Download Ethical and normative reasoning on climate change

Ethical and normative reasoning on
climate change
Conceptions and solutions among students in a Chinese context
Li Sternäng
©Sternäng, Li, Stockholm 2011
ISBN 978-91-7447-260-8
Printed in Sweden by US-AB, Stockholm 2011
Distributor: Department of Education, Stockholm University
Cover photo is reprinted with permission from Xinhuanet
(新华网)(www.xinhuanet.com)
To Ola and Jacob
Abstract
Previous research in environmental education and learning has mainly
concerned students’ understanding of natural scientific knowledge,
whereas research on the influence of other knowledge in learning
environmental issues is marginal. Also, the interest in most studies
investigating students’ natural scientific knowledge has been to
capture constraints in students’ understanding, hence investigations of
students’ meaning making are rare.
The main objective of this thesis was to explore individual
students’ reasoning regarding climate change, and the influence of
knowledge on their reasoning.
In Study I, students’ conceptions of the enhanced greenhouse
effect (EGHE) were investigated. The results showed that students
incorporated different pieces of information from different problem
areas into the conceptualization of the EGHE. Setting up causal links
between diversely different pieces of information seems to be a way to
make meaning, and thus a necessary step in the learning process.
Study II is an investigation of students’ solutions to climate change.
The results indicated that students contextualized problems and
solutions by addressing the individual(s), where the individual(s) was
either “myself” or “someone else”. The different notions of the
individual(s) became crucial as the students’ views of the
environment, as well as society, changed according to the different
contexts. To further study students’ conceptions of “me” and
“others”, Study III examined students’ conceptualized solutions to the
dilemma between economic development and mitigating climate
change. The findings suggested that students’ conceptualized nature as
a “box” of resources, and that economic development would sustain
and improve nature. Therefore, the dilemma between economic
development and mitigating climate change or dealing with
environmental problems did not exist. Results from all three studies
were discussed with respect to theoretical implications.
Key words: alternative framework, climate change, conception,
contextualization, decision making, economic development, environmental
education, intentional analysis, learning, meaning making, moral reasoning
Acknowledgements
Many persons have inspired and helped me in different ways during
the years of finishing this thesis. Especially I would like to thank:
My supervisors, Ola Halldén and Cecilia Lundholm. Thank you
for accepting me as your doctoral student and for guiding me kindly
forward as a researcher. Ola, thank you for inspiring me with your
broad knowledge, intelligence, and scientific experience. You have
encouraged me considerably with your kind and positive comments on
my studies. With your humble and open scientific attitude you are a
role model for me as a researcher. Cecilia, thank you for being such a
considerate and supportive supervisor. You have not only guided me
with intelligence and enthusiasm, but also been a constant support in
tough times. Many thanks for your timely and brilliant comments on
many different versions of my studies.
Many thanks to the RCD (Research for Conceptual
Development) group. It has been very enjoyable and rewarding for me
to attend our regular RCD seminars, which have been important in
helping me to grow up academically. You have not only given critical
comments on my studies, but also help and concern to me personally.
Gunilla Petersson, thank you for the warmth and concern that you
have been giving to me and my family. I am very happy that you have
become Jacob’s Swedish grandmother. Liza Haglund, I appreciate our
many talks and the invitations to your family celebrations. Thank you
for helping me to use the method of intentional analysis in my studies.
Karin Ehrlén, I am very grateful that you met me at the airport and
helped me with accommodation at the very start of my life in Sweden.
You were also the very first person to introduce me into the
fascinating area of conceptual development. Åsa Larsson, thank you
for friendly chats, and for the cosy celebration of the national day.
Fika Mwakabungu, thank you for valuable discussions about our
studies. Many thanks to Max Scheja, Linda Murstedt, Jonas von
Reybekiel Trostek, Diana Garavito Bermúdez, Caroline Ignell,
Kristina Börebäck, Anna Bonnevier, and Karolina Österlind, for
pleasant conversations and for wise comments and critiques on my
studies.
I am also grateful to the Department of Education for financing
my doctoral studies, for providing me with a superb working
environment, and for the nice academic atmosphere. Many thanks to
Jon Ohsson and Boel Englund for precious comments and advice at
my two reading group seminars. Pia Björklid, thank you for nice
conversations, and for giving me good comments on Study II. ChiehHsin Yang, thank you for being my dear friend, and for sharing
happiness and worries. Nicola Magnusson, Hsien-Fei Huang, Viktor
Johansson, and Ida Bertell, thank you for pleasant conversations and
inspirations. I am also grateful to Torsten Öhrn, Eva Olsson, Christina
Edelbring, and all you others at the administrative section for your
valuable help with many practical issues.
I have also been supported from people outside the department.
To have a good start of my research project, I have benefited very
much from the scientific experience and the valuable ideas of BengtOlov Molander. A special gratitude goes to Peter Davies, for your
detailed expert comments on different versions of Study III. Cormac
McGrath, thank you for the generous and friendly help with
proofreading the “kappa” of this thesis. Many thanks to the PhD
group at Stockholm Resilience Center, for expanding my horizon with
discussions on many fascinating issues, and for all the funs we have
had together.
My friends in Sweden and abroad have also made my life in
Sweden happier and easier. Sara Wallman, thank you for many happy
and memorable moments we have shared together. Your enthusiastic
attitude has always encouraged me. Anthony Shum, thanks for helping
me and changing me in such a considerate way, and for the wonderful
prospects that you have given to me. Meixian Wu, thank you for being
such a caring and helpful friend to my family. Kim Pang, thank you
for giving me concern like a big sister. Vincent Lau and Duojia Cao,
thank you for your concern and for your birthday greetings every year.
Wennie Wei, thank you for your hospitality and for helping me taking
care of Jacob when my husband was at a conference in Bangladesh.
Wendy Wang, though we have never met since we left university, we
are never apart. Many thanks for your comments on Study I.
I miss and would like to thank all my good friends in China.
Yaqin Wang, thank you for being my dear friend since we were little,
for always having endless topics to converse, for innumerable funs we
have had, and for your constant understanding and support. Sixing
Peng, many thanks for always being such a caring friend. Jianping
Guo, I miss our regular calls and visits when you were in Sweden.
Thank you for being such a wise and brilliant friend, for always
understanding and encouraging me, and for taking care of me when I
was ill. Hongwei Guo, I am very grateful that you have gathered all
the data for this thesis. It felt so good to meet you in Beijing, to
discuss our studies, and to shop together. I would also like to thank all
the students from the Green Schools, who participated in my studies.
Many thanks also to their teachers who helped us to organize the
interviews. Qinghai Huang, it was thanks to you that I met my
husband at your dissertation party. Meiyan Liu, thank you for always
being such a kind and caring friend.
I am also thankful to relatives and friends on my husband’s side.
Especially Åke Sternäng, it was thanks to your company that the long
journey to China became so interesting and special. Many thanks for
your everyday greetings on the phone. It is always so wonderful to
meet Max Sternäng and his family and Sofia Bårman and her family.
Thank you for all your help and concern. I would also like to thank
Pähr Holmgren, Nita and Åke Bengtsson, who have made my family’s
and my parents’ visits to Helsingborg so pleasant.
My dear parents, I can never thank you enough. Your endless
love, trust, and support have encouraged me to try higher goals. My
two brothers, Ruohong and Hongjun, and my sister-in-law, Fangping,
thank you for always caring for me as your little sister, for being
proud of me, and for supporting me generously in both good and bad
times. Thank you, Shuxiao, for being so sweet to me, and for often
sending greetings to me.
Ola Sternäng, my dear husband, my best luck is to have met
you. I thank you for giving me a wonderful world full of love and
kindness. Many thanks for your comments and discussions on my
studies. Jacob, how can I ever expect to have such a wonderful child
as you! Thank you for helping me with this thesis by playing with
daddy to let me work, and by going to preschool faithfully, even when
you were the only child at the whole preschool around Christmas time.
Li Sternäng
Stockholm, April 2011
List of studies
I. Sternäng, L. & Halldén, O. (submitted for publication).
Learning as a process of integration: Students’ meaning
making of the enhanced greenhouse effect.
II. Sternäng, L. & Lundholm, C. (2010). Climate change and
morality: Students’ perspectives on the individual and society.
International Journal of Science Education.
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2010.503765
Used with permission from Taylor & Francis.
III. Sternäng, L. & Lundholm, C. (in review). Climate change and
costs – Investigating students’ reasoning on nature and
economic development. Environmental Education Research.
Contents
Introduction....................................................................... 3
Climate change ............................................................................ 3
Chinese context............................................................................ 5
Research on environmental and climate change education .................. 7
Learning as contextualization ......................................................... 9
Concept and conception........................................................... 10
Meaning making ..................................................................... 11
Moral reasoning ..................................................................... 13
Decision making ..................................................................... 14
Objectives of the thesis ............................................................... 15
Methodology .................................................................... 16
Study I and Study II ................................................................... 16
Participants ........................................................................... 16
Interviews ............................................................................. 16
Study III ................................................................................... 17
Participants ........................................................................... 17
Role play............................................................................... 17
Interviews ............................................................................. 18
Data collection ........................................................................... 18
Analytical methods ..................................................................... 18
Intentional analysis................................................................. 18
The triangle model.................................................................. 20
Generalization............................................................................ 22
Summary of the empirical studies....................................... 24
Study I: Learning as a process of integration: Students’ meaning making
of the enhanced greenhouse effect ............................................... 26
Study II: Climate change and morality: Students’ perspectives on the
individual and society ................................................................. 27
Study III: Climate change and costs – Investigating students’ reasoning
on nature and economic development ........................................... 29
Discussion ....................................................................... 32
The influence of knowledge on students’ reasoning .......................... 32
Study I ................................................................................. 32
Study II and Study III............................................................. 33
1
Implications for education............................................................ 35
Study I ................................................................................. 35
Study II and Study III............................................................. 35
Concluding comments ................................................................. 36
References ...................................................................... 37
2
Introduction
The present thesis focuses on exploring students’ conceptions of and
solutions to climate change ― one of the most prominent
environmental problems. The studies included in this thesis were
conducted at Green Schools in China. In Study I, students’
conceptions of climate change was examined in relation to conceptual
change and development. In Study II students’ conceptions of and
solutions to climate change were studied. In Study III, students’
solutions to the dilemma between economic development and coping
with environmental problems were investigated. In the following,
relevant key background information, pivotal theories, and concepts
used in the thesis are summarized.
Climate change
In 1998, Mann, Bradley, and Hughes published the famous “hockey
stick graph”. The hockey stick graph indicated that during the last
1000 years, the average temperature on the northern hemisphere had
been steady until a sudden upsurge appeared around 1900 which
corresponds closely to the time when humans began mass productions
of commodities based on fossil fuels (e.g., oil, coal, and natural gas).
The hockey stick graph was highlighted in the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (2001) (Figure 1), and is now
widely referred to in scientific literature.
3
Figure 1. Last 1000 years’ temperature estimation (made by Michael
Mann). Photograph: IPCC report (2001). Reprinted with permission from
IPCC.
The last 100 years saw a large-scale use of fossil fuels for the
production of commodities, running vehicles, generating electricity,
and household usage. This has contributed to a sharp rise of
greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases mainly include carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide (IPCC, 2007). Carbon dioxide (CO2)
emission is believed to be one of the most important contributors to
global warming, and thus climate change.
Climate change is a negative environmental externality with long-term
global effect. Scientists point out that the consequences of climate
change may become irreversible and catastrophic if they surpass
certain thresholds (Rockström et al., 2009). The projected impacts of
climate change cover areas of, for example, food, water, ecosystems,
and extreme weather events (IPCC, 2007). Even though scientists
suggest different thresholds, or boundaries of carbon emissions,
implying different scales of actions to mitigate climate change, they
concur that delayed actions are not only risky (Rockström et al.,
2009), but also costly (Nordhaus, 2009; Stern, 2008).
4
Given that climate change is a global problem threatening mankind, a
strong global agreement is more than necessary. However, the
vehement debate during Copenhagen climate conference of 2009
further revealed the complexity of the problem. One focal
disagreement concerns the allocation of responsibility between
developed and developing countries. Developing countries insist that
developed countries are primarily responsible for the consequences of
climate change, whereas developed countries urge developing
countries, especially four large developing countries (known as “Basis
Four”: China, India, Brazil, and South Africa) to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases considerably. China is the largest developing
country and emerging as one of the largest economic powers.
However, China is now facing an enormous challenge, i.e. the
dilemma between economic development while dealing with
deteriorating environmental problems and mitigating climate change.
Globally, China has become the largest greenhouse gas emitter, and
needs to face up to this problem. Domestically, there are still a large
number of people struggling for livelihood, and thus rapid economic
development is needed. Against this backdrop, the present thesis is set
in China to study youth’s understanding and reasoning on climate
change. The assumption is that although the dilemma between
economic and environmental development is more pronounced in
developing countries, and certainly in China, this is a problem facing
all countries in the world.
In the following, Chinese ideology concerning development and the
environment, along with environmental education in the Chinese
context are summed up.
Chinese context
Before the end of 1970s, during the time of Mao Zedong, China
closed the door to the outside world, adopting a centrally planned
economy as opposed to market economy. In sum, it can be said that
the entire Chinese nation was guided by and thus pursued two
doctrines: “mankind will definitely conquer nature”, and “however
bold mankind is, however productive nature is” (Wang, 2005). The
implication of these two doctrines is that nature is seen to be
completely at service for humankind. Immediately after the time of
Mao in the post-revolutionary time, the Chinese administration
5
pursued a policy of sacrificing the environment for economic
development by implementing industrialization that relied heavily on
fossil fuels, in particular highly polluting coal, without emission
control (Gardner & Stern, 2002; Karasov, 2000). One direct
consequence, according to a report in 1998 by the World Health
Organization (WHO), was that of the ten most polluted cities in the
world, seven cities were found in China (WHO, 2005). Today, China
is developing at a speed that has surprised the world. Many economic
achievements are made and personal materialistic dreams are realized.
However, the environment has also been deteriorated at an
unprecedented rate. The current official socio-economic ideology is
indicated in the concept of scientific development, meaning a balance
between economic growth and the environment to ensure a sustainable
development and eventually a harmonious coexistence of man and
nature (Fewsmith, 2004). However, in implementing this concept,
there seems to be an overconfidence in scientific solutions, believing
that science and technology can solve all environmental problems
(Xiao, 2003).
Though there are large socio-economic differences regionally,
especially between urban and rural regions, teenagers of China in
general live in an age of enormous change, materialistic improvement,
and economic worship. Talking about materialistic dreams among the
teenagers has become a rule, not an exception. The Beijing area, in
which the present thesis was conducted, is one of the most developed
areas in China, though big rural and urban differences exist in the
Beijing area too.
The dilemma between economic development and dealing with
environmental problems is especially pronounced in China. Further,
many years of rapid economic development has greatly aggravated the
environment. How is the Chinese education system responding to this
challenge?
China held the first environmental education conference in 1992. By
the mid 1990s, media attention to and public debate about
deterioration of the environment had urged state leaders in China to
discuss how comprehensive environmental education could be
integrated into the school curriculum (China’s Environmental
Protection Agency & China’s Education Commission, 1996). Since
2001, the National Ministry of Education has initiated a nation-wide
6
reform on the curriculum of the country’s primary and secondary
schools. One of the top priorities is to enhance environmental
awareness amongst the country’s younger generations. For this
purpose, China’s Green School program was initiated in 1996. Green
Schools have, since then, become important places to implement and
highlight environmental education. Now there are over 16 000 Green
Schools across China (Lin & Ross, 2004).
Green Schools is a long-term international program, focusing on
environmental management and environmental education. The aim is
to foster students with environmental values and behaviour (Wu,
2002). The model of Chinese Green Schools involves the functions of
administers, teachers as well as students, emphasizing the integration
of hands-on, research-based interdisciplinary environmental content
and learning activities (Yu, 2003; Zhang, 2004).
Research on
education
environmental
and
climate
change
Environmental education has attained more and more importance
since the late 1960s as a response to the degradation of nature.
However, environmental education does not normally take place in a
separate discipline, but is penetrated in different disciplines. In China,
according to the national curricula, environmental education is
infiltrated in geography, biology, and Chinese language. This
indicates that environmental education is not solely about ecology, it
has also cultural, economic, social and human dimensions. Hart
(2007), in reference to Huckle, described environmental education in
the following:
“…all such definitions of environmental education or sustainable
development rest on ethical foundations that are assumed to be
about balancing four sets of values― environmental protection,
quality of life, intergenerational equity, and intragenerational
equity” (p. 691).
Research on environmental education has developed substantially
since the 1990s. Reviews (e.g., Hart, 2007; Rickinson, 2001, 2003,
2006) show that the amount of empirical research on environmental
7
education is considerable. However, in contrast to the breadth and
complexity of environmental education, empirical studies are
characterized as being homogeneous: “quantitative in nature and
positivist in foundation” (Rickinson, 2001, p. 216). Rickinson (2001,
2003, 2006) reported that most studies are conducted quantitatively as
pre- and post studies, and the majority of studies are about learners
(e.g., how many students understand a certain concept correctly)
instead of learning, and they are mostly about learning outcomes, as
opposed to learning processes. A common conclusion of most
research studies is that the level of students’ factual knowledge is low.
For example, much of the research shows that students have erroneous
ideas and “misconceptions”, and their environmental knowledge and
attitudes need to be altered through educational interventions
(Rickinson, 2001, 2006). In short, reviews on environmental education
research show that the influence of science education in environmental
education research is strong in that foci are on students’ environmental
knowledge and learning outcomes based on quantitative data.
Learning processes have generally been neglected. In addition,
researchers tend to be reluctant to engage with learning theory (Dillon,
2003; Rickinson, 2001; Rickinson, Lundholm, & Hopwood, 2009).
Recent years has seen many emerging studies that move away from
the focus on students’ factual knowledge, and begin to investigate
students’ environmental attitudes and behaviour (e.g., Boyes, Skamp,
& Stanisstreet, 2009; Boyes, Stanisstreet, & Zhang, 2008; Kilinc,
Stanisstreet, & Boyes, 2008). However, most research studies
conducted in this area are characterized by a predominance of a
survey-generated nature (Rickinson, 2001), derived from
questionnaires with predetermined answer patterns assuming to mirror
students’ thinking. Students’ reasoning is not elicited.
Consequently, more research on students’ reasoning in their own right
is needed. Numerous studies have shown that learners are not passive
recipients of knowledge. Instead, they bring their experiences, their
interpretations of the subject matter, and their values, emotions and
moral judgment into the learning process. Thus learning can be
described as a highly individualized enterprise (Halldén, 1988;
Halldén, Scheja, & Haglund, 2008; Rickinson et al., 2009). Rickinson
et al. (2009) have presented and summarized research on
environmental learning, describing it as an “emergent research topic”.
Environmental issues are often controversial issues, and the
8
challenges for learners are not solely regarding scientific knowledge.
Rickinson et al. (ibid) showed that affective factors, for example,
emotions, values, motivations, and ethical reasoning often pose
similar challenges as scientific knowledge for students. They also
showed that students’ engagement in the learning process is largely
affected by their perceptions of the relevance of a certain
environmental topic to them. Moreover, students and teachers’
different viewpoints can also pose a challenge in the learning process.
Climate change has undoubtedly become one of the most interesting
topics for researchers of environmental education and learning. The
goals of climate change education and learning are not solely to teach
students natural scientific knowledge. Most importantly, students are
expected to form an environmental awareness and change their
behaviour as a result of instruction. However, research on climate
change education and learning has been focusing on investigating
students’ natural scientific knowledge (e.g., Andersson & Wallin,
2000; Areskoug & Ekborg, 2004; Batterham, Stanisstreet, & Boyes,
1996; Boyes & Stanisstreet, 1993; Boyes, Stanisstreet, & Zhang,
2008; Dove, 1996; Francis, Boyes, Qualter, & Stanisstreet, 1993;
Jeffries, Stanisstreet, & Boyes, 2004; Lester, Ma, Lee, & Lambert,
2006; Mason & Santi, 1998; Rye, Rubba, & Wiesenmayer, 1997).
Similar to the trend in environmental education research described
above, most studies on climate change are conducted with quantitative
methods to show the effect of certain educational programs, whereas
studies on students’ reasoning are few.
Learning as contextualization
In the field of research on learning, conceptual change has emerged as
the dominant description of learning, implying that learning can be
described as a process in which common sense notions of the world
are replaced by scientifically accepted ways of conceptualizing the
world (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982). Critics of such a
view have pointed out that learning is not a matter of replacing less
qualified or naïve conceptions of phenomena in the world, but is
rather a question of understanding in what situations and within which
genres different knowledge is useful and appropriate, and learning is
thus seen as a process of contextualization (Caravita & Halldén, 1994;
Halldén, 1999; Halldén et al., 2002; Halldén et al., 2007; Halldén et
9
al., 2008; Lundholm, 2004a, 2004b; Österlind, 2005; Petersson, 2005;
Wistedt, 1994;).
Viewing the difficulty in learning as a problem of contextualization
implies that it is improper to label a student’s understanding
alternative to scientifically proved explanations as “misconceptions”.
Rather, more attention should be given to students’ understanding in
relation to contexts.
It was more than 40 years ago that Belanger (1969) criticized that
most studies on concept learning reported students’ deficiencies in
relation to scientific way of explanations, whereas few studies
explored students’ understanding and reasoning. Research studies
engaging in reporting students’ poor performance is still
overwhelming, and studies on students’ reasoning in their own right
are still marginal in number and size.
Empirical studies reporting students’ poor performance often generate
results by taking what students say for granted, without considering
interactional as well as wider institutional and cultural settings. Paperand-pen tests, for example, can be regarded as examples where
students’ competences are judged in a de-contextualized way
according to what students write. Jakobsson, Mäkitalo, and Säljö
(2009) pointed out that there is a danger in studies and tests conducted
in this fashion in that students’ real competences are underestimated
(see also Halldén et al., 2008). Since this line of research often reports
what students cannot do, students’ own ways of understanding, their
conceptions, have not been given enough attention.
Concept and conception
The comparisons between students’ poor performance, i.e. their so
called “misconceptions”, and scientifically accepted ways of
explaining, have ignored the difference between conception and
concept. Entwistle (2007) discriminated that concept is the
authoritative description of objects and behaviour that share the same
defining features, and conception indicates students’ different ways of
thinking about a phenomenon. Thus, a concept is found in scientific
textbooks, papers, and debates, and thus outside a person’s mental
entity (Larsson & Halldén, 2010). Conceptions are students’
10
idiosyncratic ways of understanding. They are related to personalized
theorizing and hypothesizing of individuals (Gilbert & Watts, 1983).
Therefore, when studying students’ understanding of a phenomenon, it
is their conceptions that are in focus. In this thesis, the research
interest is students’ conceptions relating to different aspects of climate
change. Study I concerns students’ conceptions of the enhanced
greenhouse effect (EGHE), with a focus on displaying students’
processing of information, which can be regarded as mirroring the
construction of a conception. Study II is about students’ conceptions
of solutions and actions against climate change. Study III focuses on
how students conceptualize the tensions between developing the
economy on the one hand, and protecting the environment and
mitigating climate change on the other. Students’ conceptions of
nature and economy, as well as their relationship are central foci.
The distinctions between concept and conception may lead to the
conclusion that it might be too hasty and misleading to say that
students do not understand or that they have “misconceptions”.
Rather, it might be more appropriate to talk about what students
understand. This argument is congruent with Driver and Easley (1978)
who have made a distinction between “misconceptions” and
alternative frameworks. According to Driver and Easley (1978),
“misconceptions” apparently denote an incorrect understanding of
scientific concepts and theories, whereas alternative frameworks are
students’ “autonomous frameworks for conceptualising their
experience of the physical world” (Driver & Easley, 1978, p. 62).
Alternative frameworks result from students own interpretations of the
physical world, based on their experience, and thus they are
reasonable explanations from students’ perspectives.
Meaning making
Tasks and problems
The distinction between “misconceptions” and alternative frameworks
is an important step towards understanding students’ meaning making
in the learning situation. When students are given a learning task, they
often end up interpreting it in different ways, thus working on
different problems (Halldén, 1988; Lundholm, 2004a, 2004b, 2005;
Österlind, 2005). A distinction between tasks and problems has been
11
made by Halldén (1988): a task is what the teacher wants the students
to do, and the teacher gives the students an assignment in the form of
a task. Problems are students’ interpretations of the task: i.e. what
students assume that should be done. Therefore, students “transform”
a task into different “problems”, and the “problems” perceived by the
students thus vary.
Cognitive-oriented and discourse-oriented resources
To understand what problems students try to solve when confronting a
task is to find out what meaning is ascribed to the task by students,
thus investigating students’ meaning making in the educational
setting. According to Halldén et al. (2008), a student’s interpretation
of a task (as a problem to be solved) involves both his/her perception
of discursive requirements and the actualization of his/her repertoire
of knowledge. That is, in solving the problem perceived, certain
notions and beliefs in his/her repertoire of knowledge are actualized as
most appropriate according to his/her understanding of the discursive
requirements. Therefore, during his/her meaning making process of a
learning task, a student’s discursive resources (such as his/her
perceptions of duties, norms, and opportunities) and cognitive
resources (such as beliefs, wants, and abilities) are in play
simultaneously (Halldén, 1999; Halldén et al., 2008).
Contexts
A fair inference to draw from the above is that conceptions are
imbedded in contexts (Halldén, 1999; Halldén et al., 2002). Larsson
and Halldén (2010) argued that specific conceptions are not of vital
importance to bring forth conceptual change, and “attention should be
given to the contexts in which conceptions are embedded” (p. 642).
First, there is the conceptual context, which corresponds to the
cognitive-oriented realm of resources discussed above. A student’s
conceptual context involves his/her beliefs and understanding of, for
example, a scientific concept (Halldén et al., 2008). The student’s
conception of the scientific concept in question is often quite different
from scientific accepted explanations. This can be because the student
contextualizes the concept in question in a particular situation.
Therefore, there is also a situational context, which corresponds to the
discourse-oriented realm of resources. For example, the situational
context may include the actual setting in an interview, such as the
12
interlocutors, their behaviour, language and other cultural tools. The
situational context can also include a larger setting such as the cultural
background. The situational context provides a student with cues that
allow the student to actualize the kind of knowledge that is perceived
to be proper.
Integration and differentiation
Conceptual contexts and situational contexts work together when a
student tries to make sense of a large amount of information in the
repertoire of knowledge in order to solve a learning problem. The
student tries to relate diversely different pieces of information to one
another, and thus create coherent models. This process is described as
integration, and is an important step in the learning process (Halldén
et al., 2008). However, conceptual change and development is not
only based upon integration, but also upon the process of
differentiation. That is, when the student realizes that the established
coherent model cannot account for new information, some
information will, therefore, be given up and new information will be
incorporated into the coherent models. However, integration and
differentiation are not totally separate processes, and they are in play
simultaneously. Yet, in capturing a certain moment of learning, one is
possibly more salient. For example, in Study I the process of
integration was in focus.
Moral reasoning
In Study II, students’ moral reasoning regarding solutions to climate
change were examined. Moral reasoning is not independent of
content, audience, and situation (Carpendale & Krebs, 1992). This
assertion is contrary to the traditional Kohlbergian model of moral
reasoning, which claims that people’s moral reasoning progresses
through a series of identifiable stages. Implications can be drawn from
the Kohlbergian model that there are universal moral stages
irrespective of content or situational aspects. Kohlberg seemed to
claim that determining factors are internal as opposed to situational
(cf., Carpendale & Krebs, 1992).
Neo-Kohlbergians have disapproved of the structural homogeneity of
the traditional Kohlbergian model of moral reasoning. For example,
Levine (1979) argued that in moral development new stages do not
13
displace but build upon the old ones and thus still encompass previous
views. Harré (1984) advocated a theory of moral order instead of the
Kohlbergian moral developmental stages, and thus expected moral
judgments to be heterogeneous. This means that people make different
moral judgments in relation to different dilemmas. This has
challenged the Kohlbergian theory, which implies that moral
reasoning is irreducible, and suggests instead that it is flexible across
different situations. Moreover, Carpendale and Krebs’ (1992)
empirical work indicates that culture and audience are important
factors in moral reasoning.
In summary, neo-Kohlbergian research on moral reasoning
encompasses different facets such as the role of culture, audience, and
emotions. In addition, particular areas of one’s life experience are
acknowledged to play an important role in decision making and
character formation (Zeidler & Keefer, 2003). Thus, later research
suggests a broader conceptualization of moral reasoning.
Decision making
Moral reasoning, along with personal values and emotions play
important roles in students’ argumentation and decision making on
socio-scientific issues (Fleming, 1986a, 1986b; Walker & Zeidler,
2007; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003), such as climate change. Study III
reported on students’ conceptions concerning nature and society
through decision making.
Kortland (1996, 1997) defined decision making concerning a personal
or public issue as giving argued viewpoints and making reasoned
choices among alternatives, which requires one’s judgment in terms of
values. A small number of research studies on environmental
education and learning have studied students’ decision making
regarding environmental issues. For example, Jiménez-Aleixandre and
Pereiro-Munoz (2002) investigated students’ decision making
regarding a proposal of underground drainpipes across a wetland in
order to clean sewage. They found that students’ decisions were not
based on understanding and using scientific evidence. Rather, value
judgments played a more important role. Similar findings were
reported by Grace and Ratcliffe (2002). They indicated that when
students made decisions about biological conservation, they drew
more on values than biological knowledge and concepts. Ekborg
14
(2005) reported how science teacher students reasoned and decided on
the use of heat from a local crematorium. She showed that the students
mostly used emotional arguments and personal values, whereas
scientific knowledge was only used to a very limited degree.
Aikenhead’s (2003) review of research on humanistic perspectives in
science curricula summarized that students rely more heavily on
values than on scientific evidence when working with socio-scientific
issues. Similarly, Walker and Zeidler (2007) emphasized that personal
values, ethics, and social and political issues seem to be primary
factors in students’ decision making.
Objectives of the thesis
Previous research in environmental education and learning has been
insufficient since it 1) has mainly been about students’ understanding
of natural scientific knowledge, while research on the influence of
knowledge other than natural science is marginal, and 2) has mainly
been about the extent and outcomes of their environmental knowledge
as opposed to students’ reasoning and meaning making.
The overall goal of this thesis has been to study students’ reasoning on
climate change, and the influence of knowledge in their reasoning.
Specific aims in the separate studies were:
1) To study students’ understanding of the phenomenon of
climate change (Study I).
2) To study their proposed solutions to dealing with climate
change (Study II).
3) To study students’ conceptions of solutions to the dilemma
between economic development and mitigating climate
change (Study III).
15
Methodology
Data collection for this thesis was conducted in five Green Schools for
Study I and Study II, and three Green Schools for Study III, in the
Beijing area in 2005 and 2006. The five schools were granted the title
of Green School in 1998, 2000, 2004, 2005, and 2005 respectively.
Study I and Study II
Participants
The participants of Study I and Study II were 13-14 years old. Among
15 students studied, two of them (a boy and a girl) were chosen as
examples in the text of Study I. Nine (four boys and five girls) were
chosen as examples in Study II.
Interviews
The interviews were semi-structured, akin to Piagetian clinical
interview (Piaget, 1929/1973), and they were conducted by a biology
teacher at a university in Beijing. She was not a teacher to the students
interviewed.
The two main interview questions were: What is the enhanced
greenhouse effect (EGHE)? How do you think this problem can be
solved? The results of the first question were reported in Study I, and
the results of the second question were reported in Study II. Naturally
many probing questions were asked so that students could clarify and
elaborate on their points of view.
The interviews were conducted as group interviews. Three students
from each Green School formed a group to be interviewed. This
arrangement was to stimulate discussions among students themselves.
16
The interviewer acted like a moderator who posed questions to
challenge what students had said or to let students explain their
viewpoints. In addition, when students’ discussions were off-track
from the interview objectives, the interviewer would pose questions to
keep discussions by students pertinent to research objectives.
Study III
Participants
In Study III, the 12 participants were 15-16 years old (5 boys and 7
girls).
Role play
In Study III, the participants played the role of “board of judges”: four
students of the same school formed one board of judges, and thus,
there were three boards of judges altogether (from three different
Green Schools). They were supposed to make a decision concerning
whether or not a car factory should be set up near to a village with a
coal mine resource.
The reason for assigning the participants the role of judges was to
investigate their decision making when confronted with multiple
alternatives. Role play is a methodology that is used to help students
to understand more complicated aspects of real-life issues (Blatner,
2007). Students can become more involved and motivated to explore
alternatives, and thus to develop skills of communication and decision
making as well as problem solving (ibid.). Rogers and Evans (2007)
reported that role play could enhance students’ learning and
development due to the dimension of social interaction and
negotiation. We assumed that role play was especially helpful for
conducting Study III because the board of judges as decision makers
could develop a better understanding of the dilemma when they were
provided with different perspectives.
In Study III, the focus was on reporting interviews with the three
boards of judges. However, other role players are worth mentioning:
students played governmental leaders, ecologists, UN representatives,
17
and villagers. They held a debate concerning the pros and cons of the
car factory proposal where different viewpoints were put forward. The
participants of the present study (the board of judges) listened to this
debate and they could also ask questions.
Interviews
The participants were interviewed twice: before and after the debate.
During the pre-interviews, the main questions were: 1. Do you think a
car factory should be set up or not? Why? 2. Does a car factory have
any impact on climate change? After four weeks, the post interviews
were carried out immediately after the debate. The main interview
questions were: should a car factory be built or not? Why?
The same interviewer conducted the pre- and post interviews in Study
III. Similar to Study I and Study II, students were interviewed as
groups in Study III since students’ conceptions reflected through
discussion were of interest.
Data collection
Study I and II were tape-recorded and Study III was both tape- and
video-recorded by the interviewer and her assistants. The data material
was first transcribed into Chinese and then translated into English by
the author of this thesis.
Analytical methods
Intentional analysis
When students solve learning problems, they perceive the discursive
requirements of the setting in which they are in, and actualize the
repertoire of beliefs to evaluate which kind of knowledge fits the
perceived requirements of the setting (Halldén et al., 2008). From
such a perspective, in the analysis, students’ utterances were
considered from a cognitive perspective focusing on students’ beliefs
and desires, and they are also considered in relation to the interview
18
situations (e.g., the interviewer, group discussion), as well as the
context at large (e.g., being a teenager in China). This rationale for
explaining students’ utterances is based on von Wright (1971) who
stated that in order to understand why a person acts the way (s)he
does, it is necessary to ascribe meaning to his/her actions, and thus to
view them as intentional. For a researcher, to interpret a student’s
utterances (viewed as verbal actions) involves identifying the
cognitive resources (e.g., beliefs, abilities, wants, and desires) as well
as discursive resources (e.g., duties, norms, and opportunities) as these
can be presumed to be apprehended by the student as well as the
researcher (Figure 2).
Cognitive-oriented resources
(beliefs, abilities, wants, desires)
Rationale of utterances
The researcher’s viewpoint
(duties, norms, opportunities)
Discourse-oriented resources
Figure 2. Analytical framework to understand utterances (Originally from Halldén
et al., 2008, slightly adapted here).
This process of analysis is to rationalize the students’ actions into a
good-reason-assay description. Such an analysis has been schematized
as intentional analysis (Halldén, 1999; Halldén, Haglund, &
Strömdahl, 2007; Halldén et al., 2008; Lundholm, 2003, 2004a,
2004b, 2005). By using intentional analysis, students’ utterances were
19
not taken for granted. Instead, they were put in an explanatory
framework involving the deliberation of cognitive-oriented and
discursive-oriented resources, which provide complementary
perspectives in analyzing students’ utterances. With reference to these
two different realms of interpretation, it is possible to find coherence
and rationality in students’ utterances.
According to Halldén et al. (2007, 2008; see also Larsson & Halldén,
2010, Larsson, Haglund, & Halldén, 2011), researchers are obliged to
discover coherence and rationale in students’ utterances. This
argument is in line with Davidson (2001) who suggested that we have
to optimize coherence in people’s utterances in order to understand
them. Davidson argued that in order to understand other people’s
utterances and behaviour, we should ascribe a great deal of rationality
and truth in them. If we assume too much unreasonableness in other
people’s utterances and behaviour, we undermine our capacity to
understand what the unreasonable part is.
By adopting an intentional perspective in this thesis, the main interest
in Study I was to seek for rationality and coherence in students’
reasoning. In Study II and III, students’ beliefs and desires, along with
the interview situation and students’ background (e.g., from Green
Schools and as teenagers in China) were considered in the
interpretations.
The triangle model
The World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002 described the
now widely used three “pillars” for sustainable development: social
equity, environmental quality, and economic prosperity (Kates, Parris,
& Leiserowitz, 2005). A growing consensus in the educational
literature is that attention needs to be paid to their inter-relationships
(Walshe, 2008). From a research perspective, it is of interest to
examine how an individual, such as a student, reasons his/her position,
along with other people’s positions in relation to the environment and
the society. Lundholm (2008) proposed an alternative model for
analyzing environmental and sustainability issues (see Figure 3). This
triangle model was used as an analytical lens for coding of the data
material in Study II and Study III.
20
Nature
Individual
Society
Figure 3. Environmental issues seen as including different aspects and
relationships between individual, society, and nature (Lundholm,
2008). Reprinted with permission from Liber.
The importance of the triangle model is that it represents three crucial
aspects (individual, nature, and society) and their inter-relationships
(individual and nature, nature and society, and individual and society)
in relation to environmental issues. Individual focuses on students’
conceptions related to human beings in the face of environmental
issues. Nature focuses on students’ conceptions of nature, for
example, students’ conceptions of the EGHE (see Study I). Society
represents students’ conceptions, norms, and values with respect to
social, economic, political organizations and functions, as well as their
conceptions of justice and democracy. The relationship of individual
and nature includes individual’s conceptions of attitudes and
behaviour that affect nature; nature and society includes conceptions
about both societal effects on nature and nature’s effect on society.
For example, the way institutional decisions and actions affect nature,
and also institutional reaction to environmental problems, such as to
climate change; individual and society focuses on how individuals are
influenced by societal norms and how the formation of societal norms
are affected by people.
In coding the data, the triangle model was used for identifying and
describing what aspects and relationships students focused, or did not
21
consider in their discussion. For example, when students talked about
the environment, it was coded as nature; when they talked about
economic aspects, it was coded as society; when they talked about
natural resources and economic development, it was coded as nature
and society. Naturally, there was more detailed analysis, such as
identifying what types of inter-relationships that were conceptualized
by students. The purpose of using this model to identify different
aspects and inter-relationships was to clarify different ways of
reasoning about proposed solutions.
Generalization
One important aspect of the results of a study is their applicability or
transferability. That is, to what extent can the results be generalized?
Most researchers seem to agree that there are two types of
generalization: statistical or empirical, and, theoretical or conceptual.
Statistical generalization is mostly associated with quantitative studies
and is based on the assumption that the samples of one study are
statistically representative of a wider population (Draper, 2004). In
contrast to statistical generalization, theoretical generalization is more
concerned with developing theoretical principles, which can be more
or less complex. Most researchers seem to agree that qualitative
research is generalizable, but of a different type than quantitative
research. Qualitative studies seek to understand phenomena in specific
settings (Golafshani, 2003). Seale (1999) pointed out that qualitative
studies can lead to general theoretical propositions. The rationale is
based on logic rather than probability. Yin’s (1989) term “analytical
generalization” followed the same reasoning as theoretical
generalization in that it is not generalization to some defined
population, but to a theory of the phenomenon studied, and the theory
may have a much wider applicability than the particular sample being
studied.
The studies included in this thesis can be seen to be in line with
theoretical or analytical generalization. In Study I, the process of how
a person’s repertoire of knowledge is actualized and restructured when
dealing with a complex learning problem is analyzed. This process is
an important step in learning, and is assumed to be applicable also to
other people when dealing with complex problems. In Study II,
students’ moral reasoning regarding solving climate change is
22
presented. The students’ reasoning introduced a general moral
problem that has been reflected in the concept of “social dilemma”
(e.g., Komorita & Parks, 1996). In Study III, students’ reasoning on
nature and the economy also represents a common way of reasoning
in general (as discussed later in the part of “Discussion”).
23
Summary of the empirical studies
Table 1. Overview of the studies
Study
Number of
participants
Age
School
Data
collection
Analysis
I
15(2)
14
15(9)
1314
Semistructured
interviews
Semistructured
interviews
Intentional
analysis
II
Two urban
Green
Schools
Two urban
Green
Schools and
one rural
Green School
III
12
1516
Two urban
Green
Schools and
one rural
Green School
Role play and
semistructured
interviews
24
Intentional
analysis,
triangle
model
Intentional
analysis,
triangle
model
The concept of climate change is characterized by complexity. It is not
only a phenomenon in nature and an environmental issue, but also an
issue that is of concern for society, thus a moral and economic issue
(Chambwera & Stage, 2010). The focus of the present thesis is to
investigate how students in the Chinese context conceptualize the
complexity of climate change.
The results showed that students have touched upon the complexity of
climate change in that they are aware that climate change is a serious
environmental issue to which immediate actions should be taken, and
also in that students’ solutions to climate change involved ethical as
well as economic reasoning.
The objective of Study I was to investigate students’ understanding of
the phenomenon of climate change. One of the challenges for students
to understand the phenomenon of climate change is the many “speech
genres” (Mäkitalo, Jakobsson, & Säljö, 2009) in which climate change
is discussed. That is, different social groups and institutions
communicate and discuss climate change in their own ways. In school
in particular, the topic of climate change and other environmental
issues are touched upon in several different disciplines. Therefore,
climate change as a concept is embedded in diverse social settings in
which different conceptual frameworks are used. For an individual
student, it is probable that (s)he has assimilated a lot of diverse
information about the phenomenon of climate change. The goal of
Study I was to examine how students cope with the large amount of
information related to climate change, and if students are aware that
climate change calls for actions and solutions.
One conclusion drawn from Study I is that students are aware that
climate change needs to be solved and immediate action needs to be
taken. Study II went a step further by examining what type of
solutions to climate change that was proposed by the students. The
results showed that students attributed the causes of climate change
mainly to factories and cars. They conceptualized solutions from a
moral perspective by addressing the individual, where the individual
was either “me” or “others”.
Students’ reasoning on “me” and “other” suggested that “me” should
enjoy economic achievements, whereas “others” should care for the
environment and probably not buy cars. Therefore, in Study III, this
25
was investigated further by examining students’ solutions to the
dilemma between developing the economy on the one hand, and
mitigating climate change on the other. In the following, the main
findings of the three studies are summarized.
Study I: Learning as a process of integration: Students’
meaning making of the enhanced greenhouse effect
Climate change, along with other environmental problems has become
an important topic for different institutions who also communicate
about it in different ways. Students have thus assimilated a lot of
information about climate change and other environmental problems
from different sources. Against this backdrop, what are students’
conceptions of climate change, and how do they process their acquired
knowledge?
Students of 13-14 years of age at Green Schools in the Beijing area
were interviewed about the phenomenon of the EGHE (What is the
EGHE?). Results of two students’ (Zhu and Hao) reasoning were
presented, as their talks and ways of reasoning can be said to be
representative of all the students interviewed. Importantly, by
presenting excerpts from these two students’ reasoning, the aim was to
give a thorough analysis of how students organize their knowledge
when trying to solve a learning problem.
Students’ utterances were examined from an intentional perspective,
focusing on coherence and rationality. The results showed that when
the two students explained the phenomenon of climate change, they
have incorporated and used a lot of information. Some information
was related to climate change, some concerned evaporation and the tilt
of the earth, and some was related to environmental problems such as
pollution and the depletion of ozone layers. The students reorganized
these diversely different pieces of information into coherent entities.
For example, Zhu’s modeling included the holes in the atmosphere,
resulting from the depletion of the ozone layer. These holes made it
possible for the sunshine to come in and heat up the earth; the heat
could not escape into space because of the pressure from the
atmosphere. The heat caused melting of icebergs, which is used to
26
keeping the earth cool enough. In Hao’s modeling, there were two
“tops” of the earth — the Polar Regions. Pollutants rose up to the tops,
destroyed and made holes in the ozone layer, and these holes of the
ozone layers above the Polar Regions allowed more sunlight to reach
the earth. The sunlight could not escape because the earth was
wrapped in the atmosphere, like a blanket around the earth, and the
spinning of the earth spread the heat to other parts of the world.
Zhu and Hao’s models of the EGHE are different since they have
incorporated different pieces of information in their modeling.
However, they are similar in that the two students re-structured
diversely different pieces of information and constructed logical
connections among them, thus creating coherent wholes. Even if these
are wrong compared to scientifically accepted views of the EGHE,
they make sense for the students and have explanatory value for them.
They help the students to relate disparate pieces of information to one
another, and thus solve some problems at the same time. Modeling
coherent wholes, or integrating acquired knowledge, seems to be a
necessary and important step in the process of learning.
One conclusion drawn from Study I is that although students
incorporate information from various problem areas, and thus make
some mistakes in relation to scientifically valid explanations, they
know that climate change is caused by human activity (such as driving
cars), and thus are required solutions. Study II further investigated
students’ solutions to climate change.
Study II: Climate change and morality: Students’
perspectives on the individual and society
Climate change is a typical socio-scientific issue involving multiple
perspectives and moral dilemmas. The seriousness of this issue has
attracted many researchers in environmental education and learning.
However, most research studies have only examined students’ natural
scientific knowledge and compared it with scientific explanations
(e.g., Andersson & Wallin, 2000; Batterham, Stanisstreet, & Boyes,
1996; Shepardson, Niyogy, Choi, & Charusombat, 2009), as opposed
to investigating influence of knowledge from other areas.
27
An important goal of environmental education is to prepare students to
become responsible citizens and to take pro-environmental action.
However, research studies have indicated that there is a gap between
environmental knowledge and pro-environmental action, i.e.
environmental knowledge does not guarantee environmentally
friendly behaviour (e.g., Grace & Ratcliffe, 2002; Kollmuss &
Agyeman, 2002). Therefore, a growing body of research has also
begun to acknowledge affective aspects, in which moral
understanding is of particular interest in promoting action and
preparing students for problem solving as responsible citizens.
The solutions conceptualized by students in Study II concern moral
and normative issues: What should I do? What do I think is right or
wrong to do? What matters to me? Students’ moral reasoning in
relation to climate change was examined in this study.
Nine students from three groups (three in each) from three Green
Schools in the Beijing area participated in the study. The study was
based on semi-structured group interviews, and the interview
questions mainly concerned causes and solutions to climate change.
In the analysis we used a triangle model (Figure 3) which includes
three aspects (individual, nature, and society) and their interrelationships (individual and nature, nature and society, and
individual and society) of environmental issues as an analytical lens in
coding students’ utterances. Thus, the analysis focused on identifying
different ways of moral reasoning among the students and how this
concerned the individual, nature, and society.
An intentional perspective was adopted when interpreting students’
utterances, with the purpose of focusing on students’ cognitive
competences: their beliefs, wants, and abilities. The intentional
approach also considers students’ perceptions of discursive/situational
requirements, such as an interview situation, Green Schools, and
Chinese cultural background. To bring cognitive-oriented and
discursive oriented resources into an interpretive framework enables
more valid interpretations of students’ utterances.
The findings of Study II showed that students attributed the causes of
climate change to emissions from factories and cars, and that they
dedicated themselves to finding solutions to climate change. The
28
solutions mainly concerned taking actions by the individual, where the
individual was either “myself” or “someone else”. This brought forth
two different ways of moral reasoning, depending on the individual as
“myself” or “someone else”, resulting in different relationships and
considerations for nature and society.
When the individual was “myself”, a student was likely to be more
anthropocentric, which means that her/his personal needs and interests
were emphasized, and prioritized, and the aspect of nature was not
discussed and thus excluded. Additionally, the relationship between
society and individual was pictured more harmonious in that society
was thought to support the individual. On the other hand, when the
individual was “someone else”, the students were more concerned
with the environment and the aspect of nature. Moreover, the
relationship between individual and society was emphasized, but the
society was seen as executing punishment rather than being
supportive.
Students’ reasoning of “me” and “others” raise an interesting
question: should economic development be prioritized in order to
satisfy people’s materialistic demands, or should mitigating climate
change and protecting the environment be prioritized? Students’
reasoning on the dilemma between economic development and
dealing with climate change or other environmental problems was
investigated in Study III.
Study III: Climate change and costs – Investigating
students’ reasoning on nature and economic
development
To our knowledge, few studies have investigated students’ thinking
with regard to issues and dilemmas concerning not only the
environment, but human, societal and economic aspects as well.
In this study, the question of how students understand the dilemma
between economic development and mitigating climate change was in
focus.
29
Specifically, the aim was to explore students’ conceptions of
economic development and the environment through decision making
concerning a task that was assigned to them: the participants played
the role of “the board of judges”, and were instructed to decide
whether a car factory should be set up near a village with a coal mine
or not. The details of the task included the pros and cons of setting up
the car factory, with the former concerning mainly economic benefits
and the latter mainly problems of climate change, hence a dilemma
between developing the economy and mitigating climate change.
12 students aged 15-16 from three Green Schools (two urban and one
rural) formed three boards of judges. Each board of judges was
interviewed twice: before and after a debate on the topic of building a
car factory.
The results of the study showed that students did not relate producing
and driving cars and using coal for energy supply with climate change.
Instead, for them, the focal aspect of the task concerned the
development of the economy. In the pre-interviews, students decided
to set up a car factory because developing the economy and social
welfare were seen as most important. With regard to environmental
problems, they suggested that they were inevitable, and even a
necessary part of development, and that they could be solved by
scientific and technological means.
In the post interviews, students disapproved of setting up the car
factory due to various reasons concerning the feasibility of
establishing a factory, such as source of capital, transporting, and
selling. Thus, students changed their decision based on economic, as
opposed to environmental considerations.
During the decision making process, students mainly drew on their
understanding of nature and society (economic development), and the
link between these two, along with their values. What is interesting to
highlight is students’ focus on economic development. Economic
development was seen as a prerequisite for sustaining the
environment. Their conceptions of nature are also of interest: Nature
was viewed as a resource “box”: static and restorable. When people
need something, they can take it from the box, and simply return it
later. Furthermore, students also suggested that to maintain or to
sustain this box, developing the economy was a prerequisite because
30
through economic development people could fix the box and even
make the environment better. Our conclusion drawn from Study III is
that for these students there was no conflict between developing the
economy and protecting the environment, and so, the dilemma
indicated in the task simply did not exist.
Students’ static views of nature could be just a conceptual
understanding, not a systemic understanding which takes a larger
ecological system into consideration. It seems that students’ line of
reasoning is congruent with the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC)
hypothesis that environmental damage first increases in a country’s
developmental process, but then decreases after certain income
threshold is met (Heerink, Mulatu, & Bulte, 2001). This is problematic
since nature is not a “box” that works in a static and linear way and
climate change is a driver on a planetary level influencing ecosystems
to change in ways that are irreversible. Furthermore, changing
processes that are non-linear are difficult to predict, and hence
negative consequences are unknown (Rockström et al., 2009).
However, students’ reasoning is in line with prevalent values and
beliefs in the Chinese culture where a person’s success and identity is
strongly connected to his/her economic status, such as owning a car.
31
Discussion
The influence of knowledge on students’ reasoning
Study I
Earlier in this thesis, it was summarized that research on
environmental education and learning has been insufficient due to two
main reasons: First, the majority of empirical studies have focused on
examining students’ constraints in understanding. Second, research
studies have focused on reporting the extent or scale of students’
knowledge (e.g. how many students have or do not have certain
knowledge). A general picture drawn from research conducted along
this line is that the level of students’ scientific knowledge is generally
low, and students display a high level of confusion about the science
of environmental issues, often characterised by persistent
“misconceptions” (Hart, 2007; Rickinson, 2001, 2003, 2006; see also
Jensen & Schnack, 2006; Tsevreni, 2011). Therefore, research studies
have indicated a gap between students’ conceptions and scientifically
proved views, and the research focus has been on comparing how “far
away” students’ conceptions are from the normative ways of
understanding, i.e. the scientifically accepted views. The problem that
has been addressed has not been how students come up with
alternative frameworks, but how students’ alternative frameworks act
as obstacles for students to accept scientifically accepted views, and
why it is so difficult to abandon them in favour of scientifically valid
views.
Through a detailed analysis, Study I showed how students
contextualize their acquired knowledge into coherent models, and thus
form alternative frameworks of understanding climate change. By
displaying how students process different pieces of information, this
study has showed a part of the very process involved in conceptual
change, which may mirror the emergence of a conception. Thus this
study suggests an alternative way of investigating conceptual change.
32
Study II and Study III
When using the analytical lens adopted in the present thesis (Figure
3), it can be concluded that a general characteristic of the vast majority
of research studies on environmental education and learning is their
focus on students’ scientific knowledge regarding nature. The general
underlying assumption seems to be that students need to have a lot of
scientific knowledge in order to make decisions and act proenvironmentally. However, climate change and environmental issues
are often complex issues including social, economic, and human
dimensions. Jensen and Schnack (2006) pointed out that the
dominance of scientism in environmental education and research,
focusing often on students’ knowledge about the seriousness and
extent of environmental problems, has not yet addressed the social
perspectives and possible solutions which are open to a society and
the individual.
Further, research also shows that there is no direct link between
environmental knowledge and pro-environmental behaviour (e.g.,
Kollmuss & Agyeman 2002; Posch, 1993; Rajecki, 1982) and
decision making (Aikenhead, 2003; Ekborg, 2005; Grace & Ratcliffe,
2002; Jiménez-Aleixandre & Pereiro-Munoz, 2002). Therefore, to
discuss and make decisions when confronted with real-life issues,
such as climate change, natural scientific knowledge is not enough.
Additionally, the dominant trend of environmental education research
reporting on the extent of students’ attitudes and behaviour, has not
yet generated more detailed reasoning and learning at the individual
level.
In comparison, Study II and III examined students’ reasoning on
solutions to climate change and environmental problems, and how
students draw on their social knowledge, revealing a reasoning that
connects in particular to ethical and economic aspects.
In Study II, when students ponder over responsibility and action, they
begin to consider who are “bad doers” and who are “good doers”.
What should I do? What should other people do? Therefore, what is
displayed in this process is students’ normative and moral reasoning in
looking for solutions to climate change, where they reason differently
regarding what “I” should do and what “others” should do. Students’
reasoning of “me” and “others” represents a social dilemma in which
33
self-interest is often in conflict with public interest. According to
students’ reasoning, “others” should act in favour of the environment,
but “I” should act in favour of my own interest. Thus, different
“principles” for taking action are used, allowing themselves greater
freedom and comfort, and implicitly suggesting that others will sustain
nature through their actions.
In Study III, students’ reasoning on nature and economy, along with
their inter-relationship was revealed: nature is like a box of resources
to be used, and economic development can sustain the box. In this
way, there is no conflict between developing the economy and
protecting the environment. This reasoning is congruent with current
Chinese ideology where ecomodernism plays a dominant role. These
results, to some extent, conform to Study II in that though students are
aware that carbon emissions should be reduced, they tend to reason
that in the Chinese context (my country), we should focus on
developing the economy at the moment, whereas other countries,
probably, should act more in favour of the environment.
However, students’ reasoning is not unique from a global perspective.
Most countries agree that something needs to be done and all
countries would be better off if carbon emissions were reduced.
However, it has been proved extremely difficult to reach an agreement
regarding the reduction of emissions. Many countries expect other
countries to take on more responsibility and action. Apparently,
national interest is at odds with global interest. Many developing
countries argue that developed countries bear a greater responsibility
since climate change has been caused by the long-term historical
emissions of developed countries with high level of per-capita
emissions. China and many developing countries argue that their
people should not be limited to a few basic “survival emissions”,
while developed countries still enjoy high living standard with “luxury
emissions”. For example, Chinese officials argue that the developed
countries have been contributing to climate change for 200 years,
while China has been doing so for only 30 years. They have pointed
out that high per-capita emissions in developed countries are the main
reasons for them to take more responsibility in combating climate
change.
Therefore, climate change is not just a scientific problem which can be
handled with natural scientific knowledge. It is more a problem of
34
how society can work together to solve it, which is urgent. Thus,
students have introduced a general ethical question, which has been a
hot and difficult political question around the world, not specifically a
question for students in China.
Since students have introduced such a difficult ethical issue, a
question is how to respond to this in education, and how to investigate
this further. Reid and Scott (2006) argued an alternative visualization
in environmental research to foreground more “sociologically
emerging phenomenon” rather than “cognitively structuring one”.
This thesis is perhaps an opening towards exploring students’
reasoning on climate change in the context of China, which is a more
representative context of the tensions between economic development
and environmental protection.
Implications for education
Study I
In this study, students’ potentiality and capability to contextualize
their acquired knowledge in a particular way when confronted with a
complex learning problem are illustrated. By this, the research is not
to judge how successful or unsuccessful a student is in handling a
learning task. Thus, this study moves away from “negative
rationalism” (Rommetveit, 1978), where students’ deficiencies are
highlighted. This has important implications for teaching since school
education is focused on helping students to abandon “misconceptions”
in favour of scientifically accepted views. However, with regard to
environmental education, it is perhaps not the gap that is of interest.
Rather, it is the way in which students are reasoning, which advocates
a view that affects action which involves ethical and normative
reasoning as is shown in Study II and Study III.
Study II and Study III
Since the emphasis in environmental education has been that of
teaching scientific knowledge, students may develop an illusion that
science is a panacea to all environmental problems. This is clearly
shown in Study III where students have a strong faith that science and
35
technology, invented due to economic development, can deal with
climate change and environmental issues.
While scientific knowledge helps students to understand the
mechanisms of climate change and other environmental issues, there
are also other dimensions, such as socio-cultural, economic, moral,
and value dimensions which are important in learning environmental
issues. These aspects need to be identified and addressed in education.
Concluding comments
This thesis shows that environmental education and learning is a
complex area to investigate since scientific knowledge is not enough
to empower students for problem solving now and in the future.
Students’ reasoning with regard to social, economic, and moral
dimensions is equally important.
Investigations about how students process their acquired knowledge
and develop it are rare. Research on students’ reasoning with regard to
their proposed solutions to climate change and environmental
problems at an individual level is also rather rare. Studies often use
pre-determined questions which are assumed to mirror students’
thinking, whereas the complexity of students’ reasoning is not always
delineated. Methodologically, this thesis has adopted an intentional
approach in examining students’ interaction with their repertoire of
knowledge and the surrounding world. Such a perspective makes it
possible to take the students’ reasoning seriously during the
investigation, and to focus on their potentialities in learning.
36
References
Aikenhead, G. S. (2003). Review of research on humanistic
perspectives in science curricula. A paper presented at The
European Science Education Research Association (ESERA)
Conference, Noordwijkerhout, the Netherlands. Retrieved on
2011-03-18, from
http://www.usask.ca/education/people/aikenhead/ESERA_2.pdf
Andersson, B. & Wallin, A. (2000). Students’ understanding of the
greenhouse effect, the societal consequences of reducing CO2
emissions and the problem of ozone layer depletion. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1096-1111.
Areskoug, M. & Ekborg, M. (2004). Experiments for understanding
the greenhouse effect. In P. Wickenberg, H. Axelsson, L.
Fritzén, G. Helldén, & J. Öhman (Eds.), Learning to Change
Our World? Swedish Research on Education & Sustainable
Development (pp. 163-179). Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
Batterham, D., Stanisstreet, M., & Boyes, E. (1996). Kids, cars and
conservation: Children’s ideas about the environmental impact
of motor vehicles. International Journal of Science Education,
18(3), 347-354.
Belanger, M. (1969). Learning studies in science education. Review of
Educational Research, 39, 377-395.
Blatner, A. (2007). Process drama in education. In A. Blatner & D. J.
Wiener (Eds.) Interactive and Improvisational Drama: Varieties
and Applied Theatre and Performance (pp. 90-98). Lincoln, NE:
iUniverse.
Boyes, E., Skamp K., & Stanisstreet, M. (2009). Australian secondary
students’ views about global warming: beliefs about actions, and
willingness to act. Research in Science Education, 39(5), 661680.
Boyes, E. & Stanisstreet, M. (1993). The greenhouse effect:
Children’s perceptions of causes, consequences and cures.
International Journal of Science Education, 15(5), 531-552.
37
Boyes, E., Stanisstreet, M., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Combating global
warming: The ideas of high school students in the growing
economy of south east China. International Journal of
Environmental Studies, 65(2), 233-245.
Caravita, S. & Halldén, O. (1994). Re-framing the problem of
conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 89-111.
Carpendale, J. I. M. & Krebs, D. L. (1992). Situational variation in
moral judgment: In a stage or on a stage. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 21(2), 203-224.
Chambwera, M. & Stage, J. (2010). Climate Change Adaptation in
Developing Countries: Issues and Perspectives for Economic
Analysis. London: International Institute for Environment and
Development (IIED).
China’s Environmental Protection Agency & China’s Education
Commission (1996), (original in Chinese, author’s translation).
Outline for Action: the National Environmental Publicity and
Education (1996-2010).
Davidson, D. (2001). Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation (2nd ed.).
Oxford, UK: Oxford Clarendon Press.
Dillon, J. (2003). On learners and learning in environmental
education: Missing theories and ignored communities.
Environmental Education Research, 9(2), 215-216.
Dove, J. (1996). Student teacher understanding of the greenhouse
effect, ozone layer depletion and acid rain. Environmental
Education Research, 2(1), 89-100.
Draper, A. K. (2004). Workshop on “developing qualitative research
method skills: analysing and applying your results”: The
principle and application of qualitative research. Proceedings of
the Nutrition Society, 63, 641-646.
Driver, R. & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: a review of
literature related to concept development in adolescent science
students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84.
Ekborg, M. (2005). Is heating generated from a crematorium an
appropriate source for district heating? Student teachers’
reasoning about a complex environmental issue. Environmental
Education Research, 11(5), 557-573.
Entwistle, N. (2007). Conceptions of learning and the experience of
understanding: Thresholds, contextual influences, and
knowledge objects. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas, & X.
Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Reframing the Problem of Conceptual
38
Change in Learning and Instruction (pp. 123-145). Amsterdam,
the Netherlands: Elsevier.
Fewsmith, J. (2004). Promoting the scientific development concept.
China Leadership Monitor, 11. Retrieved on 2011-03-18, from
http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/clm11_jf.p
df
Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in issues, Part I: Social
cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 677687.
Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in issues, Part II:
Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
23(8), 689-698.
Francis, C., Boyes, E., Qualter, A., & Stanisstreet, M. (1993). Ideas of
elementary students about reducing the greenhouse effect.
Science Education, 77(4), 375-392.
Gardner, G. T. & Stern, P. C. (2002). Environmental Problems and
Human Behaviour (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Custom
Publishing.
Gilbert, K. G., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and
alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science
education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in
qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607.
Grace, M. & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young
people draw upon to make decision about biological
conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education,
24(11), 1157-1169.
Halldén, O. (1988). Alternative frameworks and the concept of task.
Cognitive constraints in pupils’ interpretations of teachers’
assignments. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
32, 123-140.
Halldén, O. (1999). Conceptual change and contextualization. In W.
Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.) New Perspectives
on Conceptual Change (pp. 53-65). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Halldén, O., Haglund, L., & Strömdahl, H. (2007). Conceptions and
contexts: On the interpretation of interview and observational
data. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 25-40.
Halldén, O., Petersson, G., Scheja, M., Ehrlén, K., Haglund, L.,
Österlind, K., & Stenlund, A. (2002). Situating the question of
conceptual change. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.)
39
Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and
Practice (pp. 137-148). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Halldén, O., Scheja, M., & Haglund, L. (2008). The contextuality of
knowledge: an intentional approach to meaning making and
conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.) Handbook of
Research on Conceptual Change (pp. 509-532). New York:
Routledge.
Harré, R. (1984). Personal Being: A Theory for Individual
Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hart, P. (2007). Environmental education. In S. K. Abell & N. G.
Lederman (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Science Education
(pp. 689-726). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Heerink, N., Mulatu, A., & Bulte, E. (2001). Income inequality and
the environment: aggregation bias in environmental Kuznets
curves. Ecological Economics, 38(3), 359-367.
IPCC (2001). IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001:
The Scientific Basis. Retrieved on 2010-12-07, from
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TARRONT.pdf
IPCC (2007). IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change
2007: The Physical Science Basis. Retrieved on 2010-12-07,
from
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4wg1-chapter1.pdf
Jakobsson, A., Mäkitalo, Å., & Säljö, R. (2009). Conceptions of
knowledge in research on students’ understanding of the
greenhouse effect: Methodological positions and their
consequences for representations of knowing. Science
Education, 93(6), 978-995.
Jeffries, H., Stanisstreet, M., & Boyes, E. (2001). Knowledge about
the “greenhouse effect”: Have college students improved?
Research in Science & Technological Education, 19(2), 205221.
Jensen, B. B. & Schnack, K. (2006). The action competence approach
in environmental education. Environmental Education Research,
12(3-4), 471-486.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge
producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and
decision
making
about
environmental
management.
International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190.
40
Karasov, C. (2000). On a different scale: putting China’s
environmental crisis in perspective. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 108(10), 452-460.
Kates, R. W., Parris, T. M., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2005). What is
sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and
practice. Environmental Science and Policy for Sustainable
Development, 47(3), 8-21.
Kilinc, A., Stanisstreet, M., & Boyes, E. (2008). Turkish students’
ideas about global warming. International Journal of
Environmental and Science Education, 3(2), 89-98.
Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people
act environmentally and what are the barriers to proenvironmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research,
8(3), 239-260.
Komorita, S., & Parks, C. (1996). Social Dilemmas. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision
making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80(6), 673-689.
Kortland, K. (1997). Garbage: dumping, burning and reusing /
recycling: Students’ perception on the waste issue. International
Journal of Science Education, 19, 65-77.
Larsson, Å. & Halldén, O. (2010). A structural view on the emergence
of a conception: Conceptual change as radical re-constructions
of contexts. Science Education, 94(4), 640-664.
Larsson, Å., Haglund, L., & Halldén, O. (2011). Cognitive conflict:
actions taken in the process of conceptual change. Nordic
Educational Research Working Paper Series, 1.
Lester, B., Ma, L., Lee, O., & Lambert, J. (2006). Social activism in
elementary science education: A science, technology, and
society approach to teach global warming. International Journal
of Science Education, 28(4), 315-339.
Levine, C. G. (1979). Stage acquisition and stage use: An appraisal of
stage displacement explanations of variation in moral reasoning.
Human Development, 22, 145-164.
Lin, J. & Ross, H. (2004). Guest editors’ introduction. Chinese
Education and Society, 37(4), 5-10.
Lundholm, C. (2003). Att Lära om Miljö. Forskar- och
Högskolestuderandes Tolkningar av ett Miljöinnehåll i
Utbildningen. (Learning about Environmental Issues.
Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students’ Interpretations of
41
Environmental Content), PhD thesis. Stockholm, Sweden:
Department of Education, Stockholm University.
Lundholm, C. (2004a). Case studies ― exploring students’ meanings
and elaborating learning theories. Environmental Education
Research, 10(1), 115-124.
Lundholm, C. (2004b). Learning about environmental issues in
engineering programmes: A case study of first-year civil
engineering students’ contextualisations of an ecology course.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
5(3), 295-307.
Lundholm, C. (2005). Learning about environmental issues:
Postgraduate and undergraduate students’ interpretations of
environmental contents in education. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 6(3), 242-253.
Lundholm, C. (2008). Discourse, cause and change: A study on
economics students’ conceptions of child labour. In J. Öhman
(Ed.), Ethics and Democracy in Education for Sustainable
Development: Contributions from Swedish Research (pp. 109122). Stockholm, Sweden: Liber.
Mann, M. E., Bradley, R. S., & Hughes, M. K. (1998) Global-scale
temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six
centuries. Nature, 392, 779-787.
Mäkitalo, Å., Jakobsson, A., & Säljö, R. (2009). Learning to reason in
the context of socioscientific problems. Exploring the demands
on students in ‘new’ classroom activities. In K. Kumpulainen, C.
Hmelo-Silver, & M. César (Eds.) Investigating Classroom
Interaction. Methodologies in Action (pp. 7-26). Rotterdam, the
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Mason, L. & Santi, M. (1998). Discussing the greenhouse effect:
Children’s collaborative discourse reasoning and conceptual
change. Environmental Education Research, 4(1), 67-85.
Nordhaus, W. D. (2009). Economic issues in designing a global
agreement on global warming. Keynote address for Climate
Change: Global Risks, Challenges, and Decisions, Copenhagen,
Denmark, March 10-12.
Österlind, K. (2005). Concept formation in environmental education:
14-year olds’ work on the intensified greenhouse effect and the
depletion of the ozone layer. International Journal of Science
Education, 27(8), 891-908.
Petersson, G. (2005). Medical and nursing students’ development of
conceptions of science during three years of studies in higher
42
education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49,
281-296.
Piaget, J. (1929/1973). The Child’s Conception of the World. New
York: Littlefield Adams.
Posch, P. (1993). Research issues in environmental education. Studies
in Science Education, 21, 21-48.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982).
Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of
conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.
Rajecki, D. W. (1982). Attitudes: Themes and Advances. Sunderland,
MA: Sinnauer.
Reid, A. & Scott, W. (2006). Researching education and the
environment: Retrospect and prospect. Environmental
Education Research, 12(3-4), 571-587.
Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and learning environmental education:
A critical review of evidence. Environmental Education
Research, 7(3), 207-317.
Rickinson, M. (2003). Reviewing research evidence in environmental
education: Some methodological reflections and challenges.
Environmental Education Research, 9(2), 257-271.
Rickinson, M. (2006). Researching and understanding environmental
learning: Hopes for the next 10 years. Environmental Education
Research, 12(3-4), 445-457.
Rickinson, M., Lundholm, C., & Hopwood, N. (2009). Environmental
Learning: Insights from Research into the Student Experience.
Dordrecht, the Netherlands : Springer.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chaplin, F. S.,
Lambin, E. F., … Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for
humanity. Nature, 46, 472-475.
Rogers, S. & Evans, J. (2007). Rethinking role play in the reception
class. Educational Research, 49(2), 153-167.
Rommetveit, R. (1978). On negative rationalism in scholarly studies
of verbal communication and dynamic residuals in the
construction of human intersubjectivity. In M. Brenner, P.
Marsh, & M. Brenner (Eds.) The Social Contexts of Method (pp.
16-32). London: Croom Helm.
Rye, J., Rubba, P., & Wiesenmayer, R. (1997). An investigation of
middle school students’ alternative conceptions of global
warming. International Journal of Science Education, 19(5),
527-551.
Seale, C. (1999). The Quality of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
43
Shepardson, K., Niyogy, D., Choi, S., & Charusombat, U. (2009).
Seventh grade students’ conceptions of global warming and
climate change. Environmental Education Research, 15(5), 549570.
Stern, N. (2008). The economics of climate change. American
Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 98(2), 1-37.
Tsevreni, I. (2011). Towards an environmental education without
scientific knowledge: An attempt to create an action model
based on children’s experiences, emotions and perceptions about
their environment. Environmental Education Research, 17(1),
53-67.
von Wright, G. H. (1971). Explanation and Understanding. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Walker. K. A. & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about
socio-scientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International
Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410.
Walshe, N. (2008). Understanding students’ conceptions of
sustainability. Environmental Education Research, 14(5), 537558.
Wang, S. C. (2005). Speech at the Opening Ceremony of the 19th
International Congress of the International Commission on
Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) and the 56th International
Executive Council Meeting (IEC) (original in Chinese, author’s
translation), Beijing, China, September, 15. Retrieved on 201103-10, from
http://www.cncid.org/cn/NewsView.asp?CWSNewsID=21399
WHO (2005). Environmental Health Country Profile — China.
Retrieved on 2010-12-15, from
http://www.wpro.who.int/NR/rdonlyres/A5AAB7C6-D0A44A4C-85A4-977FDB97666/0/China_EHCP_EHDS_9jun05.pdf
Wistedt, I. (1994). Everyday common sense and school mathematics.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 9(1), 139-147.
Wu, Z. Q. (2002). Green schools in China. Journal of Environmental
Education, 34 (1), 21–25.
Xiao, X. J. (2003). Limitations of science and technology in solving
environmental problems (original in Chinese, author’s
translation). China Science & Technology Forum, 1.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case Study Research: Design and Methods.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
44
Yu, P. (2003). Global Thinking, Local Action: A Case Study of the
Green School Programme in China. Master thesis, Lund,
Sweden: Lund University.
Zeidler, D. L. & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and
the status of socioscientific issues in science education:
Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In
D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The Role of Moral Reasoning on
Socioscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education (pp.
7-38). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
Zhang, Y. Z. (2004). Special issues on “Green Schools”: Thoughts on
issues concerning “Green Schools”. Chinese Education and
Society, 37(3), 64-70.
45