Environmental Education Research Vol. 16, Nos. 5–6, October–December 2010, 511–528
Learning for resilience, or the resilient learner? Towards a necessary reconciliation in a paradigm of sustainable education Stephen Sterling* Centre for Sustainable Futures, University of Plymouth, Devon, UK (Received 17 April 2009; final version received 4 December 2009) Taylor and Francis CEER_A_505427.sgm
Environmental 10.1080/13504622.2010.505427 1350-4622 Original Taylor 502010 16
[email protected] StephenSterling 000002010 &Article Francis (print)/1469-5871 Education Research (online)
This explorative paper works across discourses to suggest the possibility and potential of an integrative paradigm for sustainability education that reconciles instrumental and intrinsic educational traditions, informed and infused by resilience theory and social learning. It argues that such an integrative view is required in the context of the urgency of building more resilient local social–ecological systems (SES), and that such a view offers the possibility of new energy and direction in the sustainability education debate. The paper is essentially a thinkpiece that attempts to look at touchstones between discourses to suggest the possibilities and potential of mutual illumination and better integration. The paper begins by reviewing tensions between an instrumentalist view and an intrinsic value view of environmental and sustainability education, the former seeing such education as a means to individual and social change, the latter upholding the primacy of the autonomous learner who, secondarily may – or may not – take action towards sustainability. The paper then considers the discourse of the resilient learner, before reviewing social learning literature linked to resilience and discussing how far these various views can be brought together and reconciled. Parallels are made with tensions in the debate on sustainability when seen as a desirable ideal, or as a process. Transformative learning theory is then introduced in relation to addressing the paradox of resilient but maladaptive worldviews and the need to educate for resilience. The paper concludes with an argument for a transformative education paradigm – ‘sustainable education’ – which necessarily integrates instrumental and intrinsic views and which nurtures resilient learners able to develop resilient social–ecological systems in the face of a future of threat, uncertainty and surprise. Keywords: resilience; environmental education; sustainability; sustainable education
Introduction According to Richmond, writing in the UNESCO mid-term review of the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, a ‘paradigm shift in thinking, teaching and learning for a sustainable world’ (2009, 3) needs to be realised and a holistic approach to teaching and learning is vital and urgent. Yet, within environmental and sustainability education, there is a tension which arguably impedes its effectiveness in helping achieve more resilient social–ecological systems and a more ‘sustainable’ world at a time when the need to realise transformative change is increasingly urgent. Further, after more than three decades of working in the field, I feel that the paradigmatic base of ‘education for sustainable development’ (ESD) is as yet insufficiently clear to *Email:
[email protected] ISSN 1350-4622 print/ISSN 1469-5871 online © 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2010.505427 http://www.informaworld.com
512
S. Sterling
spearhead the kind of shift envisaged by the UNESCO. This paper attempts to develop and substantiate an integrative view which may help this process, which I label ‘sustainable education’ (Sterling 2001). I begin with a brief review of two key positions within the environmental and sustainability education debate which, fundamentally, represent different views of the purpose of education. One puts primary emphasis on nurturing a quality within the learner, the other on attaining an external outcome. I will argue in this paper that this is more than a difference of emphasis, rather a philosophical and problematic dichotomy. I suggest these positions are nevertheless compatible and further that debates around social learning and resilience (Blackmore 2007), which until recently have tended to develop virtually independently of the environmental and sustainability education discourse, offer a pathway towards reconciling various views in a more holistic and intellectually coherent framework for sustainability education. I also touch upon and draw parallels with the ‘resilient learner’ debate (Bernard 2004), which has emerged separately from the other debates but has something to contribute to thinking about what is needed at this critical time. To that end, I will maintain that a transformative educational paradigm – drawing on both extrinsic and intrinsic views of sustainability education and further drawing on ‘resilient learner’ and ‘learning for resilience’ discourses – is necessary to nurture resilient learners who are able to develop resilient social–ecological systems in the face of a future of threat and uncertainty. This integrative paradigm is labelled sustainable education to signify a shift of educational culture. To help define terms, I maintain that sustainability implies the survival, the security, and beyond these, the well-being of a whole system, whether this is seen at local level, such as community, or at global level. These are nested stages; there is no well-being unless there is some level of security, and no security unless there is survival as a prime condition. Further, I see sustainability as implying economic viability, ecological integrity and social cohesion but also necessitating an operating ecological or participatory worldview which recognises these qualities or system conditions as mutually interdependent and co-defining. I would further argue that sustainability is both an explorative process and a broad direction, and that we need to consider these two aspects in relation. Resilience is defined as ‘the ability of a system to absorb disturbance and still retain its basic function and structure’ (after Walker and Salt 2006). I suggest below that resilient systems need to be sustainable, whilst sustainable systems need to be resilient, and extend this argument to the sphere of worldviews. Drawing on such writers as Mezirow (2000) and O’Sullivan (1999), I interpret ‘transformative learning’ to mean a quality of learning that is deeply engaging, and touches and changes deep levels of values and belief through a process of realisation and recognition. It is equivalent in meaning to epistemic learning, and I argue that it inevitably gives rise to a heightened relational sensibility and a sense of ethical responsibility. For the purposes of this paper, I am using the term ‘sustainability education’ as a catch-all to denote forms of environmental education, education for sustainability and education for sustainable development. Beyond these terms, ‘sustainable education’ is used to suggest a change of paradigm across education as a whole.
Environmental Education Research
513
Views of the relationship between education/learning and sustainability In this section, I briefly review four perspectives that throw light on the role and nature of education and learning in relation to resilience, namely an instrumental view of education for sustainability, an intrinsic view of education for sustainability, the resilient learner and learning as seen by resilience theorists. Recognition is made that in seeking meta-patterns and commonalities, there is a danger that exceptions and contradictory cases are overlooked or oversimplified, but the argument is offered to stimulate further thought and debate.
The instrumental view of education for sustainability Starting with the early days of environmental education, the 1972 UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment was one of the first international high-level meetings to suggest that education was a key to addressing environmental issues. The way of thinking, which was in the ascendance for many years following the conference, is essentially an instrumental and behaviourist view of education. In this view, education is seen primarily in terms of a means to an end. It is seen as a remedial vehicle by which such qualities as increased awareness and understanding, and attitudinal and valuative change leading to action towards environmental protection can be attained. In more contemporary terms, environmental and sustainability education is seen as an agent by which the development of more sustainable lifestyles can be achieved. This view tends to be based on a realist and materialist worldview, a universalist (rather than locally contextualised) view of knowledge, often giving rise to an instructive and transmissive methodology, with an emphasis on content, information and communication. The assumptions about learning in this process are often (although not always) relatively simple and linear: that raising awareness and knowledge about environmental issues will, rationally and causally, lead to personal and behavioural change, and if followed in great enough numbers, to social change. This reflects an accompanying linear and causal view of the relationship between education and society – that the former can affect or change the latter. Hence, education has been valued for decades, particularly by policy-makers, as a benign influence that can help address social and environmental issues. It would be fair to suggest that this view is reflected in some of the discourse associated with the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014), the overall goal of which is ‘to integrate the principles, values, and practices of sustainable development into all aspects of education and learning. This educational effort will encourage changes in behaviour that will create a more sustainable future in terms of environmental integrity, economic viability, and a just society for present and future generations’ (UNESCO 2009). Those advocating this view of education for sustainability are often motivated by a sense of urgency and a passion to increase levels of what is commonly referred to as ‘sustainability literacy’ involving sets of attitudes and skills which are perceived as necessary to participation in sustainable development (Forum for the Future 2004).
The intrinsic view of education for sustainability Particularly since the early 1990s, in the environmental and sustainability education debate, and drawing on antecedents such as Dewey, there has been a counter-view
514
S. Sterling
which questions the educational legitimacy and soundness of an educational process, the success of which appears to be founded on achievement of what might be seen as predetermined learning outcomes and, by extension, predetermined environmental/ sustainability outcomes. In particular, the notion of ESD is criticised for presenting a ‘destination view’ which is ‘inherently deterministic and modernistic’ (Jickling and Spork 1998), suggesting ‘closure according to goals and outcomes before the learning process has even begun’ (Selby 2008, 67). The instrumental view of sustainability education is seen as having prescriptive tendencies, and thus these critics invoke an argument around the politics of knowledge (Parker 2008) inasmuch as they question who should determine what is worth learning and knowing, including conceptions of what sustainability literacy means and should entail. Further, they tend to suggest that as we do not know what a sustainable society looks like, we cannot educate for it as such, and invoke uncertainty in support of this argument (Gough and Scott 2007). In contrast, the intrinsic view ‘involves the development of learners’ abilities to make sound choices in the face of uncertainty and complexity of the future’ (Scott and Vare 2008, 3). Whilst the worthiness of the sought outcome – such as environmental protection – may not be in dispute, those arguing for environmental and sustainability education that in effect might go little further than raising critical awareness do so on the grounds that good educational practice ought not to transgress this perceived boundary, lest it risk losing claim to being sound education. So these educators answer the fundamental question, ‘What is education for?’, by stressing the intrinsic values of education, the quality of the learning experience and the importance of contextualised knowledge, and often cite arguments in favour of nurturing the qualities of the autonomous, critically reflective learner who is able to make informed decisions. In this view, environmental and sustainability issues provide an important context through which learning takes place, but ultimately, whether or not the learner engages in more sustainable behaviours or environmental protection is of important but of secondary value and is a judgement that needs to be made by the critically reflective learner. Importantly, this is entirely consistent with the view of sustainability and sustainable development to which ‘intrinsic’ educators tend to subscribe, as illustrated by Foster: Sustainability is not a specifiable target state, but the continuous exploratory pursuit, through open-ended learning, of ways to ensure that life goes on … Deep sustainability really consists in the life-effort of men and women whose education has equipped them with enough knowledge, sensitivity, emotional range and moral imagination to act together as a genuinely learning community in modern conditions. (2008, 145)
So whilst instrumental educators see sustainability as an identifiable state which can be educated for, instrinsic educators in contrast see the learning process as an intrinsic and vital part of sustainable development which cannot be known in advance or predetermined. I would argue that this is valid to a degree but is also selflimiting because it tends to deny or avoid a purposive or directive dimension. From an instrinsic educator’s point of view, it is much more defensible to educate the critical thinker who can then make informed decisions than to educate for any kind of desirable direction (or away from an existing state), which might possibly open up accusations of ideological orientation. Yet, from a sustainability point of view, and given the urgency of the issues that face us, the instrinsic stance may be necessary
Environmental Education Research
515
but not sufficient. As O’Riordan and Voisey suggest, whilst there is ‘no template for the transition to sustainability … there is a direction and there are principles’ (1998, xv). The intrinsic position inclines towards an idealist rather than a realist view of the world, and a social constructivist view of learning and the learner, with an emphasis on building the individual’s capacity to think critically, systemically and reflexively. From a resilience standpoint, one of the strengths of the ‘intrinsic’ view is that it attempts to promote ‘adaptive capacity’ in the learner in the face of uncertainty, yet its literature, by and large, is not informed by resilience theory. Interestingly, however, the intrinsic view is consistent with another and separate use of the word ‘resilience’ – in relation to what is termed the ‘resilient learner’ – which is reviewed later in the paper.
Comparing the two views The difference between these two views is marked and reflects a wider and significant tension in educational debate. They are consistent with what Scott and Vare (2008) have called ‘ESD 1’ and ‘ESD 2’ approaches, and my own educational ‘Strategy 1’ and ‘Strategy 2’ analysis (Sterling 1996). In sum, an instrumental view of education tends to stress purpose and product, that is, outcomes and ‘effectiveness’. It is concerned more with ‘what education is for’, rather than the nature of education, is content focused and is often reflected in such terms as education ‘for literacy’, ‘for health’, ‘for development’, for ‘economic competiveness’ and so on, as well as education ‘for sustainability’. The intrinsic view however stresses process – the quality of experience of teaching and learning – is pedagogy focused and is primarily concerned with ‘what education is’ and the learners’ experience rather than what it might eventually lead to or influence. In terms of worldview and epistemology, this dichotomy reflects the realism–idealism tension; in terms of learning theory, it reflects the behaviourism–constructivism tension; in terms of methodology, it reflects the content–process and transmission–transformation tensions. In environmental education – and depicted in simple terms – the first orientation is more interested in the ‘environment’ part of environmental education, whilst the second orientation is more interested in the ‘education’ part of environmental education: a difference between ‘education for the environment’ and ‘education for being’ perhaps. Summed up starkly, the first view is essentially outer directed, the second view more inner directed. These two positions may be mapped as presented in Table 1. It is important to note that these are not two simple ‘camps’ – there is a spectrum of possible positions and practices across these platforms, and certainly examples of where the two positions are integrated, but I would maintain that the model helps clarify an underlying (and at times unspoken) tension between behaviourist and constructivist tensions, for example, as has been evidenced in debate about indicators for ESD (e.g. Tilbury and Janousek 2007). This analysis helps account for the relative lack of significant progress of sustainability education. As I have suggested elsewhere: The behaviourist view tends to provoke an accommodatory response from educational systems, a tinkering with curriculum content or greening of the estate, which may or may
516
S. Sterling
Table 1.
Fundamental orientations influencing environmental/sustainability education.
Position
Behaviourist
Constructivist
Ontology Epistemology View of knowledge Theory of learning Function of environmental education/sustainability education Main emphasis Focus
Realist Objectivist/positivist Universalised Instructivist Remedial
Idealist Constructivist/interpretivist Contextualised Constructivist Developmental
Learning experience Meaning-making
Seeks
Goals/outcomes Knowledge acquisition (and values/skills) Behavioural change
Reflects Pedagogy
Instrumental values Transmission/instructivist
Desired change
Integration (environmental responsibility) Objectivism; can lack critical reflexivity
Intrinsic problems
Capacity building, selfdevelopment Intrinsic values Transaction or transformation/ constructivist Autonomy – individual as decision-maker Relativism; can lack direction
Source: Sterling (2004, 53).
not take place to any great depth and level of coherence. The constructivist approach suggests a deeper reformatory response, but one which education systems find hard to grasp, or to distinguish from ‘good education’ that they may claim to be providing already. (Sterling 2004, 54, emphasis in original)
Not least, the differences in approach between ‘instrumental’ and ‘intrinsic’ views of environmental and sustainability education have weakened its overall ability to present a coherent case for a transformative educational paradigm commensurate with the social–economic–ecological challenges which face us. Yet I argue that these two views are not incompatible, and each brings strengths which addresses the other’s weakness. Their relationship can be better appreciated if viewed through the lens of learning theory, following Bateson’s (1972) learning levels and adopted by other theorists since (e.g. Argyris and Schon 1996; Bawden 1997a, 1997b). If the two approaches are seen as learning responses to the environmental/sustainability crises, we might suggest that seen integratively, the instrumental view tends to fall into the category of a first-order learning response (i.e. basic learning), whereas the intrinsic view is consistent with a second-order learning response (i.e. learning about learning), whereby assumptions are questioned and reflexivity is valued; indeed this position arose through questioning of the limits of instrumental education. Using the insight that the Bateson lens affords helps us then conceive a changed education paradigm consistent with a third-order change which builds on the first two approaches. I see this as an ecological transformative educational paradigm appropriate to our times (discussed at length in my thesis, Sterling 2003). Importantly, I see social learning informed by resilience theory (reviewed below) as highly relevant here, bringing an
Environmental Education Research
517
important dimension to such a paradigm – which would subsume the first-order and second-order learning levels outlined above. Not least, it adds the critically important dimension of collective learning, rather than the emphasis on the individual shared by the two views outlined above. Before taking this argument further, I wish to briefly divert to look at a relevant but, as yet, separate discourse which focuses on the resilient learner to see what this might add to the picture.
The resilient learner The concept of the resilient learner is worth reflecting on as, whilst it hardly features in either sustainability education discourse or social learning in relation to resilience, it is relevant to both. It also links to discourse on human development and resilience. One of the key thinkers who has popularised the notion of the resilient learner is Guy Claxton. His books are essentially about individual learning skills or competencies which he believes should be developed alongside the formal curriculum. He outlines and advocates four ‘Rs’ as follows (Claxton 2002): ● ● ●
●
Resilience: being ready, willing and able to lock on to learning Resourcefulness: being ready, willing and able to learn in different ways Reflection: being ready, willing and able to become more strategic about learning Relationships: being ready, willing and able to learn alone and with others
These ideas have been influential in school systems, particularly in the UK, for example, featuring in professional development courses and in guidance to students. Talking further about resilience, Wells and Claxton state: One of the key qualities of the effective real-life learner is surely the ability to stay intelligently engaged with a complex and unpredictable situation, a property we might call ‘resilience’. Resilient individuals will be more inclined to take on learning challenges of which the outcome is uncertain, to persist with learning despite temporary confusion or frustration, and to recover from setbacks and failures. (2002, 28)
At a deeper level, in the USA, there is interest in the idea of resilience as part of child and human development. Bernard (2004) sees resilience as strengths or competencies associated with healthy development and life success in the individual. She offers four overlapping categories of ‘resilience strength’: social competence, problem solving, autonomy and sense of purpose. Interestingly, Bernard sees resilience as emanating from ‘innate self-righting tendencies’ (2004, 10) and states that ‘the development of human resiliency is none other than the process of healthy human development’ (2004, 9). From a systems view, the resilient learner may be seen as a ‘resilient system’. Yet there appears to be little or no cross-over between the ‘resilient learner discourse’ and learning in relation to social–ecological resilience (Masten and Obradovic 2008). Neither – interestingly – is there much evidence of links between resilient learner discourse and sustainability education discourse. That said, there is much in common between resilient learner discourse and the intrinsic view of sustainability education (reviewed above). Let us summarise the positions covered to date:
518
S. Sterling
Environmental/sustainability education – instrumentalist/behaviourist position. Strong on real-world orientation and reflecting urgency, emphasis on content, but weaker on educational process. Emphasis on individual learner. Consistent with first-order learning. Environmental/sustainability education – intrinsic/constructivist position. Strong on learning process but weaker on real-world objectives and in reflecting urgency. Content more likely to be contended and seen as less important than process. Emphasis on individual learner. Consistent – to a degree – with second-order learning, where it encourages critical reflection on values and assumptions. Resilient learner – strong on process but contextual framework/content and sustainability issues may be weakly recognized. Emphasis on individual learner. Consistent – to a degree – with second-order learning, particularly where personal development is core to practice. I now look at the fourth discourse, which is ‘social learning in relation to social– ecological system resilience’. Social learning in relation to social–ecological system resilience Discourse around social and adaptive learning in relation to resilience in social– ecological systems lies within the literature of natural resources management and system resilience (Berkes and Folke 1998; Folke et al. 2002; Gunderson and Holling 2002; Armitage, Marschke, and Plummer 2006; Armitage et al. 2008). With some exceptions (Krasny and Tidball 2009), this discourse has been almost entirely separate from environmental and sustainability education discourses (as evidenced by the pages of Environmental Education Research, for example, over past years) and conducted by a largely separate ‘community of practice’ (Wenger 1998) based on environmental science and environmental management. The nature of this discourse is covered elsewhere in this collection, but for the purposes of this paper, I will summarise some key ideas. One of the more obvious and key distinctions between this discourse and those outlined above is the emphasis on social learning, which Armitage et al. define as: The collaborative or mutual development and sharing of knowledge by multiple stakeholders (both people and organizations) through learning-by-doing. (2008, 96)
Similarly, Blackmore states that it is ‘learning our way together to a more sustainable future in dynamic multi-stakeholder situations of uncertainty and complexity’ (2009, 229). Hence, there is a prior emphasis on context, on participative approaches, on collective (rather than individual) learning, on self-organisation and on emergence (rather than predetermined ‘learning outcomes’). The theory and practice of social learning for resilience arose primarily from the recognition that the old ‘command and control’ paradigm of resource management was of limited use in conditions of uncertainty and complexity (Folke et al. 2002; Walker and Salt 2006). If top-down, applied, expert-led approaches were of limited use, then the understanding arose,
Environmental Education Research
519
particularly in the 1990s, that learning amongst both resource-dependent communities and policy-makers was necessary to assure resource sustainability through a process of ‘adaptive co-management’. More profoundly, the capacity to learn was seen as a critical property of any dynamically sustainable social–ecological system, or ‘complex adaptive system’ (Folke et al. 2002). Here was a fundamental break with conventional methodologies associated with Western resource management science which emphasises the role of the expert, universally applicable and decontextualised knowledge, and control (Gunderson and Holling 2002). This radically different approach recognises that transmissive or instructive learning cannot suffice in conditions of uncertainty and complexity. Hence, Armitage et al. state that adaptive co-management requires a model of learning that ‘accounts for social context (e.g. conflict and power imbalances), pluralism, critical reflection, adaptive capacity, systems thinking or interconnectedness, a diversity of approaches to adaptation, and paradigm shifts’ (2008, 98). This is consistent with Ison, Maiteny, and Carr’s distinction between ‘systemdetermined problems’ and ‘problem-determined systems’ (1997, 261). If we now switch attention to formal education (which is the focus of much sustainability education discourse), it is possible to see conventional educational frameworks as being consistent with a ‘command and control’ approach, and with ‘systemdetermined problems’ whereby policy determines curriculum and valued knowledge, methodology and methods (which tend to be transmissive), and sought outcomes from the learning process (which tends to have an individual rather than collective focus). Problem-determined systems in contrast involve all relevant actors in shaping the learning system and outcomes through a participatory approach. However, with regard to natural resource management (NRM), Armitage, Marschke, and Plummer note a ‘paradox of learning’; they argue that whilst the importance of learning is widely recognised in NRM circles, such learning can sometimes be superficial and less meaningful than intended (2007, 97). Thus, they call for ‘greater specificity with respect to learning goals, approaches and outcomes as (stakeholders) seek to collaboratively understand and manage environmental change, and identify specific strategies to deal with uncertainty and surprise’ (2007, 87). This is an interesting view that casts an eye back on the ‘first-order’ position in instrumental learning. As such, it allows us to conceive an integrative view of the four approaches/positions outlined thus far, across Bateson’s learning levels, with social learning in relation to resilience theory indicating the possibility of a third-order (or paradigm) change. I now summarise the fourth approach briefly reviewed above. Social learning in relation to resilience theory – strong on real-world orientation, particularly in local contexts, strong on applied systems theory and holistic methodology, strong on group participative approaches and stakeholder engagement, weaker on personal change, human development and psychology, and the role of individual in social learning. Little influence in formal education systems. Consistent – to a degree – with third-order learning, where it advocates and manifests paradigm change. The next section looks at the meaning of and challenges associated with resilience. This sets a context for discussion later in the paper on how the education/learning approaches above might be reconciled into a framework that is consistent with these challenges.
520
S. Sterling
The challenge of resilience As noted above, resilience can be defined as ‘the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and still retain its basic function and structure’ (Walker and Salt 2006, xiii). However, as noted earlier in this collection, Gunderson and Holling (2002, 28) make an important distinction between engineering resilience, which concentrates on stability near a presumed steady state, resistance to disturbance and the speed of return to equilibrium state, and ecosystem resilience, which is the scale of disturbance that can be absorbed before the system changes structure. The former focuses on efficiency, control, constancy and predictability, and is the conventional and dominant view; the latter focuses on persistence, adaptiveness, variability and unpredictability, where systems are seen to be complex, non-linear, multi-equilibriated and selforganising. Gunderson and Holling argue that sustainable relationships between people and nature require an emphasis on the second definition of resilience, and that exclusive emphasis on the first definition applied to natural systems leads to loss of ecosystem resilience (2002, 28). Folke et al. (2002, 5) note that the antonym of resilience is often said to be vulnerability. Major reports from such bodies as the Worldwatch Institute, the World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund and the UN Environment Program regularly catalogue critical decline in environmental systems, and hence also in social systems. According to Homer-Dixon, ‘the possibility of abrupt breakdown in our vital social and technological systems is rising, and perhaps rising fast’ (2006, 11). However, it would be unwise to conclude that resilience as such is always a ‘good thing’. Walker and Salt note that it is ‘not necessarily desirable’ (2006, 37) and give contrasting examples of a salinised landscape and Franco’s fascist regime in Spain as undesirable systems that demonstrate resilience. This presents a very important paradox concerning the resilience of systems that may ultimately prove unsustainable or be contributing to unsustainability in the wider system: in other words, a resilient system may not be a sustainable system. Whilst ‘sustainable systems need to be resilient’ (Folke et al. 2002, 23), we might equally argue that resilient systems need to be sustainable. Beyond social–ecological systems, this notion can also be applied to thought systems (Bohm 1992) and epistemologies (operative ways of knowing and thinking that frame people’s perception of and interaction with the world). Indeed, the assumption of much sustainability education theory is that significant change in cultural worldview is necessary if more sustainable states of society are to be attained. This is in common with the Resilience Alliance, which maintains that a fundamental challenge is to change perceptions and mindsets ‘across all sectors of society … from the view of humanity as independent of nature to one of humanity and nature as co-evolving in a dynamic fashion within the biosphere’ (Folke et al. 2002, 4). The paradox is that, whilst writers interested in resilience stress the need for people to understand resilience and shift their thinking paradigmatically, many people’s worldviews and frameworks for understanding are themselves resilient systems. As Homer-Dixon suggests, ‘we often invest enormous mental energy to maintain a perspective on the world that’s at variance with reality’ (2009, 3). By extension, educational systems also tend to be resilient – or at least resistant – systems and do not generally demonstrate an ability to adapt to current conditions or be anticipative. As I have written: The paradox of education is that it is seen as a preparation for the future, but it grows out of the past. In stable conditions, this socialization and replication function of education
Environmental Education Research
521
is sufficient: in volatile conditions where there is an increasingly shared sense (as well as numerous reports indicating) that the future will not be anything like a linear extension of the past, it sets boundaries and barriers to innovation, creativity, and experimentation. (Sterling 2009, 19)
At personal levels, the maintenance of deep-seated worldviews tends to prevail despite evidence that they may no longer be appropriate to changed conditions. It may be that Chapman’s view is true of many people, who he suggests ‘will not change their mode of thinking or operating within the world until their existing modes are proved beyond doubt, through direct experience, to be failing’ (2002, 14). Homer-Dixon suggests that ‘we often need to experience an abrupt and harsh threshold event, breakdown, or surprise before we are willing to accept that we can’t continue the way we’re going’ (2006, 268). Bohm (1992, 18–20) goes further by suggesting that the unsustainability problems we face are a product of the way we think and therefore cannot be resolved by the same kind of thinking: You may say, ‘I see a problem here, so I will bring my thought to bear on this problem’. But ‘my’ thought is part of the system. It has the same fault as the fault I’m trying to look at, or a similar fault … in dealing with it, we use the same kind of fragmentary thought that produced the problem. (18)
An inability to change, coupled with a vague but felt awareness of threats to economic and environmental systems, appears to result in anxiety. However, HomerDixon sees some hope here. As our worldview or explanation of the world ‘becomes progressively more complex, cumbersome, and rigid, it loses resilience and is ripe for collapse should another better theory come along’ (2009, 3). So loss of resilience or breakdown can pave the way for breakthrough to a different state or level of adaptive functioning. If the same applies to educational systems, then education philosophies, programmes and practices which purport to advance sustainability have an added responsibility – to indicate new pathways as old and less appropriate or maladaptive ideas wither or collapse. Sustainable education as a transformative model The key question at this point is what kinds of education and learning experience are appropriate for a world where surprise and unaccustomed levels of change will likely become major features of our lives. Numerous commentators have suggested that we need to radically change our ways of thinking towards more holistic, systemic and integrative modes (Clark 1989; Milbrath 1989; Bohm 1992; Capra 1996; Laszlo 1997), whilst similarly Reason and Bradbury (2001) argue for an ecological or participatory worldview. Walker and Salt (2006) call for ‘resilience thinking’, whilst Homer-Dixon advocates the adoption of what he terms ‘the prospective mind’, which is ‘grounded in the knowledge that constant surprise and change are now inevitable’ (2006, 29). Such a collective mind, he says, would help make our societies – and each one of us – more resilient to external shock and more supple in response to rapid change (2006, 30). This ‘adoption’, however, is unlikely to happen unassisted, not least because of the resilience of established and dominant worldviews, as noted above. Rather, the prospective mind might be nurtured through transformative and reinvigorated forms of sustainability education which integrate the best of the four
522
S. Sterling
Table 2.
Towards a sustainable education paradigm: key characteristics.
Ontology
Realist/idealist (relationalist)
Epistemology Theory of learning Function of education Main emphasis Focus Seeks Reflects Pedagogy Desired change
Participatory Participative/systemic Remedial/developmental/transformative Towards transformative learning experiences Meaning-making grounded in context Wholeness and sustainability in learning and living contexts Instrumental, and intrinsic and transformative values Transformative where possible and appropriate Contextually appropriate (i.e. healthy, sustainable relationships) in social–ecological systems at all levels
forms of education/learning reviewed at the beginning of this paper and, in so doing, also address their weaknesses. Such forms would amongst other things: ●
●
●
●
From instrumental ESD: recognise urgency, accept the need for behavioural change, and the need for content, informed increasingly by resilience theory and systems concepts amongst others. From intrinsic ESD: accept the need for inner change, the need for attention to process and the need for critically aware, reflexive, autonomous learners. From resilient learner and developmental theory: recognise individual resilience and adaptability as a desirable quality associated with personal development. From social learning related to resilience theory: adopt and accept key ideas about participative and contextualised learning, about social–ecological systems and their well-being, about dynamic systems concepts, as well as the need for paradigm change towards holistic and integrative thinking and approaches.
I have argued extensively elsewhere (Sterling 2001, 2003) that what is required is a change of educational culture towards what I have termed ‘sustainable education’, an ecological or relational paradigm which ‘develops and embodies the theory and practice of sustainability in a way which is critically aware. It is therefore a transformative paradigm which values, sustains and realises human potential in relation to the need to attain and sustain social, economic and ecological wellbeing, recognising that they must be part of the same dynamic’ (Sterling 2001, 22). The need in education is for a ‘culture of critical commitment’ – engaged enough to make a real difference to social–ecological resilience and sustainability but reflexively critical enough to learn from experience and to keep options open (Gray-Donald and Sterling 2007). The reason for advocating such a shift follows from the same logic that the resilience thinkers referenced above invoke – that old paradigms (in this case, in education) no longer serve us well in extraordinary times. Whilst education is widely held to be a key agent of change, it is currently largely part of the unsustainability problem that it needs to address (Orr 1994). Thus, the big challenge is to work towards transformative learning in a system that itself is intended to be the prime agency of learning.
Environmental Education Research
523
Achieving some clarity about the conceptual basis for rethinking education is a vital step towards its realisation. In essence, I argue that the two pole positions, an instrumentalist ‘learning for sustainability’ and the intrinsic value of the ‘resilient learner’, should not be seen as oppositional but potentially and necessarily complementary, indeed co-dependent. Revisiting Table 1, a sustainable education paradigm integrates elements of all positions reviewed in this paper into a greater whole, thus Table 2. This model indicates the possibility of integrating but also going beyond instrumental and intrinsic sustainability education positions. In both these approaches, the two themes of ‘education’ and ‘sustainability’ are seen as separate domains. In the sustainable education paradigm, ideas of sustainability and resilience theory, as well as being studied, are also embodied and enacted in a learning situation, giving rise to what might be termed ‘learning as sustainability’ (Sterling 2003), which can engender third-order or epistemic learning. The theoretical vision that this gives rise to might be characterised as follows: Learning is seen as an essentially creative, reflexive and participative process. Knowing is seen as approximate, relational and often provisional, and learning is continual exploration through practice, whereby the meaning, implications and practicalities of sustainable living are continually explored and negotiated. There is a keen sense of emergence (unplanned ideas, outcomes and dynamics arising from the learning situation) and the ability to work with ambiguity and uncertainty. Space, reflective time, experimentation and error are valued to allow creativity, imagination and cooperative learning to flourish. Inter- and transdisciplinarity are common, there is an emphasis on real-life issues and the boundaries between institution and community are fluid. In this dynamic state, the process of sustainable living and developing resilience is essentially one of learning, whilst the context of learning is essentially that of sustainability. This is what Fear et al. refer to as engaged learning, which is ‘informed conceptually, grounded philosophically and undertaken with normative intent’ (2006, 63). Whilst this might seem unlikely and idealistic, it has a resonance with a number of real examples. Such an approach was manifested by the experience of Hawkesbury College in Australia, which for some 20 years, starting in the late 1970s, explored the possibility and problems of systemic change in education and learning. Thus, Bawden, who led this work, advocates what he terms ‘self-organising critical learning systems’, a transformed model of education and learning that is, in turn, more conducive to transformative learning than most current models and practices in educational systems (Bawden 1997a, 30). As Bawden suggests: The central feature of the approach is … the design, establishment, maintenance, and development of self-referential, or critical, learning systems … (which can) … learn about their own learning. (1997b, 4)
Bawden summarises this praxis neatly as the ‘systemic development of systemic development’ (1997b, 1). A further example is Schumacher College, in Dartington, UK, a small independently run institution whose advertised descriptor is ‘Transformative Learning for Sustainable Living’. On the basis of a long association with the College, I see this is
524
S. Sterling
a fair claim as there is significant evidence of – and an unusually high incidence – transformative learning, compared with the quality of the learning experience in most formal mainstream institutions. These are some participants’ quotes from an evaluation and review which I carried out (Sterling and Baines 2002): It made a profound difference in that it has enabled me to clarify my life purpose and begin to put in place structures consistent with this. One of the most intensive periods of my life, because a huge bounded energy was released in me, which involved a deep transformation. There is some extraordinary alchemy which seems to happen on all the courses, even short one-week ones. I am still experiencing the influence of Schumacher College in a deep and profound way.
These kinds of quotes are not unusual amongst participant evaluations of courses, and the College trades on its international reputation for providing deep learning experiences for participants. The 2002 evaluation suggests that transformative learning experiences – which by their nature cannot be ‘guaranteed’ – are facilitated by the College’s both overt and implicit systemicity as regards most aspects of its operation. Hence, a regular facilitator commented on ‘the total evolved system of the staff/ volunteers/student body/tutors’ as a ‘truly remarkable presence’ in facilitating change (Sterling and Baines 2002). Obviously, Hawkesbury College was and Schumacher College remains still very unusual exemplars where the combination of visionary leadership and a measure of independence allowed the development of innovative systemic learning communities. What these exemplars have shown is that it is possible to combine instrumental and intrinsic views of education and learning seamlessly, and that transformative learning, ostensibly an intrinsic and life-changing inner process, leads to outward actions, quite often in astonishing, effective and innovative ways, as stories of Schumacher College’s alumni participants have often demonstrated. The scenario of sustainable education outlined above is more resonant with the more flexible and participative traditions of community and adult education than those of formal institutions (Fagan 2009). It is perhaps no surprise then that one of the most dynamic and noteworthy movements of recent years is the Transition Towns movement, which has its origins in concern over how communities can prepare for a postpeak-oil world, and has now to begun spread to communities across the globe. (As of mid-2009, figures suggested some 150 initiatives in 14 countries, Goodwin 2009.) Started in Totnes, Devon, the Transition Towns movement specifically sees resilience, and resilience thinking, as the main foundation for its theory and practice. Hence, Hopkins (2008), one of the founders of the movement, quotes Walker and Salt (2006) as key influences and sets out the implications of resilience principles for regenerating community. Resilience is defined as ‘the capacity of our businesses, communities and settlements to deal as well as possible with shock. Transition initiatives commit to building resilience across a wide range of areas (food, economics, energy, etc.) and also on a range of scales’ (Hopkins and Lipman 2009, 8). The Transition Towns website (http://transitiontowns.org/TransitionNetwork/TransitionNetwork) sets out the aspiration that ‘communities across the world will unleash their own collective genius and embark on an imaginative and practical range of connected initiatives,
Environmental Education Research
525
leading to a way of life that is more resilient, more fulfilling and more equitable, and that has dramatically lower levels of carbon emissions’. Interestingly, the transition literature recognises the relationship between both inner and outer change as interdependent. It is also noteworthy that there is an embryonic transition universities movement arising in the UK. Connective pattern It may be useful to end with a brief reflection on why the resilience framework and practice are important in developing a reinvigorated, effective and committed sustainable education paradigm. They help address the weaknesses of the instrumental and intrinsic positions by lending scientific underpinning, integrative frameworks and key systemic concepts to the debate. Importantly, they also lend a purposive sense of direction through closer understanding of what constitutes desirable, sustainable, resilient systems (and what does not). In return, the educational discourses lend learning theories, critical thinking and methodologies to the resilience debate. The potential for greater reciprocation is fairly evident. But beyond this level, I would tentatively suggest that there is another level of understanding and commonality to be recognised by looking for the ‘pattern that connects’, to use Bateson’s (1980, 9) well-known dictum. In contrast to the modernist and mechanist paradigm, the emergent ecological or participatory paradigm (Zweers 2000) emphasises capacity building, self-renewal and self-organisation in the individual and community as a necessary basis for ‘systems health’ and sustainability. Thus, ‘learning and education’ and ‘sustainability’ appear far more closely related than is commonly supposed. The former often emphasise critical reflection and autonomy, capacity building, and participation, whilst the latter emphasises self-organisation and self-renewal, community, and resilience. Both are essentially about process, emergence and diversity, rather than about product, control and homogeneity. Hence, it is meaningful to talk about ‘learning as sustainability’ wherein the two are manifested as inner and outer dimensions of the same dynamic. Summary and conclusion This paper suggests that there are two fundamental approaches to sustainability education which may be termed the instrumental (learning for resilience and sustainability) and the intrinsic (resilient learner), and that their separation – actual or perceived – is detrimental to the advancement and effectiveness of sustainability education. Seen as learning responses to the social–ecological contexts and crises we face, they may be seen as first-order and second-order learning responses, respectively. Social learning in relation to resilience theory, as developed by a largely separate community of scholars, may be seen as representing a kind of third-order response as it arises from and advocates paradigm change towards holistic, systemic and integrative approaches. Necessarily reconciled and integrated, these responses can help generate a transformative educational paradigm, labelled here ‘sustainable education’ or ‘learning as sustainability’ which is appropriate to the social–ecological conditions we face, and can meet the challenge that Richmond (2009) sets at the start of this paper. Such a paradigm is necessary to nurture resilient learners capable of building resilient, sustainable social–ecological systems. To date, a sustainable education paradigm has been infrequently practised, particularly in mainstream formal education, but
526
S. Sterling
alternative communities of learning such as Schumacher College and community movements such as Transition Towns offer promising exemplars. In essence, sustainability is about the intentional conservation of potential, increasing self-organisation, resilience and adaptive capacity at all nested levels within social–ecological systems. Learning – reflexive, experiential, experimental, participative, iterative, real-world and action-oriented – is intrinsic to this process and challenge. Meanwhile, the articulation of an ecological and transformative educational paradigm contributes to critical discourse and, in some way, acts as a vision or attractor that can make its wide realisation more likely. In 1912, the Spanish poet Antonio Machado, wrote, ‘There is no road. The road is made by walking’ in his poem Proverbios y cantares (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/ Antonio_Machado). In working towards a more sustainable, less crisis-prone world, certainly how we ‘walk’ is critically important, but so too is the direction we collectively take. Notes on contributor Professor Stephen Sterling is Associate Director of the Centre for Sustainable Futures at the University of Plymouth and Senior Advisor to the Higher Education Academy ESD Project. His interest is in ecological thinking, learning theory and systemic change, particularly in higher education institutions.
References Argyris, C., and D. Schon. 1996. Organisational learning II. New York: Addison Wesley. Armitage, D., M. Marschke, and R. Plummer. 2007. Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change 18, no. 1: 86–98. Armitage, D., R. Plummer, F. Berkes, R.I. Arthur, A. Charles, I. Davidson-Hunt, A. Diduck, et al. 2008. Adaptive co-management for social–ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7, no. 2: 95–102. Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco: Chandler. Bateson, G. 1980. Mind and nature – A necessary unity. New York: Bantam Books. Bawden, R. 1997a. ‘Leadership for systemic development’ in Centre for Systemic Development. In Resource manual for leadership and change, 12–33. Hawkesbury: University of Western Sydney. Bawden, R. 1997b. The community challenge: The learning response. Invited plenary paper presented at the 29th annual international meeting of the Community Development Society, July 27–30, in Athens, GA. Berkes, F., and C. Folke, eds. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bernard, B. 2004. Resiliency: What we have learned. San Francisco: WestEd. Blackmore, C. 2007. What kinds of knowledge, knowing and learning are required for addressing resource dilemmas? A theoretical overview. Environmental Science & Policy 10, no. 6: 513–25. Blackmore, C. 2009. Social learning and environmental responsibility. In The environmental responsibility reader, ed. M. Reynolds, C. Blackmore, and M.J. Smith, 229–35. London: Zed Books. Bohm, D. 1992. Thought as a system. London: Routledge. Capra, F. 1996. The web of life. London: Harper and Collins. Chapman, J. 2002. System failure. London: Demos. Clark, M. 1989. Ariadne’s thread – The search for new ways of thinking. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Claxton, G. 2002. Building learning power: Helping young people become better learners. Bristol: TLO.
Environmental Education Research
527
Fagan, G. 2009. Citizen engagement. In The handbook of sustainability literacy – Skills for a changing world, ed. A. Stibbe, 199–203. Dartington: Green Books. Fear, F., C. Rosaen, R. Bawden, and P. Foster-Fishman. 2006. Coming to critical engagement. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Folke, C., S. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, C.S. Holling, B. Walker, J. Bengtsson, et al. 2002. Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Scientific background paper on resilience for the process of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. http://www.unisdr.org/eng/risk-reduction/ sustainable-development/resilience-sd.pdf. Forum for the Future. 2004. Sustainability literacy: Knowledge and skills for the future. Report from Forum for the Future’s Consultation Workshop, July 21, in London. Foster, J. 2008. The sustainability mirage – Illusion and reality in the coming war on climate change. London: Earthscan. Goodwin, B. 2009. Resilience. Resurgence July/August, no. 255: 37–9. Gough, S., and W. Scott. 2007. Higher education and sustainable development – Paradox and possibility. London: Routledge. Gray-Donald, J., and S. Sterling, eds. 2007. Sustainability and education: Towards a culture of critical commitment. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 2, nos. 3–4 (Special Issue): 241–8. Gunderson, L.H., and C.S. Holling. 2002. Panarchy – Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press. Homer-Dixon, T. 2006. The upside of down – Catastrophe, creativity and the renewal of civilisation. London: Souvenir Press. Homer-Dixon, T. 2009. Our panarchic future. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6008 (accessed March 20, 2009). Hopkins, R. 2008. The transition handbook – From oil dependency to local resilience. Totnes: Green Books. Hopkins, R., and P. Lipman. 2009. Transition network – Who we are and what we do. Totnes: Transition Network. Ison, R., P. Maiteny, and S. Carr. 1997. Systems methodologies for sustainable natural resources research and development. Agricultural Systems 55, no. 2: 257–72. Jickling, B., and H. Spork. 1998. Education for the environment: A critique. Environmental Education Research 4, no. 3: 309–27. Krasny, M., and K. Tidball. 2009. Applying a resilience systems framework to urban environmental education. Environmental Education Research 15, no. 4: 465–82. Laszlo, E. 1997. 3rd Millennium – The challenge and the vision. The club of Budapest. Stroud: Gaia Books. Mezirow, J. 2000. Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Milbrath, L. 1989. Envisioning a sustainable society. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. O’Riordan, T., and H. Voisey. 1998. The politics of Agenda 21 in Europe. London: Earthscan. O’Sullivan, E. 1999. Transformative learning – Educational vision for the 21st century. London: OISE/UT/Zed Books. Orr, D. 1994. Earth in mind – On education, environment and the human prospect. Washington, DC: Island Press. Parker, J. 2008. Situating education for sustainability: A framework approach. In Journeys around education for sustainability, ed. J. Parker and R. Wade, 33–63. London: London South Bank University. Reason, P., and H. Bradbury. 2001. Introduction: Inquiry and participation in a search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In Handbook of action research – Participative practice and enquiry, ed. P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 1–14. London: Sage. Richmond, M. 2009. Foreword. In A review of contexts and structures for education for sustainable development – Learning for a sustainable world, ed. A. Wals, 3. Paris: UNESCO. Scott, W., and P. Vare. 2008. Education for sustainable development – Two sides and an edge. DEA Thinkpiece. http://www.tidec.org/GL%20toolkit/Secondary%20handbook/ 2c.61%20dea_thinkpiece_vare_scott.pdf.
528
S. Sterling
Selby, D. 2008. The firm and shaky ground of education for sustainable development. In Green frontiers – Environmental educators dancing away from mechanism, ed. J. GrayDonald and D. Selby, 59–75. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Sterling, S. 1996. Developing strategy. In Education for sustainability, ed. J. Huckle and S. Sterling, 197–211. London: Earthscan. Sterling, S. 2001. Sustainable education – Re-visioning learning and change (Schumacher Society Briefing no. 6). Dartington: Green Books. Sterling, S. 2003. Whole systems thinking as a basis for paradigm change in education – Explorations in the context of sustainability. Ph.D. diss., Centre for Research in Education and the Environment, University of Bath. http://www.bath.ac.uk/cree/sterling/ sterlingthesis.pdf. Sterling, S. 2004. An analysis of the development of sustainability education internationally: Evolution, interpretation and transformative potential. In Sustainable development: A challenge for higher education, ed. J. Blewitt and C. Cullingford, 43–62. London: Earthscan. Sterling, S. 2009. Towards sustainable education. Environmental Scientist 18, no. 1: 19–21. Sterling, S., and J. Baines. 2002. A review of learning at Schumacher College. Unpublished report. Bureau for Environmental Education and Training, Dorchester, London. Tilbury, D., and S. Janousek. 2007. Asia Pacific guidelines for the development of national ESD indicators. Bangkok: UNESCO. UNESCO. 2009. Education for sustainable development. http://portal.unesco.org/education/ en/ev.php-URL_ID=23295&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. Walker, B., and D. Salt. 2006. Resilience thinking – Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press. Wells, G., and G. Claxton. 2002. Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociological perspectives of the future. Oxford: Blackwell. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice – Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zweers, W. 2000. Participation with nature – Outline for an ecologisation of our worldview. Utrecht: International Books.
Copyright of Environmental Education Research is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
