Drawing on the recent research ‘Dominant and demotic school culture: analysis of tensions fields’ this paper analyses found artifacts in 6 different Lithuanian secondary schools. The visual data was collected by making images of places and artifacts which were mentioned during the walks in the school territory with one teacher and one pupil afterwards. The analysis of images focuses particularly on two aspects: a) which artifacts are significant for teachers and pupils in the schools? b)  What do these artifacts mean for teachers and pupils? Therefore, the analysis is based on comparing walks among teachers and pupils in all schools. The analysis shows obvious differences on re/presented artifacts among teachers and pupils. The teachers emphasized and showed those artifacts which on one way or another represent their schools’ achievements, like pupils’ sport achievements, pupils’ artworks, and honored pupils’ displays, and were related with aspects of pride. The paper argues the possible reasons for the importance of pride in schools. Meanwhile, pupils were highlighting spaces they like to gather around during non-learning time. Pupils appreciate less visible places because it is possible to have some privacy there. As analysis shows, different sitting artifacts (chairs, sofas, beanbags) play an important role for creating such private pupils’ ‘oases’. On the other hand, such artifacts, as pupils’ artworks, information displays, and sport achievements, seem to be meaningful for pupils if they were contributing in the creation process or were mentioned in these artifacts.

The contemporary world is marked by numerous new challenges: growth of inequality, migration, development of new technologies, climate change. All of them create tensions among nations, social groups or cultures. In the face of growing multiculturalism and need for dialogue, social responsibility as a concept in the educational field has received due attention. For instance, Berman (Educational Leadership, November:75–80, 1990; Children’s social consciousness and the development of social responsibility, University of New York Press, New York,1997; Leadership for social justice and democracy in our schools, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 123–144, 2011) emphasized the importance of education for social responsibility in school and classroom and defined it as personal investment in the well-being of others. Vallaeys (GUNI Report of Higher Education in the World 5:88–96, 2014) discussed social responsibility as a matter of university mission and function. Berman (Leadership for social justice and democracy in our schools, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 123–144, 2011) related the concept of social responsibility to the development of social consciousness that meant balancing on personal self-realization and personal achievement with equal focus on social self-realization and collective achievement. In particular, a person becomes conscious that personal development (i.e. How will I lead my life?) is interrelated with the development of others (i.e. What does the way I lead my life mean for the life of others?). In this case, social responsibility embraces cultural values and creates empowerment, cooperation, compassion, and respect.

This paper investigates the method of the phenomenology of practice developed by the Canadian scholar Max van Manen. The paper describes the development and the main aspects of the phenomenology of practice as well as its importance and relevance to education sciences. However, in line with the critical remarks of the philosopher Dan Zahavi, the paper argues that there are fundamental problems with the phenomenology of practice in regard to phenomenology as philosophy. It is suggested that a researcher who applies this approach in his or her research should be cautious, critically evaluate van Manen’s presentation of phenomenology, and start his/her research from the phenomenological philosophy. Moreover, the paper argues that phenomenology should not be considered only as a methodological approach.

No abstract

This paper continues the scientific discussion on education in the Anthropocene and focuses on the complexity of future education from the learner’s perspective. The first part of the paper explores proposals for education in the Anthropocene from the posthumanist perspective, based on the critical remarks and ideas of different theorists, such as Annette Gough, Nathan Snaza, and Brad Petitfils. The second part focuses on the children of the Anthropocene as the reality of today’s education. The third part looks at the case of young climate activists, who can be considered to be children of the Anthropocene, and how their relationship with education is changing. Young climate activists experience doubts, distrust, and disappointment over formal education, its practice, and its future. Therefore, climate activism movements can be treated as a unique learning environment for young people that also compensates what children of the Anthropocene are missing in formal education.