Continuing the Narrative Some 20 years Later

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noel Gough

I wrote ‘Narrative and Nature: Unsustainable Fictions in Environmental Education’ in 1991 as a revised version of a paper subtitled ‘Poststructural Inquiries in Environmental Education’ that I presented at the Sixth National Conference of the Australian Association for Environmental Education in September 1990. To the best of my knowledge, these papers were the first instances of advocacy for poststructuralist analyses of dicourses/practices in the Anglophone literature of environmental education. The key influences on my thinking at this time were US and Canadian ‘reconceptualist’ curriculum scholars, including Cleo Cherryholmes, Jacques Daignault, William Doll, Clermont Gauthier, Rebecca Martusewicz, William Pinar and William Reynolds. The significance and impact of my poststructuralist inquiries in environmental education were recognised by the award of the inaugural Australian Museum Eureka Prize for Environmental Education Research in 1997. Since then, my ‘post’ scholarship has expanded to include postcolonialism and posthumanism. Narrative continues to be an important theme in my work, especially through my development of an approach to narrative experimentation that I call ‘rhizosemiotic play’.

1984 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
I.M. Robottom

At the inaugural national conference of the Australian Association for Environmental Education in Adelaide (October, 1980), it was clear that multiple interpretations existed of the key descriptor ‘environmental education’. At that conference, at earlier international conferences (e.g., Tbilisi, 1977) and in recent Australian curriculum materials (e.g., The Curriculum Development Centre's (CDC's) Environmental Education Project), the terms education about the environment, education in the environment, and education for the environment were and have been used to capture the various interpretations of environmental education. An explication of these terms is offered in the Environmental Education Project (CDC, 1981), and in Fensham (1979).These terms seems to embrace the various facets to emerge in discourse about environmental education — they can, perhaps, be taken as representing the accepted dimensions of environmental education.


1984 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Henry

This is a version of a paper presented at the Second National Conference of the Australian Association for Environmental Education held in Brisbane in August 1982.This paper will begin with an attempt to address the question: “What presuppositions about teaching and curriculum are embedded in the developed conception of environmental education as education for the environment?” The answers advanced here will be tentative in nature and obviously incomplete. They will, however, allow the discussion to advance to a consideration of teacher behaviours compatible with the education for the environment concept, and to an appreciation of the dilemmas confronting teachers of environmental education so conceived.


2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert (Bob) Stevenson ◽  
Jo-Anne Ferreira ◽  
Sherridan Emery

AbstractThe first research symposium, organised in conjunction with the Australian Association for Environmental Education (AAEE) biennial conference, began with a dialogue between scholars at three different academic career stages. As we all entered the field at different periods in its development, the first part of our presentation and this article provide our perspectives on the context, approaches and issues that characterised the field at the time we became involved in environmental education (EE) and EE research. The second part of this article presents the lessons we have learnt from EE research, and where we see the field headed in the future.


2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 200-218
Author(s):  
Simone M. Blom ◽  
Claudio Aguayo ◽  
Teresa Carapeto

AbstractIn environmental education research (EER), love is revered as a way to heal or mend the human relationship with nature. However, this interpretation of love rests in a humanist paradigm that considers nonhuman nature as external to the human being. To this end, love has generally been considered as an outward emotion, towards nature, and is less considered an inner movement, towards the human as nature. We were interested in exploring this conceptualisation of nature and love of/as nature and question: Is there potential to locate the concept of love in EER through different theoretical positions to explore the possibilities for its (re)conceptualisation? We aim to stretch academic thinking to (re)consider love through identifying where our own research in environmental education has involved love through the intersection of our journeys at the Australian Association of Environmental Education Research Symposium workshop. In response to the context of this workshop, which explored the concept of diffraction as described by Barad, we have chosen to adopt a diffractive analysis as the methodology to analyse our theoretical perspectives of love in EER. We explore the word love in this article using diffraction to understand the relationality of human and nonhuman nature through our research interests in Steiner, ecosomaesthetics and biophilia. This process cracked our theoretical silos to more openly consider: Where is the love in EER?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document