Minutes: First Meeting of “Greening Schools Research Network” (GSRN)
(formerly “Research Assistance Group for Thinking About Greening Schools” –R.A.G.T.A.G.S.)
Nov 8-10 2003, Toronto, Canada
(Minutes: Natalie Swayze and Mary Ellen Lewis)
Meeting Convened by:
Janet Dyment, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.
Michael Duffin, Antioch New England Institute, Keene, NH, USA
Additional Participants:
M.J. Barret, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Rhea Maher, Evergreen, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Georgia Simms, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Leanna Baird, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Natalie Swayze, Winnipeg Naturalist Office, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Mary Ellen Lewis, Graduate Center, CUNY, NYC, USA.
Regrets:
Libby McCann, Earth Partnership for Schools, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Lianne Fisman, M.I.T., Cambridge, MA, USA
Louise Chawla, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY. USA
------------------------------------------------
Agenda:
Saturday Evening, November 8, 2003---Dinner, Introductions, Informal
Discussions. Slide Show of International Green Schools by Sharon Danks, EcoSchools, San Francisco, CA, USA
Sunday Morning, November 9, 2003--- Goal Setting and Presentation and
Discussion of Participant’s Individual Research Projects
Facilitator: Michael Duffin (see Appendix 1)
Sunday Afternoon, November 9, 2003--- An Overview of the Field of
Green School Research: Roundtable Discussions/Brainstorming
Facilitator: Janet Dyment (see Appendix 2 and 3)
Monday Morning, November 10, 2003--- “Next Steps” and “Dialogue with Cam
Collyer”, Director of Evergreen
Facilitator: M. J. Barrett (see Appendix 4 and 5)
Appendix 1
Presentations and Discussion of Individual Research Projects
q Michael Duffin
§ Program Evaluation – purpose to generate information useful for local decision makers (vs. “research”)
§ Place Based Education Evaluation Collaborative (PEEC) – Four organizations: SSP, CMP, CO-Seed, FFEC
§ Michael conducts program evaluation for these four organizations
§ Conceptual framework for program evaluation process: “Working Model: Change Theory for Place-Based Education” (handout provided) – Michael requested input from RAGTAGS to enhance the credibility of his recommendations to these four organizations i.e. are these the right steps? Or right order?
PLACED BASED ED. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
STUDENT |
|
Improved EE |
TEACHERS |
|
Academic achievement |
COMMUNITIES |
|
Community Vitality |
COMMENTS
§ “Social capital” needs to be more clearly defined (class, ethnicity, race etc. and steps to increase social capital)
§ Reverse role of behavior and attitude? Linear relation or circular? What is the relationship between attitude and behavior?
§ See Danish “Action Competency” concept
§ See “Minding the Gap” issue of Environmental Education Research
§ Incorporate some of the barriers/challenges to these steps
§ Allow for more local contingencies
§ Linear model implies proscription (feels very top down)
§ How to use Case Studies as exemplars vs. evidence when creating theories (need for diverse models and therefore greater individual interpretation)
§ Be cautious about using the term “behavior change” as you may turn people off
- Critiques of Piaget (gender biases)
- Difference between commonalities and generalizations
- How to account for cultural differences
- Definitely not a clear “cause and effect”
§ Program implementation goals shouldn’t be the research priority
§ See “Growing School” available on-line from Allan Reid (U.of Bath, UK)
q Janet Dyment
§ Partnered with Toronto District School Board and Evergreen to complete PhD
§ Canada is comparatively behind other nations in these initiatives
(See Leiberman & Hoody – “Closing the Achievement Gap”)
§ Need for wide based (“less rich”) research to support claims, however Janet chose to include detailed case studies as well (combined approach)
§ Surveys distributed to 100 schools in Toronto area that self-identified as having a school greening project. Each school was sent four surveys: for principal, lead teacher, uninvolved teacher, parent (similar to Lieberman & Hoody design); Good response rate - 43%
§ Variety of process and perception questions included in the survey – good, positive feedback
§ Five schools selected to do follow-up case studies (one school from each zone, where the principal was interested in participating)
§ QUESTION/PROBLEM: The survey was designed to produce quantitative results (great for Evergreen), but qualitative results (case studies) show a different story (teachers/parent over- estimate success)
- How to deal with conflicting stories?
- How to decide what methods to use? The Politics of research
COMMENTS
§ Need to address these problems in the discussion section of thesis
§ Clearer definition of criteria needed; need energy for facilitating these projects in schools, which points to the direction of where training is needed to maximize use (New England examples)
§ Use this as a conclusion i.e. Environmental Education training is needed
§ Concern over question wordings and suggests students be interviewed (ethics issues though)
§ Discrepancy is “the story”. This has political implications i.e. mixing the qualitative and quantitative to provide a different lens and focus
§ Are you getting a “cover story” from the schools?
§ Analyze which schools did not return the surveys and why.
q Mary Ellen Lewis
§ Handout provided – “What Is It Like to Be a Teacher in a Participatory Action Research EE Project?”
§ Rich case study conducted at one school – on PAR pedagogy
§ Asking project teachers to “tell their schoolyard tale” as they see it
§ How to move from a “thickly described” case study to a working model (theorizing) of participatory pedagogy?
§ Initial paper, focused on one teacher’s schoolyard story with related social history, was developed at a seminar at the U. of Bath, UK on case studies for Feb ’04 special issue of EER on Case Studies.
§ QUESTIONS/PROBLEMS:
- How can researchers best “represent” PAR pedagogy?
- How can teachers’ experiences be interpreted within and
across case studies to get at variables/themes? How to go from case study to theory/model/ policy change?
COMMENTS
§ Do people have a primary identity? Aren’t these constantly shifting creating a non-unitary story? Need to study persons over time.
- Intersubjective nature of story i.e. listener is part of the story creation
- “Thick description”; what about “thick analysis”?
- Use discourse theory for analysis
§ Collective case studies of Green Schools in several countries as sites of social transformation; maybe case studies should only “speak for themselves” and not be generalized or theorized.
q Georgia Simms.
“Thinking Green”: An Investigation of Ontario Environmental Education
§ QUESTION: How to bring these two types of solutions together?
COMMENTS
§ Do it as a formal literature review
§ In your conclusion, suggest possible further areas for research-- not “my idea”
§ Decide is it going to be a “skim” or a detailed focus on one issue
§ Interview one organization only and ask what research they need done. e. g. LSF needs research
q Natalie Swayze
§ Concerns – ability of School Greening projects to produce quality habitat areas; availability of long-term funding for projects and possibility of curriculum changes
§ Interests – focus on Inner-City schools and issues of self-efficacy
QUESTION: ideas/suggestions for graduate study
COMMENTS
§ Identify “what is feasible” for creating habitat (different objectives for Natural Areas management and EE?)
§ Criteria for SGG (many different purposes); can achieve all objectives i.e. habitat creation, children’s play spaces etc. – need a focus
for funding--creation of “shade areas” is currently a fundable objective
q Leanna Baird.
§ Literature Review: What are the social changes in communities that have caused decreased EE and increased disconnection from the environment? How have 20th century dynamics (urbanization, media, and industrialization) affected community and how has this affected EE?
§ Research: How can bringing EE into the classroom, specifically the physical environment, address this issue i.e. meet spiritual/connectivity goals?
QUESTION: What type of methodology to use? How to analyze?
COMMENTS:
§ Use one Case Study as a Best Practice approach; the scope of the literature Review is too broad
§ Be careful about assuming that what teachers say is “true”
§ Develop a set of indicators
§ Paul Hart’s recent book would be useful; stick with one teacher, one classroom
§ Survey the types of methods used in the literature for ideas
q Rhea Dawn Mahar
§ As a practitioner, interested in hands-on work and solutions; looking for opportunities to affect social change; concern over lack of EE interest amongst teachers and lack of effective role models for EE
§ FORMAL (learning outcomes), INFORMAL (social interactions) and HIDDEN (school ethos and community pride)
§ Recording aggressive incidents at Inner City schools – funding support possibly from Dept. of Justice?
§ Need to support teachers, in servicing etc.
§ Dilemma quantitative research = $/policy change, but qualitative research can be more valuable
COMMENTS:
§ Look at publications that combine these two approaches (qualitative and quantitative)
§ Look for funding for teacher training from external organization
§ Teacher action research projects
§ See Paul Hart and Cathy Nolan’s writings as good examples of effective case studies.
§ See Janet’s Literature Review on Green Schools
§ Use connections between reduced crime rates and greening in Chicago Public Housing-- (empirical data)
§ See Mark Rickinson’s special issue on “learning” in EER
q M.J. Barret
§ How to increase the demand for EE and Sustainability Education (SE).
§ What kinds of research do we need to show EE/SE is important? What kinds of education are consistent with this?
§ How do we engage both students and policy makers?
§ LES’s (Learning for a Sustainable Future) Youth Forums (youth define their issues and community issues. Partners help them achieve goals) – qualitative, open-ended, narrative research tells the “story” of what’s going on with these youth and illuminates the effects of their engagement– but LSF wants to know “What are the effects of the program?”
QUESTION: What to present to LSF – qualitative or quantitative? Can’t draw a linear line to show Case Study results= program effects.
COMMENTS:
§ Educate funders about the value of qualitative data and the need to be patient on “final figures”
§ Need to first identity key variables; show that this qualitative research is needed for determining future quantitative research directions i.e. raising questions/hypothesizing.
§ ACTION COMPETENCY—critical thinking skills and initiative to engage in democratic process is a possible research approach.
§ Raise questions---What patterns are emerging and will these variables work in a different setting?
§ But funders want a bottom line that meets their objectives
Janet’s Report on “Other Voices” Who Sent “Regrets”
q Lianne Fisman – summary sent via email
§ Effects of neighborhood based EE on local social networks
§ Exploring the relationship between housing characteristics (particularly segregation) and school outcomes.
§ Degree to which environmental education programs that target youth shape children’s perceptions of their neighborhood.
q Libby McCann – summary sent via email
§ Challenges of identifying and measuring the educational impacts of student inquiry on school grounds
§ Qualitative vs. quantitative dilemma especially re: funding pressures
q Alan Reid, Bill Scott, Nick Jones (U. of Bath, UK) – summary sent via email
An external evaluation of 6 garden-based food security projects involving students going to local farms.
South African Eco Schools Perspective
Looking at EE as a tool for social transformation in post-apartheid
South Africa.
Peterboro Green-Up’s Research
School transportation
-----------------------------------
APPENDIX 2
Defining the Components of Green Schools
q Curriculum –including emotional/social personal development and peace and justice
School Grounds
Community Based – Cross-Sectoral Partnerships (service learning, community partnerships)
School Sustainability
Interpretation (“the building as a teacher”)
Building design
Water
Transportation
Solid waste
Toxic
Action-Oriented/Participatory/Transformative
Interdisciplinary
Extra – Curricular including after school programs
Empowerment
Administrative Support
Defining the Scope of Green School Research
§ What is researchable?
§ What is worth researching?
§ What is already known?
§ What gaps exist?
Brainstorming Alternative Names for “Green Schools”
§ Learnscapes (OECD –Northern Europe and Australia)
§ Education for Sustainability
§ Environmental Education, Environmental Learning
§ Growing Places
§ Place-Based Education
§ Emancipatory Education (Freire)
§ Participatory Education
§ Socially Critical EE
§ Budding Opportunities
§ Environmental Justice
§ Action Competency
§ Green Learning
§ Transforming People/Places/School
§ Outdoor Education
§ Natural and Built Environments
§ Schoolyard Greening
Situating Our Individual Research Within these Definitions:
Looking at Both Processes and Outcomes; Teaching and Learning
Janet: School Grounds Greening (SGG)
Issue related to potential impacts on student learning and academic achievement
Social relations/behaviors
Play
Environmental awareness
Health
Safety and crime
Literature review addresses relationship between SGG and above factors
(Also action competency and participation)
Rhea: School Grounds Greening – Waste Management – practitioner
- Facilitating the participatory process
Leanna: Community – Based
- Integrating the physical/natural environment into teaching
- Value system children learn to associate with the environment
MJ: Teacher Identity
- Barriers/constraints to teaching EE
- Action Oriented EE/SE
Michael:
- Ways that EE changes teacher practice
- EE ties to academic achievement
- Community perception of Green Schools
Mary Ellen: Participatory Pedagogy
- Obstacles and opportunities within school structures
APPENDIX 3
A. What Research Is Needed: 25 Agendas for Green Schools Research
1. Curriculum Research
Pan Canadian Science Curriculum (STSE)
Analysis of Curriculum components (see Lucie Sauvé’s work in EER)
Various local curricula for EE and SE are available, however, they need to
Be studied in relation to practical classroom teaching experiences.
2. Process Research
Mark Rickinson – in EER issue on “learning” notes that there is more research done on outcomes than on processes since they are “measurable”. A case needs to be made to policy-makers and funding sources that the complexities of learning and behavior require more qualitative research.
3. Developing Action Competence
4. Post-Structuralist Understandings of Identity
5. Need for longitudinal studies of Teachers and Students
6. Range of ways that Green Schools affect parents and communities
7. Relationship between design features and outcomes
8. The Field is under theorized field – why do changes happen?
9. Need to embrace a wide range of emerging research methodologies (e.g.
post-structuralism, feminism, narrative, grounded theory, phenomenology, critical theory etc.)
10. A Critique of Method is needed. What do our methodologies allow us to
see? Not see?
11. Better ways of measuring outcomes. (See “Measuring Results”, a literature
review by Barbara Schneider & Nicole Chesloch, Co-evolution Institute, San Francisco, CA.
12. Teaching Practices –background, experience, training, incentives,
barriers/challenges
13. Dose Response. Correlating differential EE exposure to outcomes
14. Political Factors within schools and boards that affect practices
15. Cooperative Initiatives with the local community
16. Studies of broader cultural and social change impacting EE
17. Environmental Justice – updating this research
18. Social Justice/Equity--analyzing class, gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality
issues. Are we theorizing a middle class/white male agenda for school Grounds? What do local schools and communities want?
19. How to involve very young students in greening projects?
20. Global Research: comparing projects nationally and internationally
21. Educational Reform or Educational Fad?
22. Affective – social/emotional goals and outcomes
23. Peer Education (e.g. older students/younger students)
24. Training teachers and crediting them with expertise to train other teachers
25. Teacher Action Research’s potential for SGG teachers to ask their own
questions, develop skills to do their own research.
APPENDIX 4
What Next? A Discussion of Goals for This Group
Establishing an on-going informal network of greening schools researchers
Re-naming the group
Focusing on how the group can benefit each participant’s research
Inviting the participation of other individuals and organizations. Sharing minutes.
Keeping goals MODEST (similar to RIPEN—“Research in Participatory
Education Network”
Planning annual meetings as a group during NAAEE conferences at
“roundtables”
Developing a GSRN List-Serve through a university to communicate with each
other
Discussion: Who Else Should Be Invited to Join This Research Network and Who Has Contact Information
(Note: Some of these names and spellings need to be checked)
- Evergreen (Janet)
- Learning Through Landscapes (Mary Ellen)
- CREE, Center for Research on Environmental Education, U. Of Bath, UK--- Bill Scott, Alan Reid, Mark Rickinson (Mary Ellen)
- Lakehead University-- Connie Russell, Bob Jickling (Janet)
- Libby McCann, U. of Wisconsin
- Lianne Fisman, M.I.T.
- Sharon Danks, Eco Schools, San Francisco, CA
- Communities of Tomorrow, Regina (M.J.)
- Go--“living lab” for infrastructure projects, Regina (M.J.)
- School Greening Research Group that met at Boston 2002 NAAEE
(Mary Ellen)
- Mary Rivkin
- Louise Chawla
- Karen Malone, Australia
- Jim Taylor, Rob O’Donoghue, South Africa (Janet)
- Ann Bell, Toronto
- Learnscapes (OECD) – Western Europe and Australia (Mary Ellen)
- RIPEN – Research in Participatory Environmental Education (Mary Ellen)
- Marianne Krazny, Cornell—(Mary Ellen)
- Linda Cronin-Jones, Florida
- Boston School Yard Initiative, Kirk Myer (Mary Ellen)
- Children’s Environments Research Group, CUNY, Roger Hart (Mary Ellen)
- Others who responded via email to Toronto meeting invitation (Janet)
- National Gardening Association, Joan White (Mary Ellen)
- American Community Gardening Association (Mary Ellen)
- Kate Clavio
- Project Wild, School Yard Habitat (Mary Ellen)
- National Wildlife Federation
- American Horticultural Society
- American Horticultural Therapy Association (Mary Ellen)
- GreenThumb, NYC (Mary Ellen)
- FERN, a UK EE Research group, Mark Rickinson (Mary Ellen)
- Swedish Research Groups—Movium, Cecilia Lundholm’s group, Lund Group (Mary Ellen)
- Paul Hart and Kathy Nolan (M.J.)
- Sue Gesner (M.J.)
- Chicago Botanic Gardens (Mary Ellen)
Decisions Made at Toronto Meeting and Responsibilities Assigned
1. Natalie and Mary Ellen will write up minutes of this meeting and circulate them
to all meeting participants’ for corrections/additions and approval.
2. Michael has a public access web site at Antioch; can post items sent to him
(i.e. web links etc.) This web site also has resources. He will look into possibility of setting up space on this site for GSRN
3. Post approved minutes on website
4. New Name chosen for group: “GREENING SCHOOLS
RESEARCH NETWORK” (GSRN)
5. Plan to meet again at NAAEE conference, Biloxi Mississippi, November 2004
- Watch for request for proposals deadline coming up soon. Janet and Mary Ellen volunteered to write draft and circulate to GSRN.
- Opportunity for offering a “round table” session as outreach
6. Develop a list of Individuals and Organizations to invite to “join” GSRN
7. Invite this listing to become members of GSRN by saying something like: we
met and formed an informal network. We know you’re involved in greening schools research. Would you like to become part of this network, receive our minutes and participate in our list serve? Don’t send minutes with this invitation. Who will do this?
8. Look into funding to support:
-GSRN members meeting together (travel etc. expenses)
-Offering a teacher support service? (e.g. a 2-day Teacher Action
Research Training Institute for teachers)
-Collaborative writing and publishing projects such as;
A journal article developed from these minutes focusing on past,
present and needed (our 25 Agenda items) research on greening schools.
An edited book compiling our research and others
-A collaborative research project (perhaps national or international in
scope)
Natalie and MJ will look at funding options (cross-reference lists)
Possible Funding Sources: SEED, TD Bank’s Friends of the Environment
Group, Learning Through Landscapes, Evergreen, National Science Foundation (small grants for innovative approaches to evaluating envir. ed. programs), (How was Lynn Cherry funded to bring 20 organizations together to work on her publication?)
9. Canadian Journal of EE (editor: Bob Jickling) is interested in several articles
on green school grounds. Deadline is September 1, 2004. Janet will
circulate call for papers.
10. Circulate Readings/resources/ bibliographies among GSRN members by
email or on web server.
11. Continue to consider pros and cons of linking/ aligning (formally or informally)
with organizations such as LSF or university research groups such as the
Children’s Environments Research Group at CUNY, NYC (Roger Hart).
Consider setting up a “panel” of “participating and supporting organizations
and individuals” instead??
APPENDIX 5
Discussion with Cam Collyer, Director of Evergreen
(…Thanks to Cam and Evergreen for hosting this meeting)
Janet’s Recap of Our Meeting Discussions:
Sunday Morning:
Individual presentations of research and opportunities for dialogue
Shared challenges:
- | 
