El diccionario Bíblico nos dice lo siguiente en cuanto a la ciudad de Laodicea:

emphasised the themes of ‘information drop’29 _{and ‘resource focus’} 30_{. They} made no change to their practice post the period of intervention. Val stated ‘I didn’t feel there were many changes that I wanted to make’ (9.5.12:5). For these practitioners, they continued to favour transmissive environmental pedagogies that resonated closely with Freire’s ‘banking concept’ (1970:58) of education (see section 2.2.3). The focus of this transmission of information was on resource usage and on encouraging learners to save energy, recycle and avoid waste.

In making no change, George, Jules, Chris, Jo and Val, had provided a negative response to the main research question ‘Can innovative

environmental pedagogies be integrated into the practice of teaching in the local government adult community education service in which I work?’ They had indicated that the integration of innovative environmental pedagogies was problematic and had decided not to include practices that encouraged

reflection on nature and were socially-critical. I was interested in identifying why they continued to favour transmissive environmental pedagogies that focussed on encouraging learners to save energy, recycle and avoid waste and it is to an exploration of these reasons I now turn. To add depth and provide further insight to my analysis, I focus on an explication of one of the practitioners’ reasons, George. I focus on George because she was willing to

29 _{See section 4.2.3.} 30 _{See section 4.2.4.}

be involved in a series of discussions post the period of intervention which provided a rich source of data.

During these discussions George explained how the research had

encouraged her to enter into a reflexive process regarding the environmental pedagogies she involved within her practice, stating ‘I have really thought about what I’m doing’. George indicated that at the end of this process, she decided to make only limited changes to her practice:

All I have done really is place slightly more emphasis on things that I probably would have mentioned before, like recycling and

avoiding waste (29.6.12:7).

During the second workshop though, George had raised concerns about environmental pedagogies that focussed on the transmission of information from practitioner to learner:

I think the advantage is you can pass on lots of information very quickly but the disadvantage is that it then relies on people to actually do something and people don’t always do something. So however much you talk about recycling, people don’t change their behaviour. So you are relying on the information to actually overcome people’s apathy and create some momentum. I think that is a very high expectation (16.3.12:4).

I asked George why she continued with environmental pedagogies that relied on the transmission of information even though in an earlier discussion she had expressed reservations about this approach. George gave three inter- related reasons. The first was associated with practitioner isolation. George taught two plumbing courses at two schools in rural areas in the evening. Few other courses were taught on the same evening at either school. Because of this she rarely met or engaged in creative discussion with other practitioners about curriculum developments. In addition, George explained that she was ‘the only person teaching this subject [DIY and plumbing]’ (29.6.12:3) within the service. This was a limiting factor for George because

she felt there were no other practitioners, with specific content knowledge of her subject area, with whom she could share and develop ideas and so found it difficult to think of ways of combining innovative theories in environmental pedagogy into practice:

If I was teaching a subject that lots of other people were teaching, so if I was teaching ICT or a language or something I would probably be more used to a collaborative approach and to having planning meetings to plan your approach (29.6.12:3).

George explained that her isolation resulted in her making assumptions about how she could integrate environmental pedagogy into practice:

I’ve just assumed that this was the best way of working in terms of teaching the learners about reuse and recycling and teaching them the value of materials (13.10.14:2).

References to basing the integration of environmental pedagogies on

assumptions draws attention to George’s second reason. George discussed how her personally held beliefs and values influenced her practice. She explained that she focussed on conveying messages relating to recycling and avoiding waste, because:

…those issues are important to me. I can’t talk to people about plumbing without mentioning that you should be reusing and

recycling… That’s the way I feel... That’s what comes across in the way that I teach. It’s not that I’m picking that up from the syllabus or guidelines from our adult community education service

(13.10.14:2).

George went on to suggest that teaching practices and approaches are:

…hugely coloured by the person delivering the course and the values that the person holds dear or feels strongly about. I can’t ignore the issues that I feel are relevant (13.10.14:3).

The third reason was associated with George’s perception of the relevance of integrating environmental pedagogies into practice. Although George

accepted that her focus on recycling, reusing and avoiding waste was

influenced by her own beliefs and values, she justified her position by stating:

It’s not just a personal thing. In construction generally and plumbing specifically there are regulations to do with energy

efficiency and waste and although not on the syllabus, I don’t feel I can teach plumbing without making reference to…things that are relevant and important and backed up with legislation (13.10.14:1).

George was suggesting that she could legitimately convey information relating to recycling, reusing and avoiding waste because this information was

essential for legislative reasons. Learners would find this information relevant when working as plumbers or carrying out DIY. Conversely, she did not perceive approaches accordant with innovative environmental pedagogies to be relevant to learners.

George’s explanation of why she continued to favour the integration of a transmissive environmental pedagogy into practice has significance for the main research question in three ways. The first relates to the reference

George made to practitioner isolation and lack of peer support. Neither Grace and Sharp (2000), Cotton (2006a) or Fazio and Karrow (2013) make

reference to practitioner isolation within their research. Within my study, reference to concerns of isolation were widespread. Five practitioners reported that they felt isolated in their work and rarely or never discussed practice with colleagues or peers whilst working in adult community education. George’s experience demonstrates that this can be a significant influence in deterring practitioners from considering integrating innovative environmental pedagogies into practice. Secondly, George’s response illustrates how practitioner beliefs and values play a significant role in determining the environmental pedagogies that are integrated into practice. The research by Cotton (2006a) also found that teachers’ beliefs significantly influenced the approaches they adopted. Crucially, throughout the research however, many practitioners including George drew attention to the importance of teacher

neutrality (Cotton, 2006a). They emphasised concern over practitioners expressing personal beliefs and values to learners. George’s example indicates there is a complexity within practitioner perceptions of when values and beliefs can legitimately be integrated into practice and when they cannot. I will discuss this complexity in detail in section 5.2.2.

Thirdly, George’s concern regarding relevance was not an isolated concern. During the research, six practitioners questioned the relevance of integrating innovative environmental pedagogies into the subject area they taught. Their concerns were two fold. Firstly, four practitioners raised concerns over

relevance to the learning objectives identified within their course syllabus. Secondly, five practitioners expressed concern over relevance to the learning needs of people attending adult community education classes. I explore these concerns further in section 5.2.1