From the Winter 2000-2001 Southern AEOE Newsletter
Introduction
While all of us involved in environmental education pay attention to the content and delivery of the lessons we teach, rarely do we pay as much attention to the lessons taught to us by the physical places or environments in which we teach. Environmental education is about what the environment can teach all of us as well as what we can teach each other about the environment.
Setting Context
The following quotes from two authors help
to underscore the essential meaning of “the pedagogy of place.”
Tom Bender, in Environmental Design Primer (1977) wrote:
“We have drawn a distinction at our skins which is contrary to the most important relationships and processes that concern us and our well-being. WE ARE OUR ENVIRONMENT – what lies outside forms what lies within.”
Barry Lopez, in Crossing Open Ground (1989) wrote:
“The interior landscape responds to the character and subtlety of the exterior landscape; the shape of the individual mind is affected by land as it is by genes”
The message communicated by these insightful quotes is clear. Place is a teacher. The dynamic between our minds and our places is powerful. To treat it lightly or without careful attention is a fundamental mistake that is being repeated each and every day by highly respected educators. Even by those of us who teach environmental education.
Form and Function
At the upcoming conference I’d like to explore with you this concept of the pedagogy of place more fully, but for now let’s focus in on the structures and grounds of the places where we all work. What lessons do these places teach our students? What do your students see every day, whenever and wherever they are at your school or center?
Where I teach they see square buildings, full
of square rooms, full of chairs in straight rows, which house discrete departments
(e.g. music, math) or academic
disciplines (e.g. natural science, humanities). This design teaches us “how
to think.” As opposed to teaching interdisciplinary, whole-systems approaches
or what Gregory Bateson (1979) once labeled “the patterns that connect,” the
pedagogy of this place supports separation and reductionism. There is no physical
connection between, for example, ethics, economics, and environment. Squares
and lines, instead of systems and webs, are the preferred forms.
Our students also see facilities that use an incredible amount of fossil fuel
energy, water and other natural resources — and generate significant
amounts of solid and chemical waste. This design and operation of these places
of education
teaches us “how to act.” The lesson? It’s OK to use lots
of stuff inefficiently and then just throw it “away.” Sure, many
schools and centers do make an effort at teaching stewardship through policies
and
practices, yet most seem content that they are models of environmental responsibility
simply
because they recycle our cans, bottles, and paper.
We can and must do better. When we gather next April at the annual conference of AEOE, I’ll share with you a student and faculty-driven effort at Sonoma State University which has resulted in a new building that serves as a model of sustainability while teaching the value of interconnections, the rhythms of nature, and respect for future generations. It’s called the Environmental Technology Center. For a conceptual and visual tour, check out our web site at www.sonoma.edu/ensp/etc.
Checking the Pulse of Your Place
Consider your own environmental/outdoor school or center. What lessons does it teach? Do your facilities and grounds clearly demonstrate environmentally-sound choices in building design and operation? For example, when students visit your place do they see buildings which are well insulated, lit by daylighting and energy-efficient lights, heated and cooled through passive solar design, and operated with energy-efficient and water-efficient appliances? Do they see edible landscapes and drought-tolerant native plantings? Is the food you eat and serve grown locally and organically? Is your place a model of the three R's – reduce, reuse and recycle? If you can’t answer most of these questions with a solid Yes!, then what’s the real message you give to those who come to learn from you and your place? As the old saying goes — actions speak louder than words.
Now What?
The basic point is simple. At most environmental/outdoor education centers there is a significant disconnect between the lessons of nature taught in the field, and the design and/or operation of the facilities where the kids hang out, eat and sleep. David Orr (1992) offers up this perspective:
“ We have an obligation to provide our students with tangible models that calibrate our highest values with our best capabilities; models that they can see, touch and experience. When pedagogical abstractions, words, and whole courses do not fit the way the academic campus in fact works, they learn that hope is just wishful thinking, or worse, rank hypocrisy.”
So here’s our challenge. How
can we modify existing spaces and create new spaces on our campuses to promote
systems of thought and practice that
will ensure
that the pedagogy of our places promotes the sustainability of all life on
the planet? Or, more simply said, how can we practice what we preach in the
places
where we teach?
References
Gregory Bateson, Mind and Nature (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1979).
Tom Bender, Environmental Design Primer (Shockin Books, 1977), 2.
Barry Lopez, Crossing Open Ground (New York: Vintage, 1989), 65.
David Orr, Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern
World (State University of New York, 1992).
Rocky Rohwedder “Pedagogy of Place: What Our Campuses Teach,” Proceedings
of the Symposium on Academic Planning in College and University Environmental
Programs (North American Association for Environmental Education, 1998).