Although it would appear the increase in data storage needed to house the current influx of online media and Web 2.0 content would have a negative influence on students’ environmental values, the overall effect online media and Web 2.0 have on meeting students environmental education needs is positive.
There is a flux in environmental education – it must accept responsibility to change human behaviours as well as accept the responsibility of empowering future generations with the knowledge and tools necessary to solve the environmental problems that our generations are creating (Keene and Blumstein, 2010, p. 201). The apparent increase in environmental destruction suggests that efforts to develop environmentally responsible behaviour within society through environmental education curriculums are inadequate (Tuncay et al, 2012, p. 485).
“We are living in a time of participatory tools, participatory attitudes and participatory aspirations; yet educational practice does not seem to be bringing these elements into alignment” (Crook, 2011, p. 64). ICT already contributes two to three percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and the transmission capacity of network access technology is doubling every year (Yongsoo and Siddhartha, 2010, pp.105-106). The influx of online media and Web 2.0 technologies, along with the curriculums that view this influx as pedagogically necessary, play a part in this increase. Every blog, social media file, upload, download, email and photo is responsible for its own greenhouse gas emissions.
Technology is rewiring our brains and the tools we use define and shape our thinking (Siemens, 2004, p. 1). To be literate today means being able to use some combination of blogs, wikis, texting, search engines, Facebook, foursquare, Google Docs, Skype, Chrome, iMovie, Contribute, Basecamp and mobile applications whereas to be literate tomorrow will involve the use of not yet invented technologies and social practices designed to meet our unanticipated needs (Leu et al, 2011). But, somewhere along the line it appears, amid all the innovation and ‘progress’, the environmental consequences of such innovations were forgotten.
Evidence of how environmental education has been forgotten, or of how its importance has diminished can be seen in the research of Bonnett and Williams (1998). In their study they found that concerns over the current UK National Curriculum’s ability to meet the environmental education needs of students were valid. In 1994, the UK National Curriculum was updated and this saw the end of environmental education, one of five cross-curricular themes. Students in their study revealed that after the loss of environmental education, they relied on parents and relatives, television programs and public announcements to inform them of environmental issues. From their participant interviews, Bonnett and Williams also found that environmental education was an exciting topic and that on almost every occasion students would have been happy to continue environmental discussions beyond the time available.
Students are expected to develop their values through their interaction with both social and natural environments. In the context of environmental education, the way in which students interpret cognitive and affective domains is closely related to their moral development (Tuncay et al, 2012, p. 486). Moral development has roots in students’ family and community lives, the work their parents do and the religious and cultural practices they engage with. Students also build their understanding of the world based on aspects of popular culture, like television, film, music, art, and other forms of media they consume (Hall, 2011 p. 298).
Alp (2005, cited in Tuncay et al, 2012, p. 501) suggests that the way environmental issues are presented in the media is a possible explanation for participants being more knowledgeable about some environmental issues than others. Mass media are a major source of knowledge and influence on students’ views yet media can be highly selective and sometimes downright hostile towards green perspectives (Bonnet and Williams, 1998). In a similar way, Allen (1975, Tuncay et al, 2012, p. 486) argued that if teachers transmit only their own values and attitudes on students, they might, like mass media, succeed in indoctrination of environmental values rather than education.
Creating new patterns of behaviour in individuals, groups, and society can cause enormous and irreparable damage to environmental and social systems when there is no evidence of environmental benefits or exposure of unintended consequences (Keene and Blumstein, 2010, p. 202). This may be likened to the assumption that the increase in internet use has a negative affect on the environment. Although there is evidence that this is the case, it is also interesting to note that broadband can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in other industries. Through such things as limiting or reducing transport needs, the mitigation effect of ICT is estimated to be up to five times its direct causation effect (Climate Group, 2008, cited in Yongsoo and Siddhartha, 2010, p. 107).
Since broadband is both a potential cause of increased greenhouse gases and a potential tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in other sectors of the economy, promoting environmental stewardship amongst students is essential (Yongsoo and Siddhartha, 2010, p. 98). Erickson et al (2010, cited in Rice et al, 2011, p. 376) suggests that changes in perspective, or “transformative learning”, in environmental education requires an understanding of the interrelationships of environment, economic, and social factors, at individual and societal levels. Only by addressing these relationships will environmental perspectives change.
It is the combination of the technological affordances of social software with new educational agendas and priorities that offer the potential for radical and transformational shifts in education practice (Grant et al, cited in Crook, 2011, p. 65). Like with other new technologies, the use of social media in the classroom requires careful studies to weigh its pedagogical benefits from its associated risks (Rice, Robinson & Caron, 2011, p. 381). There is also a need either to reconsider the content and messages of environmental education or to proceed to “Education for Sustainable Development”. This would ensure that future generations are capable of understanding environmental problems and participating in solutions (Tunay et al, 2012, p. 502).
Our ability to learn what we need for tomorrow is more important than what we know today (Siemens, 2004, p. 5). There is a need for a change in function of environmental education from just transmitting ecological knowledge to bringing out the emotions of learners regarding the value of nature and its elements (Tunay et al, 2012, p. 502). Environmental problems are global so global solutions need to be found. Communication at all levels – local, national and international – is essential when it comes to solving environmental problems (Ors, 2012, p. 1342).
Environmental websites and social networks provide a platform for sharing ideas and debates (Ors, 2012, p. 1341). Web 2.0 technologies encourage an understanding of knowledge as socially distributed but also as socially constructed (Crook, 2011, p. 71). Social media can offer students possibilities to integrate important new skills, like distributed cognition, collective intelligence, transmedia navigation, and even skills for play (Rice, Robinson & Caron, 2011, p. 380). If used in the right way, websites, social networks and Web 2.0 tools can be successful mediums for environmental education.
Meaning does not lie solely within the reader, it is created when readers transact with texts. Each reader brings their own prior knowledge and personal histories to texts, which shape how they engage with them and make sense of their ideas (Hall, 2011, p. 298). Hall (2011) found that students have more faith in popular culture texts and often dismiss social studies texts as unworthy sources of information. Even when they had no knowledge of the text, students were found to believe the information their peers presented from pop culture texts as valid and reliable.
One way to approach this issue of ‘popular bias’ is through critical media literacy. Rather than act merely as “passive recipients” of information, students learn to question and examine the ideas put before them through critical media literacy. As Hall found, students used popular culture texts in three ways when talking about social studies texts – students used popular culture texts as evidence to support their arguments about social studies texts, students used popular culture texts to shut down the interpretations of social studies text that they did not agree with, and students used popular culture texts to silence students with alternative ideas (Hall, 2011, p. 300). When evaluating environmental issues and looking for solutions, understanding the biases that exist within society and popular culture, including personal biases, help students to develop balanced perceptions of environmental issues.
Critical media literacy practices can make students and teachers uncomfortable but when students learn to recognise their biases and the injustices promoted within the popular culture texts they love, they gain deeper perspectives of themselves and the world (Hall, 2011, p. 303). The importance of popular culture, including mass media has emerged as one of the factors positively influencing participants’ levels of concern and moral reasoning patterns toward local and non-local environmental problems (Tuncay et al, 2012, p 501).
Environmental issues need to be placed on the social agenda, public awareness has to be raised, and environmental education also needs to be provided to media organisations. Ors (2012, p. 1342) proposes that to make media more effective for environmental education, there need to be increased opportunities for media involvement. Attention-grabbing and entertaining educational programs need to be prepared to provide critical media literacy opportunities and instill environmental awareness in children and adults. To do this, says Ors, universities and environmental organisations need to cooperate with the media and develop joint projects.
The capacity to form connections between sources of information, and thereby create useful information patterns, is required to learn in our technologically advancing and ever-changing world (Siemens, 2004, p. 3). Too often students experience school as a place where they struggle to connect their funds of knowledge to the curriculum and make the curriculum relevant to their lives (Hall, 2011, p. 298). Including online media and popular culture into curriculum areas where environmental issues are addressed provides many opportunities for students to directly link environmental issues to their lives. It also provides opportunities for students to collaborate and provide feedback on possible solutions.
Online media and popular culture, especially social media, provides opportunities for students to develop critical literacy skills that lets them assess whether or not their own and other people’s views are valid. Not only do critical media literacy skills help students evaluate and address current and emerging issues, the skills are transferable and will therefore assist them in other curriculum areas.
Although popular culture, if used in the right way, can have a positive effect on environmental values, it can also have a negative effect on educational bias. The inclusion of social media in environmental education is generally seen as positive however further research is needed to gather data and test theoretical predictions that support the design and integration of best practice use of social media tools in education pedagogies (Rice, Robinson & Caron, 2011, p 374). Using what the environmental community learns collectively about evaluation and the efficacy of its practices and identifying the sources of uncertainty will build the credibility and help us achieve society’s fundamental environmental goals (Keene and Blumstein, 2010, p. 203).
References
Bonnet, Michael. & Williams, Jacquetta. (1998). Environmental education and primary children’s attitudes towards nature and the environment. Cambridge Journal of Education, 28.2, 159-174.
Crook, C. (2012). The ‘digital native’ in context: Tensions associated with importing Web 2.0 practices into the school setting. Oxford Review of Education. 38(1), 63-80
Hall, L (2011). How popular culture texts inform and shape students’ discussions of social studies texts., Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 55 (4) pp.296-305.
Keene, Matt. & Blumstein, Daniel, T. (2010). Environmental education: A time of change, a time for change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 201-204.
Leu, Donald J. et al (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: expanding the literacy and learning curriculum., Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 55 (1) pp.5-14.
Ors, Ferlal. (2012). Environmental education and the role of media in environmental education in Turkey. Social and Behavioural Sciences, 46, 1339-1342.
Rice, Ronald, E., Robinson, Julie, A. & Caron, Bruce (2011). Sampling the Sea: Using Social Media for an Online Sustainability Curriculum (Ch 22) in Social Media Tools and Platforms in Learning Environments, pp. 373-375.
Tuncay, Bursra et al (2012). Moral reasoning patterns and influential factors in tge context of environmental problems. Environmental Education Research, 18 (4), 485-505.
Yongsoo Kelly, K. & Siddhartha, Tim Raja. (2010). Building Broadband: Strategies and Policies for the Developing World. Herndon: USA.
Pop Tarts 