This paper examines two English policy documents and sets two major questions: (a) what kind of support/input these policy documents provide practitioners (primary school teachers) in relation to EfSD and (b) how effectively this support/input is communicated to teachers via the language used and the practices suggested. This way the study also aims to acquire insights into the interface between Environmental Education (EE) and Education for Sustainable Development (EfSD). These two documents are the: ′Cross-curricular dimensions—a planning guide for schools′ (QCA in Cross-curricular dimensions—a planning guide for schools, 2009a, Action—a curriculum planning guide for schools, 2009b) and the ′Sustainable development in action—a curriculum planning guide for schools′ (QCA 2009a, b). A critical discourse analysis method is employed and examines these two documents in relation to a specific context relevant to EfSD as delineated by: (a) the three important parts of Education for Sustainable Development (EfSD), namely content, active/constructivist pedagogical approaches, values and (b) the former Environmental Education (EE) as one of the major predecessors of EfSD that also addressed aspects relevant with the ones mentioned above (content, pedagogical approaches and values). The results of this analysis identified three gaps, namely a gap between what these policies put forward and teachers′ practices; a gap in the interface between EE and EfSD and a gap between what teachers are asked to do and how children learn about these issues. Thus, a discontinuity is highlighted in the rhetoric of policies that addressed EE and EfSD which can reflect and account for discontinuities in teachers′ practices of EfSD.
Mobil →
↑ https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-63534-7_14