Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:21:37.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Nature of Imagination in Education for Sustainability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2015

Sally Jensen*
Affiliation:
Deakin University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The importance of imagination in education has a significant history (Egan, 1986, 2001; Eisner, 1976; Greene, 1988; Steiner, 1954; Warnock, 1976); however, scholarship is often theoretical, and the involvement of imagination in understanding sustainability is often overlooked (Jones, 1995; Judson, 2010; Stewart, 2009). Imagination has rarely been the subject of Environmental Education (EE) and research. Its nature is contested, and its workings can be concealed by formal notions of knowing and learning. Contemporary environmental philosophies argue that education can often contradict its aims through limited understandings of environment and knowledge (Orr, 1991, 1992; Weir, 2008; Whitehouse, 2011). This thesis reconceptualises imagination as a way of knowing and learning in environmental terms. The study investigates the role of imagination in Education for Sustainability (EfS) contexts and critically analyses how imagination is involved in understanding sustainability for teachers and learners. The possibility of imagination as environmental knowledge, and as essential to resolving environmental problems, is applied in this research.

Type
Thesis Synopsis
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2015 

Thesis Abstract

The importance of imagination in education has a significant history (Egan, Reference Egan1986, Reference Egan2001; Eisner, Reference Eisner1976; Greene, Reference Greene, Egan and Nadaner1988; Steiner, Reference Steiner1954; Warnock, Reference Warnock1976); however, scholarship is often theoretical, and the involvement of imagination in understanding sustainability is often overlooked (Jones, Reference Jones1995; Judson, Reference Judson2010; Stewart, Reference Stewart2009). Imagination has rarely been the subject of Environmental Education (EE) and research. Its nature is contested, and its workings can be concealed by formal notions of knowing and learning. Contemporary environmental philosophies argue that education can often contradict its aims through limited understandings of environment and knowledge (Orr, Reference Orr1991, Reference Orr1992; Weir, Reference Weir2008; Whitehouse, Reference Whitehouse2011). This thesis reconceptualises imagination as a way of knowing and learning in environmental terms. The study investigates the role of imagination in Education for Sustainability (EfS) contexts and critically analyses how imagination is involved in understanding sustainability for teachers and learners. The possibility of imagination as environmental knowledge, and as essential to resolving environmental problems, is applied in this research.

The guiding theoretical framework draws largely upon Australian environmental philosophies (Gough, Reference Gough1999; Matthews, Reference Mathews1991; Plumwood, Reference Plumwood1993, Reference Plumwood1999; Rose, Reference Rose1996), and qualitative and arts-based educational research (Barone & Eisner, Reference Barone and Eisner2012; Jones, Reference Jones2013; MacLure, Reference MacLure2013), as well as contemporary writings of material eco-criticism (Oppermann, Reference Oppermann2013) and the New Materialisms (Barad, Reference Barad and DeKoven2001, Reference Barad2003, Reference Barad2007; St Pierre, Reference Pierre2013). A New Materialist epistemological position considers all matter to have agency in knowledge making, so that knowledge is not confined to the human brain but embedded and discursive as all matter and the earth. In this thesis, EfS is framed by this New Materialist perspective.

The research design involves a combination of interviews and participant observation in a range of EfS settings across Victoria, Australia. To identify and understand imagination in these environmental education contexts, a coordinated palette of interdisciplinary perspectives and interpretations of imagination were brought together, such as the work of educational scholars Egan (Reference Egan2001), Dewey (Reference Dewey1902), and Vygotsky (Reference Vygotsky, Rieber and Carto1932/1987), as well as creative writers’ views, such as Malouf (1998) and Rowling (Reference Rowling2008), and contemporary research (Macknight, 2009; Stewart, Reference Stewart2009).

Seven interviews with self-identified EfS educators from a range of primary, secondary, and tertiary settings were conducted at their workplaces. The interviews discussed the educators’ pedagogical approaches to teaching and learning sustainability concepts. During the interviews, imagination was not referred to directly until the last open-ended question. Additionally, 14 weeks’ participant-observation research at a 5-Star Sustainable primary school examined how imagination occurs in a sustainability education program for students and teachers. Visual, audio and written data, interviews with educators and students, reflective notes, and a range of visual material were gathered.

A diffractive, narrative discourse analysis views the data as learning stories, and examines how imagination arises in EfS, how imagination is understood in teaching and learning, and the extent to which imagination works to construct and expand ways of seeing the world for students and teachers.

Findings indicate that primary, secondary and tertiary educators work creatively to facilitate understanding the environmental realities that constitute matter, resources, and systems. The analysis narrates how educators use images, stories and metaphorical thinking to facilitate students’ ability to imagine other perspectives, or concealed realities that are not immediately tangible or apparent. Findings highlight the ways in which children are encouraged to imagine their way into the lives of non-human entities, think backwards and forwards in time, and imagine bigger picture perspectives involved in migration and global systems, as well as smaller worlds at the level of nutrition, energy or biodegradability. Teaching and learning often involves metaphors and comparisons in order to communicate and build conceptual understandings. The use of photographs and other images evoked narrative responses and discussions; for example, educators and students constructed meaning through positioning matter as a storyteller with a life and a narrative. Imaginary perspectives were encouraged, such as asking questions about the feelings and perspectives of animals, resources, and objects themselves. As the analysis discusses the ways in which imagination contributes to students’ and teachers’ experiences and understandings in EfS, it recognises the complex, conceptual work of understanding the many dimensions of sustainability.

The thesis advances new understandings of imagination in EfS and provides a unique view of contemporary EfS practices. The imagination is reconceptualised as a way of knowing, learning, and understanding environmental knowledge, particularly in Australia. It argues that imaginative ways of knowing bring into being a concealed level of existence and relationships that are essential to understanding sustainability. This has important implications for the future of EfS and EE. Further advocacy and research is needed that considers imagination as a part of environmental knowledge to make educating students’ environmental imaginations a central consideration of EE theory, research and practice.

Author Biographie

Sally Jensen is a sustainability educator and environmental education researcher. She worked for 6 years in the education team at CERES Environment Park in Melbourne and facilitated the Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative to over 22 schools across Victoria. She worked at the Green School in Bali, Indonesia and completed her PhD in 2014.

References

References

Barad, K. (2001). Re(con)figuring space, time, and matter. In DeKoven, M. (Ed.), Feminist locations: Global and local, theory and practice (pp. 75109). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28, 801831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barone, T., & Eisner, E. (2012). Arts Based Research. New York: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. (1902, January 15). Imagination. White and Blue, 5, 1116.Google Scholar
Egan, K. (1986). Teaching as storytelling. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Egan, K. (2001, August–September). The cognitive tools of children's imagination. Paper presented at the Annual European Conference on Quality in Early Childhood Education, Netherlands. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED469669.pdfGoogle Scholar
Eisner, E. (1976). Educational connoisseurship and criticism: Their form and functions in educational evaluation. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 10, 135150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gough, N. (1999). Rethinking the subject: (De)constructing human agency in environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, 5, 3548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, M. (1988). What happened to imagination? In Egan, K. & Nadaner, D. (Eds.), Imagination and Education (pp. 4555). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Jones, L. (2013). Children's encounters with things: schooling the body. Qualitative Inquiry, 19, 604610. Retrieved from http://qix.sagepub.com/content/19/8/604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, M.W. (1995). Inadequacies in current theories of imagination. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 33, 313333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judson, G. (2010). A new approach to ecological education: Engaging student's imaginations in their world. Peter Lang, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macknight, V.S. (2009). Teaching imagination. Melbourne, Australia: School of Philosophy, Anthropology and Social Inquiry, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
MacLure, M. (2013). Researching without representation? Language and materiality in post-qualitative methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26, 658667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malouf, D. (1998). A spirit of play; The making of Australian consciousness, Boyer Lectures 1998. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Broadcasting Corporation.Google Scholar
Mathews, F. (1991). The ecological self. New York: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar
Oppermann, S. (2013). Material ecocriticism and the creativity of storied matter. Frame, 26, 5569.Google Scholar
Orr, D. (1991). What is education for? Six myths about the foundations of modern education, and six new principles to replace them. Context: A Quarterly of Human Sustainable Culture. Retrieved from http://www.context.org/iclib/ic27/orr/Google Scholar
Orr, D. (1992). Ecological Literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. Albany, NY: State University of New York.Google Scholar
Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the mastery of nature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Plumwood, V. (1999). The struggle for environmental philosophy in Australia. Worldviews: Environment Culture Religion, 3, 157178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, D.B. (1996). Nourishing terrains: Australian Aboriginal views on landscape and wilderness. Canberra, Australia: Australian Heritage Commission.Google Scholar
Rowling, J.K. (2008). The fringe benefits of failure and the importance of imagination. Harvard address: Annual Meeting of the Harvard Alumni Association. Harvard University. Reprinted in The Harvard Magazine, June, 5, 2008. Retrieved from http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/06/the-fringe-benefits-failure-the-importance-imaginationGoogle Scholar
Steiner, R. (1954). A modern art of education. Stenographic transcripts of lectures, 5th–17th August, 1923. London: Rudolf Steiner Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, A. (2009, April). Windows onto other worlds: The role of imagination in outdoor education. Paper presented at the Fourth International Outdoor Education Research Conference, La Trobe University, Beechworth, Victoria, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.latrobe.edu.au/education/downloads/Stewart.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pierre, E.A. St. (2013). The posts continue: Becoming. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26, 646657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warnock, M. (1976). Imagination. London: Faber & Faber.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weir, J. (2008). Connectivity. Australian Humanities Review, 45, 153164.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, H. (2011). Talking up country; Language, natureculture and interculture in Australian environmental education research. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 27, 295302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S. (1932/1987). Imagination and its development in childhood. In Rieber, R.W. & Carto, A.S. (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (vol. 1, pp. 339350). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Publications

Jensen, S. (2013). Imagination and enviro-mentalities: Ways of seeing in Australian environmental education. In Newmann, C., Nussaume, Y., & Pedroli, B. (Eds.), Landscape and imagination: Towards a new baseline for education in a changing world (pp. 275281). Florence: Bandecchi & Vivaldi.Google Scholar
Jensen, S. (2012). Going Deeply in Education for Sustainability. In EINGANA Journal of the Victorian Association for Environmental Education, 35, 2729.Google Scholar

Access