Download Beth Fishburn STLS Paper Final Draft November 28, 2011 Over

Beth Fishburn
STLS Paper Final Draft
November 28, 2011
Over centuries, human cultures have evolved to a dangerous level of self centered
consumption without regard for consequence. This is a critical time in the history of the
earth. Human population is growing and resources to maintain it are diminishing.
(Washington University in St. Louis, 2008) The human race has nearly grown itself out
of existence, yet humanity continues to view the world in a box-like way. (Cole, 2011a)
Problems that emerge because of human impact, with the environment, economies,
natural disasters, disease, hunger, etcetera, are all spoken about and ‘solved’ alone. In
reality, they are all part of a larger system. When crops fail due to pestilence, chemical
pesticides are the panacea. The chemical residue causes health problems for the
humans using it or consuming the food grown in it. The runoff contaminates water
supplies, killing beneficial insects or predators of the initial pest. This is an example of
simple problem solving and of looking at the world as box-like, not seeing the reality of
symbiosis that exists among all inhabitants and systems of the planet. It is a hazardous
and deadly paradigm and world view held by many cultures populating this planet.
Even in schooling, subjects are taught as separate and isolated disciplines, ignoring
their interconnected nature, and the value that holds. Teachers are specialized in their
disciplines, experts in isolated forms of knowledge, and encouraged to maintain that
specialized isolation by the requirement and structure of high stakes standardized
testing, exemplary of the mechanistic world view held by most of the world’s population.
This mechanistic world view is portrayed by teaching pedagogies in classrooms all over
the US as a transmission of information and knowledge, rather than recognizing the
organic constructive process of forming knowledge that is learning. In a process that
presumes a Watsonian ‘lump of clay’ or a Skinner-esque ‘blank slate’ where the
environment acts upon the learner, teachers ‘distribute’ forms of knowledge, reinforcing
the ‘learning’ with the positive reinforcement of grades. Skinner’s stimulus- response
theory does not allow for the transfer of knowledge, rather it is situation specific. In the
Miller’s example of Skinner teaching his nine month old daughter to raise her hand to
turn on a light, the child associates raising of her arm as a way for light to come
on.(Miller, 2011) Every light she encountered would not necessarily turn on at the raise
of her hand, it only occurred when the specific situation in which she learned it was
replicated. Similarly, when a child learns particular math algorithms, isolated from other
aspects of learning or even other aspects of mathematics, often the student is not able
to recall that information at a later time. It is still in their brain, but access to that
neuronal pathway is limited to the exact conditions under which it was learned (Dewey,
1938)It is a matter of necessity that the current mechanistic world view held by the
earth’s human inhabitants, needs to change in order to stop and reverse this destructive
The current state and process of education in the United States is perpetuating the
problems incumbent in the decline of Earth’s environmental health, not educating future
adults in a way that enables or empowers a necessary world cultural paradigm shift
toward sustaining the planet and so the inhabitants. The US Department of Education
declares as its mission, “to promote student achievement and preparation for global
competitiveness by fostering academic excellence and ensuring equal access.” (An
Overview of the U.S. Department of Education, 2009) It does not address the issue of
global sustainability; rather it promotes global competition, which is a key factor in the
problem of the declining health of the planet. According to Suzuki, our “..brash
exuberance over our incredible inventiveness and productivity in this century has
blinded us to our place on this planet (Suzuki, 2007, p. 293) “Resource exploitation is
fuelled by an exploding consumer demand for products, and the fulfillment of that
demand has become a critical component of economic growth.” (Suzuki, 2007, p.
11)These pursuits are unsustainable and have dire consequences. The demand for the
products has created a resource deficit as well as environmental problems associated
with accessing the necessary production materials. (Suzuki, 2007)As a reflection of
traditional schooling which Dewey associated with “habits so fixed as to be institutional”
(Dewey, 1938), society has addressed the attendant problems with simple problem
solving, rather than long term solutions. Simple problem solving, according to Stephen
(Sterling, 2005) in Linking Thinking, addresses symptoms rather than underlying or root
causes, doesn’t consider the problem in a larger context, and may lead to additional
problems. (Sterling, 2005) This problem solving in isolation mirrors the way in which
students are taught subjects in school. Teachers present each subject separately in
isolation so when a student attempts to recall information, it is difficult to access unless
the precise situation in which that bit of knowledge was acquired, is reproduced. It is
disconnected “from the rest of experience that it is not available under the actual
conditions of life.” (Dewey, 1938, p. 48) Eaton et al refer to simple problem solving as
‘technical solutions’. Technical solutions involve putting in place solutions to problems
for which the answer is already known (Eaton, Davies, Williams, & MacGregor, 2011)
These solutions and simple problem solving are useful in certain situations, but when
attempting to solve global issues, they are not appropriate. That is not a change in the
current view of the world, but a change in which problems are being solved.
Students are being taught simple acts of environmental stewardship as technical
solutions, in a simplistic and isolated manner; they reduce, reuse and recycle. Although
that is a beginning in the teaching sustainability, it’s not enough. Simply performing
those acts and using the catch phrase, is another example of box-like thinking. There is
little to no education around the catch phrase beyond the broad and vague assertions
that there is an environmental problem. Students are not often being taught to have a
critical eye on packaging, on origination of the products they use, or the process of
recycling with an eye on not purchasing the item so nothing needs to be reused or
recycled, or the interconnectedness of it all. (Cole, 2011c) When the US Department of
Education perceived deficits in the education system and in 2001, it set educational
standards in the areas of reading, language arts, math, and science; it did not address
environmental science, sustainability standards, or integrative teaching practices. The
current environmental problems were not absent at that time, the government and
society simply did not associate the decline in the health of the earth with a need to
educate. The governmental and societal world view, then as now, was
compartmentalized and box-like, placing environmental health in an agency, isolated
not connected to other agencies in scope or relationship. Eaton et al, stated “…the need
to reinvent how we (do things)…but sustainability is typically cast as a set of practical
problems for which there are technical solutions.”
In his workshop on sustainability, Rob Cole identified a mismatch between how the
world is and how society at large thinks about it. The world is symbiotic and
interconnected, like a web(Cole, 2011a) because at some level there is a relationship.
Eaton et al also recognize the need to completely change society’s world view “ to
become more capacious- to help citizens everywhere reinvent how we go about living
in the world and, fundamentally how we think about the world we live in.” (Eaton,
Davies, Williams, & MacGregor, 2011)They assert that the challenges faced today are
so important that those challenges need to be addressed with “new mental models and
behaviors that can create ecologically healthy, socially just, and economically
sustainable communities.” (Eaton, Davies, Williams, & MacGregor, 2011) Instead of
perpetuating the status quo, and seeking improvement in isolated, separate areas like
economic and social paradigms, there must be a change in entire world view from ‘boxlike’ thinking, to systems thinking, including educating sustainability. The path to that
change, on a national level, is through public education.
Public education operates with the same mechanistic world view as the rest of society;
core subjects are taught in isolation, disconnected from other subjects and from life
experience. According to Dewey, “Anything which can be called a study, whether
arithmetic, history, geography, or one of the natural sciences, must be derived from
materials which at the outset fall within the scope of ordinary life experience.” (Dewey,
1938, p. 73) With that in mind, a new look at teaching for sustainability and shifting
world view requires first a complete understanding of learning.
In the US teaching reflects an incomplete understanding of learning. Much of the
curricula and pedagogical practice reflect learning as defined by behaviorists like B. F.
Skinner. Skinner claimed that learning could be measured as observable change. The
modern use of standardized tests reflects a Skinnerian or mechanistic view of what
learning is, as the learning is quantifiable. Skinner agreed with John Locke in his belief
that children are empty vessels or blank slates, waiting for external information to fill
their brains.(Ford, 2011a) The most commonly used methods of instruction at any level
of education, aligns with this idea. Teachers stand at the front of class and talk,
imparting knowledge, with little student interaction. The assessments of learning are
typically tests, often multiple choice tests, where the motivation to pass those tests is a
good grade. They exemplify Skinner’s idea of learning. The teacher transmits
knowledge to passive empty-headed students, they memorize and repeat that
‘knowledge’ on a test where their ‘learning’ is quantifiable, and all of this from the
learner’s point of view is for the extrinsic reward of a good grade. (Ford, 2011a)
Extrinsic rewards used in classrooms further demonstrate Skinner’s theory of
learning or operant conditioning as a staple of public education. Operant conditioning is
a form of behavior modification. It begins with a stimulus, an experience or basis for
behavior, resulting in a voluntary response or reflexive behavior in reaction to the
stimulus. That voluntary response is the target for change with operant conditioning. In
order to change the behavior, reinforcement is used. Positive reinforcement is a desired
stimulus to increase the desired behavior, where negative reinforcement takes away an
undesired stimulus, also to increase desired behavior. Punishment is a way to interrupt
or remove behavior, by using an aversive or undesirable stimulus as a response to the
behavior in need of change. If there is a need or desire for the learned behavior to go
away, a process called extinction is used where a previously learned response to a
stimulus is taken away, to extinguish the learned behavior. In order to cement learning,
a process of chaining is used, where many cycles of stimulus –response patterns are
used (Miller, 2011)
When students have their first public education experience, their response to that
experience is followed with behavior modifying reinforcement. If a student responds by
applying effort and successfully completing a task, the teacher reinforces that behavior
by providing a desired stimulus, such as praise or candy. If a student does not apply
effort or successfully complete a task, the teacher may use punishment by scolding the
child, isolating them at a separate table, or by taking away recess. If the child
completes their task due to the punishment, a negative reinforcement of letting the
isolated child return to the group, would encourage that child to complete their tasks in
the future. If the desired behavior is more complex, a process of chaining is used to
break the task into smaller parts and link them together in a series for acquisition. A
behaviorist approach to extinguishing an undesirable behavior is called extinction, which
is the absence of reinforcement.
It is common to see stimulus response chains in classrooms across the United
States. Curriculum is sometimes scripted, and students are conditioned to respond as
the faithful are conditioned to respond in church. The learning occurs from the outside
in, the environment acts on the learner, the teacher transmitting information to the
learner. (Ford, 2011a)
Behaviorist learning theory is one dimensional, and does not recognize the
learner as a developing, social, biological being. Learning is a complex process,
involving physical and emotional development, social context, and interaction with the
environment and culture. Constructivists Piaget and Vygotsky recognized the
complexity of learning, as did biologist James Zull. . Piaget believed that the mental
structures necessary for intellectual development –the nervous system and sensory
organs-set limits for intellectual functioning at specific ages, and that these mental
structures he called schema, are genetically determined (Miller, 2011)He defined
schema as an organized pattern of behavior that already exists in a child, and is the
starting point for learning. Zull agreed that the wiring of our brain is “directed by genes,”
(Zull, p.115). This genetic foundation is our “jumping off point” for learning. As we grow
and experience, our schema is formed and reformed, using our old knowledge to form a
new knowledge. It is the cognitive structure of our learning we call prior knowledge and
is built upon and expanded as we learn. (Zull, 2002)
Both Piaget and Vygotsky held that learning is constructed through cognitive
conflict. According to Piaget, each new experience encountered creates a state of
disequilibrium between the child and the environment. In order to relieve that
disequilibrium, the child tries to assimilate or make that new experience fit into their
existing schema, and derive meaning or understanding based on what they already
know. That ‘bending’ of experience or assimilation does not always restore equilibrium.
The learner’s brain then goes through adjustments of structural reorganization, called
accommodation, where new pathways or schema are constructed, returning the brain to
a state of equilibrium with the environment. This process of assimilation and
accommodation is called adaptation, and it occurs within the learner, not from without.
(Miller, 2011)
Vygotsky professed that learning through cognitive conflict occurred in a social
context, not within the child. Development “follows a dialectical process, of a thesis or
idea, and opposing idea, and a synthesis or resolution, which produces a higher level
concept or more advanced functioning (Miller, 2011, p. 190)The dialectical process is
socially constructed. The learner begins with what they know, their schema according to
Piaget, and then confronts an idea or phenomenon that differs from what they know, as
Piaget described disequilibrium. Through interaction with a more capable other, play,
technological or psychological tools, the learner synthesizes the conflict by accessing
what Vygotsky terms their ‘zone of proximal development’ or what their potential for new
learning is. A more capable other, a more skilled person, acts as scaffolding or a
temporary framework and support for the learner to appropriate or internalize their
learning into their zone of proximal development, taking the skill from intermental or
between the two persons, to intramental or in the learner’s own brain. The achievement
in one zone of proximal development builds to the next zone of proximal development,
(Miller, 2011)much like Piaget’s schema builds on the previous schema, and new
neuronal networks are constructed upon existing structures.(Zull) It is the cognitive
structure of our learning we call prior knowledge and is built upon and expanded as we
learn. In the brain it is the conversation between the temporal integrative cortex and the
frontal integrative cortex, with new neuronal pathways forming. (Zull, 2002)
Piaget’s observations led him to theorize that children could only learn what their
physiological brain structure was ready for, and that growth of the structures occurred in
stages. He believed that each state derives from the previous stage, and incorporates
and transforms that stage and prepares for the next stage. (Miller, 2011, p. 36)There
are four distinct stages defined by Piaget. The first stage is labeled preoperational,
where children are learning from movements they make and sensations that result. Next
in the pre-operational stage, they acquire language, and they are able to attach
meaning to symbols and are gaining an understanding of concepts like counting and
time in terms of past, present and future. In the third stage, concrete operational,
children learn to see things from perspectives other than their own, but are still primarily
focused on concrete rather than abstract concepts. Finally, children enter the formal
operational stage where they are able to use abstract reasoning, logic, and are able to
think about possibilities and ideological issues. (Miller, 2011, pp. 38-58)
Physically our brains are building neuronal connections based on input and
mental process. Zull explained the learning process in the brain using Kolb’s learning
cycle as an example. (Zull, 2002)In an ideal process, these experiences first engage the
brain in the sensory cortex as physical information. The mental process continues into
the temporal integrative cortex, where the concrete information is linked to prior
knowledge and analyzed or reflected upon. The next step in the process is in the frontal
integrative cortex, where the neurons are firing in new directions and creating new
mental arrangements. Plans are made for future action using the newly processed
information. The final stage in each cycle of the learning process takes place in the
motor cortex. This area of the brain directly triggers all coordinated and voluntary
muscle contractions to produce movement and carryout the plans coming from the front
integrative cortex (Zull, 2002)The cycle then begins again where this action taken
becomes the a new concrete experience entering the sensory cortex. In reality, there
are many cycles going on at the same time, and they do not always go in one direction.
Signals of communication can bounce back and forth between different parts, but “the
cycle cannot be completed until all the steps have occurred.” (Zull, 2002, p. 25)
As this learning process cycles through the brain, new experiences and practiced
experiences form differently. Old or practiced experiences continue to improve the
neuronal connections along their pathways in the brain. A myelin sheath forms along
the axon of the cell body, getting thicker with each repeated experience, and thus
improving the speed and efficiency with which the electrical impulse travels along the
axon. The new experiences stimulate the growth of dendrites at the end of the novice
neuronal axons, narrowing the synaptic gap or space between the dendrites of one
neuron and the axon terminal of the next, forming new paths in the neuronal network,
where those new dendrites are “reaching out” like fingers opening up, to connect with
axon terminals. These new neuronal axons are not yet myelenated and so not efficient
in their synaptic connections. In fact the connections will not quite be made at first
because the dendrites are just beginning to form. This inefficiency is felt as challenge
when a person is learning something new. If the experience is repeated- tried, reflected
upon, a plan created and then action taken- then fine tuned by reflecting on the action
taken as new experience, learning occurs and the myelin sheath forms on the axons,
and eventually the knowledge of the action happens in the other side of the brain. But if
the challenge is not repeated, the dendrites do not fully form synaptic connections and
change, thus learning, may not occur, or the learning may simply be that the challenge
was too hard at that time. (Walton, 2011a)
Piaget’s stage theory and readiness to learn can be used to explain the idea that
dendrites not forming in the learning cycle are a result of the learning being too hard –
the brain is not physiologically ready to learn the particular lesson. Piaget believed
cognitive growth to be “much like embryological growth, where the structure becomes
more differentiated over time. (Miller, 2011, p. 35) According to Piaget and Zull, the
physical development of the brain is important in the learning process.
Chemicals called neurotransmitters have an effect on the transmission of signals
in the brain. Depending on which neurotransmitter is released the synaptic efficiency is
enhanced or reduced. Neurotransmitters are tied to emotion, and while they “act in a
variety of ways within the neuron and on different parts of the brain, but what they have
in common is their use of these chemical cascades that end up affecting the nature and
number of synapses.” (Zull, 2002, p. 225)Emotion has a role in learning. Emotion
occurs in the limbic cortex of the brain, and has significant influence on the other parts
of the neo-cortex (where the four main parts of the brain’s learning process are). Within
the limbic cortex, is a structure called the nucleus basalis, which, by release of certain
chemicals, influences the responses of neural synapses (the electrical connections
between neurons). So whether the emotion is happy or sad, the chemicals released
accordingly enhance or inhibit the synaptic response of the neurons, and so enhance or
inhibit learning. (Zull, p.226) Emotion is complex, because it does not stand alone, but
is a result of or response to other factors. Piaget also believed that the mental process
of perception, recognition and memory, are all involve in forming the emotional
attachments. (Zull, 2002)
The input, or concrete experience referred to in Kolb’s learning cycle, comes
from many sources; Vygotsky asserts that the social and cultural context, and in
particular language, profoundly affect children’s cognitive development. He believed that
a person’s relationship with their community helped them achieve higher mental
functions. His theory of the Zone of Proximal Development suggested that a person
was capable of learning at a higher level with a more capable other than by themselves,
thus invoking the community in achieving higher mental functions for its members. What
a child can learn is a starting point based on what they already know. What they
already know is inherently tied to the culture and environment to which they are
exposed. (Miller, 2011)
The environmental, social and cultural experiences that influence learning all
have biological consequences in the brain. Zull supported this idea pointing out that we
all have unique neuronal networks directly related to our life experience, which occurs
within our culture. (Zull, 2002)
It is also important to recognize that the learning process is affected by factors
not included in culture or community. A student’s basic needs and their interest level
affect whether their learning is what the teacher would like it to be. “Our brain wants to
be safe and happy.”(Zull, p.49) Safety and happiness are basic human needs, and our
brain uses its survival systems, the fear center and the pleasure center, to achieve
these states. If a person’s basic needs are not being met, the student’s brain will not be
attentive to what is going on in class, because it will be focused on ways to meet those
needs. Students who come to school without breakfast, for example, will not be able to
focus on what the teacher is presenting. The more primitive part of the brain would be
overriding any interest in what was going on in class, until the need was met. The same
return to the basic needs drive of the brain might occur if any of the basic needs of the
child were not being met, including a safe and caring environment.
This leads me to the idea of interest in relation to learning. If a person is
interested in the subject of the lesson, different neurotransmitters will be released in the
brain and expedite the self-reflection and building of new dendritic connections. Interest
in the topic being presented is also chemically expressed by the nucleus basalis. When
the student is interested in what is being taught, the nucleus basalis releases
acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter which “increases the responsiveness of existing
synapses and alter the expression of genes so that the neurons produce stronger, more
numerous synapses.”(Zull, p.225). It is critical for teachers to understand the
complexities of learning; that it involves physical and emotional development, social
context, and interaction with the environment and culture. Those contributions to the
learning process are interrelated and cannot be separated, much like all aspects of the
earth and the interrelated systems and species that populate it.
Understanding of how learning occurs can be used to inform teaching practices
and change pedagogies. Parks describes a method of teaching leadership called
‘learning by doing’ or ‘case-in-point’ learning found in Leadership Without Easy
Answers, by Ronald Heifetz. (Parks, 2005) The learning method “draws on several well
established learning traditions and methods- seminar, simulation, presentation of ideas
and perspectives…discussion and dialogue, clinical-therapeutic practice, coaching, the
laboratory, the art studio, writing as a form of disciplined reflection and the case study
method.” (Parks, 2005) Involving this well rounded grouping of methods to teach
anything is an effective teaching tool as it engages multiple senses, and accesses many
different points in the brain’s neuronal web, creating a breadth and depth of learning
that any one of the above mentioned methods could not do alone. For example, using
music and movement in the learning process creates a ‘sense-luscious’ (Zull,
2002)experience, engaging multiple areas or points in the neuronal webbing of the
brain, by utilizing multiple senses. (Dewey, 1938, p. 136) Dewey suggests that there is a
failure in education to utilize situations exemplary of relationships between means and
consequences that lead a student to grasp that relation. (Dewey, 1938, p. 84) Case in
point teaching is also is an example of systems thinking and teaching, by embedding a
systems/symbiotic response in the brain.
Park also argues that humans learn from experience, and advocates the use of
‘case-in-point teaching to “make optimal use of the student’s own past and immediate
experience. (Parks, 2005) Socrates employed a similar practice in Meno. Socrates
questioned Meno, rather than answered his question. Meno was guided to find his own
truth, rather than blindly accepting something someone else said. (Plato)
Real-world problems, like genetically modified crops as food, offer opportunities
for place based education, experiential learning, case-in-point teaching and systems
thinking about the ‘cause of the cause. (Cole, 2011b) Such problems also access
learning in a systemic way, by utilizing students’ prior knowledge and making
connections to that, as well as creating a web-like neuronal growth, rather than linear
growth. Problem based instruction is an ideal teaching model for place based education,
and it allows students to construct their own learning, making it their own. (Arends,
1997) Using ‘Place Based Education is another way to access students’ experience, as
it utilizes their own local community and environment as “a starting point to teach
concepts” in an interdisciplinary way, making their learning personal, and connect them
to the world through their community. (Sobel, 2005)
The changing pedagogies created by understanding the need for sustainability
education and accessing learning through understanding its process necessitate a
change in schooling missions and standards. In the 1990’s the US Federal Government
passed legislation assigning states the task of creating standardized assessments of
rigorous education standards for several academic disciplines. The legislation did not
include sustainability or systems as a required discipline. In order to propagate a
changing world view, sustainability needs to become as valued and recognized as math
and reading in the measurement of student achievement. Currently, Washington state
has adopted integrated environmental and sustainability education learning standards.
(Wheeler, 2009)
Sustainability plays an imperative role in education. In the United States today,
public education is seen as an incubator for future economic success, and as an
insurance plan for democratic form of government. Sustainability is about protecting
resources – all resources, including social, environmental, economic, and human- to
reverse the damage done in the past and create a future supported by practices that
renew instead of deplete the earth. It is about protecting the earth and all inhabitants of
it.
The earth is in crisis and by extension, the human race and the United States. If
the children of today are to have a future, then their education must include knowledge
that changes how the world is viewed. Awareness that sustainability and an
understanding of the systemic and symbiotic nature of the world is crucial so that a
future earth exists to support future population of all species. Pupils of today are the
leaders of that path to a healthy planet. According to (Suzuki, 2007, p. 11), the
developed world, hence the United States, has served as a model for developing
countries in hyper consumption. If the model of consumption is mimicked, then a new
model of sustainability would also be mimicked. Because the US has such influence,
and is seen as an economic and political world leader, a national change in an
American world view to include sustainability and a change in habits of mind and society
that promote the health of the planet instead of health of the capitalists, will lead other
world governments toward that end as well.
This paper has mapped a path for changing the world view of earth’s inhabitants
from mechanistic to organic, creating a worldwide understanding of the systemic and
symbiotic relationships all over the planet. Because current state of public education in
the United States is an incubator for future world view, the paradigm shift must first
occur in public education. A complete understanding of the nature of learning that it is
holistic and is influenced by the cultural, social, biological and developmental aspects of
the learner is imperative. By then applying that understanding to teaching and
schooling pedagogies, public education will influence a shift in world view from
mechanistic to organic, and thus save the earth’s inhabitants from extinction. A
complete paradigm shift in education, then world view, is sustainability in action
References
Arends, R. (1997). Classroom instruction and management. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Cole, R. (2011a, September). Introduction to systems thinking. Workshop presented at The Evergreen
State College, Olympia, WA.
Cole, R. (2011b, October). Unit 2 linkingthinking. Workshop presented at The Evergreen State College,
Olympia, WA.
Cole, R. (2011c, October). Unit 3 linkingthinking. Workshop presented at The Evergreen State College,
Olympia, WA.
Dewey, J. (1938), Experience & Education. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Eaton, M., Davies, K., Williams, S., & MacGregor, J. (2011). Why sustainability education needs
pedagogies of reflection and contemplation. Unpublished Manuscript.
Ford, T. (2011e, November). Learning as behavior: Skinner. Workshop presented at The Evergreen State
College, Olympia, WA.
Ford, T. (2011d, November). Learning as behavior: Piaget. Workshop presented at The Evergreen State
College, Olympia, WA.
Ford, T. (2011f, November). Learning as behavior: Vygotsky. Workshop presented at The Evergreen State
College, Olympia, WA.
Miller, P. (2011). Theories of developmental psychology. New York: Worth.
Parks, S. D. (2005). Leadership can be taught: A bold approach for a complex world. Boston: Harvard
Business Review Press.
Plato. (1995). Meno. (B. Jowett trans.). ILT Digital Classics, 1-27.
Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classrooms & communities. Great Barrington, MA:
The Orion Society.
Sterling, S. (2005b). Perspectives unit 3. linkingthinking. Scotland: World Wildlife Federation.
Suzuki, D., McConnell, A., & Mason, A. (2007). The sacred balance: Rediscovering our place in nature.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009, November). An overview of the U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved October 17, 2011 from http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/what.html
Vancouver, BC: Greystone Books.
Walton, S. (2011a, September). Learning and the brain. Workshop presented at The Evergreen State
College, Olympia, WA.
Walton, S. (2011b, October). Learning as physiological change. Workshop presented at The Evergreen
State College, Olympia, WA.
Wheeler, G. (2009, September). Washington State K-12 integrated environmental and sustainability
education learning standards. Olympia, WA: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Zull, J. (2002). The art of the changing brain: Enriching the practice of teaching by exploring the biology
of learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.