Ecological education and action research: A transformative blend for formal and nonformal educators

Abstract

Action research, within the context of an ecological education graduate degree, can result in transformative learning experiences for formal and nonformal educators. Encountering layers of hegemony and awakening to relations of power facilitated a profound shift within these teacher-researchers, engendering a newly felt sense of empowerment. Integral to the transformative learning process were opportunities for reflection fostering greater balance between the personal and professional, learning to accept feelings of confusion and disorientation, and evolving a deeper understanding of ecological education. Moreover, this investigation reveals the existence of a synergistic relationship between ecological education, action research, and transformative learning. This kinship is substantiated through analysis of data from four cohorts of students engaged in capstone action research projects.

Keywords

Action research ecological education empowerment nonformal educators teacher-researcher transformative learning

Introduction

Beyond graduation day and long after the final deadline, I will continue my [action research] process. As I reflected in one of my updates to my school community, ‘This research is truly permeating my being. It is spreading its tendrils and radiating out into not only my workspace, but also my home and my relationships with others. It is like no process I have been through before.’ (Student online entry, 2008)

This study examines the transformative nature of a capstone action research project for students within a Masters in Ecological Teaching and Learning (ETL) degree. As faculty involved in facilitating different aspects of this program we endeavored to address two questions of significance: what contributed to the transformative dimension of participatory research for these teacher-researchers? Did action research hold such promise for all teacher-researchers regardless of educational setting?

Pre-service teachers and practicing educators are increasingly exposed to action research as an integral part of degree programs (Esposito & Smith, 2006) and it is gaining momentum as a form of professional development that addresses ‘complex issues and deep-seated problems’ (Stringer, 2007, p. 145). Furthermore, action research has been established as a means by which teachers can reclaim a sense of empowerment and become reinvigorated to seek avenues for change (Bonner, 2006; Lange, 2004). Yet, little has been revealed with regards to action research’s transformative potential for educators within nonformal settings. We argue that action research provides a means of engendering analogous experiences for those working within a variety of education milieus. Additionally, we make the case that ecological education, transformative learning, and action research can coalesce, resulting in profound changes in the lives and work of practitioners. This kinship is substantiated through analysis of data from four cohorts of students engaged in capstone action research projects.

Ecological education

Understandings of environmental education, and expectations for it, have evolved from the earliest hopes in the 1960s and 1970s. The ebullience of Earth Day as the birth of the environmental movement has both tempered and transformed as changes were not realized on the hoped-for and needed paradigmatic levels (Nordhaus & Shellenberger, 2007; Sterling, 2001). Ecological concepts have been incorporated into education at all stages, yet the movement beyond exposure to the fundamentals of ecology to action for major social change has yet to manifest. Ecological education (Smith & Williams, 1999), eco-justice pedagogy (Bowers, 2001), and sustainable education (Sterling, 2001) are three iterations that have emerged in response to a recognition that deeper systemic changes are needed. As educators we have walked the path to where we are alongside and on the backs of others. However, while we feel affinity with and respect for these other approaches none of them fully describe our praxis as ecological educators.

We view ecological education as an evolving pedagogy embracing ideas and values from a range of traditions. It is a critical, creative, and integrative approach to teaching and learning that recognizes the need for reflexive responses to rapidly changing world conditions. As such it becomes difficult to produce a single all-encompassing framework. Instead, we offer the following emergent principles of teaching and learning essential to our praxis as ecological educators:

A fundamental goal is to create environmentally and socially just teaching and learning environments, recognizing that educational, environmental, and social justice issues are inextricably linked.

The infusion of ecological concepts (e.g. interrelationships, co-evolution, diversity, community, change, etc.) across all forms of education, along with an exploration of deeply-rooted ecological identities – ‘all the different ways people construe themselves in relationship to the earth. . .’ (Thomashow, 1996, p. 3) – are integral to realizing a renewed sense of care for the natural world.

Issues are examined within and beyond disciplinary boundaries, reflecting the complexity of the world and allowing for new perspectives to emerge.

How one teaches is as significant as what one teaches. Students learn from the modeling of teachers and from educational frameworks and structures, as well as within them (Orr, 1994).

Ecological education is connected, situated within relevant and meaningful contexts – inter and intrapersonal, cultural, and place-based – addressing the separating nature of our culture.

Predominant educational models are deconstructed and alternatives explored. Pedagogical approaches include (but are not limited to) holistic education (Miller, 1997), transformative learning (Cranton, 2006; Mezirow, 1991), sustainable education (Sterling, 2001), place-based education (Sobel, 2004), systems theory (Meadows, 2008), experiential education (Dewey, 1938; Kolb, 1984), indigenous education (Cajete, 1993), feminist pedagogy (hooks, 1994; Warren, 1993). All are seen to fit within an umbrella of ecological education – some more foundational than others.

The role of collaboration, and the development of learning communities, in which all participants contribute and share in the construction of knowledge are central. Deeply seated power dynamics are brought to consciousness and addressed, resulting in radically altered student-teacher relationships.

We wish to reiterate that the above are responsive to the context in which they are applied and subject to practitioner reflexivity – foundational, yet living.

Transformative learning

Ecological education has a transformative intention where self-reflection and critical reflection are used to challenge biases and assumptions and create new understandings. Transformation occurs as a result of a process that is ‘initiated by a disorienting dilemma followed by a series of learning strategies involving critical reflection, exploration of different roles and options, and negotiation and re-negotiation of relationships’ (Taylor, 1997, p. 51). Ecological educational programs that challenge both the internal and external status quo can stimulate these elements.

Influenced by Freire and Habermas, Mezirow’s (1991) transformative learning theory asserts that adults are constantly called upon to make new meaning as significant circumstances of their lives change and old frames of reference no longer apply. Mezirow’s seminal work has been critiqued and expanded upon in a 30-year dialogue evolving conceptions of transformative learning which range from personal changes that reverberate through an individual’s life, to social change intentions that work back through the culture to the individual (Taylor, Cranton & Associates, 2012). While some envisage transformative learning as holistic and reaching beyond rational and analytic realms (Dirkx, 2006; O’Sullivan, 1999), others focus on the significance of critical reflection identified by Mezirow (Brookfield, 2005; Cranton, 2006; Lange, 2004). Elements of the change process are seen to remain relevant, whether focused on individual, relational, spiritual, or societal transformation (Taylor, Cranton & Associates, 2012).

Levin and Merritt (2006) indicated that a transformative research process included key features such as freedom of choice, involvement in a systematic process of inquiry and reflection, access to various modes of support from peers, collaborators or facilitators, and openness to floundering and discomfort throughout the process. These fundamentals should also appear familiar to action researchers.

Our praxis

Ecological education, as we conceive it, fundamentally challenges separations between disciplines, between personal and professional, between learner and teacher, between humans and the rest of life. Put another way, it acknowledges and explores the interconnectedness and vitality in learning and in life. We choose to bring ‘an ecological sensibility’ (Luce-Kapler, Summar, & Davis, 2002, p. 368) to our work with students as teacher-researchers, appreciating ‘the interdependence and collaboration of systems, which co-emerge and co-evolve’ (p. 368) within this form of participatory research. We strive to create supportive structures within which all perspectives may be examined, including our own. As faculty we engage in discussions, offer feedback, and may do reading and writing assignments. This deepens student/teacher relationships and contributes to challenging the power dynamic inherent in most educational environs. Our focus on process and content also shifts the power dynamic, as we do not offer ourselves as ‘experts’ in a banking model of education (Freire, 1970), but rather are engaged with students as we all share our experiences and viewpoints. In this sense, students and faculty are continually immersed in an active learning process.

Care and attention are needed in recognizing and addressing overlapping interactions in the complex ecosystem engendered when working with an ecological perspective within action research. Often it is in previously discounted or unexplored realms that the deeper meaning and application of an inquiry can be found. Reason and Bradbury’s (2001) further elaboration of this awareness makes the heart of an ecological educator sing:

… theories which contribute to human emancipation, to the flourishing of community, which helps us reflect on our place within the ecology of the planet and contemplate our spiritual purposes, can lead us to different ways of being together, as well as providing important guidance and inspiration for practice. (p. 2)

It is precisely this recognition of the need for a research approach that is situated in a whole life context that helps to make action research so relevant for transformative ecological education intentions.

Framing and supporting the learning

The ETL program draws practicing educators from both formal and nonformal environments. It begins with a summer intensive to lay the foundations of trust and understanding for profound collaborative learning with one another over 18 months. During the ensuing year, students use their work environments as the staging ground for application of new learning, supporting and challenging each other throughout the process. The variety of educational settings adds depth and breadth to their collaborative explorations. A second face-to-face summer intensive precedes their final online semester, which consists of the implementation of a self-determined action research project in their work environments sustained via their online learning community.

Our intentions with the capstone action research project center on enabling students to gain necessary teacher-researcher skills and to act for change within their practice. We introduce action research as an umbrella term that denotes a family of research methodologies. While we offer students an understanding of this broader context, we help situate them more specifically within the realm of educational action research. As the ETL program is predicated upon the need for paradigm change and has students challenging taken-for-granted assumptions, their action research embodies a critical stance. Projects are also grounded in the practical as they emerge from, and are implemented within, the context of formal or nonformal educational settings. As Reason and Bradbury (2001) convey, action research is ‘about working towards practical outcomes, and also about creating new forms of understanding’ (p. 2).

Students realize their individually designed projects in their respective educational environments while working closely with two peers online. They divide themselves into overlapping groups of three, thus creating a network of interconnection where ideas, questions, readings, and other learning can be shared and potentially reverberate throughout the web of the cohort.

Action research projects

Students were encouraged to design their action research projects with a minimum of three cycles of the Dialectic Action Research Spiral as described by Mills (2007): a) identification of an initial problem or question on which to focus; b) collection of data from actions implemented for change; c) analysis and interpretation of data gathered; and d) replanning rooted in synthesis of the data, sending the researcher spiraling into another cycle (1–4) based on new understanding, with reformulated questions and actions.

Participants consisted of four cohorts of students, totaling 45, all practicing educators, working with ages ranging from pre-school through adult. Areas of inquiry were widely disparate as students worked in museums, government, cultural and environmental education centers, Montessori, charter, public, and private schools at all grade levels and across disciplines.

Sample action research questions

Formal educational environments

How can I integrate urban ecological education principles into my current teaching position in a way that is relevant and meaningful to students? (High school life science teacher with at risk students)

As an effective educator, how can I create a learning environment that all students, regardless of race, can be successful in? (High school science teacher in a southern US state)

Linked to ecology and place-based pedagogy, how can art and art education enlarge and deepen a sense of place and connections with the real world for preschoolers? (Preschool teacher)

Nonformal educational environments

How can I sustain and expand my sense of self as an educational practitioner in terms of our new ecologically and socially responsible family business venture? (Former teacher transitioning to ‘green’ restaurant owner/operator)

How can I create more opportunities for myself and other educators to improve our practice through mentorship and collaborative teaching? (National park field educator)

How can I break through biases inherent in my teaching so that I can create a gender-supportive [homeschooled] classroom, especially for girls, so that they can become empowered in the study and practice of science? (Homeschool business owner and teacher)

Illustrative action research project: Integration of classroom and community

Below is a brief synopsis of a single representative project excerpted from a student’s final paper in order to maintain his original voice as much as possible. It offers a feeling for the quality of student experiences though action research was implemented within unique contexts.

Rob’s research question

How will creating more integration between the community and the classroom shape or influence students’ perception of school/community relationships?

Context

It’s interesting being both a teacher and a parent in the same school system. I’m a 6th/7th grade science and language arts teacher in an urban middle school. I view the city as a complex system and my classroom as a microcosm of human ecology. Yet I experience a disconnection between school and community. I hear dark murmurings about the school system, which strike me as uninformed. I wanted to address my classroom’s possible isolation from the community, and thus indirectly what I felt were misunderstandings about the school.

Data collection

I collected four kinds of data:

I kept a teaching journal of my observations of students, and my thoughts about my own community relationships.

Students wrote guided journal reflections about their perceptions of school and the community both before and after this project.

I looked at student writing, especially interviews and journal entries. Among the richest of these were student reflections written after various field experiences. Also important were my notes on oral debriefings with students after field work. In addition to my own observations, I asked two of my teaching partners to look at writing samples and respond to them.

I kept track of student behaviors when they were in situations which integrated community and classroom, coding them to see if they were different from behaviors in situations which were not overtly integrated. I videotaped some engagement situations, as well as ‘baseline’ situations of ordinary classroom teaching, and compared my notes against the videotapes.

Research cycles

Cycle 1: Bringing the community into the classroom

This cycle involved developing our collective understanding of what community meant. First, I arranged for an Outward Bound instructor to join us to facilitate the building of our learning community. We played getting-to-know-you and group-problem-solving games, and learned about our similarities and differences. Then we explored what we each meant by the word ‘community’. Finally, I invited our first community speaker to talk about his work as a newspaper reporter. I wanted students to be able to interview greenhouse growers on our upcoming field trips, and this parent is a questioner by profession.

Students seemed to be learning from these encounters, but their experiences were not much different from others they might have in a typical school day. It began to dawn on me that without changing the fundamental institutional experience of schooling, I was merely pouring another colored liquid into the same mold. Lime, lemon, or raspberry, it was still Jell-O.

Cycle 2: Bringing the classroom into the community

This cycle involved taking our learning outside and immersing ourselves in the larger community of the natural world. Initially, this occurred as part of a science lesson. An important step came as students and I realized that much school work could be done inside or out, whether or not it was field work.

As part of our greenhouse project, we visited two commercial greenhouses and one run by a middle school. These visits gave a first opportunity to have students work with resource people in a non-classroom setting. With this we had begun to connect two conceptions of community: the idea of community as a place, and the theory of community as work with others.

Cycle 3: Bringing the community into the curriculum: Building a greenhouse

Up to this point, the relationship between resource people and students had been largely one of interaction between separate and autonomous players. The students prepared and asked questions, and the resource people responded. Our next step was to move beyond this implied separation, and work together with resource people toward a common goal. For two afternoons, parent volunteers came in to help kids build four large growing racks. Where earlier community engagement had been designed around substitutions within a conventional school arrangement (substituting parents for teachers, or the woods for the classroom), the walls between school and community seemed to completely evaporate in the interactions between parent and student as they built a school greenhouse together. We reached a point where community was being created through interaction, and place was irrelevant.

Summary and conclusions

Along this research path, I found my own role as a member of the community becoming less hierarchical, more participatory. As the container of my classroom changed, so did my role as teacher. I was no longer a detached, privileged observer, but a guide and fellow traveler.

Likewise, my ideas of community began to change. Community appeared more fluid than I had expected. The links in the network, the strands in the web, seemed changeable and somewhat transitory. Through our experiences I believe that the students and I have come to see our relationships with people and place in a deeper way, and also to see school and learning in a broader context.

In these excerpts we hear whispers of elements of Rob’s immersion in a transformative process. He shows us how movement through an open series of cycles of action and reflection led to changes in his role and his practices within the community. This process was one in which he was at first not comfortable nor in control, but through which he came to see himself as a privileged participant/observer. As evident in Rob’s emergent research design he explored deepening circles of connection through immersion in the natural world and the overlapping of community and classroom. Experiential education, place-based pedagogy, and collaboration were central to his research, leading to a radically altered sense of his role as he crafted his own construal of ecological education while meeting given curricular expectations. He illustrates how the systematic nature of action research, constellated within a framework that allows for input from students, peers, and faculty, informed and altered his approach to education.

Overall analysis of action research projects

Having offered a feel for the character of a student project, we proceed to our analysis in which we considered the full body of student data. The documents, comprising four cohorts’ weekly updates and assignments, were analyzed according to the thematic analysis guidelines described by Braun and Clarke (2006). Our process was recursive, involving ‘constant moving back and forth between the entire data set, the coded extracts of data … and the analysis’ (p. 15), resulting in an in-depth, comprehensive, and ‘ongoing organic process’ (p. 21). Our analysis and an earlier version of this article were sent to students for their critique regarding its ability to accurately portray their experience.

Three key themes from our analysis are discussed below and presented in conjunction with supportive quotes. Findings are considered in the context of prior pertinent studies, and in light of our ecological education praxis put forward earlier, thereby offering further insight into the potential for action research to empower educators and facilitate profound change in their lives and practice.

Findings

Digging underneath things: Revealing hegemony, reclaiming power

Hegemony can be described as ‘the process by which we learn to embrace enthusiastically a system of beliefs and practices that end up harming us and working to support the interests of others who have power over us’ (Brookfield, 2005, p. 93). Realizing that we are controlled by forces within ourselves of which we have been unaware, while unsettling, can ultimately be freeing, and remains a significant aspect of the transformative nature of ecological education encountered through students’ action research projects.

Our experience when introducing action research to students mirrored that of Esposito and Smith (2006) in terms of the hegemony of the positivist paradigm. In this respect, exposing students to Guba and Lincoln’s (1994) views of a paradigm was helpful in liberating them from the power of positivist/post-positivist approaches. Presenting students with the idea that research is based on belief systems and not on ultimate truths, helped to crack open their understanding of what research could be. We are in agreement with Bryant and Bates’s (2010) assertion that ‘action research requires a paradigm shift for many educators – a shift in perception of what it means to do research as well as a shift in the way educators think about what it means to teach’ (p. 307).

Students repeatedly encountered limiting embedded beliefs while engaging in their research and, as they acted to challenge them, their experience shifted to one of empowerment for themselves as well as for the participants with which they worked. They came to see that oppressive relationships were subject to change. Students arrived at these realizations at their own pace and in their own contexts. Some encountered unrecognized patterning and assumptions through interviews or videotaping of student interactions, seeing them with ‘new eyes’. Others had breakthroughs about the impacts of cultural conventions through exchanges with other cohort members, or surprisingly (to them) with educators in their own systems. Some found insight and guidance into new paradigm approaches through readings or regular reflective journaling about their practice.

A simple example of the challenge in shifting covert power dynamics was encountered by Jenn who, in the third week of working with the structure of a learning community in her fourth grade class, wrote ‘I am still trying to help them speak to the entire circle and not just to me. Some are catching on, but their focus on the teacher is embedded.’

Peeling away layers of enculturated patterns reached far beyond an examination of the educational system. Heather, a high school science teacher, left her traditional teaching job mid-degree to open an ecologically and socially responsible business. Even within this radically new context she encountered integrated limiting beliefs:

… now I begin to see that my own expectations for myself are actually manifestations of external impositions reinforced throughout my life. Hegemony. Much more pervasive and insidious than I imagined. The freedom of running my own business and life has brought this to the forefront as I have always previously fulfilled others expectations and my sense of self-worth came with a ‘job well done’. Now I create the expectations and the definitions of ‘well done’. So now I must face the fact that I might not truly know what my own true sense of accomplishment is … I have been operating like a machine, conceding to all the expectations of the multiple institutions internalized within me.

The recognition of internalized external power structures enabled students to begin to counter ‘their subtle seductiveness and their hidden power’ (Brookfield, 2005, p. 68).

Realization of the potential to influence situations previously seen as intransigent led to inner and outer modifications, with educators realigning with their own beliefs and values, rediscovering their own strengths, even within an imperfect system and culture. We see this empowerment to enact change as one of the many forms transformation takes throughout an action research process.

The strength of a collegial community was also seen to assist teacher-researchers in building a base from which to extend empowerment to themselves and others. The data were replete with queries for, and acknowledgements of, shared ideas and assistance. Access to collaborators countered the isolation often felt by these educational practitioners in their home environs.

These renewed educators had more to offer students, as affirming experiences gave permission to implement innovative practices such as creating learning communities within traditional teaching environs, taking urban students into natural settings in their cities to learn about the ecology found therein, or doing individual student interviews about changes implemented as actions. Empowered through their research experiences and collegial support they could and did initiate change.

From chrysalis to butterfly

An integral part of the action research process for this series of cohorts was what we began to describe as the mush stage. This representation emerged and took on weight and meaning through interactions with several students who were struggling to find their feet in the midst of their ongoing research. At one point, as part of faculty feedback, one of us wrote:

There really is an ebb and flow to this process that is hard to describe until you experience it. There are times when you feel as though you are an arrow heading towards the center of a target. And times when you feel … like mush. And it’s all good. The mush stage is one that I spent quite a bit of time examining at one point in my life. I even broke into a butterfly chrysalis … just wanting to know: did the butterfly change bit by bit with half-formed wings and bits of antennae sticking out of a wormy thing or what? What I discovered was – mush … There was no way of telling that the liquidy stuff in the chrysalis had ever been a caterpillar; nor that it would ever be a butterfly. (Judy Pratt, personal communication, 14 November 2006)

At the time it intuitively felt as though it would be both comforting and affirming to know that it is natural (as in, nature does this) to enter a state of dissolution, and that a new form eventually emerges. Often we found that metaphors from the natural world permeated and informed our conversations as we collectively sought to understand and implement ecological education concepts. As students reawakened to their profound interconnectedness with the rest of the natural world these images spoke to and arose from them.

After receiving the input above, this student wrote:

I have to say that Judy’s chrysalis story really switched on a light for me. Why am I so uncomfortable with the mush stage in between caterpillar and butterfly? Why am I so concerned with everything falling into predictable shapes at predictable intervals during transition?

Consideration of this feature of student experiences suggested that in order to realize the depth of transformation possible via action research, students frequently needed to become lost in their process and accept the ensuing feelings of confusion and disorientation, trusting it as an important piece of the puzzle. As Heron and Reason (2001) articulated, ‘a mental set is needed which allows for the interdependence of chaos and order, of nescience and knowing, an attitude which tolerates and undergoes, without premature closure, inquiry phases which are messy’ (p. 185). In order to restructure their foundations students needed to first deconstruct them. This is a deeply personal, yet integral, component of the shift from external, authority-centered teaching to an ecological education approach which students encountered at various stages of their research. It often is stimulated during their exploration of biases and assumptions, or when critically reflecting on their data and encountering unexpected behaviors or preconceptions. Once deconstructed, there’s a reconstructive pulse. But along the way students often felt somewhat insecure and unstable. As Moore (2005) suggests, the ‘potential for disequilibrium’ and ‘emotional upheavals’ are evident during a transformative process (p. 88).

It is conceivable that the action research framework itself creates the chrysalis structure, offering a supportive container within which examination and dissolution of outmoded ways of perceiving and being in the world, with subsequent transformations, occurs. Although a chrysalis appears to be static, tremendous activity is taking place on an inner level. For students in their own chrysalis state, realization and manifestation of the transformation taking place wasn’t necessarily obvious or immediate. With the support of members of their cohort, faculty, the literature, returning to the data, and their own deep and honest reflections, new insights were revealed, adjustments made, and the inquirer emerged into a new cycle. The butterfly when first emerging from the chrysalis has to pump fluid into its wings for a couple of hours to harden them before its first flight. Similarly, students’ movement beyond the mush stage was initially tentative.

Breathing for balance: The transformative power of reflection

The fact that action research encourages self reflection has been well-documented over many years (Bonner, 2006; Canning, 1991; Levin & Merritt, 2006; Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1992). Likewise, critical self-reflection has been established as essential to transformative learning (Cranton, 2006; Lange, 2004; Mezirow, 1991). Educators are often so overwhelmed with all that they have to do to meet the daily needs of students and institutional expectations that they spend little time regularly observing and methodically reflecting on what they are doing and feeling, and why. We witnessed that the systematic process involved in implementing action research often compelled students to carve out time for self-reflection, as well as reflection upon their educational practice. Frequently, this led to recognition of the dialectical relationship between the personal and professional which is a significant, and previously unmentioned, element of ecological education practice. Their explorations exposed the need to bring these elements into balance rather than containing or submerging feelings in order to maintain a façade of professionalism. All too often we have seen these perceived as disparate elements and discounted as factors that impact the quality of teaching, as well as the quality of teachers’ lives.

Josh, a community-based folk educator came face to face with how disconnected he was from the content and the intentions of his teaching:

Why this is essential to my action research is that I had given up some of the things most important to me … the best parts of how and who I am in this world. I was an educator teaching land stewardship and about sustainability, yet my energy level was not sustainable … I arrived at this because of how hard it has been for me to slow down, and take the actual time that I know I need for this process to be most fruitful … I’m just so programmed to be doing, that shifting to being is a shock … and I didn’t expect that I was that far off balance.

Tina, a high school chemistry teacher researching barriers for young women in her field, reflecting on her complex workload, identified affinity between the pressures on her as a graduate student and teacher and those of her students:

I have been trying to balance teaching, learning, coaching, and taking care of my family for a while now and have found my plate more than full … I could only think of one way to reconnect, so … I resigned my position as coach. At first I felt as if I lost a child, but as time passed a great weight had been taken off my shoulders … If family pressure can be an issue for me, it must be even more so for young women … I have lost the connection with female athletes but what I have gained is much more important – my family and the biggest part of my life.

Both Josh and Tina’s sentiments resonate with those discovered by Lange (2004) in her research with students in an adult and continuing education certificate program, ‘Through their self-reflections, most of the participants echoed … in saying that they were able to return to their inner compass, which was submerged under the deluge of adult expectations, cultural scripts, and workplace practices’ (p. 130).

Significance and conclusions

It has been suggested that there is a certain kinship between action research and transformative learning as both allow for meaning-making while acting for change (Carson & Sumara, 1997; Lange, 2004). While our own experience and analysis supports these claims, they also reveal evidence of a synergistic relationship between ecological education, transformative learning, and action research in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Several vital aspects of this synergistic relationship have been revealed. The mush stage identified within this investigation can be seen to parallel the disorienting dilemma phase of a transformative learning process (Mezirow, 1991). Connections can also be recognized between Reason and Bradbury’s (2001) iteration of action research’s contributions to the health of the planet and the ambitions of ecological education. Given that both ecological education and action research can have transformative intentions, carrying out action research projects within an ecological education program may have amplified the transformative learning potential for students. Connections between the three – transformation, action research, and ecological education – were abundant throughout the data, with the teacher-researchers themselves reporting transformation and renewal as evident and whole-life-affirming consequences of their action research, augmented in the context of the degree. One student offers this summation of the interconnected nature of this process:

This research has been a transformational process for me on many levels. I have learned that through dedication, hard work, a strong support system, creativity, flexibility, and focus I can take an overwhelming set of circumstances and come up with tangible steps towards answering a problem through the process of action research. Numerous steps went into trying to answer this daunting question of sustainability. There was simply no one thing that I could look at to make a conclusion. All of the steps that I have taken have collectively helped me to feel more in control of my situation.

We believe that further research into the nature of this symbiotic relationship could produce a holistic framework that would have important implications for a broad spectrum of educators. In addition, we recommend continued investigation into how action research influences the pragmatics of teaching, thereby stimulating transformative experiences.

It should be noted that not all educators’ action research experiences moved them beyond the informative into a transformative realm. These negative case scenarios deserve examination, as do our own responses to less graceful or confused student floundering that could not be seen to cohere within the course timelines. In these cases we wonder whether foundations were laid for change that was later realized. This is a fruitful area for future exploration.

We suspect that the stories from the many powerful transformative experiences may have overshadowed our experience of those we defined as less so. We feel that these judgments came from our own values and assumptions about what level of transformation is appropriate in the context of Masters level work. This deliberation about our role reminds us of the ambiguity present in attempting to shift authority and foster empowerment within the power-laden structure of graded higher-education, despite our best attempts at staying conscious of the potential to reinforce hegemonic patterning. While some projects seemed more superficial, they were recognized by students, and ultimately by us as well, as having significance for who and where students were in their lives.

Prior studies have questioned whether the inclusion of action research as part of a degree led to continued use of the methodology as students moved on from their coursework into teaching environments and have suggested further research in this realm (Feldman & Minstrell, 2000; O’Connor, Greene, & Anderson, 2006). We anticipate it might be of equal or greater import to investigate how the transformative effects of action research continue to manifest in educators’ personal and professional activities. Given that the butterfly doesn’t revert into the chrysalis, where does this metaphor find itself in relationship to these teacher-researchers? Have they continued to engage with the places of intersection of knowledge and power? Have they continued to critically reflect on the condition of our world? Have they remained empowered? Does the spiraling into deeper, interconnected knowing persist? We recommend future exploration of the permanence of learning regarding the transformative effects of action research in ecological education, as well as its transferability to other situations calling for change.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Rob Lindsay for allowing us to incorporate a summary of his final paper within this article. Appreciation is also extended to all ETL students whose collaborations have informed this research and energized our practice.

We thank Mary Brydon-Miller for leading the review process for the authors of this article. Should there be any comments/reactions you wish to share, please bring them to the interactive portion (Reader Responses column) of the website: .

Author biographies

Nicky Duenkel is currently Assistant Professor of Community Studies at Cape Breton University where her focus is on facilitating the development of active, engaged citizens. Transformative learning and fostering profound personal, social, and ecological change are at the centre of her praxis.

Judy Pratt was faculty with Lesley University's Ecological Teaching and Learning Program. Having spent 15 years facilitating environmental and experiential higher education programs across North America, as well as in southern India, she has now retired to the shores of Cape Breton, NS, where she maintains interest in acting for change in formal and nonformal educational environments.

References

Bonner

P. J.

(2006) Transformation of teacher attitude and approach to math instruction through collaborative action research. Teacher Education Quarterly. 33: 27–44.

Bowers

C. A.

(2001) Educating for eco-justice and community, Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3(2): 77–101.

Brookfield

(2005) The power of critical theory: Liberating adult learning and teaching, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bryant

Bates

(2010) The power of student resistance in action research: Teacher educators respond to classroom challenges. Educational Action Research. 18(3): 305–318.

Cajete

(1993) Look to the mountain: An ecology of indigenous education, Durango, CO: Kivaki Press.

Canning

(1991) What teachers say about reflection. Educational Leadership. 48(6): 18–21.

Carson

Sumara

(1997) Action research as a living practice, New York: Peter Lang.

Cranton

(2006) Understanding and promoting transformative learning, 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

10.

Dewey

(1938) Experience and education, New York: Collier Books.

11.

Dirkx

J. M.

(2006) Engaging emotions in adult learning: A Jungian perspective on emotion and transformative learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 109: 15–26.

12.

Esposito

Smith

(2006) From reluctant teacher to empowered teacher-researcher: One educator’s journey toward action research. Teacher Education Quarterly. 33: 45–60.

13.

Feldman

Minstrell

(2000) Action research as a research methodology for the study of the teaching and learning of science. In: Kelly

Lesh

(eds) Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

14.

Freire

(1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed, New York: Herder and Herder.

15.

Guba

E. G.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(eds) Handbook of qualitative research, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 105–117.

16.

Heron

Reason

(2001) The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people. In: Reason

Bradbury

(eds) Handbook for action research: Participative inquiry & practice, London: SAGE, pp. 179–188.

17.

hooks

(1994) Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom, New York: Routledge.

18.

Kolb

(1984) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

19.

Lange

E. A.

(2004) Transformative and restorative learning: A vital dialectic for sustainable societies. Adult Education Quarterly. 54: 121–139.

20.

Levin

Merritt

S. P.

(2006) Guest editor’s introduction: Action research for teacher empowerment and transformation. Teacher Education Quarterly. 33: 3–6.

21.

Luce-Kapler

Summar

Davis

(2002) Rhythms of knowing: Toward an ecological theory of learning in action research. Educational Action Research. 10(3): 353–372.

22.

Lytle

Cochran-Smith

(1992) Teacher research as a way of knowing. Harvard Educational Review. 62(4): 446–474.

23.

Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. D. Wright, (Ed.). White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

24.

Mezirow

(1991) Transformative dimensions of adult learning, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

25.

Miller

(1997) What are schools for? Holistic education in American culture, Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press.

26.

Mills

G. E.

(2007) Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

27.

Moore

(2005) Is higher education ready for transformative learning? Journal of Transformative Education. 3(1): 76–91.

28.

Nordhaus

Shellenberger

(2007) Break through: From the death of environmentalism to the politics of possibility, New York: Houghton Mifflin.

29.

O’Connor, K., Greene, C., & Anderson, P. (2006). Action research: A tool for improving teacher quality and classroom practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

30.

Orr

(1994) Earth in mind: On education, environment, and the human prospect, Washington, DC: Island Press.

31.

O’Sullivan

(1999) Transformative learning: Educational vision for the 21st century, London: Zed Books.

32.

Reason

Bradbury

(2001) Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In: Reason

Bradbury

(eds) Handbook for action research: Participative inquiry & practice, London: SAGE, pp. 1–14.

33.

Smith

Williams

D. R.

(1999) Ecological education in action: On weaving education, culture, and the environment, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

34.

Sobel

(2004) Place-based education: Connecting classrooms and communities, Great Barrington, MA: The Orion Society.

35.

Sterling

(2001) Sustainable education: Revisioning learning and change, Schumacher Briefings. Bristol, UK: Schumacher UK, CREATE Environment Centre.

36.

Stringer

(2007) Action research in education, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

37.

Taylor

E. W.

(1997) Building upon the theoretical debate: A critical review of the empirical studies of Mezirow’s transformative learning theory. Adult Education Quarterly. 48: 34–60.

38.

Taylor

Cranton

Associates (2012) The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice, San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

39.

Thomashow

(1996) Ecological identity, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

40.

Warren

(1993) The midwife teacher: Engaging students in the experiential education process. Journal of Experiential Education. 16(1): 33–38.