Читать книгу The Wiley Handbook of Sustainability in Higher Education Learning and Teaching - Группа авторов - Страница 30

There is growing interest in the role of the informal curriculum, the interrelations between formal and informal sustainability learning (Winter and Cotton 2012; Gramatakos and Lavau 2019), and the links between the formal, informal, and campus (part of the hidden, Cotton et al. 2020) curriculum (Hopkinson et al. 2008). This section explores these connections within the context of the SSH project and how the connections can be used to maximize learning.

The degree of university (or Students' Union) involvement in informal and non‐formal curricula can vary widely, as can the different learning communities that students create and engage with (Gramatakos and Lavau 2019). These range from top‐down designed and managed, but non‐credit bearing, official schemes (non‐formal curriculum), to structures, support, training, and recognition for student‐led societies, to the range of university‐linked activities in which students might be engaged that can be invisible to staff (informal curriculum; Table 2.1). The SSH project on which reflections in this chapter draw has moved in time from the non‐formal end of the informal spectrum, where although student‐initiated and non‐credit bearing, staff were more closely involved and had expectations of student reporting, to a more informal context, with no real external accountability requirements. Staff still take a key role in promoting the SSH project to recruit new students, and hence the project can be viewed still as having non‐formal elements.

The project has connections to the formal curriculum, which acted as a source of student inspiration, cohort creation, and recruitment to the project; it takes place across the non‐formal‐informal curriculum spectrum, and involves the hidden curriculum, through the place in which it is situated. Each of the four project initiators studied the same sustainability‐focused degree program. Students choosing this degree, already clearly had an interest in and passion for sustainability, making it easy for students with similar interests and passions to find each other. It is unlikely that such a project would happen with a student working in isolation, and so the opportunity for like‐minded students to meet and share ideas is important and can be catalyzed by the curriculum. This degree program also specifically aims to empower students to drive change, and one core module has an explicit aim of providing students “with the knowledge, understanding and skills to improve the environmental performance of their current and future employers” (Keele University 2021), which can be interpreted as the aim of developing change agency skills. This module also provides students with insights into sustainability in the university and the opportunity to think critically about existing university sustainability practices and to make recommendations for change. This provided a fertile backdrop for the development of the SSH project.

Activist learning activities situated in the formal curriculum have the advantage of providing scaffolding of support for students. The student in the second year of the project who expressed dissatisfaction at how much was achieved, referred to a number of challenges that they felt affected what the project achieved. This included the perception of limited commitment of others in the house, difficulties with communication, and resignation that they were unable to come up with ideas:

I'm not very much of an ideas person, which I think is another issue with me living in the bungalow this year because I am a doer rather than a thinker.

(Student 3, Year 2 of project)

In a formal curriculum setting, several of these issues could have been addressed with staff support to help manage group challenges and help provide inspiration for action. However, in the context of the project being entirely student‐led and centered around their own private time and living spaces, any communication of difficulties and requests for support needed to be student driven.

The interviews with students demonstrated little reflection on learning beyond surface level knowledge and skill development. A lack of reflection in activism has the danger of being labeled as “naive activism,” devoid of reflection and purpose (Costa et al. 2021b). Within the formal curriculum, formal reflective assessment, scaffolded by training in reflective and critical thinking, may have helped students to develop further as true activist learners.

Yet, if activist learning is situated firmly in the formal curriculum, this undoubtedly will have its challenges. Student 2, who expressed the most externally focused activist goals for the project, saw a value to the project in being:

a place to make mistakes.

(Student 2, Year 2 of project)

A project for academic credit does not leave that same space for mistakes and failure or for unplanned and spontaneous experimentation. Requiring activism of students in a course, inherently requires risk for the students (Bubriski and Semaan 2009; Ludlow 2010). One could argue that reflective assessments in the formal curriculum, could provide the opportunity for failure where the assessment is based on reflection rather than the project outcome itself, yet failure that takes the form of diminishing interest and motivation and burnout – real challenges in activist projects – would undoubtedly impact on a credit‐bearing assessment. Student activist projects clearly come with challenges for the students involved. Activism located in the informal curriculum at least allows students to step away from projects if the pressures become too great, although this could compound pressures on other students still committed to the project.

Another disadvantage of activist learning in the informal curriculum is the potential for cliques to form (Briggs et al. 2019), making it difficult for new students or students with different backgrounds or divergent interests to engage with projects. This is likely specifically heightened for the SSH, because it takes place in a private home. Although the SSH became a hub for student sustainability activism, debate, and discussion, it is likely that this was at the exclusion of other individuals and groups, who did not feel comfortable entering this private space. Table 2.2 summarizes some of the advantages and disadvantages of promoting activist learning through the formal, non‐formal, and informal curriculum.

Table 2.2 Summary of advantages and disadvantages of promoting activist learning through formal, non‐formal, or informal curricula.

	Advantages	Disadvantages
Formal curriculum	Staff support to help students through a range of issuesOpportunity for formal reflection to enable engagement with deeper systemic issues and enhance articulation of learningEasier to ensure continuity of project(s) (where this is desirable)Easier to develop and maintain trusted relationships with external stakeholdersReduces competing time pressures for students as contributes to academic creditCan be more inclusive of diverse participantsMay be an easier entry point of activism for some students	Difficult to allow failure in the ways associated with real‐world activismIf projects are staff‐initiated projects may be less meaningful to students reducing “motive fulfillment”Creates a greater focus on individual grades, rather than community gains or project outcomesStudents may still not develop agency to drive their own projects if relying on staff support
Non‐formal	Can include requirements for reflectionInclusive of diverse participantsIncludes some staff supportMay be an easier entry point of activism for some studentsVoluntary nature of opportunities mean students will be motivated by projectLittle implication of failure (to student)	Reduces student agencyStudents may still not develop agency to drive their own projects if relying on staff supportRequires opportunities to be developed which are of interest to diverse studentsOpt‐in and might not interest/impact large numbers of students
Informal curriculum	Enables creativity and agency of students to act on their own inspirationProvides a space for failure and experimentationAllows students to disengage if needed for their own well‐beingReliance on peer support and learningPotential for more working in a more genuinely collaborative way, in contrast to the sometimes more individualized, competitive ethos of formal education	Can be cliquey and exclude more diverse participantsMight involve more limited reflection, and more surface level learningMight lack support systems if students face difficultiesStudents might have difficulty navigating systems andReliance on peer support and learning

Where does this leave us in thinking about whether activist learning belongs in the formal or informal curriculum, and what can we learn about how we as educators and ESD practitioners can support activist learning?

Even within the formal curriculum, activist learning can take place across a spectrum from more staff‐led to more student‐initiated projects, each of which will have their place depending on the intended learning outcomes, and student level and background. Dewey's four conditions to maximize the educative potential of inquiry‐based learning requires activities: (i) to generate interest in the learner, (ii) to be intrinsically worthwhile to the learner; (iii) to present problems that awaken new curiosity and create a demand for information; and (iv) to cover a considerable time span and foster development over time (Bringle and Hatcher 1999:181). These conditions suggest that it is important to ensure student interest, which may help with more student‐initiated projects. More staff‐led projects run the risk of lower levels of “motive fulfillment,” and less alignment between projects and students' ability to achieve their personal goals (Covitt 2002), compared to more student‐led projects. Quality service learning has been described as including choice for students, as well as opportunities for meaningful action, with research suggesting that service learning designed by teachers can have limited impact on students' intentions of motive fulfillment (Covitt 2002). The formal curriculum can also lead to an individual, grade focus, rather than on broader, community, and change‐focused aims (Ludlow 2010). Even within the same class, the diversity of students may mean one side of the spectrum between staff or student‐initiated projects may be more appropriate for some students than others. Students could be given the option of a self‐initiated project or a predesigned project or a choice of projects. It is conceivable that the SSH project could have been developed within the formal curriculum if the students had been given the freedom within their curriculum to initiate such a project.

The formal curriculum followed by the students involved in the introduction of the SSH project has a strong element of reflective learning as well as critically reflective discussion about sustainability issues, with the hope that this would develop a habit of reflection and criticality in all parts of their lives. Yet, at least in the interviews, there was limited evidence of reflection or critical thinking about broader sustainability issues (although the interviews might not have teased out deeper thinking that might have been occurring). Consideration of different ways in which reflective and critical thinking is developed in the formal curriculum could support this in informal curriculum learning, for example by introducing clear and explicit models of reflective and critical thinking that could be applied to projects, as well as through case studies demonstrating where these approaches are applied in the real world of activism.

One of the areas of challenges faced in the SSH project that was raised by several students related to communication and organization within the group. The formal curriculum can provide the space for explicit exploration of group roles and preferences (e.g. Belbin 2004) and group management and conflict techniques that students could draw on, both directly and indirectly, within informal curriculum projects.

Informal activist learning also takes place where activists learn “on the job” (Ollis 2008) whereby skills and knowledge are developed in the processes and practices of activism. Ollis (2008) describes how activist learning takes place through embodied and holistic practices, using the physical body and emotions to learn. Much traditional activism uses the body as part of protest (e.g. picket lines, locking one's body to objects) (Ollis 2008). It can be argued that the SSH also uses the body as part of this activism of the everyday, in the physical act of gardening or construction. This also forms an explicit part of the learning for some students:

As far as the students go, some of them had never even done anything outdoors like this. Some of them had never held a saw or a screwdriver or even attempted to knock two bits of wood together, let alone build a raised bed, and there was a lot of doubt and resistance to giving it a go.

(Student 2, Year 1 of project)

Engagement of the “head, heart, and hands” is seen as an effective and holistic approach to ESD, through engaging the cognitive, affective and practical dimensions of learning (Sipos et al. 2008; Mahmud 2017). This calls for maybe a greater degree of physical activity and action in the formal curriculum, a greater engagement of cognitive engagement in the informal curriculum, and ensuring the opportunities for students to act on their own affective domains in both formal and informal approaches.