Response: Theory in, theory out: NCSE and the ESS curriculum
Response: Theory in, theory out: NCSE and the ESS curriculum
复制标题
回应：理论输入，理论输出：NCSE 和 ESS 课程
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
S. Vincent
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Vincent
这篇评论是对詹姆斯·普罗克托题为《理论输入，理论输出：NCSE和ESS课程》(环境研究科学5(2)：218-223,2015)的文章的回应，该文章批评了报告《2012年国家校园的跨学科环境和可持续发展教育：课程设计》(文森特等人)。2013)及其与环境研究和科学(ESS)课程相关的调查结果。正如Proctor所断言的那样，我们的报告没有限制课程讨论或演变，也没有鼓励在ESS课程中走向趋同。相反，其影响很简单，尽管跨学科环境与可持续发展(IES)学位有很大的多样性，但该领域的特性和课程设计的广泛方法有一些共同的方面。结果还表明，学位项目的名称并不是课程内容的可靠指标，新兴的可持续发展和能源项目符合广泛的ESS范式。国家科学与环境委员会(NCSE)环境教育研究中心(CEER)的所有研究和报告都旨在通过提供使用严格的研究设计和统计分析技术获得的相关信息来支持正在进行的讨论。它们并不是为了说明性或支持现状。
This commentary is a response to the article by James Proctor titled “Theory In, Theory Out: NCSE and the ESS Curriculum” (Environ Stud Sci 5(2):218–223, 2015) which critiques the report Interdisciplinary Environmental and Sustainability Education on the Nation’s Campuses 2012: Curriculum Design (Vincent et al. 2013) and its findings related to environmental studies and sciences (ESS) curricula. Our report does not constrain curricular discussion or evolution nor does it encourage a move toward convergence in ESS curricula as Proctor asserts. Instead, the implications are simply that, while there is a wide diversity of interdisciplinary environmental and sustainability (IES) degrees, there are some shared aspects of the identity of the field and broad approaches to curriculum design. The results also reveal that a degree program’s name is not a reliable indicator of curricular content and that newly emerging programs in sustainability and energy fit within the broad ESS paradigm. All of the National Council for Science and the Environment’s (NCSE) Center for Environmental Education Research (CEER) studies and reports are designed to support ongoing discussion by providing relevant information obtained using rigorous research design and statistical analysis techniques. They are not intended to be prescriptive or support the status quo.