Transformative Sustainability Pedagogy

Changing the Pedagogy: Sustainability and the Whole Self

If transforming our values and culture, changing unsustainable systems, healing the earth and human communities, and finding creative solutions is what is needed in these challenging times, then the pedagogy of the university classroom must reflect this reality by shifting to an active, engaged model that honors the whole learner and mimics living systems. Changing the pedagogy of the university classroom would mean that students’ whole selves would be recognized and embraced, if they are to become whole citizens who work for sustainable change in our world.

Jeanette Armstrong, an Okanagan Canadian author, educator, and activist born on the Penticton Indian Reserve in British Columbia, has written about indigenous worldview and pedagogy through an Okanagan lens. The Okanagan people are Interior Salish people who live primarily in the Okanagan and Similkameen Valleys, in present day British Columbia and Washington. Armstrong explains that when Okanagan indigenous people speak of themselves as individuals, they speak of four main capacities that operate together: the thinking-intellectual self, the emotional self, the physical self, and the spiritual self, and that “these four selves join us to the rest of creation in a healthy way” (Armstrong, 1996, p. 463). These four aspects of self have equal importance and operate together, forming existence in creative and healthy ways. The Okanagan understanding of whole self also recognizes that there is no separation between self and land. Armstrong (2008) notes, “In the Okanagan, our understanding of the land is that it’s not just that we’re part of the land…but that the land is us” (p. 67, italics in original). Okanagans place a great deal of importance on community, a complex system of interconnectedness and responsibility. This Okanagan worldview of being grounded in a holistic sense of self, place, and interconnectedness can be an excellent teacher in the quest for meaningful sustainability learning. Beyond rational cognitive knowing, which is the norm in higher education, transformational sustainability knowing incorporates the role of the body, intuitive knowledge, symbols, and sense of place (Lange, 2009). If higher education can inspire learners to participate in sustainable change, or what has been called the great turning (Macy & Young Brown, 1998), then a more holistic understanding of self must be fully integrated into teaching and learning. To date, however, there has been little emphasis in higher education on how to develop or implement sustainability pedagogy that is indeed holistic and ecological. There is therefore a need for a sustainability pedagogy that can be implemented in various postsecondary settings. One such model is the Burns Model of Sustainability Pedagogy.

The Burns Model of Sustainability Pedagogy

The Burns Model of Sustainability Pedagogy provides a practical and adaptable model for course design that is rooted in ecological principles, recognizing that ecological systems are our best teachers for understanding how to create sustainable and regenerative educational systems (Burns, 2009, 2011). This model brings together best theories of teaching and learning and incorporates what is known about how to most effectively teach sustainability, especially in higher education settings. The central goal of this model is to provide opportunities for transformational learning, in which learners are motivated and inspired to shift their values, and make sustainable and authentic changes in their own lives, and within their communities and places. The Burns model is comprised of five key dimensions (see Figure 1): (1) Content, (2) Perspectives, (3) Process, (4) Context, and (5) Design and seeks to (1) increase learners’ systemic/thematic understanding of complex sustainability issues (Content); (2) provide learners with opportunities to think critically about dominant paradigms, practices, and power relationships and consider complex ecological and social issues from diverse perspectives (Perspectives); (3) enhance learners’ civic responsibility and intentions to work toward sustainability through active participation, experience, and through relationships with other learners (Process); (4) increase learners’ understanding of and connection with the ecological and cultural place and the community in which they live (Context); and (5) utilize an ecological course design process that weaves the other four dimensions together to create transformational sustainability learning that changes learners’ values and intentions (Design; Burns, 2011).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The Burns model of sustainability pedagogy.

Ecological Course Design

An intentional ecological design links the other four dimensions of the Burns Model of Sustainability Pedagogy in order to create learning that has the potential to transform learners’ attitudes and values, and ultimately to transform unsustainable values and systems within unsustainable cultures. Students may become empowered and transformed when learning in a way that is thematic and cocreated, critically questions dominant norms and incorporates diverse perspectives, is active, participatory and relational, and is grounded in a specific context (Burns, 2009). The intentional and purposeful weaving of these elements together into a course, in a way that mimics ecological systems, constitutes ecological design.

An ecological design process involves creating and framing educational experiences that focus on cultivating “a change of heart and a new set of eyes, a new way of viewing and valuing the world in which we are embedded and on which we depend” (Benyus, 2005, p. 44). This design process is one in which relationships are primary, in which an interconnected network of relationships are essential, and in which knowledge is approximate (Capra, 2002). Ecological design includes five basic steps: (1) observation, (2) visioning, (3) planning, (4) development, and (5) implementation (Hemenway, 2000). These steps are not linear, however, and the steps are typically revisited, not necessarily in order, during the design process. The design is ecological because it is grounded in the principles of living ecological systems including: diversity, resiliency, relationships, interconnectedness, creativity, patterns, and feedback loops (Holmgren, 2004).

For example, since ecological systems teach us that relationships are essential and that interdependent relationships are primary (Wheatley, 2006), the ecological design of a course could begin with observation on relationships (connections to the other dimensions of the Burns Model are highlighted in boldface). For example, in designing a writing, sociology, or ecology course, one could begin by asking: What kind of course theme could capitalize on enhancing relationships and teaching sustainability in an interdisciplinary way? (Content) What types of relationships already exist related to this theme either on campus or in the community? A sustainable food systems theme might be chosen. A connection to a farm, garden, or other community food projects might be identified.

Visioning could ensue: What kinds of relationships could be created through this course? What will relationships between learners look and feel like? (Process) What new partnerships may be conceived? What could come out of these new partnerships? What perspectives, including those not typically heard, need to be included? (Perspectives) What kind of connection to place could this course foster? (Context) What sustainability values could be developed? For example, a faculty member might partner with a community organization focusing on sustainable food systems to create new relationships through a service-learning project. A focus on field trips or guest speakers that highlight issues such as food insecurity, and real connections to the local community could provide nondominant perspectives. Learners might be encouraged to get to know each other and to work together to address a real issue in their community.

Planning may include making initial notes, phone calls, and inquiries that explore relationships related to a course (Content). It may include additional time spent reading, talking with others, and developing one’s own relationship to the course theme, which may lead back to more visioning or observation. In developing a sustainable food systems theme this might mean finding texts on the topic, and reaching out to local organizations such as nonprofits, community gardens, farmers, food banks, and restaurants for connections to guest speakers and community projects.

Development may include asking, what will the relationships be between the readings and class time? (Content) How will class activities enhance students’ relationships with each other? (Process) How will they be encouraged to think critically about this course theme and examine it from a variety of perspectives? (Perspectives) Will service learning or community-based learning be a component of this course? (Context) More planning or visioning may ensue.

Implementation will allow relationships to build in and outside the classroom through active participation, and in relationship with community projects. Observation of the implementation closes a loop and allows for the designer to implement changes based on new observations.

Ecological course design that focuses on transformational sustainability learning is not a linear planning process, and as such, better reflects the reality of good teaching. In trusting the process of ecological course design, which is ongoing and does not end when the course begins, one is trusting that the clear intentions and careful preparation of the course will unfold, not in ways that are always planned for and expected, but in ways that one cannot plan for and yet are undeniably more rich and complex. This is the mysterious element of transformational learning that, when carefully prepared for, gradually unwraps itself and utterly changes people. Allowing for this transformative emergence is what Lange (2009) refers to as a “deliberative pedagogy while allowing for the ultimate indeterminacy of educational work” (p. 194). There are not always fixed outcomes, but rather a deliberative process toward learning goals that allows for a transformation of a learner’s way of being and knowing. Through thoughtful ecological course design, transformational sustainability learning is possible (Burns, 2009).

The following section further explores transformational ecological course design by looking at the links between the dimensions of the Burns Model of Sustainability Pedagogy, (content, perspectives, process, and context) and the Okanagan four aspects of self (intellectual, emotional, physical, and spiritual) (see Figure 2). While there are many potential interconnections between the dimensions of the model and the aspects of self, directly connecting each dimension of the model with one aspect of self can help to ensure that a teaching design intentionally includes the whole self in a holistic design process. By drawing on the wisdom of ecological systems and indigenous worldviews, intentional course design can move toward more meaningful and transformative sustainability teaching and learning.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

The Burns model of sustainability pedagogy with Okanagan four aspects of self.

Sustainability Pedagogy: Connecting the Okanagan Four Aspects of Self and Ecological Design

Intellectual self

The realm of the intellectual self is perhaps best understood and accepted within academia. The Okanagans use a term that translates as “directed by the ignited spark” to refer to analytical thought and memory (Armstrong, 1996, p. 464). Armstrong explains, “In the Okanagan language this means that the other capacities we engage in when we take action are directed by the spark of memory once it is ignited” (p. 464). Armstrong notes that thinking/analytic capacity can be a destructive force, if it is not working in holistic concert with our other aspects of self.

In the Burns Model of Sustainability Pedagogy, the intellectual self can be linked to the Content dimension, although in the Burns model knowledge and understanding also derive from deep questioning, as well as active and contextual experience. Content in a sustainability course must be multidisciplinary and give learners a chance to explore a topic from a variety of angles and learn how to think systemically. As such, thematic or integrated content works well for teaching and learning sustainability, as themes tend to incorporate a wide variety of relationships that can raise intellectual questions and bring out ideas to explore. Ecological systems teach us that everything is interrelated and must be treated as such and help us to understand that linear cause and effect does not exist (Capra, 2002; Wheatley, 2006). Instead, we try to understand relationships between aspects of a sustainability issue, and even as we do so, we acknowledge that we cannot know all the relationships in a system or the effects of our actions and decisions. Therefore, a more nuanced and real understanding of a sustainability issue through course themes such as food systems, livable cities, a local watershed, homelessness, or immigration will incorporate a thematic understanding which brings together economic, cultural, historical, relational, ecological, and spatial aspects of this sustainability theme. Thematic teaching thus becomes an intellectually challenging way to explore and learn sustainability content.

In this way, content is not information to be covered, but rather meaning making that is constructed within a community of learners. This learning is systemic and thematic, rather than linear. Constructing meaning in community allows students to come to a deeper understanding of a topic, and this is a meaning that they may actually retain, as opposed to only remembering 5% of what is heard in lectures (National Training Laboratories, 2005). Alvarez and Rogers (2006) argue that sustainability can be learned as “a complex set of discourses and practices that interweave through and over people’s lives rather than a check-list of appropriate practices” (p. 1). This perspective of teaching sustainability as discourse is a more comprehensive way of understanding sustainability content because students are confronted with complexity, a more accurate reflection of the multiple ways that sustainability is interpreted and developed in real lives in a specific place (Alvarez & Rogers, 2006).

Constructing meaning together as a community of learners is more intellectually challenging than just being told what to learn and how to learn it and should be considered academically rigorous (Thomashow, 1995). It is important to be explicit with learners about why learning sustainability thematically and collaboratively is relevant, and how it helps them develop skills such as group collaboration, critical thinking, and systems thinking (Burns, 2009). Learning content in this way also requires that the educational experience is skillfully designed and guided, so that learners feel supported in the structure of the learning process, and yet free enough to explore the topic intellectually (Burns, 2009). Learning thematically and in relationship with others to discover and create meaning, reflects the constructivist approaches of both Freire (1998), and Mezirow (1996), and highlights the importance of social interaction to transformational learning (Mezirow, 2000). Critical reflection and discussion are also key aspects of transformational learning (Mezirow, 2000) that can be used very effectively to explore sustainability themes intellectually. The intellectual self can thus be intentionally included in sustainability education through the careful design of thematic and cocreated course content.

Emotional self

In addition to a focus on learners’ intellectual selves, attention to their emotional selves is necessary for a shift in values and for empowering learners to become active agents of sustainable change. The Okanagans see the emotional self as that which connects us to the world around us and use a word that translates as heart to describe the emotional self. The Okanagans say, “we as people stay connected to each other, our land, and all things by our hearts” (Armstrong, 1996, p. 464). Instead of asking, “what do you think? Okanagans ask, “what is your heart on this matter?” (Armstrong, p. 464).

Attention to the emotional selves of learners can be intentionally embedded within the perspectives dimension of the Burns Model of Sustainability Pedagogy. Learning from less heard and nondominant perspectives, especially stories of injustice, tend to be painful and very emotional for learners, provoking sadness, anger, and despair (Kaza, 1999). On the other hand, hearing less heard perspectives of hope and creativity inspire joy and excitement (Burns, 2009). Incorporating a variety of perspectives must include space for reflection on learners’ emotional responses and reactions to what they are learning. Skipping this crucial step disempowers learners either by leaving them to languish in despair or by not offering them a chance to share their hope and make connections with other like-minded learners. Including a variety of perspectives and opportunities for reflection in sustainability learning allows for what Mezirow (1992) calls “perspective transformation,” a shift in understanding that is more inclusive and integrated.

Perspective transformation may happen by allowing for, and in fact inviting, potentially emotional (nondominant and less heard) perspectives to be included in a course, and by creating room for reflecting on emotions in a supportive community of learners. These emotional experiences and perspectives must be valued as much as intellectual perspectives in a course, which is a nondominant perspective in itself. Emotional dimensions contribute to a positive educational experience and play a significant role in meaning making and transformational learning (Dirkx, 2001). Being explicit about welcoming students’ emotional responses to learning sends a message that learners’ emotional selves are valued and can contribute to learning sustainability, rather than being suppressed, as is more common in the college classroom. Inviting art into learning is an interesting way to make emotional learning more accessible for students. Poetry, metaphor, music, and student creations of all kinds can be incorporated into learning (Dirkx, 2001) to explore the meaning of sustainability, our values, and understanding of sustainable solutions.

Learners must be allowed and encouraged to explore and express their emotional selves if we are to cultivate the emotional maturity and intelligence needed for sustainability work. Compassion, care, love, joy, and gratitude can be intentionally cultivated through careful design and guidance of learning experiences. The complex layers of an ecological system such as an ocean or the coral reef like ecosystems found in underground shale (Steingraber, 2012) teach us that many parts of a system are not always visible, and yet these parts are vital to the beauty and function of the entire system. Inviting the emotional selves, which are too often kept under the surface, into the learning process is essential. The emotional self can thus be intentionally included in sustainability learning through the addition of multiple, nondominant, and personal perspectives.

Physical self

Although the intellectual and emotional selves are important aspects to incorporate into sustainability pedagogy, the physical self is also important and too often ignored within academia. The physical self forms the basis of all our abilities and in fact our very existence, so it is interesting that such little attention is paid to this aspect of self within learning experiences. As Okanagans said, “the body is sacred the core of the being, which permits the rest of the self to be” (Armstrong, 1996, p. 463). We exist and survive physically only because of the “continuous interaction between our bodies and everything around us…the body is the Earth itself” (Armstrong, p. 463).

Attention to the physical selves of learners can be easily incorporated into the process dimension of the Burns Model of Sustainability Pedagogy, in which active and experiential opportunities for learning are provided. Movement such as deep breathing, stretching, role play, field trips, changing places in the classroom, sitting in a circle, and walking are all examples of active and participatory learning that engage the physical self. The physical self can be attended to in many ways throughout the learning experience, from acknowledging basic physical needs (needs for breaks, food, and movement) to understanding that our physical energetic presence greatly affects our ability to learn and participate. Energetic presence may be based on how much sleep or exercise learners have had, and how much stress they are carrying with them. Anyone who has taught or participated in a college class has no doubt noticed days then the class is sluggish and “low energy” or conversely, when the energy in the room is quick and palpable. Asking students to share how they are feeling physically at the start of class, or providing opportunities to change the physical energy of the group, helps to place importance on the physical aspect of self within the learning process.

Similar to inviting emotions into the classroom, inviting a focus on the physical self can shift learners’ perspectives, to help them consider in even subtle ways, different ways of knowing or being. Becoming aware of and shifting consciousness to the physical self can allow for learning that is participative, collaborative, and exploratory, some of Mezirow’s ideal conditions for transformational learning (Baumgartner, 2001). Focusing on the physical selves of the actual human beings in the classroom can also shift what Cranton (1994) refers to as position power in the learning environment. When teachers and learners focus on themselves as physical beings, much of the focus on status, and the divisions that status constructs, can be shifted to a focus on equality and togetherness. When a professor is willing to embody teaching and learning in a physical way, either by moving and interacting physically, or by sharing physical aspects of self (I sure have felt tired this week), relationships in the classroom can become more open, more safe, and more trusting; all important aspects of transformational learning.

Furthermore, tuning in to one’s own body and sensing it from within, or somatics, can be an empowering and affirming way to create a sense of holism and healing in the learning process (Walla, 2009). The concept of ecosomatics, “sensing the inner body as a way to connect to the greater social and planetary bodies” (Walla, 2009, p. 229) is a powerful way to connect the physical self to relationships with larger sustainability issues.

Ecological systems always sustain themselves physically through activity. Nutrients are cycled through systems. Organisms grow and become food and energy for other organisms and then become waste that becomes food for other organisms. Active movement and cycling processes within our own bodies through the flow of blood is similar to the cycling of water and nutrients within a watershed. Sustainability learning too must model ecological systems by being active and cyclical and by being attentive to the physical selves of learners. The physical self can thus be intentionally included in sustainability learning through an active and embodied learning process.

Spiritual self

In addition to the intellectual, emotional, and physical aspects of self, attention to the spiritual self can also be woven into sustainability learning. Attending to the spiritual aspect of self is slowly becoming more discussed in academia and is an important aspect that should not be overlooked (Armstrong, 1996), especially in teaching sustainability. Okanagans teach that the body is the Earth itself. As Armstrong explains, “our flesh, blood, and bones are Earth-body; in all cycles in which Earth moves, so does our body” (p. 463). Okanagans describe the spirit self as an old part of us that requires quietness and that hears or interprets “all knowledge being spoken by all things that surround us…in order to bring new knowledge into existence” (p. 464).

The context dimension of the Burns Model of Sustainability Pedagogy connects to the spiritual aspect of self. Learning in context means paying attention to learners’ relationships (or lack of) with the land and the community where the learning is taking place. This cultivation of relationship to place is a key element in cultivating the ecological awareness and identity much needed for sustainability work, which requires attention to the spiritual aspect of self. Capra (1996) argues that deep ecological awareness is spiritual awareness. Sustainability teaching and learning can facilitate an ecological awareness and an ecological identity, which includes developing an appreciation for the preciousness of all life, an understanding of the importance of being mindful in each moment, learning to see nature everywhere, learning to be struck by wonder and awe, and using our senses to connect (Thomashow, 1995). Developing an ecological identity is a reflective process (Thomashow, 1995) that can also be understood as the inner work of sustainability (Schley, 2006). Schley describes this inner work as including reflection and contemplation, deep awareness of connections to all life, and coherence of action. This work requires a “slow pedagogy” which allows for slowing down, reconnecting to the cycles of life all around us, and spending time in places (Tooth & Renshaw, 2009). Slow pedagogy creates authentic experiences that move us into deep reflection to make new meaning and reengages us with the living world (Tooth & Renshaw, 2009). Spending conscious time in outdoor places is important because awareness of our relationships to the land and each other is the foundation of spirit (Armstrong, 1996).

Paying attention to students’ spirituality and spiritual growth can in turn improve academic performance, psychological well-being, leadership skills, and college satisfaction (Astin, Astin, & Lindholm, 2011). But perhaps more importantly, attending to the spiritual in learning allows for elements that are key to learning sustainability, an exploration of values, the meaning and purpose of our lives, and our sense of connectedness to one another (Astin et al., 2011). Creating learning experiences that connect students to the natural places in which they live, and providing opportunity for artistic experience and intuition, sends a message to students that learning is not limited to a mental, rational experience (Subbiondo, 2011). Subbiondo suggests including inner work such as self-reflection, meditation, and discussion of core values as ways to provide meaningful and authentic learning experiences that honor the spiritual self.

In ecological systems, no one element can be separated from its context. Plants are not disconnected from the watersheds in which they live and depend on their context to survive and thrive. The whole system must be considered. Orr (2004) argues that ecological design aims toward the awareness that healing, wholeness, and holy are one and indivisible. Okanagans refer to the land and bodies with the same root syllable, indicating that we are our land/place, and without a connection to land, we are displaced (Armstrong, 2008). Fostering a spiritual sense of awareness and connection to the land and the places we inhabit can be a way to integrate the spiritual into sustainability learning. The spiritual self can thus be intentionally included in sustainability learning through meaningful connections to and experiences with place, land, and relationships.

Sustainability Pedagogy: An Integrated Model

Connecting the Burns Model of Sustainability Pedagogy with Okanagan teachings about the whole self demonstrates that the whole self can be intentionally included in an ecological design process to promote transformational learning. The Burns model incorporates what is known about how to most effectively teach sustainability in higher education to provide opportunities for transformational learning. However, in order for leaners to be motivated and inspired to make sustainable changes in their lives and communities, they must be given the opportunity to learn with their whole selves. Connecting the Okanagan worldview of the whole self with the Burns Model of Sustainability Pedagogy provides an opportunity to connect sustainability to the learner herself in a direct, holistic, and transformative way.

An intentional ecological design can weave together sustainability learning that (1) increases learners’ thematic understanding of complex sustainability issues and engages their intellectual selves to cocreate meaning about sustainability; (2) provides opportunities to think critically about dominant paradigms, practices, and power relationships from diverse perspectives, while encouraging learners to engage and explore their emotions around these loaded issues; (3) enhances learners’ civic responsibility through active participation and invites the physical body to become part of a relational and experiential learning process; (4) and increases learners’ connection with the ecological and cultural place in which they live, fostering spiritual awareness and connections.

Design for sustainability learning that intentionally seeks to provide opportunities for transformation must not only focus on teaching sustainability holistically but must welcome and integrate a learner’s whole self into the learning process. In an ecological design process, particularly in the observation and visioning stages, the learner’s whole self must be included. Questions for observation and visioning of sustainability learning might include What kinds of projects could foster intellectual cocreation of meaning? What kinds of activities could include the sharing of emotional responses? How can the learning incorporate movement and attend to the needs of the physical and energetic body? How might the position power in the classroom be shifted? What kinds of assignments or activities could help to foster ecological awareness, deep connections to land, contemplation, and spiritual understanding? Taking the time to intentionally incorporate the learners’ whole selves into the pedagogical design process will likely enhance the capacity for transformative sustainability learning.

Conclusion

Sustainability education moves away from a transmissive learning paradigm to one that promotes transformative learning in which learners experience a shift in values and intentions. Since the social and ecological crises we face have cultural roots (Bowers, 1999), it is imperative that we focus higher education on transforming destructive cultural frames of reference and the actions that derive from these. By drawing on the wisdom of ecological principles and indigenous worldviews, sustainability teaching and learning can be designed in a way that is focused on learners’ whole selves, empowering learners to become citizens who know how to understand and address problems systemically and intellectually; know how to critically question dominant norms and to listen to a variety of less heard perspectives, engaging their emotions in this process; know how to work with others collaboratively, relationally, and physically in an active process of problem solving; and who know themselves and their places spiritually, who understand their interconnectedness with all life, and who can engage with the living world in a balanced and sustainable way. These shifts in values and ways of being inspire learners to make change (Burns, 2009) and to create healthy and balanced solutions to multidimensional problems that face our communities and bioregions. In real neighborhoods and places, these lofty ideals could take the resourceful and imaginative forms of resisting and changing dominant economic and sociocultural systems by creating: urban farms and gardens, small businesses that provide needed items for local consumption, housing models that allow for community building and safety regardless of income, community centers that offer education and proactive body-spirit care, energy systems that are localized and small scale, infrastructure for bicycle transportation, and spaces for community art and democratic participation.

Teaching in challenging times, indeed times that threaten the very existence of life on this planet, calls for our attention to pedagogy that is ecological and life affirming. Learning sustainability should feel vibrant and should nurture and engage learners as change makers for a healthier world (Windhalm, 2011). Intentional pedagogical design that draws on the wisdom of ecological systems and indigenous teachings offers great potential for creating transformative sustainability learning.