Sustainability education in early childhood: An updated review of research in the field

Abstract

Sustainability education is increasingly practiced in early childhood, but a previous review of the literature suggests that there is little empirical research to provide the necessary foundation and critique. The current paper addresses the question of whether there has been an increase in empirical research in the field since this review, and if so, what are the theoretical and methodological developments informing this research. The method of the study is to review the literature in the field following similar processes to the previous review in order to provide a comparison. The articles identified were then categorized and evaluated according to their different theoretical and methodological orientations. The review found that there are twice as many articles as identified in the previous study and that these articles are now equally published in mainstream and environmental education journals. A metaanalysis of the articles using a typology of methodological orientations provided a basis for critique. Three major categories of theoretical orientation were identified as: Connection to nature; Children's rights; and Post-human frameworks with varying degrees of theoretical engagement. It is recommended that new post-human frameworks recently applied in early childhood education research could usefully be connected to researching early childhood education for planetary sustainability.

Special Issue: Contemporary Research on Early Childhood Education for Sustainability

“…The growing body of ECEfS research literature from different theoretical and methodological perspectives (Ä rlemalm-Hagsér and Davis 2014; Davis and Elliott 2014;Green 2015;Somerville and Williams 2015) suggests there are several research areas still to be developed: (1) critical studies; (2) education contexts; (3) transformational pedagogies; and (4) ECEfS theoretical concepts and understandings.…”

“…Davis (2014Davis ( , 2015, for example, advocates for an expanded rights framework including: (1) children's competence and right to participate in sustainability efforts; (2) children's right to be agents of change; (3) collective rights, as a complement to thinking about children's/human rights; (4) intergenerational rights; and (5) the rights of all living beings as well the non-living. Somerville and Williams (2015) suggest that employing a post-humanist framework and a philosophy beyond the nature-culture binary can be one way to discursively challenge unsustainable epistemologies, ontologies and practices. Also, values as well as cultural-historical ideas and philosophies are deeply intertwined with everyday pedagogy (Dahlberg and Moss 2005).…”

“…In 2009, Davis identified the paucity of published ECEfS papers in a mapping review of relevant journals; some 5 years later Somerville and Williams (2015) described a doubling of published papers since Davis's (2009) earlier review. Also, the first edited compilation of ECEfS research was published (Davis and Elliott 2014).…”

Short-term International Experience (STIE) and Students’ Understanding of Quality Early Childhood Service Provision

“…It is not evident in the data that students developed a different understanding of sustainability from their experiences [particularly in relation to understanding sustainability in the different ways identified by Somerville and Williams (2015)] however what is evident to a small degree is that students may have taken ideas and incorporated them into their "toolbox" of professional ideas for practice. This appears to be a process similar to that of Piaget's assimilation rather than accommodation suggesting that rather than questioning understandings of quality (particularly in relation to the National Quality Standard Principle 3) students may use their experiences to simply find more ways to meet the standard.…”

“…The latest report from the accrediting body (Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority, 2017) shows that elements 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 are the 3 rd and 4 th most likely elements not to meet the required quality level, with Standard 3 overall the 3 rd most likely of all the standards to not be met (14% of accredited EC services have not met this standard, 60% have met and 26% have exceeded the standard). Somerville & Williams (2015) argue that the form of wording in the standard and curriculum position sustainability as something associated with the environment and not part of children's everyday social and community life. As a consequence understandings of sustainability tend to focus on children's connection to nature, and the idea of a nature-deficit disorder reflecting children's limited opportunities to be part of nature becomes part of this thinking.…”