Interconnectivity and the role of humans in environmental education

“Interconnectedness” was put forth as an attribute of EE, with many TCs suggesting a link between humans and the environment. Related to an ethic of care, some participants included the

notion of respect for, or connection to, the environment and each other. Diana defined EE as a

process for developing “a deeper sense of the earth.” Kim, whose program of study is

environmental studies, where relationships between systems, human and non-human, are part of

the pedagogy, told me that “the core of EE is developing meaningful ecological relationships.” The interconnectivity between environment and its’ inhabitants was viewed as reciprocal. Smith defined EE as learning about “an overall picture of the environment” and not using the outdoors as a tool to “learn about ourselves” but instead to learn about the relationship between the two. Diana spoke to the reciprocity between food, humans and the environment, about “the

way food affects you and you affect food” and “…the effect we have on it [the environment] and

the effect it has on us.”

Kim felt EE could be a vehicle to “recognizing yourself as part of the system and giving autonomy to nature or wilderness however you want to define it.” Consistent with this, some

authors define EE as nurturing a positive relationship between human and non-human life, while

working to make a difference for social and environmental justice (Fawcett, Bell, & Russell,

2002).

A big thing that we learn…is interconnectivity in life. I think if you were to introduce [EE] to someone, you would say how interconnected everything is, just how to look at

your everyday life and …how it affected the environment.

These statements emphasize the inseparable bonds and relationships in environmental

issues. There is a conscious effort to illustrate to students that their actions matter, not only to

themselves, but to everything around them. On the one hand, the interconnectivity of humans

and the environment is put forth as a key component to EE, yet some TCs seemed to use

language that is more human-centered, or anthropocentric, for example Smith focusing on

“consequences” to humans based on “their [student] actions.” Another example was Alex, stating damage to the “environment…is something that has a direct effect on us and it is something we all need to know.” For these teacher candidates, EE often focused on human impact on the environment and, in turn, the effects environmental problems had on humans. This is a

widespread problem of EE language and curriculum development. For example, the term

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is criticized for using anthropocentric language

and being narrowly social in scope, valuing economic progress over sustainability (Brundtland,

1987; Stables, 2001). On one level, these TCs acknowledged the negative effects that human

action had on the environment. Smith, for example, stated the importance of students being aware that their actions had “consequences” on “their future.” Where TCs like Smith, Kim and Thea made the reciprocal relationship clear, others such as Alex, Finn, Isabelle and Diana tended

to focus on the impacts and consequences humans would endure from harmful practices. Finn,

highlighted the effects of behaviour on “other people” in addition to the environment. Diana seemed unaware of her use of anthropocentric language. Although she gave a definition of EE

there was a tendency to reframe impacts of negative actions on humans. For example, she

explained that “where you eat, what you do, where you go [..] the earth right? Everyone is living on it and it affects you in a big way.” In this statement, she begins to describe connectivity

between systems, but ends with a statement that privileges the impact on humans.

The propensity to use anthropocentric language does not necessarily, though, come from

valuing human impact and experience over nature. I think two things are occurring: i)

anthropocentric language is commonplace, and TCs are not being critical of the language or

phrases they use, a distressing thought for people in education; and, ii) anthropocentric language

is used because TCs are reproducing cultural norms they encounter. As noted in the history

section, the environment is often viewed as something to dominate and control for human use

(i.e. resources needed to survive). Lastly, iii) it may be a poor attempt at making the environment

relatable to students via reinforcing that people are also animals. Using anthropomorphic

language would make the environment relatable because it reiterates that we are all animals/non-

human animals unlike anthropocentric language, which places humans above, separate and

dominant over, animals. I make this interpretation based on the statements TCs provided about

the importance of making EE relevant to the lives of students, making environmental issues

about humans and the impact it has on their lives. This was considered an effective avenue for

inspiring students to care about the environment. For example, Beth feels she can “influence

students” if “it affects them more when they grow up…if it is connected to them.”

Alex indicated that EE should help students “be aware of the things you do and the consequences [these actions] have on their future.” For Alex, the goal of EE is to make students more aware and it appears his tactic is to make it relevant for them. In this way, he consciously

changes to “sustain ourselves.” Isabelle shared that “the main thing I like to focus on is how can we take care of our environment and make sure that it is healthy and functioning properly, so we

can sustain ourselves for a long time.” These two TCs define EE as reducing the consequences of

human actions on the environment, but with the goal to sustain human life. Finn mirrored the belief that sustainability was important saying that her students need to learn “what you are doing, and how that affects the environment long and short term, and other people.”

Isabelle stated that “the way that we do things now is like…a lot of things put money first

and doesn’t think about the environment.” Understanding the relationship between systems, however, did not stop her from using a human centred narrative; it seemed very difficult to

mention care, or the environment, without relating it to the effects on humans.

3) Interdisciplinary. The tendency to define environmental education as general or