ECER Conference 1998

Ljubljana, Slovenia

16 – 20 September 1998

Action Research Project

“Environmental Education in Initial Teacher Education” (ENITT)

Franz Rauch

Klagenfurt University/IFF, Department of School and Social Learning

Sterneckstraße 15, A-9020 Klagenfurt,

Tel: 0463 2700 735, Fax: 0463 2700 759, e-mail:

Content

1. Short description of the research project3

2. Analysis of first preliminary results3

3. Aspects for future work9

References10

Annex 1: Summary presentation of projects11

Annex 2: Overview of the project21

"Environmental Education in Teacher Training (ENITT)”

An action research project

1. Short description of the research project

"Environmental Education in Teacher Training (ENITT)"[1] is an action research project which designs, implements, practically studies and documents innovative strategies and didactic settings at six teacher training colleges in Austria. Research teams (professors/associate professors, teachers, students) at the universities of Klagenfurt, Salzburg and Vienna and at the Teacher Training Colleges in Graz, Linz and Baden[2] have been working on initiatives in environment-oriented teacher training since December 1997. In this research project, environmental education is regarded as a means to further develop practice-oriented and well-reflected teacher training. Apart from the production of written research results (case studies, analyses, a draft curriculum), the project aims above all to build communication structures at the national and international levels (networks) for the exchange of experience between teacher training institutions. The project is financed by the Austrian Fund for the Promotion of Scientific Research for a provisional term of two years (until December 1999). ENITT is connected with the OECD project "Environment and School Initiatives" (ENSI) in Austria in two ways: at the level of participants, since the project manager and the project co-ordinator are also members of the Austrian ENSI-team, and with regard to subject matter, as ENITT represents the dimension of teacher training in the ENSI project (in addition to the "Ecologisation-of-Schools" programme).

The initiatives studied must meet at least some of the following criteria: (cf. Posch/Rauch 1995):

-The learning process builds on the previous experience of learners and is shaped by them. This implies that the parties involved actively influence the conceptual and methodological design of project work (from problem definition to quality assessment);

-Learning is interdisciplinary in nature, and not fragmented by disciplines;

-Learning is intimately connected to school-based environmental initiatives (co-operation between universities/teacher training colleges and schools);

-Learning includes a research component in terms of a systematic reflection on practical approaches (action research);

-The action and reflection process takes account of how work styles and organisational structures are affected and change.

2. Analysis of first preliminary results

By the end of June 1998, the first preliminary reports had been submitted by the six project groups. These reports were reviewed and commented on during a seminar. A first analysis according to the above criteria is being carried out on the basis of these reports and personal (telephone) conversations with project members serving to clarify a number of issues. The six initiatives are briefly described in the annex.

Criterion 1: The learning process builds on the previous experience of learners and is shaped by them. This implies that the parties involved actively influence the conceptual and methodological design of project work (from problem definition to quality assessment);

Under this criterion, all those involved - teacher trainers, teachers, students and pupils - are considered as learners and should be integrated in the learning process. This has been achieved at varying degrees. If we take a look at the initiatives, the spectrum ranges from an almost exclusive planning by the teachers at university/teacher training colleges, the integration of teachers at schools with which the project co-operates, to attempts to actively involve students. Pupils have not yet been included in project development so far. Wherever there was co-operation with school teachers, the students were given an opportunity to work with pupils. There is a wide gap between university teachers and pupils as regards their influence on project design. The role of teachers is illustrated later (criterion 3) in a number of examples. The influence of students so far has been limited to their being given a choice of specific subject-matters within a given content-specific and organisational framework.

In the 1998 summer term the Teacher Training College in Baden placed the entire training programme for teachers for Biology and Environmental Science under the motto of "Agriculture, food production and the environment”. The students set their own individual priorities (animal husbandry, the farmyard as a place of learning, metabolic cycles, etc.), they developed evaluation criteria together with the teacher trainers and drafted a schedule for their individual research activities. (cf. Radits 1998)

The overriding aim of the activities at the Federal Teacher Training College in Linz conducted within the framework of ENITT was defined as follows: “The teacher training college ... is to be a place where environmentally-minded action is tangible, where students experience a sense of well-being, where their personalities can grow and they can develop self-reliance in thinking and acting .” (Architektonidis/ Prexl 1998, 3) In a first step, a teacher trainer spent two weekends with students to find out about their wishes and criticisms with regard to the above objectives. Moreover, some 40 students and graduates were asked for their opinions in interviews and questionnaires. Three areas of action were deducted from the results:

1.Improvement of the spatial situation: two groups of students designed seminar rooms according to ecological and aesthetic criteria.

2.Interdisciplinary work on profession-related topics as part of the lecture courses: pilot projects are to be launched in the 1998/99 winter term.

3.Organisation of communication processes: different events are being planned and carried out together with the students (entertainment, cultural events, educational events on particular subjects). (cf. Architektonidis/Prexl 1998)

Criterion 2: Learning is interdisciplinary in nature, and not fragmented by disciplines;

The project groups at the three universities all remained within the limits of their disciplines (biology and geography). At the University of Salzburg, a team consisting of two experts on subject-didactics of biology, a botanist and a zoologist tried to co-operate within the framework of a course on "The riparian forest". However, they did not succeed in interlinking subject-related and didactic contents, but offered a succession of input blocks whose contents were not related to one another. The interdisciplinary element merely consisted of dealing with one and the same habitat ("the riparian forest") from different angles. Moreover, communication problems between the subject experts and the subject-didactics experts arose in the planning phase and during the seminar units due to differences in technical jargon. The subject experts, for instance, had difficulties with the notion of "process reflection". However, these difficulties subsided as the project progressed (cf. Pfligersdorffer/ Unterbruner 1998). In their progress report, the authors commented on the feedback received by students as follows: "Some of the students did not understand the need to convey detailed botanical and zoological knowledge, since for them a general knowledge on the riparian forest as a natural habitat was sufficient for the excursion with the pupils. Although they did not deny the need for teachers to be thoroughly informed, they still considered the focus on some of the contents as "not absolutely necessary". The underlying reason may be that the transmission of contents lacked a sufficiently interdisciplinary approach.” (Pfligersdorffer/ Unterbruner 1998, 7)

The projects at the Teacher Training Colleges in Baden and Graz are based on interdisciplinary concepts. (The overall topic chosen in Baden is "Agriculture", while Graz placed its focus on co-operation with schools for practical training within the framework of environmental-education initiatives). Both projects were launched by biologists. First contacts with representatives of other subjects have already been established (chemistry, sociology); however, it may take until the next academic year until they will be actually involved in the activities (cf. Radits 1998, Kirchsteiger et. al. 1998). At the Teacher Training College in Linz, ENITT is part of a general organisational development initiative which includes the ecologisation of the college (as part of the "Ecologisation-of schools" programme), as well as the re-structuring of interdisciplinary courses, and the promotion of communication among students and teachers (e.g. by altering the structure of the time-table, by means of joint projects, appointment of a coaching professor for students) etc. (cf. Architektonidis/ Prexl 1998)

Criterion 3: Learning is intimately connected to school-based environmental initiatives (co-operation between universities/teacher training colleges and schools);

Four projects involved school teachers. A short description of their roles and first fragmentary experiences from the reports are to illustrate the co-operation with teachers and schools:

Klagenfurt University, Department of Geography and Regional Research

In this project, students and pupils studied the Dobratsch, a mountain massif in the province of Carinthia, from the angles of touristic development versus environmental protection, analysing the natural resources, the impact of cable-car projects and other touristic infrastructure. As part of a subject-didactics course, the students developed a subject-matter and didactic teaching concept which they adapted and implemented at a college of tourism in co-operation with three teachers and three forms (14th grade, post-secondary level). In this project, the teachers were responsible for the following tasks:

-identification of a topic and wishes as regards practical implementation in teaching (each of the three forms worked on a different focus within the overall theme);

-organisation and co-ordination of the project at the schools and liaison with extra-mural institutions;

-assisting students in the organisation of teaching;

-written documentation on the progress of the project.
(cf. Palencsar/Kreis 1998, 9)

The draft case study (cf. Palencsar/Kreis 1998) conveys the following picture: In the beginning, the students displayed a sense of insecurity and stage fright vis-à-vis the school, which is reflected in many questions concerning contacts and interaction with teachers. After the school teachers had asked the students to hold several lessons on their own using the team teaching approach, the students focused on practical issues of teaching: How to set the tone? Lecturing or close interaction with the pupils? Assignment of roles during lessons? How to prepare for questions that may crop up? etc.

Frequently, problems of an organisational nature occurred during the implementation phase at the school (e.g. fixing of schedules). The project coincided with the final phase of the school year, marked by a heavy load of examinations. Moreover, the school year at this school ends already in mid-June, one month earlier than the summer term at university (and the majority of all other schools). (cf. Palencsar/ Kreis 1998, 12-13). The three student groups all reported scheduling difficulties which affected co-operation with the teachers in a negative manner. In one instance, a prepared third unit could not be held because the pupils were no longer at school, a fact which not even the teacher had been aware of. (cf. Lukan et. al. 1998). All three groups reported postponements at short notice, which resulted in stress and pressure (cf. Kleinhagauer et. al. 1998, Gigacher et. al. 1998, Lukan et. al. 1998). They also described other problems: one group, for instance, blamed the teacher for failing to assign a specific mandate, providing inadequate support and failing to prepare the pupils. (cf. Gigacher et. al. 1998). Another group stated: "The teachers at the Carinthian College for Tourism in Villach (author's note: school where the students taught classes) left little leeway for the students concerning the design of teaching units, which affected our motivation to teach in a negative way.” (Lukan et. al. 1998, 5)

Apart from the problems experienced in the co-operation with the teachers, the students gained many positive experiences during their work at school: an extremely active participation by the pupils (cf. Kleinhagauer et. al. 1998, Gigacher et. al. 1998); a considerable latitude granted by the teachers (cf. Kleinhagauer et. al. 1998); experiencing day-to-day teaching practice at school (cf. Lukan et. al. 1998) etc. Therefore, they expressed their wish to "step up this form of co-operation, since .... the rewards ..... in any case justified the extra effort”. (Palencsar/Kreis 1998, 13)

Salzburg University, Department of Didactics in Science

The "Riparian forest" as a natural habitat was the subject of an eight-hour course. As one of the main tasks, the students had to plan and practically organise an excursion of several hours, setting up "activity stations" in a riparian forest with pupils of a 3rd form of a secondary academic school (7th grade). During this course, the class teacher was involved in the preparations for the excursion. She was able to voice her wishes and expectations, informed her pupils and was available as a partner for discussions in the selection of topics and assignments for the excursion, and in the detailed planning. She also took part in the excursion. For her participation, the teacher was given a one-hour lecturing assignment at the university (cf. Pfligersdorffer/ Unterbruner 1998). On account of conflicting schedules, she could not participate right from the beginning. She experienced her late start as a disadvantage, since she had missed important experiences at the beginning of the course (subject-matter and didactic introduction). One of the main findings derived by the university teachers was the need to involve school teachers already in the planning stage in the future (even though this may require additional organisational efforts). (cf. oral information by Ulrike Unterbruner)

In polarity profiles, the students rated the excursion as the "best" day of the entire project. (cf. Pfligersdorffer/Unterbruner 1998). This was also corroborated in interviews which I conducted with six students. Students consider the integration of teachers an advantage mainly because they are able to obtain practically-relevant information and support in the planning of classroom instruction.

Vienna University, Department of Zoology

Six teams consisting of a teacher, one form and a number of students each worked under the guidance of two tutors and a university teacher. They developed different didactic approaches for the lecture course ("Water") and organised an excursion to a river. Joint events took place (presentation of projects, introduction of the project methodology and action research, excursion to the river, presentation of progress reports, final presentations and reflection). All of the six teams met several times. The students were to participate in approx. three teaching units at the school. (cf. Fliegenschnee et. al. 1998, 5)

The roles assigned to the teachers were defined unspecifically: they were to provide their class and their active participation and co-operate with the students in a team. This task profile was met in highly different manners. On the one hand, the teachers used different approaches of integrating the contents of the course in regular classroom instruction. Activities ranged from long-term projects which the teachers carried out with their pupils on the subject of water (which they would have done any way even without participation in the project) to individual lessons which were the result of participating in the excursion offered by the university teachers. The integration of the students differed greatly: sometimes they were "apprentices" acting under the guidance of teachers, at other times they could teach individual parts of lessons themselves. Occasionally, they were also involved in the preparation of classes and during instruction as "team partners" (personal note of the tutor Schelakovsky).

Federal Teacher Training College in Graz

At her practice day in Biology and Environmental Science, a student training to become a secondary general school teacher operated stations on the subject of "The forest is full of life" with pupils of a second form at secondary level I (6th grade). In this project, she worked under the guidance of a teacher trainer and a mentor (teacher at the practice school), in whose class she taught six lessons. Formally, the mentor has the following general tasks : guiding students in the preparation, implementation and follow-up phases of the practical course, observation and verbal assessment of the student, co-operation with the subject advisor. In the course of the project, the mentor defined success of her work as follows: “ ... if Gertraud (author's note: the student) came to me and told me she was happy that she could discuss problems, got some new ideas, learnt a possible way of doing work as a teacher. ...” She sees herself in the role of someone who supports the student in finding her own way and her own personal approach to teaching (cf. Kirchsteiger et. al. 1998, 12)

At the end of the practice day, the student described the co-operation with the mentor, who had given her useful tips and hints and with whom she had been able to build a climate of frank discussion, as her most positive experience. The mentor, in turn, responded that systematic scientific observation and thorough documentation had stimulated her to deliberately focus on certain details in the student's teaching, while previously she had limited herself to a more global observation. The close observation and feedback, however, had left little room for "... working together undisturbed ... one-to-one talks ... and interpersonal relations...” . Therefore she felt she had not been able to accomplish her task the way she had intended to. She expressed her hope that in the next term she would to be able to work for a number of hours alone with the student. In her view, the research aspect should be given less weight in the project (see also next criterion). (cf. Kirchsteiger et. al. 1998, 14-15)

Criterion 4: Learning includes a research component in terms of a systematic reflection on practical approaches (action research)

All of the project teams kept diaries. Reluctance on the part of the students was reported, although the diaries served as a basis for the project reports. The underlying reasons may have been previous bad experience in keeping a diary on lecture courses: in one case, a student mentioned the disclosure of highly personal data as a reason, in another case a student reported that the records had not really been included in the learning and reflection process. A variety of different survey methods were used in addition to the diaries: interviews, observation notes, sketches, questionnaires, polarity profiles, reflection and feedback sessions recorded on tape, video recordings etc. Some of the data had not yet been analysed at the time the progress reports had to be submitted. Although the progress reports are all based on surveyed data, the information is still presented and quoted in a very fragmented way in most of the texts.