Search results

Contemporary globalized societies face important environmental and social problems that require urgent action and citizen engagement. Active learning in contemporary societies is being reemphasized in order to prepare active learners, capable of critical thinking and innovative problem solving and able to become responsible citizens. Environmental Education (EE) and its descendant Education for Sustainability (EFS), or Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), have been a very important first effort for introducing active learning in contemporary education at all educational levels. They constitute an important variant of active learning. EE and EFS by definition propose and adopt active learning and experiential methods, as they seek to prepare people that will work for a healthy environment and better societies. And this is where the difference lies between EE/EFS and the generic active-learning approaches. EE or EFS are committed active-learning approaches; they have an explicit goal to work for social and environmental change.

The transition from learners to active learners is addressed by active learning, which however assumes that active learners will also become responsible and active citizens. EE and EFS have however demonstrated that this is not an obvious development. Education should be clear about its purpose – individual change, empowerment, integration, or social transformation – and pedagogical methods and tools should be selected appropriately.

This chapter first discusses the main characteristics of EE/EFS. Then, it explores what facilitates the transition from active learners to active citizens, based on lessons from EE and EFS. Finally, it reflects on the implications of these lessons for Higher Education and, as a result, a new vision for Higher Education and a brief guide for educators and Higher Educational managers are proposed.

Active learning is not a simple practice. It is a new paradigm for the provision of high-quality, collaborative, engaging, and motivating education. Active learning has the capacity to respond to most of the challenges that institutions of higher education are facing in our time. In this chapter, we present active learning strategies used in STEM disciplines and we analyze the potential of active learning to redefine the value proposition in academic institutions. After providing the theoretical underpinnings of active learning as an evolving practice, an attempt is made to connect it with different learning theories and present an integrative model in which institutional strategies, learning strategy and information, and communication technologies work synergistically toward the development of knowledge and skills. We then present the results of a survey examining “stories” of active learning from the STEM disciplines, identifying good teaching practices, and discussing challenges and lessons learned. The key idea is that active engagement and participation of students is based on faculty commitments and inspiration and mentoring by faculty. We finally present a stage model for the implementation of active learning practices in higher education. Emphasis is put on a new vision for higher education, based on systematic planning, implementation, and evaluation of active learning methods, collaboration, engagement with society and industry, innovation, and sustainability, for a better world for all.

Contemporary societies face serious environmental and social challenges that require decisive action. In the 1970s, Environmental Education (EE) was conceived as an important method for raising awareness and bringing about the needed changes in social practices that can lead to environmental protection and more recently sustainable development (transforming EE to Education for Sustainability (EfS)). Since then, many EE/EfS programmes have been implemented and some change has been observed despite the persisting problems. EE/EfS – especially when aiming to change behaviours – has been akin to critical pedagogy which aims to prepare independent and critical thinkers and empowered citizens that can effectively address social problems. What pedagogical approaches and educational methods are more effective in bringing about changes in attitudes and social practices? What instructional design and practices facilitate this transformation? What are the challenges? These are questions that have troubled environmental educators and are worth reflecting on in the present context of knowledge societies and Higher Education that is significantly impacted by a neoliberal ideology.

This chapter aims to contribute to the ongoing discussions around these questions, via a dialogue between theory and practice. A discussion of critical theory and pedagogy and of EE/EfS is counterposed with theoretical reflections and insights from the author's more than three decades of teaching experience (primarily in Greece). A discussion of the instructor's key pedagogical influences and the evolution of her (my) instructional practices follows, with the aim to identify instructional practices that have a transformative potential, within the context of the challenges and the facilitating parameters of contemporary societies and educational contexts. The instructor's self-reflections and students' qualitative comments are used in a variety of research methods: a self-study research approach drawing on the author's self-reflections as instructor and an analysis of students' qualitative comments in course evaluations and other informal evaluative situations.

Our present quest for sustainable cities requires a holistic understanding of city construction and people’s well-being. Feminist scholars have shown that urban space does not attend to women’s needs. This study focuses on women’s everyday life in Athens, Greece in late-1980s. This is a unique spatio-temporal point since it is located at the edge of several prevailing dichotomies – geopolitical, cultural and temporal. It examines how women use, experience and reconstitute public spaces in the city and aims to understand both how public spaces – with their material and social dimensions – restrict women’s lives, and how women reappropriate and (re)constitute urban space. It is based on in-depth interviews with women from three areas of Greater Athens, with different social class profiles. It focuses on neighborhood as a physical space, women’s social networks in the neighborhood and women’s mobility. The main findings include that the nexus of gender and class is inscribed in public spaces so that these restrict women and their right to the city; the organization of public spaces ignores women’s reproductive responsibilities; women participate in the public sphere, but gender hierarchies have not been eliminated; while local social networks are fundamental for women in their efforts to reappropriate public spaces. It concludes that the transition to sustainable – enjoyable – inclusive cities will benefit from incorporating women’s experiences and needs; adopting a socio-spatial perspective that focuses on everyday life; a focus on social reproduction too; and an explicit aim to eliminate gender hierarchies (rather than inclusion).

Environments are gendered and environmental issues have impacts on gender. This introduction highlights some current environmental issues from the ecofeminist perspective that characterizes the contributions and summarizes the chapters in the volume that feature the activities of indigenous women in the Columbian Amazon, urban environments in Athens and Rome, workplace environments in Bangladeshi offices, STEM labs in universities in the United States, and homes used for sex work in Punjab. It ends with a suggestion for a queer spiritual ecofeminist approach to environments.

In the face of the erosion of democracy and the reemergence of authoritarian styles of rule and leadership in the contemporary world scene, the author reintroduces the anthropological and pedagogical insights of Dorothy Lee and Paulo Freire in the ongoing debate on active learning and higher education. In the case of Dorothy Lee, these insights refer to “valuing the self” of the student, and to the value of learning (values) from “remote cultures” and, last but not least, on the meaning of freedom and autonomy bounded by culture and structure in the teaching–learning process. In the case of Freire, the author selectively points to: (1) the value of community as a sociocultural anchor of identity, freedom, and autonomy, (2) the view of education as a tool for raising awareness, critical thinking, inspiration, hope, empowerment, cultural action, and social transformation, and (3) the view on citizenship education. The author discusses, in this regard, the significant role assigned by Dorothy Lee and Paulo Freire to the neglected notions of dialogue, freedom, culture, self, autonomy, and structure. Lastly, the author argues in favor of reincorporating the pedagogical insights of Dorothy Lee and Paulo Freire in the curricula and structure of higher education and also reminds those concerned with upholding democracy that these formative values and concepts were acknowledged in the early conception and development of active learning.

This chapter concerns itself primarily with questions of how students in higher education studies can best acquire, apply, create, and share knowledge. Over the past several decades, multiple forms of active learning have been proposed in order to increase student engagement and deepen their understanding. This chapter, accordingly, examines the epistemological claims of the supporters and detractors of active learning while simultaneously exploring the nascence and development of some of the major understandings which presently underpin an epistemology of active learning. While the focus of earlier works may have been on changes that higher education instructors should make to improve student understanding of key STEM concepts, this chapter addresses changes in the roles of both students and instructors as the co-creators of active learning environments and learning communities. A particular focus is given to the significance of metacognition as a critical skill that enables students to assess their own learning and also critically assess sources of information. The chapter includes a framework which indicates trends toward high-impact active learning skills for students in STEM higher education and the research which theorizes and supports these new instructional imperatives.

Field-based education for environmental studies has been a foundational principle for the Environmental Studies program at Stockton University, which began in 1971. Located within the 445,000 hectare Pinelands National Reserve, on an 800-hectare campus near Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA, two professors in the program discuss our rationale and experiences teaching students about the environment within the environment. Expounding on the interdisciplinary literature of field-based learning, we present four unique case studies including local and regional experiences, as well as student learning abroad. The first case proposes that learning outdoors might be beneficial for students with learning disabilities. This is exemplified during a one-week field study to the 2.4 million hectare Adirondack Park & Preserve. The second instance reveals the benefits of working with local towns and environs acting as consultants in a multidisciplinary capstone experience. Next, we show how on-campus data collection and hypothesis formulation help students to learn about environmental design and statistical analysis. Finally, an international trip to the Caribbean opens the minds of students through a service learning project. While on campus, in town, across the United States or at an international destination, learning in the field gives students the opportunity to expand their knowledge through field-based active learning strategies.