Originally appears in the Fall 2007 issue

Thirty years ago this October, delegates from 66 nations adopted the Tbilisi Declaration, perhaps the most seminal document in environmental education. It is not exaggerating to say that most readers of this magazine wouldn’t have their jobs if it weren’t for the bold work of those visionary leaders who penned a multinational, intergovernmental acknowledgement of the necessity for high-quality environmental education. Yet, in spite of valiant efforts by tens of thousands of devotees over the years, environmental education (EE) can still do more to realize its potential. Few would deny that EE still too often emphasizes information over educational process. That this information is still too often seen as unbalanced. That EE is still too often unable to demonstrate that it can empower participants with the skills to take personal and collective action for the common good.

In honor of the roadmap charted by those in Tbilisi, I offer below a government-style resolution to optimize the effectiveness of EE by urging environmental educators to incorporate a pedagogical approach that is tailor-made for EE: service-learning. To be sure, most environmental educators are somewhat familiar with service-learning, but the aim here is to galvanize us, formal and nonformal environmental educators alike, around the notion that we can and should do more to use this very promising vehicle to our advantage.

WHEREAS environmental education and service-learning have parallel histories

Although most people point to the likes of George Perkins Marsh, John Muir and Aldo Leopold as the intellectual prophets of environmental education in North America, it is possible to trace the movement’s philosophical underpinnings to the ancient Greeks. Aristotle argued that nature is so pristine and untainted by the passions that vex humans that it is worthy of reverence — a view that was later reinforced by medieval and Enlightenment philosophers, notably Thomas Hobbes, who warned that the self-interest of humans would almost certainly disrupt the natural order of things. It wasn’t until the last 30 years or so that these philosophies began to crystallize into what could be considered a unique discipline. It was then that Bill Stapp and others (e.g., Harold Hungerford, Clay Schoenfeld and John Disinger) helped to translate the principles that informed the Tbilisi Declaration into the goals and practices that guide EE to this day.

It can similarly be argued that service-learning, although coming into its own in the last 20 years, has deep historical roots. Commentators today almost invariably refer to the formative influence of early 20th-century progressive education reformers, notably John Dewey with his pragmatic synthesis of learner-centered instruction with society-centered educational goals, David Kolb with his steadfast promotion of experiential learning; and Paolo Freire with his shrewd critique of the traditional teacher–student power dynamic. But one would be remiss to ignore the contributions of Plato and Socrates, who argued that education is best viewed as an individual process of discovery that results in a just society. Likewise, we must acknowledge the later contributions of Rousseau, whose educational philosophy emphasized emotion over reason and experience over didactic instruction. Thanks to these and, no doubt, many other philosophical forebears, the approach to teaching and learning that we today call service-learning has begun to spread across the globe.

WHEREAS environmental education and service-learning have complementary goals

Although neither EE nor service-learning has a universally accepted definition and goal statement, each has a core set of concepts upon which most seem to agree. As articulated in the Tbilisi Declaration, the goals of environmental education are (emphasis added):

  • to foster clear awareness of, and concern about, economic, social, political and ecological interdependence in urban and rural areas;
  • to provide every person with opportunities to acquire the knowledge, values, attitudes, commitment, and skills needed to protect and improve the environment; and
  • to create new patterns of behavior of individuals, groups, and society as a whole towards the environment.

For comparison, here are two frequently cited explanations of service-learning (emphasis added):

Service-learning is a teaching method that engages young people in solving problems within their schools and communities as part of their academic studies or other type of intentional learning activity. Service-learning helps students master important curriculum content by supporting their making meaningful connections between what they are studying and its many applications. Service-learning also helps young people develop a range of service skills, from acts of kindness and caring, to community stewardship, to civic action.

National Service-Learning Partnership

Service-learning combines service objectives with learning objectives with the intent that the activity change both the recipient and the provider of the service. This is accomplished by combining service tasks with structured opportunities that link the task to self-reflection, self-discovery, and the acquisition and comprehension of values, skills, and knowledge content.

National Service-Learning Clearinghouse

It would be difficult to miss the common themes in these descriptions of EE and service-learning: knowledge of core concepts, opportunities and ability to act, and belief in the possibility of improvement. Service-learning tends to be heavier on means than on ends (understandably, since it is primarily a teaching method), while EE tends to be heavier on ends than on means (understandably, since it is concerned with a particular body of content). But advocates of both would likely agree that their common goals include knowledge, skills and action involving the intellectual, social and civic domains (see “Shared Goals of Environmental Education and Service-learning” table). They might even agree on this succinct description of their intersection: environmental service-learning helps youth connect what they learn with how they live.

WHEREAS service-learning has been demonstrated to promote the outcomes that environmental educators value

We have lofty ambitions, we environmental educators. We want to change the world, promote the public good, and do right by the generations that will follow us. But when we are really honest with ourselves, we are forced to acknowledge that we are not always effective at proving that what we’re doing is working. Service-learning, on the other hand, has amassed an impressive (and ever-growing) collection of evidence that it can produce results. Admittedly, this is due in large part to the fact that the service-learning tradition is closely tied to formal schooling, whose sine qua non is educational outcomes. The point here is not that EE doesn’t work and service-learning does, but rather that service-learning has been better about proving it. What is remarkable, however, is how closely the proven outcomes of service-learning resemble those of EE.

Both service-learning and EE have outcomes that involve students’ personal, intellectual and social development. These may include the development of values, awareness of local issues, and increased observation skills, insight and judgment, as well as greater civic participation, social responsibility and concern for others. Outcomes at the school level include a higher level of motivation and collaboration in learning, and a shift of leadership from teacher to students. Community outcomes common to both EE and service-learning include engaging students in service to meet community needs, forming partnerships with community groups and businesses, building citizenship, and improving the community’s appreciation of diversity across generations, cultures, perspectives and abilities. When the explicit goals of a service-learning activity are focused on the environment or community character, there are possibilities for political efficacy, civic engagement and exploration of service-related careers. While there are certainly examples of EE programs in both formal and nonformal settings that have been successful at yielding such positive outcomes, service-learning, primarily because of its focus on measurable outcomes, has a more well-established track record of rigorous research and evaluation that shows the achievement of learning objectives.

Therefore, be it RESOLVED that we have a common understanding of what service-learning is not

National surveys show that nearly 40 percent of K–12 educators say they use service-learning, and many school systems now require it for graduation. More rigorous, qualitative studies, however, have suggested that a misunderstanding of what service-learning actually is tends to exaggerate those numbers. Thus, in order to ensure that we’re all on the same page, let us assume that the following may be elements of successful comprehensive service-learning programs, but they do not qualify as service-learning on their own.

Service-learning is NOT:

  • Just about action. Service-learning is an approach to teaching and learning. It is not simply another name for what happens at the end of a learning experience to make the experience fun.
  • Just academic. Service-learning can also be organized and offered by community organizations with learning objectives or activities that engage participants in structured reflection.
  • An episodic volunteer program. Unless it is part of a larger educational experience with clear learning objectives, for example, a monthly park cleanup is simply a monthly park cleanup, not service-learning.
  • An add-on to an existing curriculum. Service-learning is a means of taking existing learning objectives and making them come alive — an alternative to other instructional methods, not a supplement to curriculum.
  • Completing service hours in order to graduate or complete a program. Regardless of where you stand on the “compulsory service” debate, rarely do these activities meet the rigor of authentic service-learning.
  • Service assigned as a form of punishment. Service as punishment is restitution, not a purposeful educational experience.
  • One-sided. It benefits students and the community, not just one of them.

RESOLVED that those who incorporate service-learning approaches will more faithfully apply the instructional practices that have been shown to work

Our friends at the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE) have done a marvelous job of developing comprehensive guidelines that set the standards for high-quality EE programs, materials and professional development. One area that none of the Guidelines for Excellence publications spends a great deal of time on, however, is instructional practice or pedagogy, “the art of teaching” — the on-the-ground techniques and strategies that environmental educators should use with students to advance their goals. The following set of “best practices” is suggested as an addendum to the existing guidelines.

  1. Youth voice. Engage the vision and leadership of young people as valued contributors to society by integrating their ideas into the selection, design, implementation and evaluation of the service-learning experiences.

Examples:

  • Ensuring that students (not teachers) choose the issue they want to take on, and how they’ll resolve it. It is not uncommon to see extensive lists of “service-learning projects ideas.” Try not to impose your idea of a good project onto your students.
  • Empowering students to be the contacts for community partners.
  1. Reflection. Facilitate continuous reflection before, during and after service that uses multiple methods to encourage critical thinking and that is a central force in the fulfillment of educational objectives. Simply asking students what they thought about an experience is not enough. Be sure to draw connections to other aspects of their lives and learning.

Examples:

  • Activating students’ higher-order thinking skills by facilitating both cognitive reflection (through assessment) and affective reflection (through speaking, writing and performing).
  • Making specific connections during reflection to students’ roles as civic and environmental actors.
  1. Reciprocal community partnerships. Help students develop strategic partnerships aimed at finding sustainable solutions to environmental and community problems. Ensure that students have direct, in-person contact with stakeholders, topical experts and/or policy makers.

Examples:

  • Forging partnerships with agencies and organizations that are addressing local environmental and community-character issues.
  • Helping students organize a coalition of youth from various settings.
  1. Balanced environmental inquiry. Ensure that students research and are presented with a variety of perspectives that convey the complex relationship between environmental and community-character issues and human behavior. Be careful not to inadvertently “fix” the direction of a project by choosing a better, more dynamic spokesperson for the side of the issue that you happen to agree with.

Examples:

  • Helping students understand the complex nature of their own interaction with the environment and the community.
  • Providing students opportunities to research the historical development of local environmental issues and community-development policies.
  1. Purposeful civic learning. Promote civic responsibility and efficacy by effecting long-term change through democratic principles and practices.

Examples:

  • Facilitating respectful deliberation, group decision-making and other practices that promote democratic classroom environments.
  • Promoting a sense of solidarity and shared purpose among participating students.
  1. Clear educational goals. Embed the experience in the curricular goals and standards that drive learning of concepts, content and skills. Introduce students to the range of standards at the beginning, and thereafter ask them to determine which ones are being met, and to what extent.

Examples:

  • Incorporating lesson plans directly into the content standards of one or more disciplines.
  • Grading and/or assessing activities.

RESOLVED that practitioners of environmental service-learning will apply these practices within the context of a proven conceptual framework

While the above section represents a set of principles and practices that should be employed throughout a service-learning experience, this one suggests that those principles and practices should be employed not randomly, but within a systematic process. In other words, find a three-step or four-step or whatever-step service-learning framework, and use it. Such frameworks are essentially problem-solving procedures, as illustrated by the example below.

Step 1: Community environmental inventory

Purpose: To learn about your community’s strengths and challenges

Step 2: Issue selection

Purpose: To select an environmental issue you want to investigate

Step 3: Policy and community practice research

Purpose: To understand the issue and explore strategies to address it

Step 4: Goal strategy and selection

Purpose: To decide what to change and how to change it

Step 5: Planning and taking civic action

Purpose: To design and complete the project

Step 6: Reflecting, going public, and planning for the future

Purpose: To make sure the impact of the experience is lasting

 

The Chinese philosopher Confucius wrote that it is better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness. It’s common to fall into the trap of cursing the difficulty we often have promoting environmental or community-character education. But it’s better to recognize that there are tools to make our jobs easier. While service-learning is far from a panacea, it holds a great deal of promise as the ideal vehicle for delivering our EE goods effectively and efficiently. Here’s hoping that we all seize the opportunity to build a citizenry equipped with the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to address the complex environmental and community problems of today, tomorrow — and all of tomorrow’s tomorrows.

 

To view the photo-rich magazine version, click here.

 

If you are not already a subscriber, please subscribe to read the full article 

Jerry T. Pharr, Jr. is the vice president of programs for Earth Force, a national nonprofit organization based in Denver, Colorado.

Editor’s note: The use of a hyphen in “service-learning,” while not consistent with rules of hyphenation, is generally accepted within the field as a way to emphasize the reciprocal relationship between service and learning.