Reductionism

One obstacle to a shift toward a more holistic, ecological worldview is the dominant Western view of science, which is often described as reductionist (Capra, 1982, 1997;

Flannery, 2005; Tudge, 2008). In order to make sense of a complex world, scientists tend to ‗reduce‘ it, that is divide it into smaller and smaller units which can be measured and tested. Reductionist science has contributed to a reductionist worldview identified as

‗modernism‘ (Huckle, 1996; Selby; 2000) that has been blamed for many of the environmental problems facing humanity. Other terms for describing a reductionist perspective include ‗mechanistic‘ and ‗Cartesian‘ (Capra, 1982). Flannery (2005) claims this type of thinking is gaining ground across the world. Malcolm (2003) maintains that reductionism and dualism are set deeply in the Western science curriculum despite considerable critique from the science community. Sterling (2001) proposes the following paradox: while proponents of the globalization of education believe they are at the forefront of change, they are, in fact, behind the times by: continuing to embrace a mechanistic view of teaching and learning; ignoring sustainability issues; and failing to recognize the ascension of ecological thinking.

One reason reductionism/modernism may be in the ascendant is because current education practices tend to replicate the dominant paradigm (Sterling, 1996, 2001). The

transmissive approach to education involves the direct delivery of facts, skills and values – determined by a small group of experts – from teachers to pupils. In this sense, education is about ―social reproduction,‖ which ―inculcates the preferred message, agenda, ideology, or consumer preference‖ (Jickling & Wals, 2008, p. 7). Referring to previous research, Sipos, Battisti and Grimm insist that the ―explicit mission of contemporary school reform is to prepare students to perpetuate‖ ecologically and socially exploitive economies (2008, p. 70). However, as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment warns: ―It is important not to ‗transmit‘ unsustainable practices from one generation to the next‖ (2004, p. 44).

At the same time, the Guidelines for Environmental Education in New Zealand Schools assert, ―simply raising awareness of these issues is insufficient to bring about change‖

(Ministry of Education, 1999, p. 8). Jensen and Schnack (1997) agree that knowledge alone does not necessarily bring about behaviour change. Sterling (2001) emphasizes that not only does a simplistic/deterministic approach to EE not work, but that too much information about environmental crises can actually disempower learners by inducing high levels of awareness but low levels of understanding. Reductionism, not only in science education but also in environmental education, leads to a superficially informed society where individuals know but do not act (Blumstein & Saylan, 2007).

Jensen and Schnack (1997) address the anxiety and worry that exist in young people surrounding environmental problems, and express the need for a new way of teaching

―from which pupils acquire the courage, commitment and desire to get involved in the social interests concerning these subjects‖ (p. 164). They indicate that traditional science-based EE leads to knowledge about environmental issues, but not to action competence.

This knowledge-based approach – even if it includes activities and investigations – tends to overwhelm students with feelings of powerlessness (Hillcoat, Forge, Fien & Baker, 1995). When people feel powerless to change the existing system they fall into the habits of that system, even when those habits are patently unsustainable. The failure of environmental education, suggest Blumstein and Saylan, (2007), is indicated by the disconnect between learning and personal responsibility to take action. Sterling (2001) recognizes that this situation can lead to ‗breakdown‘, instead of ‗breakthrough‘.

Holmgren (2002), co-founder of the permaculture concept, considers that most formal science education is reductionist, and Orr (2005b) concedes that indoor laboratories and classrooms are perfect locations to reduce the world to morsels of information. Meadows (2005) warns that we can never understand our world in the way reductionist science promises.

Reductionism may be expressed in the science classroom by both what is included and what is not included in the curriculum. Capra (2008) recognizes that seeing interconnections is difficult for us because such a view has not traditionally been emphasized in a science where, ―we have been told things need to be measured and weighed. But relationships cannot be measured and weighed; relationships need to be mapped‖ (p. 2). He identifies two main reasons why most people are challenged by systems thinking. ―One is that systems are nonlinear – they‘re networks – while our whole scientific tradition is based on linear thinking‖ (Capra, 2005, pp. 19-20). Capra also argues that our culture is materialist in both its values and worldview (2005). Under these circumstances, the role of the citizen is reduced to that of consumer, and the message of consumerism suggests a limitless supply of consumables (Bowers, 1996;

Perkins, 2004).

Blumstein and Saylan (2007) place over-consumption at the heart of the environmental crisis. Citizens of most OECD nations are told by businesses and governments alike that it is their duty to spend money to support the economy (Perkins, 2004), but at what cost?

Kasser (2002) examines the diverse and wide-ranging effects of consumerism in The High Price of Materialism. Of particular significance, he reports an inverse relationship between materialistic values and interest in environmental issues. Orr laments: ―We may talk about how everything is ecologically connected, but the terrible simplifiers are working overtime to take it all apart‖ (2002, p. 31). Clover argues that the strongest educational process functioning during the 20^th century was ―the informal process of learning to consume‖ (cited in Chapman & Pearce, 2001, p. 392). Bowers (1996) points to evidence suggesting the advertising messages of consumerism far outweigh those of school-based environmental education when it comes to influencing behavior in young people. Likewise, Waters (2005) presents a case that our culture may indeed value young

industrialization of education results in a reductionist system that treats children as consumers, feeding them disconnected bits of information. Not only does this reductionist treatment of learners work against the nurturing of systems thinkers (Capra, 2005, 2008; Orr, 1992), it would also appear to work against some of the most basic elements of scientific literacy, such as an understanding of carrying capacity or non-renewable resources.

Osborne (2003) calls on research that indicates many science teachers promote the value of science study as a pathway to a career, instead of its overall value within a culture.

This reduces science education to a means to an economic end and perpetuates the model of education to serve a minority of learners who will pursue science careers (Osborne, 2003). Other authors note that the rational, positivist approach to science education creates an illusion that it is objective, consistent and value-free (Bencze & Hodson, 1999;

Hodson, 2003). Pedretti, Bencze, Hewitt, Romkey and Jivraj (2008) found that science teachers were reluctant to include socio-scientific and environmental issues for fear that it would devalue the curriculum. Other reasons for science teachers not including EE pedagogies in their classrooms have been identified, such as low environmental and sustainability pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), an overcrowded curriculum, low confidence in taking children out of the classroom, a lack of resources and preparation time, and a lack of personal commitment to sustainability education (Kim & Fortner, 2006; McDonald & Dominguez, 2010; Samuel, 1993). As discussed in Section 2.3.1, Gough (2004) asserts that science education still functions in much the way it had in the 1980s (as described by Fensham, 1985) and before, the characteristics of which pose threats to scientific and ecological literacy, and would appear to contribute to attrition in school science. Given the international support for scientific literacy (Harlen, 2001;

Millar, 2008; OECD, 2007) and the argument for holism in environmental education (Barker & Rogers, 2004; Blumstein & Saylan, 2007; Williams, 2008), the question of why education remains more transmissive and reductionist than transformative and holistic deserves consideration. This question is addressed in the following section.