Research has shown that both historical and cultural contexts influence practices and activities in the classroom. This author suggests that learners and teachers may perceive environmental education participation differently, as teachers can have a relatively narrow view of learning processes, yet the dialogue among these two groups related to views of environmental education currently is limited. This article presents a case study on students' participation in environmental management activities at a primary school in a suburban area of Botswana, with a particular focus on the relationship between students' and teachers' perceptions.
The school is located in a community near one of the fastest growing urban areas, where families face challenges related to overcrowding, limited infrastructure, and economic poverty. Recognizing that any effects found would be highly dependent on the specific cultural, socioeconomic, and physical context—and while the research was consciously embedded in a particular cultural and historical context—the author suggests ways for opening up the dialogue between children and teachers that are relevant for a variety of educational contexts. The researcher used observation, focus group interviews, photographs, and drawings with seven adolescents who were participating in environmental education activities related to waste management. The author examined the histories and norms shaping participation in environmental activities, as well as tensions in different interpretations of participation by diverse school stakeholders, such as teachers, students, and administrators.
The author found that the school's focal environmental activities were related to cleaning the campus spaces and picking up litter. The school's environmental committee coordinator held the role of selecting which environmental challenges to target, and worked with other teachers to create rules for the school's environmental management. The students, however, identified sanitation as the more urgent environmental issue to address. This was highlighted by how the school was being cleaned of litter, but students still had to use off-campus facilities because of unsanitary school toilets.
Despite the teachers' stated desire to enable students to meaningfully engage in environmental activities, the school policy of top-down decision making limited the students' participation to only picking up litter. This approach left little space for creative learner-driven activities around sanitation or other environmental issues. The author also identified a lack of dialogue between teachers and students. In most cases, the teachers were unaware the students had different ideas regarding where to focus their environmental activities.
In an attempt to facilitate a change in the school's policies and teaching methods, the author supported opening up communication between teachers and students. This exchange involved inviting students to identify and choose issues of concern, envision possible solutions, act on selected methods to address these challenges, evaluate the results of their efforts, share progress with the teachers, and invite teachers' support.
After encouraging the dialogue and activities, the author assessed the results of this intervention through interviews with the teachers and students. In particular, the author was interested in identifying barriers and enabling factors for addressing the earlier tensions and empowering students to realize their own visions. The evaluation suggested that there was a shift from teacher-directed forms of participation to activities that were directed by collaborative partnerships of students and teachers, as well as to more children-directed activities through dialogue. The line of communication between teachers and students also appeared more open, although the teachers still made final decisions.
The author found that the scope of the students' participation in environmental activities had expanded in comparison to before the intervention. Students were now developing alternative waste management procedures for the school, and the students were forming alliances with supportive teachers rather than with the school education coordinator. Students' participation, perceptions, and preferences of the roles they could play in school decisions provided evidence of action competence development.
The author reiterates that encouraging dialogue and striving to create more mutual relationships between teachers and students can be complex on a cultural level, is affected by the historical and social contexts, and is a long-term process rather than a short-term activity. The author maintains, however, that developing new understandings of learners and diverse forms of participation are necessary in order for teachers to enable meaningful student participation in environmental education, and that this has implications for teacher professional development.
The Bottom Line
Historical and sociocultural contexts can play an important role in influencing how classroom dynamics and activities are structured. It is helpful to understand this when such contexts are limiting learner participation in environmental activities, since teachers and students may perceive participation differently. Increasing dialogue between students and educators has the potential to reduce misunderstandings and enable students to take more meaningful action as a result of their environmental learning.