Environmental Education Research

ISSN: 1350-4622 (Print) 1469-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20

Teachers’ perceptions of a co-constructed tool to

enhance their pedagogical content knowledge in
environmental education

Chris Eames & Sally Birdsall

To cite this article: Chris Eames & Sally Birdsall (2019): Teachers’ perceptions of a co-constructed
tool to enhance their pedagogical content knowledge in environmental education, Environmental
Education Research, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2019.1645445

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1645445

Published online: 02 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 90

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceer20
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1645445

Teachers’ perceptions of a co-constructed tool to enhance

their pedagogical content knowledge in
environmental education
Chris Eamesa and Sally Birdsallb
a
School of Education, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand; bFaculty of Education and Social
Work, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand;

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Environmental educators need pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)— Received 16 July 2019
they need to know what to teach and how to teach it. This article Accepted 23 July 2019
examines teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of a tool known as
KEYWORDS
a Content Representation (CoRe) for enhancing their PCK development
Pedagogical content
in a school setting. The research design incorporated a partnership knowledge; environmental
between an experienced environmental education consultant and two education; CoRe; secondary
classroom teachers as they co-designed a CoRe for a unit on environ- education; activity theory
mental action-taking for 16–17 year old students. The classroom teach-
ers then used the CoRe as a guide to plan and facilitate implementation
of the unit in their classrooms. Data were generated through field
observations of the CoRe design workshop, interviews with the class-
room teachers through the planning and implementation of the unit,
and classroom observations. Data analysis was framed using Activity
Theory. Findings indicated the CoRe design process was highly valued
by the teachers that the CoRe was then used as a general guide rather
a prescriptive curriculum, and that teachers felt aspects of their PCK
were developed.

Introduction
As evidence mounts of the increasing number of environmental and sustainability issues in
many countries of the world (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018; United Nations
World Water Assessment Programme 2014; Yohe et al. 2007), education is still seen as a key
response to address these issues (Corney and Reid 2007; United Nations 2012; Wilks and Harris
2016). However, concerns have been expressed about the readiness of educators to implement
environmental education (EE), particularly in schools. For example, it has been argued in
Australia that pre-service education does not prepare prospective teachers with the pedagogical
content knowledge (PCK) to effectively teach EE in primary schools (Kennelly, Taylor, and
Maxwell 2008); and that a lack of both pre-service and in-service teacher training in EE has been
limiting its effective implementation (Cutter-Mackenzie and Smith 2003; Evans, Whitehouse, and
Gooch 2012; Miles, Harrison, and Cutter-Mackenzie 2006; Tilbury, Coleman, and Garlick 2005),
leading to teacher deficiencies in both content and pedagogical knowledge for EE. Similar con-
cerns have been raised in diverse countries such as Israel (Yavetz, Goldman, and Pe’er 2009),
Serbia (Stanisic and Maksi
c 2014) and Greece (Boubonari, Markos, and Kevrekidis 2013). In New

CONTACT Chris Eames c.eames@waikato.ac.nz

ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 C. EAMES AND S. BIRDSALL

Zealand, a recent report on the state of EE in schools argued that teacher access to PCK in EE
was key to its effective implementation (Bolstad, Joyce, and Hipkins 2015). The development of
teacher PCK in EE was therefore a primary concern to us.
Shulman (1987) brought the concept of PCK to prominence when he defined it as knowing
how to teach what to a particular group of students. Such PCK has been claimed to be an
important element for an effective teacher (Gess-Newsome 2015). However, it has been challeng-
ing to encapsulate PCK as a construct due to its complexity and particularity, as it draws on an
individual teacher’s range of pedagogical, content and context factors, which influence teaching
and learning (Grossman 1990; Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko 1999). A teacher’s PCK is linked to
their experience and is often implicit, and has been challenging to model and explain (Lee and
Luft 2008). Implementing effective EE often requires that a teacher has command over a range
of pedagogies which engage the learner’s cognitive, affective and action domains (Rathzel and
Uzzell 2009; Tilbury 1995), understanding of concepts across a range of disciplines (Borg et al.
2012; McMillan and Vasseur 2010), and a clear grasp of their learners’ motivations and abilities,
along with the educational milieu in which they are operating (Rickinson 2001). In other words,
PCK is a complex and multi-faceted construct. A conceptual tool known as a Content
Representation or CoRe has been successfully used by science educators (Hume and Berry 2011;
Loughran, Mulhall, and Berry 2008; Williams et al. 2012) to explore and develop a teacher’s PCK.
Our interest was in whether teachers could see value in using this tool to develop their PCK in
EE to help us understand whether it could be part of a strategy for teacher professional learning
and development in EE.

PCK in EE
Since Shulman first identified the concept of PCK in 1987 (Shulman 1987), its elusive characteris-
tics have been examined by researchers and teacher educators, particularly in science education
(Abell 2008). Theorising about PCK’s components and how it can be measured has been the
focus of recent work (Berry et al. 2017; Gess-Newsome 2015). This recent theorising about what
PCK is has built upon earlier work that posited that several types of knowledges comprised PCK
(Grossman 1990; Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko 1999). The recent work has identified five
teacher professional knowledge bases (content, pedagogical, curriculum, assessment and know-
ledge of students) which interact with topic-specific professional knowledge and skills (instruc-
tional strategies, CoRes, student understandings, subject practices and habits of mind), and are
filtered through teacher beliefs, experience and orientations into teacher practice (Berry et al.
2017; Gess-Newsome 2015).
While much of this theorising has been conducted by science educators, it has begun to be
taken up by educators in environmental domains in different parts of the world (Clausen 2018;
Gunckel, Covitt, and Salinas 2018; Shumba and Kampamba 2012/2013; Singer-Brodowski 2016).
Zhou (2015) has argued that EPACK (Environmental Pedagogical Content Knowledge) can bring
ideas of EE and PCK together. Other researchers have made tentative forays into how to measure
teacher PCK in environmental teaching (Abdullah and Halim 2010; Habib 2018).
Given the imperative for effective teachers of EE to prepare future generations to address
environmental issues, we argue that we need to go beyond theorising and measuring PCK to
explore how to develop teacher PCK in EE. A recent study by Effeney and Davis (2013) argued
that if beginning elementary teachers had poor subject matter knowledge (SMK) upon gradu-
ation, this could severely limit development of PCK in EE. The development of specific peda-
gogical approaches that underpin sound EE have also been considered by some (Eilam and Trop
2010), and in the early childhood sector, a requirement for a ‘delicate pedagogical balance’ that
includes knowledge and context has been claimed to be important (Cutter-Mackenzie and
Edwards 2013).
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 3

The literature does identify a small number of studies where researchers have considered
teacher development of PCK in EE. They have shown that teacher PCK could be developed
through a mixture of theoretical and practical learning (Corney and Reid 2007), and through
fieldwork (Dickerson, Dawkins, and Annetta 2007). Birdsall (2015) studied the PCK of two primary
teachers when teaching about sustainability and argued that PCK is developed through critical
reflection. In pre-service teacher education, the development of teacher confidence in teaching
EE (Kennelly, Taylor, and Maxwell 2008) and teacher action competence within environmental
issues (Alvarado 2010) have been claimed to be important for implementing EE in schools but
these studies provided no evidence for how this might be done.

A tool to develop teacher PCK

In considering the development of PCK in teachers, Kind (2009) identified three common factors
that appear to contribute. First, is the possession of good SMK; second is classroom experience,
with studies pointing to significant changes occurring in the early months and years of working
as a teacher; and third, the possession of emotional attributes like good levels of personal self-
confidence, and provision of supportive working atmospheres in which collaboration is encour-
aged. These factors would appear to be germane to EE teachers, for whom SMK is often complex
and interdisciplinary, classroom experience in working in EE is often limited, and working in col-
laborative and supportive working atmospheres is in contrast to what is often seen to be a pas-
sionate teacher working in isolation (Eames, Cowie, and Bolstad 2008).
A number of researchers in science teacher education have investigated pedagogical
approaches that could help teachers to conceptualise their professional learning and help to
develop their PCK (Abell 2008; Loughran, Mulhall, and Berry 2008; Nilsson 2008; Otto and Everett
2013). A key issue emerging for designers of such approaches in education has been the virtual
absence of concrete examples of expert teachers’ PCK, since this highly specialised form of pro-
fessional knowledge is embedded in individual teachers’ classroom practice (Padilla, Ponce-de-
Leo
n, Rembado, and Garritz 2008) and rarely articulated within the teaching community of prac-
tice. This issue is also likely to be significant in EE.
To address the paucity of PCK exemplars in science teaching, Loughran, Mulhall, and Berry
(2008) explored the PCK of highly regarded science teachers in particular topics in junior second-
ary science, to see if they could tease out some common threads in their pedagogy that could
be considered as comprising the knowledge base of science teachers. From this, they developed
a CoRe tool to encapsulate the collective PCK of expert teachers in ways that make explicit the
different dimensions of, and links between, their knowledge of content, teaching and learning
about a particular topic. A CoRe, as represented in Figure 1, attempts to portray an holistic over-
view of expert teachers’ PCK related to the teaching of a particular topic. The CoRe is a matrix of
4-8 enduring ideas about a particular topic at the head of the columns, and a set of pedagogical
questions/prompts for each row.
CoRes have been used in pre-service science teacher education to help novice teachers
understand what PCK might involve and to develop their own representations of teaching in
particular topic areas. In a study by Loughran, Mulhall, and Berry (2008), a pre-service teacher
educator invited student teachers to construct their own examples of CoRes for different topics
after they had examined and reflected on those created by expert teachers. The findings from
Loughran et al.’s study strongly suggest that the focus on PCK using CoRes to frame their think-
ing about the links between science content and pedagogy did help the student teachers to
gain a more sophisticated view about learning to teach science, and how to teach for under-
standing. In another study along similar lines, Hume also sought to promote science student
teachers’ PCK through CoRe design (Hume and Berry 2011). But, these student teachers found
4 C. EAMES AND S. BIRDSALL

the task challenging and their lack of classroom teaching experience proved to be a limiting fac-
tor in being able to develop CoRes successfully.
However, when a further study was conducted that helped beginning science teachers co-
construct a CoRe with an expert teacher and a scientist, where SMK and PCK were shared
through facilitation of the CoRe construction, the beginning teachers were able to gain a deeper
understanding of the ‘big picture’ of the topic they were to teach (Williams et al. 2012). This
study showed that making experienced and expert teacher PCK explicit through co-constructing
a CoRe could help teachers get insights into how to develop their own PCK.
The concerns noted above about the lack of preparation of EE teachers, at a time when
teaching of quality EE in schools is increasingly important, pointed to a need for research into
the potential of co-construction of CoRes with expert teachers in PCK development for EE teach-
ers. Such research would permit insight not only into the utility of CoRes as a useful tool in EE,
but also into the very nature of PCK in EE. There is one study that has examined teachers’ ability
to construct and use a CoRe as both a measure of, and to illustrate the development of, their
PCK when teaching about environmental pollution (Purwianingsih and Mardiyah 2018). We chose
to focus on the teaching of action-taking and co-design of a related CoRe for PCK development
as the focus of this study.
Our research questions to address this issue examined:

What are teacher perceptions of the co-construction process when designing a CoRe for teaching
action-taking in EE?
How did the teachers perceive the value of the co-constructed CoRe when planning and imple-
menting action-taking for sustainability?

Research design
This research was framed within an interpretive mode of inquiry which sought to explore the
perceptions of the teachers as they worked with an expert to co-construct a CoRe, and then to
use the CoRe to plan and implement an action-taking for sustainability unit of work. We
focussed on action-taking as previous studies had shown that this aspect of EE was particularly
challenging for teachers (Birdsall 2010; McLean 2003), and because action-taking is a critical
learning outcome for EE (Jensen and Schnack 1997). Teacher perceptions about their own PCK
are important as they serve as a first step to examining teacher understanding and confidence
to implement EE, and to explore the unconscious nature of PCK (Berry, Friedrichsen, and
Loughran 2015). We wanted to know what they thought about the potential of a CoRe to
develop their own PCK to gain insight into the utility of CoRes for teachers of EE.
The study was undertaken in three phases. In the first phase, an expert EE consultant worked
with two secondary teachers in a workshop to co-construct a CoRe around action-taking for sus-
tainability. In the second phase, the two classroom teachers used the co-constructed CoRe to
plan for their teaching of the action-taking unit. In the third phase, these two teachers imple-
mented the action-taking unit in their separate classrooms.
The setting was a co-educational secondary school in an urban setting in New Zealand. The
expert EE consultant (Barbara) had more than 30 years’ experience in secondary education, with
the last 15 years as an EE consultant in secondary schools at a national level. The two teachers
(Kylie and Rick) were experienced science educators. Kylie had five years of teaching experience
and Rick ten. While their initial teacher education was science-focussed, they had recently chosen
to also teach EE in their school but had no formal teacher education and little experience in the
pedagogy of action-taking for sustainability. There were 37 students in total in the two classes,
aged 16–17 years of age (21 females and 16 males), and with a mix of ethnicities with 59%
Pakeha, 23% Maori, 11% Pasifika, 4% Asian and 3% from other groups.
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 5

Context for the CoRe

To situate this project, the context for the CoRe was a high-stakes national assessment task for
students studying for Level 2 of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (New
Zealand Qualifications Authority 2018) undertaken at Year 12 (16–17 year olds). At each level
there are a number of achievement standards (tasks) to be completed for students to gain
accreditation at this level. The one chosen for the CoRe’s context was AS90810–Undertake a per-
sonal action, with reflection, that contributes to a sustainable future (New Zealand Qualifications
Authority 2018). This achievement standard requires students to develop a plan to take action in
response to a local sustainability issue. Students have to link the importance of the chosen issue
to an aspect of sustainability, provide a time-frame and steps to be taken that include how data
about the action’s efficacy will be gathered and measured. After undertaking the action, they are
required to draw conclusions about the validity of their data collection and measurement, the
efficacy of the plan and how the action contributed to a sustainable future in terms of the
aspect of sustainability addressed in the plan. The CoRe was designed with these requirements
in mind and the EE consultant included because of her expertise and experience in developing
programmes to teach this particular achievement standard.
The project ran for eight months and a variety of data generation strategies were used. Table
1 provides a timeline of the research along with the types of data generated from the different
participants. Our focus in this article is on teacher perceptions so we describe generation of the
teacher data only.
In Phase 1, one of the researchers facilitated the workshop (first author), while the other
researcher (second author) observed and recorded the teachers’ and consultant’s interactions
throughout, and contributions to the CoRe’s construction. The completed CoRe became part of
the data set (see Figure 1). We then held a focus group interview with the consultant and teach-
ers about their perceptions of the process of co-constructing the CoRe. Questions centred
around perceptions of the process of developing the CoRe and who contributed what to the
process, and expectations for the use of the CoRe in the teaching to come.
In Phase 2, the two teachers were interviewed about the ways in which they had used the
CoRe when planning for teaching about action-taking. Questions focussed on decision-making in
planning the unit and any part the CoRe had played in that. In Phase 3, each teacher and their
students were observed as they worked on a specific component of the CoRe-planned unit. For
example, one observation took place as Rick taught about the four components of sustainability
in the context of shark finning, one of the enduring ideas in the co-constructed CoRe (see
Figure 1). The other classroom observation occurred while Kylie was teaching about the different
roles played by members of a group while working together to take action, which responded to
the enduring idea about collaboration. Observations noted the teacher-student interactions
around the enduring ideas in the CoRe for the purposes of triangulating teacher interview and
focus group data. We note, however, that extreme limitations of one observation per class and
therefore cannot make any claims about actual teacher PCK development, only perceived.
Finally, a focus group with the teachers was held where the ways in which the teachers
felt they had utilised the CoRe before and during their teaching, how it had influenced their
teaching about action-taking, and how any developments in their PCK about action-taking
would lead them to change their CoRe for the next time they taught the unit
were discussed.
As this study was concerned with the teachers’ percpetions of being involved in co-construct-
ing and using a CoRe, Activity Theory was used to frame the data generation and analysis.
Activity Theory is closely related to sociocultural views of learning and communities of practice.
It can be used to explain how learning and meaning can be constructed through an experience
or activity supported by a social structure (Engestro €m 2001) (Figure 2). Therefore, it is a useful
approach for examining how these teachers’ experiences of engaging in a workshop with an EE
 6

Table 1. Table showing research timeline and types of data generated.

Phase Purpose Participants Data Generated
Phase 1 Workshop to construct CoRe Teachers Observations of interactions
April Expert EE teacher Completed CoRe
Focus group interview
Phase 2 How CoRe implemented in Teachers Paired interview
planning prior
to teaching
Phase 3 How CoRe implemented Teachers Observation of teacher-
in classroom Students student interactions
September–October Students’ perceptions about Students Paired and focus
implementation of CoRe group interviews
C. EAMES AND S. BIRDSALL

November Reflection on efficacy of Teachers Focus group interview

CoRe when teaching Expert EE teacher
Taking action for sustainability
Enduring ideas
Sustainability is the Action taking
interrelationships between Actions should Action taking Action taking requires planning,
environment, society, contribute to a must be informed requires time management Actions need to
Pedagogical questions culture and economics sustainable future and requires skills collaboration and resilience be evaluated
What you intend the What each aspect of How to create a Knowledge of the How to work with How to plan an How to critically
students to sustainability is and vision for a issue, its other people action using evaluate their
learn about this idea that they relate to sustainable cause(s), and a for a SMART. That action in regard
each other. That future, taking range of sustainable actions do not to a
actions taken today into account possible ways future always succeed, sustainable
affect the future their own and of acting for and future
others’ this issue modification
attitudes and and further
values attitudes action may
and values be needed
Why is it important for Effective action requires We all have a Effective action is We want a shared Effective action is Reflection on
students an holistic responsibility to intentional vision and actions well planned action is essential
to know about this understanding of all act for a and achievable for a to inform
aspects, and that sustainable sustainable future future actions
environment underpins future
all aspects
What else you know A critical understanding The urgency for That action Experiences with That planning How to evaluate
about this of how the aspects actions for a experiences collaborative should be action planning
idea (that you do not relate to each other sustainable now will inform action will affect detailed. That
intend future future actions how students actions can have
students to know yet) work with people limited effect
in future in scope
(continued)
Table 1. Continued.
Taking action for sustainability
Enduring ideas
Sustainability is the Action taking
interrelationships between Actions should Action taking Action taking requires planning,
environment, society, contribute to a must be informed requires time management Actions need to
Pedagogical questions culture and economics sustainable future and requires skills collaboration and resilience be evaluated
Difficulties/limitations Complexity of each Believing or not Finding reliable Students’ Students can plan Student ability to
connected aspect, and the that what you knowledge. people skills actions that are establish
with teaching this idea challenge of relating do can make Deciding what unmanageable/ criteria to judge
them to each other a difference. action to take unachieveable. outcomes of
and taking it Resourcing their action
actions
Knowledge about Beliefs about importance Failing to connect Student may lack Students might Students’ lack of Students’ lack of
students’ thinking of each aspect their action to confidence that believe they action critical thinking
which influences your a sustainable they can take can act in experience skills.
teaching future. Student action, and isolation, might Empowering
of this idea concerns about make lack confidence students is key
their futures a difference in sharing to fostering
their ideas action
competence
Other factors that Teacher knowledge and Current events/ Understanding by The mix of Student time Tension between
influence your beliefs about each media items teacher/ students in management, use of student
teaching of this idea aspect, school culture could student/ class, school timetabling work for
around valuing stimulate parents/school policy. How constraints summative
each aspect actions of implications well around assessment and
of student groups work action taking learning from
action choices Classroom set up action taking
for group work
Teaching procedures Concept maps, debates, Back-casting, case Inquiry learning, Cooperative Critiquing plans, Reflection
visual mapping, studies of sourcing learning modelling strategies,
case studies successful and reliable strategies. action establishing
unsuccessful information, Communication planning, criteria, practice
actions. action planning skills SMART evaluations
Difference templates, skill
between identification
activity
and action
Specific ways of Use scenarios, Students’ planning Conversations with Classroom Reviewing the Summative
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH

ascertaining students’ concept maps and students, observations, action plans assessment and
understanding or commitment action planning peer and self- log book
confusion to act reflections
7

around this idea

8 C. EAMES AND S. BIRDSALL

Taking action for sustainability

Enduring ideas
Sustainability is the Actions should Action taking must Action taking Action taking Actions need to
Pedagogical interrelationships contribute to a be informed and requires requires be evaluated
Questions between sustainable requires skills collaboration planning, time
environment, society, future management and
culture and resilience
economics
What you intend What each aspect of How to create a Knowledge of the How to work with How to plan an How to
the students to sustainability is and vision for a issue, its cause(s), other people for a action using critically
learn about this that they relate to each sustainable future, and a range of sustainable future SMART. That evaluate their
idea other. That actions taking into possible ways of actions do not action in regard
taken today affect the account their own acting for this issue always succeed, to a sustainable
future. and others’ and modification future
attitudes and and further action
values attitudes may be needed.
and values.
Why is it Effective action We all have a Effective action is We want a shared Effective action is Reflection on
important for requires an holistic responsibility to intentional and vision and actions well planned action is
students to know understanding of all act for a achievable for a sustainable essential to
about this aspects, and that sustainable future future inform future
environment underpins actions.
all aspects
What else you A critical The urgency for That action Experiences with That planning How to evaluate
know about this understanding of how actions for a experiences now collaborative should be action planning
idea (that you do the aspects relate to sustainable future. will inform future action will affect detailed. That
not intend each other. actions how students actions can have
students to know work with people limited effect in
yet) in future scope.
Difficulties/limita Complexity of each Believing or not Finding reliable Students’ people Students can plan Student ability
tions connected aspect, and the that what you do knowledge. skills actions that are to establish
with teaching challenge of relating can make a Deciding what unmanageable/ criteria to judge
this idea them to each other difference. action to take and unachieveable. outcomes of
taking it Resourcing their action
actions.
Knowledge about Beliefs about Failing to connect Student may lack Students might Students’ lack of Students’ lack
students’ importance of each their action to a confidence that they believe they can action experience. of critical
thinking which aspect. sustainable future. can take action, and act in isolation, thinking skills.
influences your Student concerns make a difference. might lack Empowering
teaching of this about their confidence in students is key
idea futures. sharing their to fostering
ideas. action
competence
Other factors Teacher knowledge Current Understanding by The mix of Student time Tension
that influence and beliefs about each events/media teacher/student/pare students in class, management, between use of
your teaching of aspect, school culture items could nts/school of school policy. timetabling student work for
this idea around valuing each stimulate actions. implications of How well groups constraints around summative
aspect student action work. action taking. assessment and
choices Classroom set up learning from
for group work. action taking
Teaching Concept maps, Back-casting, case Inquiry learning, Cooperative Critiquing plans, Reflection
procedures debates, visual studies of sourcing reliable learning modelling action strategies,
mapping, case studies. successful and information, action strategies. planning, SMART establishing
unsuccessful planning templates, Communication criteria, practice
actions. skill identification skills. evaluations
Difference
between activity
and action.
Specific ways of Use scenarios, concept Students’ Conversations with Classroom Reviewing the Summative
ascertaining maps planning and students, action observations, peer action plans assessment and
students’ commitment to act planning and self- log book
understanding or reflections
confusion around
this idea

Figure 1. The co-constructed action-taking CoRe.

consultant resulted in the production of the CoRe. Also, Activity Theory could provide insight
into how the CoRe could function as a mediational tool that connects the consultant’s expert
knowledge with these teachers’ knowledge. Moreover, it permits an examination of the activity
of teaching within the complex sociocultural environment of a school. The model of Activity
Theory used in this study can be represented as follows:
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 9

Mediating tool

Subject Object Outcome

Rules Community Division of Labour

Figure 2. Model of activity theory, adapted from (Engestr€
om 2001).

The CoRe construction workshop

Teachers Designing a CoRe A CoRe

Achievement standard Expert and pedagogy Facilitated discussion

Figure 3. Activity system—Co-constructing the CoRe.

In interpreting this model for our proposed study, the three phases can be understood as
interlinked activity systems. These systems depict a process within which knowledge and expert-
ise of content and pedagogy is shared to create a tool, the CoRe, which mediates learning from
the consultant through the teachers to the students in the classroom. The analysis explored this
process and the role played by the CoRe as a mediational tool. In this way, the CoRe can be con-
ceived as a boundary object (Otrel-Cass et al. 2009) that draws inspiration from participants who
bring knowledge across boundaries from their disparate communities. Data were mapped onto
these activity systems using a content analysis process that allowed each of us to independently
code transcribed and verified transcripts, focus group and observational data.
Ethical approval was gained for this study from a relevant authority, and issues we were par-
ticularly conscious of were the power relationships between ourselves, the consultant and the EE
teachers, and sensitivity of comments from students regarding their experiences of teaching. In
all aspects of the project, informed consent was prioritised and confidentiality preserved.

Findings
The findings of Stage 1 related to the first research question, What are EE teachers’ percep-
tions of the co-construction process when designing a CoRe for teaching action-taking in EE?

Stage 1: Co-constructing the CoRe

Figure 3 depicts how the consultant and teachers worked together to develop the outcome of
the workshop—the CoRe. In this activity system, the workshop acted as the mediating tool to
create a space for the co-construction of the CoRe.
Observations of the workshop indicated that through facilitated discussion the consultant and
teachers divided the labour as they each contributed their knowledge to the co-construction
process. The expert was able to give focus to content ideas of action-taking, for example the
10 C. EAMES AND S. BIRDSALL

role of reflection and behaviour change, and drew attention to the requirements of the achieve-
ment standard (the Rules). The teachers contributed ideas about content, examples from their
pedagogy, and the importance of social and cultural considerations unique to their context from
their prior experiences of teaching this standard. The consultant and teachers then brought this
knowledge together as they debated the wording and intentions of the big ideas, considered
how recognised pedagogy (part of the Community) influenced the sequence of teaching the big
ideas, and explored barriers to teaching and learning, all elements of the CoRe. Over a period of
4 h, the facilitated discussion led to the completed CoRe—the outcome of the activity.
During the interview following the CoRe’s completion, the teachers Kylie and Rick (and indeed
the consultant Barbara) were all positive about their experiences and illustrated ways in which
they felt their PCK had developed during the workshop. For example, the consultant, Barbara,
recognised areas for her future learning as she felt encouraged to further develop her knowledge
about action-taking. It was interesting to note that she tended to have an assessment focus, con-
centrating on the teaching of the achievement standard, rather than adopting a broader
approach of teaching students how to take action.
One of the teachers, Rick, identified growth in his EE SMK about action-taking. He thought
that the workshop was a ‘ … very productive, excellent opportunity to develop ideas and have
current teaching methods scrutinised … ’ and he gained ‘a more in-depth and detailed under-
standing of what it means to take action’. Although the other teacher, Kylie, did identify devel-
opment of her PCK, this development related to her knowledge base about assessment. She felt
that her engagement in the workshop had really helped her to understand how to approach
working with achievement standards, as she said:
The day was very productive and has given me a strategy for tackling other standards. I appreciated the
efforts made to include everyone’s ideas and that the words that ended up in the [CoRe] had some
meaning for me. It’s often my experience that after reading standards and other curriculum documents I
have no deep understanding of what the author’s intention is.

At the conclusion of the workshop, the teachers affirmed that they would use the CoRe
design process again in the future. As Rick said, ‘I would like to introduce this idea in all of
our planning as a [teaching] department’. However, Kylie was very clear that being part of
the CoRe design process was key to developing her understanding, as she commented ‘I still
think that the massive benefit to me was being there on the day’ and she felt that teachers
who were given a CoRe without having gone through the developmental thinking process
(in the Division of Labour) may not gain the sort of understanding that she did. Teachers
also noted the space the workshop provided to plan with colleagues positively, as one said,
it was ‘nice to sit down with my colleagues in a situation where [we are not] listening for
the [school] bell’. In this way, the key role of the supporting social structure was evident in
the CoRe’s construction.
The next two phases contributed findings related to the second research question: How did
the teachers perceive the value of the co-constructed CoRe when planning and implementing
action-taking for sustainability?

Stage 2: Planning using the co-constructed CoRe

In this stage, the teachers planned a unit of teaching using the CoRe to help their students com-
plete the achievement standard. This activity system is represented in Figure 4.
Figure 4 illustrates how in this activity system, the CoRe itself was the mediating tool through
which the teachers were able to develop their planning to produce the outcome of their EE unit.
The school’s planning norms framed the unit with each teacher focussing their planning on their
particular topic within their department.
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 11

The CoRe

Teachers Planning a unit The unit

Planning norms School colleagues Contributors to the plan

Figure 4. Activity system—planning using the co-constructed CoRe.

Based on data gathered from focus group interviews after the planning phase and at the end
of the unit, it appeared that while the CoRe design process had been influential in clarifying
understanding and developing confidence in these teachers to teach the topic addressed by the
CoRe design workshop, there was evidence that the CoRe itself was being used in variable ways
in these teachers’ planning. Rick articulated his belief that the CoRe was an overall guide rather
than a foundation for planning because ‘ … you can’t really have a scheme of work, lesson
by lesson’.
When Kylie was planning, the CoRe became a ‘checklist … I was making sure in my head
that I was trying to cover those bits’. For Kylie, the opportunity to debate a topic with colleagues
and gain a clearer understanding of how the topic could be taught was the most valuable. This
finding again illustrates the importance of a supporting social structure when engaging in the
CoRe’s construction. She said:
For me it was so useful to just look at the big picture. I always do that at the start of a topic, I have a
scrappy piece of paper, I do a big picture brainstorm. But to actually put them into words with other
people and really think carefully about what those key concepts and messages that we want those students
to come away with at the end, that was a really useful process.

Kylie’s comment also alludes to her developing SMK about teaching action-taking for
sustainability.
Having never worked with a CoRe before, the teachers were impressed with its potential to
stimulate discussion and make other teachers’ PCK explicit, again emphasising the social struc-
ture. As Kylie said, ‘I suppose it focused our discussions, like what was so valuable was listening
to everybody else and seeing everybody else’s ideas. I mean I suppose you could do it in any
format, couldn’t you? But it was just a way to focus it in’.
In their planning for the topic, the teachers felt comfortable with the CoRe but noted that
they would use it mainly as a reference point when reflecting on the outcomes of the unit. As
Kylie said, ‘It’s not until almost at the end when you see where the kids still have gaps or where
you feel like you’ve done a shoddy job, and you’ll think perhaps if we’d changed [the CoRe]’.

Stage 3: Implementing the EE unit using the co-constructed CoRe

Following their planning, the teachers then implemented the unit over a period of 6–8 weeks.
The activity system for this phase is shown in Figure 5.
In this activity system, the teaching was mediated through the planned EE unit in the com-
munity of each teacher’s classroom with their students. The classroom practices, and in particular
the requirements of the achievement standard, were the Rules that guided the teaching. The
Labour was divided between the teacher and their students for the outcome of students taking
action with respect to sustainability.
12 C. EAMES AND S. BIRDSALL

The action-taking unit

Teachers Delivering a unit Student action-

taking

School practices / Teacher and students Pedagogical approaches

structures and
assessment
Figure 5. Activity system—implementing the action-taking unit.

One class lesson for each teacher was observed and this snapshot revealed that the teachers
were addressing the big ideas in the CoRe—in one case the aspects of sustainability, and in the
other, collaborative work. In the former case, Rick’s use of a scenario and video appeared to
engage the students well and the aspects of sustainability were clearly defined and discussed in
relation to these. This lesson seemed to link to the CoRe’s Enduring Idea of Sustainability being
the interrelationship between environment, society, culture and economics. He noted that those stu-
dents who had clearly planned actions at that point of the unit were more engaged and pro-
ductive in the lesson. In the second case, Kylie used a scenario and modelling about
collaborative working, which also engaged the students, which links to the CoRe’s Enduring Idea
of Action requiring skills and collaboration. In both cases, however, there was less evidence that
the teachers were connecting the theme of the lesson to the overall goal of the CoRe–action-tak-
ing for sustainability.
These teachers used a range of pedagogical approaches that were discussed during the CoRe
construction process to enable their students to take action successfully that linked to the
CoRe’s Enduring Idea of Actions should contribute to a sustainable future. Classroom observations
showed that one approach used by both teachers was to model for the students an action-tak-
ing process used by environmental activists. Rick used the issue of shark finning and Kylie the
issue of the unregulated fishing of the Antarctica toothfish. Media resources were also used by
Rick and Kylie to illustrate the issue and actions being taken and in the focus group discussions
after the unit, students reported that they found these strategies useful for their learning. It
seemed that being able to view documentaries and read articles, and then discuss and analyse
them was valuable for raising students’ awareness of environmental issues and learning about
action-taking.
Although the teachers felt that all students successfully took action to some degree, both dis-
cussed the constraints (the Rules) they encountered. These constraints included a lack of resources,
the need to employ pedagogical strategies that did not align with their desire to mentor, issues
with timetabling and the assessment system itself. But, it was the school structure of classrooms
and timetabling that most frustrated them, as they commented together in the final interview:
I’ve realised … we’re trying to have an open classroom … need to do away with classroom walls and
actually like go to the computer pod, go to a tech room. Actually the classroom is not somewhere where
you sit, it’s open … . (Rick)

… .it’s kind of like a platform. I see the students springing off and coming [back] to me … where they
need to get to, to guide them, so that they can pop off and do their thing and come back to check in with
me like a mentor. But we don’t have that. (Kylie)

It seemed that the school structures did not provide the flexibility to assist students to be
able to take action easily, as these teachers were able to identify how these constraints stifled
their implementation of effective EE pedagogy.
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 13

Discussion
This research explored how a consultant and two teachers co-constructed a CoRe for the teach-
ing of action-taking for sustainability. By analysing the teachers’ perceptions, the CoRe was seen
to have value for illuminating the teaching of action-taking. Its value was seen to lie in the
CoRe’s ability to both illustrate and develop a teacher’s PCK; a construct which is unconsciously
expressed and enacted by teachers (Berry, Friedrichsen, and Loughran 2015). Both teachers per-
ceived that the co-construction of the CoRe had led to development of their PCK. In contrast,
Purwianingsih and Mariyah (2018) claimed the teachers in their study who were asked to inde-
pendently construct a CoRe for teaching environmental pollution were unable to do so, and the
authors argued that this indicated poor development of PCK.
It appears that the CoRe had value as a mediational tool that could connect the consultant’s
expert knowledge with that of the teachers’, operating as a boundary object that created knowledge
across communities (Otrel-Cass et al. 2009). The consultant’s and teachers’ perceptions of the co-con-
struction process clearly showed how the consultant and teachers were able to bring together their
different knowledges to co-construct the CoRe that articulates what and how to teach when taking
action for sustainability. Kylie discussed how the construction process replaced her usual planning
practice of brainstorming the ‘big picture’, a finding that echoes that of Williams et al. (2012).
The use of Activity Theory focussed a lens on the social nature of the CoRe’s construction,
where the opportunity for the consultant and teachers to have time to discuss and share SMK
about action-taking and their pedagogical strategies was highly valued. It was perceived that
PCK development occurred at this point, enhancing Rick’s EE SMK (Kind 2009) and Kylie’s know-
ledge base of assessment (Berry et al. 2017). The value placed on this experience also related to
Kind’s (2009) emotional attributes required for PCK development, providing an illustration of the
way in which PCK is constructed as teachers draw implicitly on a range of knowledges and emo-
tions as their PCK continuously develops.
But, the development of these teachers’ PCK was not as evident in the planning or implemen-
tation phases of this research. While links could be drawn between these teachers’ use of peda-
gogical strategies and the Enduring Ideas from the CoRe, both teachers did not seem to make
links to the overall goal of the CoRe–that of action-taking for sustainabilty. This lack of making
links to the CoRe’s overall goal was also evident in the consultant’s focus on assessment during
the workshop. Additionally, neither Rick nor Kylie specifically articulated how they used the CoRe
as they planned and taught. Instead, its use was implicit as is shown in the activity systems in
Figures 4 and 5. Despite this, the teachers reported that all of the students in their classes were
able to take action with differing degrees of sophistication and success.
The use of Activity Theory to examine activity systems can reveal tensions or contradictions.
In this study, tensions were indicated relating to the Rules of the system. Two sets of Rules that
were problematic were identified in Figure 5 as the achievement standard and the constraints of
school practices and structures. The high stakes outcome of the teaching that students should
be able to gain credits through their learning related to the achievement standard meant that
the teachers felt that they were unable to employ pedagogical strategies that aligned with their
expressed vision of being mentors. Instead, they had to directly model the action-taking process
for their students. Additionally, they provided structured teaching in the form of lists of possible
actions, helping groups to actually choose an appropriate action, as well as providing planning
sheets and action-taking matrices to assist their students. It is possible that that these teachers
drew on their PCK developed in science education to provide these structured pedagogical strat-
egies so that students were not disadvantaged in their learning, as these are pedagogical techni-
ques often seen in secondary classrooms in our experience.
The teachers also discussed how the school structure was constraining in terms of timetables,
room and resource availability and giving students independence to go beyond the school
grounds in order to engage in action-taking. Interestingly, these tensions were not identified in
14 C. EAMES AND S. BIRDSALL

the CoRe, despite there being a row in the CoRe matrix concerned with difficulties connected
with teaching about action-taking. It seems that there is scope for refining this CoRe. In fact,
CoRes are evolving documents (Berry, Friedrichsen, and Loughran 2015) with the potential to
develop as teachers who use them develop their own PCK, a factor noted by both teachers in
this study.
In conclusion, the co-construction of the CoRe was perceived to have value by the teachers.
Its Enduring Ideas were evident in both Rick’s and Kylie’s teaching, which resulted in the stu-
dents successfully taking action for sustainability. However, the degree to which the CoRe
informed these teachers’ planning and teaching is not clear. The use of Activity Theory to ana-
lyse the process of CoRe construction and use had merit in that the three activity systems illumi-
nated its benefits and limitations. For example, the activity systems permitted examination of
these teachers’ PCK development, along with the tensions exposed through CoRe development
and implementation in terms of the Rules. It must be acknowledged that this was a small-scale
study that relied mostly on self-reported data with just two snapshot classroom observations car-
ried out. While this reliance on self-reported data could affect the findings, PCK is a property of
an individual teacher and as such their perceptions of their own PCK are important. Action-tak-
ing is a challenging pedagogical space for teachers in EE, and this study has indicated that
CoRes can have value for developing PCK in action-taking in EE. We believe there is a need for
more research to realise a CoRe’s potential both for EE teachers and to illuminate further ten-
sions in the associated activity systems. This research could help find ways to resolve these ten-
sions and make the teaching of action-taking more effective.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Chris Eames is an associate professor in science and sustainability education at the University of Waikato, Hamilton,
New Zealand.

Sally Birdsall is a senior lecturer in science and sustainability education at the University of Auckland, Auckland,
New Zealand.

ORCID
Chris Eames http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4570-2239

References
Abdullah, S. I. S. S., and L. Halim. 2010. “Development of Instrument Measuing the Level of Teachers’ Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (PCK) in Environmental Education.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 9:174–178. doi:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.131.
Abell, S. K. 2008. “Twenty Years Later: Does Pedagogical Content Knowledge Remain a Useful Idea?.” International
Journal of Science Education 30 (10): 1405–1416. doi:10.1080/09500690802187041.
Alvarado, A. 2010. The Interaction of Michigan Environmental Education Curriculum, Science Teachers’ Pedagogical
Content Knowledge and Environmental Action Competence. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Berry, A., P. Friedrichsen, and J. Loughran, eds. 2015. Re-Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science
Education. New York: Routledge.
Berry, A., P. Nilsson, J. Van Driel, and J. Carlson. 2017. “Analysing Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content
Knowledge: A Report on the Second PCK Summit.” Paper Presented at the ESERA, Dublin, Ireland.
Birdsall, S. 2010. “Empowering Students to Act: Learning about, through and from the Nature of Action.” Australian
Journal of Environmental Education 26:65–84. doi:10.1017/S0814062600000835.
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 15

Birdsall, S. 2015. “Analysing Teachers’ Translation of Sustainability Using a PCK Framework.” Environmental
Education Research 21 (5): 753–776. doi:10.1080/13504622.2014.933776.
Bolstad, R., C. Joyce, and R. Hipkins. 2015. Environmental Education in New Zealand Schools: Reserach Update 2015.
Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Borg, C., N. Gericke, H. Ho €glund, and E. Bergman. 2012. “The Barriers Encountered by Teachers Implementing
Education for Sustainable Development: Discipline Bound Differences and Teaching Traditions.” Research in
Science & Technological Education 30 (b2): 185–207. doi:10.1080/02635143.2012.699891.
Boubonari, T., A. Markos, and T. Kevrekidis. 2013. “Greek Pre-Service Teachers’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and
Environmental Behavior toward Marine Pollution.” The Journal of Environmental Education 44 (4): 232–251. doi:
10.1080/00958964.2013.785381.
Clausen, S. W. 2018. “Exploring the Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Danish Geography Teachers: Teaching
Weather Formation and Climate Change.” International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 27
(3): 267–280. doi:10.1080/10382046.2017.1349376.
Corney, G., and A. Reid. 2007. “Student Teachers’ Learning about Subject Matter and Pedagogy in Education for
Sustainable Development.” Environmental Education Research 13 (1): 33–54. doi:10.1080/13504620601122632.
Cutter-Mackenzie, A., and S. Edwards. 2013. “Toward a Model for Early Childhood Environmental Education:
Foregrounding, Developing, and Connecting Knowledge through Play-Based Learning.” The Journal of
Environmental Education 44 (3): 195–213. doi:10.1080/00958964.2012.751892.
Cutter-Mackenzie, A., and R. Smith. 2003. “Ecological Literacy: The Missing Paradigm in Environmental Education
(Part One).” Environmental Education Research 9 (4): 497–524. doi:10.1080/1350462032000126131.
Dickerson, D. L., K. R. Dawkins, and L. Annetta. 2007. “Scientific Fieldwork: An Opportunity for Pedagogical Content
Knowledge Development.” Journal of Geoscience Education 55 (5): 371–376. doi:10.5408/1089-9995-55.5.371.
Eames, C., B. Cowie, and R. Bolstad. 2008. “An Evaluation of Characteristics of Environmental Education Practice in
New Zealand Schools.” Environmental Education Research 14 (1): 35–51. doi:10.1080/13504620701843343.
Effeney, G., and J. Davis. 2013. “Education for Sustainability: A Case Study of Preservice Primary Teachers’
Knowledge and Efficacy.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 38 (5): 32–46. doi:10.14221/ajte.2013v38n5.4.
Eilam, E., and T. Trop. 2010. “ESD Pedagogy: A Guide for the Perplexed.” The Journal of Environmental Education 42
(1): 43–64. doi:10.1080/00958961003674665.
Engestro €m, Y. 2001. “Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity Theoretical Reconceptulization.” Journal of
Education and Work 14 (1): 133–156. doi:10.1080/13639080020028747.
Evans, N., H. Whitehouse, and M. Gooch. 2012. “Barriers, Successes and Enabling Practices of Education for
Sustainability in Far North Queensland Schools: A Case Study.” The Journal of Environmental Education 43 (2):
121–138. doi:10.1080/00958964.2011.621995.
Gess-Newsome, J. 2015. A model of Teacher Professional Knowledge and Skill Including PCK: Results of the
Thinking from the PCK Summit. In Re-Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education, edited by
P. J. Friedrichsen, A. Berry, J. Loughran, 28–42. New York: Routledge.
Grossman, P. L. 1990. The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education. NewYork: Teachers
College Press.
Gunckel, K. L., B. A. Covitt, and I. Salinas. 2018. “Learning Progressions as Tools for Supporting Teacher Content
Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge about Water in Environmental Systems.” Journal of Research in
Science Teaching 55 (9): 1339–1361. doi:10.1002/tea.21454.
Habib, B. 2018. “Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Golbal Environmental Politics.” International Studies
Perspectives 19 (3): 218–234. doi:10.1093/isp/ekx015.
Hume, A., and A. Berry. 2011. “Constructing CoRes – A Strategy for Building PCK in Pre-Service Science Teacher
Education.” Research in Science Education 41 (3): 341–355. doi:10.1007/s11165-010-9168-3.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2018. “Sixth Assessment Report.” Accessed 22 July 2019. http://www.
ipcc.ch/index.htm
Jensen, B. B., and K. Schnack. 1997. “The Action Competence Approach in Environmental Education.” Environmental
Education Research 3 (2): 163–179. doi:10.1080/1350462970030205.
Kennelly, J., N. Taylor, and T. W. Maxwell. 2008. “Addressing the Challenge of Preparing Australian Pre-Service
Primary Teachers in Environmental Education.” Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 2 (2): 141–156.
doi:10.1177/097340820800200211.
Kind, V. 2009. “Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Potential and perspectives for progress.”
Studies in Science Education 45(2): 169–204.
Lee, E. and Luft, J.A. 2008. “Experienced Secondary Science Teachers’ Representation of Pedagogical Content
Knowledge.” International Journal of Science Education 30(10): 1343–1363. doi:10.1080/09500690802187058.
Loughran, J., P. Mulhall, and A. Berry. 2008. “Exploring Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Teacher
Education.” International Journal of Science Education 30 (10): 1301–1320. doi:10.1080/09500690802187009.
Magnusson, S., J. Krajcik, and H. Borko. 1999. Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge
for science teaching. In Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Construct and Its Implications for Science
Education, edited by J. Gess-Newsome and N. G. Lederman, 95–132. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
16 C. EAMES AND S. BIRDSALL

McLean, T. 2003. “Environmental Education in Otago Primary Schools: Education for the Environment?” Set 1:4–9.
McMillan, E., and L. Vasseur. 2010. “Environmental Education: Interdisciplinarity in Action.” The International Journal
of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences: Annual Review 5 (3): 435–445. doi:10.18848/1833-1882/CGP/v05i03/51624.
Miles, R., L. Harrison, and A. Cutter-Mackenzie. 2006. “Teacher Education: A Diluted Environmental Education
Experience.” Australian Journal of Environmental Education 22 (1): 49–59. doi:10.1017/S0814062600001658.
New Zealand Qualifications Authority. 2018. “Achievement Standards.” Accessed 22 July 2019. https://www.nzqa.
govt.nz/ncea/subjects/education-for-sustainability/levels/
Nilsson, P. 2008. “Teaching for Understanding: The Complex Nature of Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Pre-Service
Education.” International Journal of Science Education 30 (10): 1281–1299. doi:10.1080/09500690802186993.
Otrel-Cass, K., B. Cowie, J. Moreland, and A. Jones. 2009. “Teachers and Researchers Working Together: A Subject
Specific Planning Framework as a Boundary Object.” In Partnership in Education, edited by P. M. A. M. Pilo,
128–152. Lille Cedex, France: The Book Edition.Com.
Otto, C. A., and S. A. Everett. 2013. “An Instructional Strategy to Introduce Pedagogical Content Knowledge Using
Venn Diagrams.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 24 (2): 391–403. doi:10.1007/s10972-012-9272-5.
Padilla, K., A. M. Ponce-de-Leo
n, F. M. Rembado, and A. Garritz. 2008. “Undergraduate Professors’ Pedagogical
Content Knowledge: The Case of ’Amount of Substance.” International Journal of Science Education 30 (10):
1389–1404. doi:10.1080/09500690802187033.
Purwianingsih, W., and A. Mardiyah. 2018. “Analysis of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) Ability of Science
Teachers in Planning and Reflecting on Environmental Pollution Content.” Journal of Physics: Conference Series
1013:012076. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/012076.
Rathzel, N., and D. Uzzell. 2009. “Transformative Environmental Education: A Collective Rehearsal for Reality.”
Environmental Education Research 15 (3): 263–277. doi:10.1080/13504620802567015.
Rickinson, M. 2001. “Learners and Learning in Environmental Education: A Critical Review of the Evidence.”
Environmental Education Research 7 (3): 207–320. doi:10.1080/13504620120065230.
Shulman, L. 1987. “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform.” Harvard Educational Review 57 (1):
1–22. doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411.
Shumba, O., and R. Kampamba. 2012/2013. “Mainstreaming ESD into Science Teacher Education Courses: A Case
for ESD Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Learning as Connection.” Southern African Journal of Environmental
Education 29:151–166.
Singer-Brodowski. 2016. “Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Sustainability: A Missing Piece in the Puzzle of
Professional Development of Educators in Higher Education for Sustainable Development.” International Journal
of Sustainability in Higher Education 18 (6): 841–856. doi:10.1108/IJSHE-02-2016-0035.
Stanisic, J., and S. Maksi
c. 2014. “Environmental Education in Serbian Primary Schools: Challenges and Changes in
Curriculum, Pedagogy, and Teacher Training.” The Journal of Environmental Education 45 (2): 118–131. doi:10.
1080/00958964.2013.829019.
Tilbury, D. 1995. “Environmental Education for Sustainability: Defining the New Focus of Environmental Education
in the 1990’s.” Environmental Education Research 1 (2): 195–212. doi:10.1080/1350462950010206.
Tilbury, D., V. Coleman, and D. Garlick. 2005. A National Review of Environmental Education and Its Contribution to
Sustainability in Australia: School Education – Key Findings. Canberra: Australian Government Department of the
Environment and Heritage and Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability (ARIES).
United Nations. 2012. “The Future We Want.” Accessed 22 July 2019. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/future-
wewant.html
United Nations World Water Assessment Programme. 2014. The United Nations World Water Development Report
2014: Water and Energy. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Wilks, L., and N. Harris. 2016. “Examining the Conflict and Interconnectedness of Young People’s Ideas about
Environmental Issues, Responsibility and Action.” Environmental Education Research 22 (5): 683–696. doi:10.1080/
13504622.2015.1054261.
Williams, J., C. Eames, A. Hume, and J. Lockley. 2012. “Promoting Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)
Development for Early Career Secondary Teachers in Science and Technology Using Content Representation
(CoRes).” Research in Science & Technological Education 30 (3): 327–343. doi:10.1080/02635143.2012.740005.
Yavetz, B., D. Goldman, and S. Pe’er. 2009. “Environmental Literacy of Pre-Service Teachers in Israel: A Comparison
between Students at the Onset and End of Their Studies.” Environmental Education Research 15 (4): 393–415.
doi:10.1080/13504620902928422.
Yohe, G. W., R. D. Lasco, Q. K. Ahmad, N. W. Arnell, S. J. Cohen, C. Hope, A. C. Janetos, and R. T. Perez. 2007.
“Perspectives on Climate Change and Sustainability. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability.” In Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, edited by M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson,
811–841. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zhou, G. 2015. “Environmental Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Conceptual Framework for Teacher Knowledge
and Development” In Educating Science Teachers for Sustainability, edited by S. K. E. A. Stratton. Zurich,
Switzerland: Springer.