INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
Research Article

Bhutanese Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives on Approaches to Teaching ESD Through Environmental Science

Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 2022, 18(2), e2272, https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/11894
Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the teaching pedagogies deployed in teaching environmental science (ES) to adequately prepare Bhutanese youth with the knowledge, values, attitudes and skills to engage in sustainable environmental conservation that supports the country’s pursuit of Gross National Happiness. A mixed-method research strategy was employed that collected data in the form of surveys and interviews with 14 teachers, surveys with 563 students, interviews with 194 students through (46) focus groups and six classroom observations. The data indicated that the transmissive approach (teacher talk), discursive activities (presentation and group discussions), and textbook-based activities of reading and solving problems from ES textbooks are the most predominant teaching approaches implemented in teaching ES. Students are engaged in critical thinking, empirical real-world and book-based research and maintaining an environmental profile; however, there is a lack of hands-on activities of projects, experiments, fieldwork, exhibitions and surveying and interviewing people. Teachers identified that lack of time, examination-based assessments, the large syllabus and a lack of resources are the factors that impede learning activities in ES. Therefore, there is a need for more emphasis on teachers’ professional development on transformative teaching pedagogies for effective implementation of ES that will prepare students for the pursuit of environmental sustainability.

KEYWORDS

environmental conservation Gross National Happiness transmissive pedagogy discursive pedagogy action-oriented transformative pedagogies

CITATION (APA)

Mongar, K. (2022). Bhutanese Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives on Approaches to Teaching ESD Through Environmental Science. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 18(2), e2272. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/11894
Harvard
Mongar, K. (2022). Bhutanese Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives on Approaches to Teaching ESD Through Environmental Science. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 18(2), e2272. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/11894
Vancouver
Mongar K. Bhutanese Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives on Approaches to Teaching ESD Through Environmental Science. INTERDISCIP J ENV SCI ED. 2022;18(2):e2272. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/11894
AMA
Mongar K. Bhutanese Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives on Approaches to Teaching ESD Through Environmental Science. INTERDISCIP J ENV SCI ED. 2022;18(2), e2272. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/11894
Chicago
Mongar, Kishore. "Bhutanese Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives on Approaches to Teaching ESD Through Environmental Science". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education 2022 18 no. 2 (2022): e2272. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/11894
MLA
Mongar, Kishore "Bhutanese Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives on Approaches to Teaching ESD Through Environmental Science". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, vol. 18, no. 2, 2022, e2272. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/11894

REFERENCES

  1. Anderson, D., Kisiel, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2006). Understanding teachers’ perspectives on field trips: Discovering common ground in three countries. Curator: The Museum Journal, 49(3), 365-386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2006.tb00229.x
  2. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing. Longman.
  3. Babbie, E. R., & Wagenaar, T. C. (2011). The basics of social research: Study guide. Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
  4. Bada, S. O., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Methods in Education, 5(6), 66-70.
  5. Bholah, R. (2017). Developing problem-based learning approaches to water education in Mauritius. In H. Lotz-Sisitka, O. Shumba, J. Lupele, & D. Wilmot (Eds.), Education for the environment: Action competence, becoming, and story (pp. 119-127). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45989-9_9
  6. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2010). Applying constructive alignment to outcomes-based teaching and learning [Paper presentation]. Quality Teaching for Learning in Higher Education Workshop for Master Trainers, Ministry of Higher Education, Kuala Lumpur.
  7. Blewitt, J. (2014). Understanding sustainable development. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315886459
  8. Braun, T., & Dierkes, P. (2017). Connecting students to nature-how intensity of nature experience and student age influence the success of outdoor education programs. Environmental Education Research 23(7), 937-949. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1214866
  9. Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out‐of‐school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1373-1388. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500498419
  10. Braun-Wanke, K. (2017). Learning and teaching for a sustainable future. In W. Leal Filho, L. Brandli, P. Castro, & J. Newman (Eds.), Handbook of theory and practice of sustainable development in higher education (pp. 15-29). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47877-7_2
  11. Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2018). Doing interviews. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529716665
  12. Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom. Nancy Modrak.
  13. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
  14. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
  15. Cooksey, R. W. (2020). Illustrating statistical procedures: Finding meaning in quantitative data. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2537-7
  16. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE.
  17. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE.
  18. Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability: Urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512-535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907304964
  19. Davis, J., & Elliott, S. (2014). Research in early childhood education for sustainability: International perspectives and provocations. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315767499
  20. DCRD, & RSPN. (2013). Environmental science curriculum framework: Classes PP-XII. Ministry of Education.
  21. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. SAGE.
  22. Eilks, I. (2015). Science education and education for sustainable development: Justifications, models, practices and perspectives. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(1), 149-158. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1313a
  23. Elliott, S., & Davis, J. M. (2018). Challenging taken-for-granted ideas in early childhood education: A critique of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory in the age of post-humanism. In A. Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, K. Malone, & E. B. Hacking (Eds.), Research handbook of childhood nature (pp. 1-36). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51949-4_60-2
  24. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
  25. Ghasemi, A., & Zahediasl, S. (2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: A guide for non-statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 10(2), 486-489. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.3505
  26. Goralnik, L., & Nelson, M. P. (2011). Framing a philosophy of environmental action: Aldo Leopold, John Muir, and the importance of community. Journal of Environmental Education, 42(3), 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2010.526152
  27. Green, M., & Somerville, M. (2015). Sustainability education: Researching practice in primary schools. Environmental Education Research, 21(6), 832-845. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.923382
  28. Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Training in decision-making strategies: An approach to enhance students’ competence to deal with socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2587-2607. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.617789
  29. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
  30. Irwin, D. (2008). Weaving the threads: Challenges encountered while educating for sustainability in outdoor education. New Zealand Journal of Outdoor Education, 2(3), 36-53.
  31. Kemmis, S., & Mutton, R. (2012). Education for sustainability (EfS): Practice and practice architectures. Environmental Education Research, 18(2), 187-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.596929
  32. Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles, 1(8), 227-247. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410605986-9
  33. LaMarca, N. (2011). The Likert scale: Advantages and disadvantages. Field Research in Organizational Psychology. https://psyc450.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/the-likert-scale-advantages-and-disadvantages/
  34. Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2011). Beyond constant comparison qualitative data analysis: Using NVivo. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(1), 70-84. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022711
  35. Lloyd, A., & Gray, T. (2014). Place-based outdoor learning and environmental sustainability within Australian primary school. Journal of Sustainability Education, September 2014.
  36. Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3).
  37. Maxwell, T., Reid, J., Gyamtso, D., & Dorji, K. (2008). Changing the CULTure of learning and teaching at the Royal University of Bhutan. Samtse College of Education.
  38. Ministry of Education. (2009). National education framework: Curricular perspective.
  39. Ministry of Education. (2013). Environmental science: Class nine. Royal Education Council and Royal Society for Protection of Nature.
  40. Ministry of Education. (2014). Bhutan education blueprint 2014-2024.
  41. Miri, B., David, B. C., & Uri, Z. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 353-369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2
  42. Mokuku, T., & Jobo, M. (2017). Reflecting on innovative ESD pedagogies in the context of teacher education in Lesotho. In H. Lotz-Sisitka., O. Shumba., J. Lupele., & D. Wilmot. (Eds.), Schooling for sustainable development in Africa (pp. 231-244). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45989-9_17
  43. Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education.
  44. Paradis, E., & Sutkin, G. (2017). Beyond a good story: From hawthorne effect to reactivity in health professions education research. Medical Education, 51(1), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13122
  45. Pass, S. (2004). Parallel paths to constructivism: Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. Information Age Publishing.
  46. Piaget, J., & Cook, M. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/11494-000
  47. Plevyak, L., & Mayfield, A. (2010). Environmental education within early childhood. In A. M. Bodzin., B. S. Klein., & S. Weaver. (Eds.), The inclusion of environmental education in science teacher education (pp. 51-64). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9222-9_4
  48. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). Essentials of nursing research: Methods, appraisal, and utilization. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  49. Powdyel, T. (2005). The Bhutanese education assessment experience: Some reflections. Prospects, 35(1), 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-005-6817-9
  50. Prince, H. E. (2017). Outdoor experiences and sustainability. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 17(2), 161-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2016.1244645
  51. Redman, E. (2013). Opportunities and challenges for integrating sustainability education into K-12 schools: Case study phoenix, AZ. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 15(2), 5-24. https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2013-0008
  52. Rinchen, S. (2014). A study of the emotional climate of a science education class for pre-service teachers in Bhutan [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Queensland University of Technology, Australia.
  53. Robottom, I. (2012). Socio-scientific issues in education: Innovative practices and contending epistemologies. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 95-107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9258-x
  54. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford University Press.
  55. Royal Education Council. (2012). The national education framework: Shaping Bhutan’s future.
  56. Sandell, K., & Ohman, J. (2010). Educational potentials of encounters with nature: Reflections from a Swedish outdoor perspective. Environmental Education Research, 16(1), 113-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620903504065
  57. Schuelka, M. J., & Maxwell, T. (2016). Education in Bhutan: Culture, schooling and gross national happiness. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1649-3
  58. Slavich, G. M., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2012). Transformational teaching: Theoretical underpinnings, basic principles, and core methods. Educational Psychology Review, 24(4), 569-608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9199-6
  59. Smith, G. A., & Sobel, D. (2014). Place-and community-based education in schools. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203858530
  60. Sobel, D. (1996). Beyond ecophobia. Orion Society.
  61. Stangor, C. (2011). Research methods for the bhavioral sciences. Wadsworth.
  62. Takano, T., Higgins, P., & McLaughlin, P. (2009). Connecting with place: Implications of integrating cultural values into the school curriculum in Alaska. Environmental Education Research, 15(3), 343-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620902863298
  63. Taylor, N., Quinn, F., & Eames, C. (2015). Educating for sustainability in primary schools: Teaching for the future. Sense Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-046-8
  64. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Australian Council for Educational Research, 53(4), 14-17.
  65. UNESCO. (2011). Education for sustainable development: An expert review of processes and learning.
  66. UNESCO. (2012). Shaping the education of tomorrow: 2012 report on the UN decades of education for sustainable development, Abridged.
  67. UNESCO. (2014). Education for peace and sustainable development: Concepts, clarity and cohesion.
  68. UNESCO. (2017a). A decade of progress on education for sustainable development: Reflections from the UNESCO Chairs programme.
  69. UNESCO. (2017b). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives.
  70. UNESCO. (2018). Guidebook on education for sustainable development for educators: Effective teaching and learning in teacher education institutions in Africa.
  71. VanBalkom, W. D., & Sherman, A. (2010). Teacher education in Bhutan: Highlights and challenges for reform. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30(1), 43-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188790903503585
  72. Vong, S. A., & Kaewurai, W. (2017). Instructional model development to enhance critical thinking and critical thinking teaching ability of trainee students at regional teaching training center in Takeo province, Cambodia. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 38(1), 88-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2016.05.002
  73. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. E. Hanfmann, & G. Vakar (Translators). M.I.T. Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/11193-000
  74. Warburton, K. (2003). Deep learning and education for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4(1), 44-56. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370310455332
  75. Wheeler, G., & Thumlert, C. (2007). Environmental education report. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED499818.pdf
  76. Wijnia, L., Loyens, S. M., Derous, E., & Schmidt, H. G. (2015). How important are student-selected versus instructor-selected literature resources for students’ learning and motivation in problem-based learning? Instructional Science, 43(1), 39-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9325-6
  77. Wood, B. E., Cornforth, S., Beals, F., Taylor, M., & Tallon, R. (2016). Sustainability champions? Academic identities and sustainability curricula in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17(3), 342-360. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-12-2014-0171
  78. Zeidler, D. L., & Kahn, S. (2014). It’s debatable: Using socioscientific issues to develop scientific literacy K-12. National Science Teachers Association Press.

LICENSE

Creative Commons License
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.