rural and urban communities” while creating “communities among the
program’s students, staff, and faculty.”
|
7.
Adaptive curriculum management
|
Modifying the
curriculum “via formal feedback processes involving students, alumni, staff,
and faculty.”
|
Recommendations
The
aforementioned programs—in Michigan, South Africa, and California—demonstrate
sustainability on campus and in the community. Shared among them is the notion
that cogitative, process, and affective outcomes can be cultivated through transformative
learning. Students from each program emerge with personal knowledge of
sustainability after careful introspection and hands-on practice. Such learning
need not exclusively take place in one’s own community; rather, at the core of
transformative education lies experiential learning that engages and empowers
students in any setting (Domask, 2007).
The
future of sustainability education requires higher education leaders to
dismantle the constraints of disciplines and pedagogies that privilege surface-level
learning and exclusively cogitative outcomes. While students must still master
knowledge of environmental science to understand sustainability challenges,
they must also look within themselves for unsustainable behaviors. Through
critical dialogue and reflection, students can identify the paradigms that
breed unsustainability and propose an alternative. Moreover, students may
develop what Donella Meadows (1999) describes as the most important leverage
point of all: the power to transcend paradigms. Last, provoking affective
outcomes in the classroom helps facilitate students’ long-term commitments to
sustainability, a paramount goal of sustainability education.
Conclusion
From Brundtland to Bonn, global actors have placed
pressure on institutions of higher education to lead the sustainability
revolution. To do so, universities must complement changes in campus operations
with revisions to the organization and delivery of knowledge. Transformative
learning via experiential sustainability education offers students the
opportunity to study and create change. In so doing, students rehearse skills
with their hands, envision solutions with their heads, and deepen environmental
commitments with their hearts.
References
References
Battisti, B. T., Passmore, C.,
& Sipos, Y. (2008). Action learning for sustainable agriculture: transformation
through guided reflection. NACTA Journal, 52(2), 23-31.
Brundiers, K., Wiek, A., &
Redman, C. L. (2010). Real-world learning opportunities in sustainability:
from classroom into the real world. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 11(4), 308-324.
Cortese, A. (2003). The critical
role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Planning
for Higher Education, 31(3), 15-22.
Crowfoot, J., & Santone, S.
(2004). Collaborative learning about unsustainability: an interdisciplinary
seminar to help achieve sustainability. In J. A. Galura, P. A. Pasque, D. Schoem,
& J. Howard (Eds.), Engaging the whole of service-learning, diversity,
and learning
communities (85-97). Ann Arbor: OCSL Press.
Domask, J. J. (2007). Achieving
goals in higher education: an experiential approach to sustainability
studies. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8(1), 53-68.
Fourie, M. (2003). Beyond the ivory
tower: service learning for sustainable community development.
South African Journal of Higher Education, 17(1), 31-38.
Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage
points: Places to intervene in a system.
Hartland, VT: The Sustainability
Institute.
Moore, J. (2005). Is higher
education ready for transformative learning? : A question explored in the
study of sustainability. Journal of Transformative Education, 3(1), 76-91.
Parr, D. M., Trexler, C. J.,
Khanna, N. R., & Battisti, B. T. (2007). Designing sustainable agriculture
education: academics’ suggestions for an undergraduate curriculum at a land grant
university. Agriculture and Human Values, 24, 523-533.
Parr, D. M., & Van Horn, M.
(2006). Development of organic and sustainable agricultural education
at the University of California, Davis: a closer look at practice and theory. HortTechnology,
16(3), 426-431.
Santone, S., & Crowfoot, J.
(2004). Collaborative learning about sustainability: major projects to empower
ongoing learning and action. In J. A. Galura, P. A. Pasque, D. Schoem, & J.
Howard
(Eds.), Engaging the whole of service-learning, diversity, and learning communities
(153-161). Ann Arbor: OCSL Press.
Senge, P. M. (2010). The
necessary revolution: How individuals and organizations are working together
to create a sustainable world. New York:
Crown Business.
Shephard, K. (2008). Higher
education for sustainability: seeking affective learning outcomes. International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), 87-98.
Sipos, Y., Battisti, B., &
Grimm, K. (2008). Achieving transformative sustainability learning: engaging
head, hands, and heart. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
9(1), 68-86.
United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2009). Bonn Declaration.
Retrieved from http://www.esd-world-conference-2009.org/fileadmin/ download/ESD2009_BonnDeclaration080409.pdf.
United Nations (UN). (1987). Our
collective future. Retrieved from http://www.un- documents.net/our-common-future.pdf.
Warburton, K. Deep learning and
education for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education, 4(1), 44-56.
