Making the Hidden Curriculum Visible: Sustainability Literacy in Higher Education - Literature review Example

Critical Analysis of Research Project, Peer Review Making the hidden curriculum visible: sustainability literacy in higher education by J. Winter and D. Cotton Critical Analysis of Article Introduction Two of the major tasks in research design are specifying as clearly as possible what the researcher wants to find out and the best way to do it (Babbie, 2010). In the article presented by Winter & Cotton (2012, the authors managed to make the introduction compliant to the two major tasks above by providing a brief background of UK’s policy on ESD and the focus of UN programmes regarding sustainable development in learning. More importantly, aside from providing readers with background knowledge and evidence from relevant literature, they stated the problem and their intention to do investigate the impact of the hidden curriculum in relation to sustainability. For instance, Winter & Cotton (2010) clearly stated the inconsistencies in earlier studies about the potential of education in changing students’ attitude, challenges in the implementation of ESD, a sample of “rhetoric-reality gap”, controversies in the key elements of education contributing to sustainable development, evidence of resistance, the current trend in meeting these challenges, and the potential of hidden curriculum in resolving issues surrounding ESD. Since the article is generally about sustainability in UK’s higher education curriculum, the literature reviewed and used by the authors are relevant and consistent with the article. However, it could have been more convincing if the authors used some other works from other UK educational institutions rather than limiting reference to HM Government. It terms of criticism, the article undoubtedly made a good critique of the university as an institution as evidence by its consistent emphasis on the role of higher education in encouraging autonomous thinking and self-determination. The article also managed to reflect on students’ role in resolving sustainability issues by citing different literature suggesting the relationship between university life and practical aspects of living particularly in sustaining literacy and the environment affecting student learning. Critical Analysis of Overall Research Design In terms of overall research design, the authors sufficiently provided evidence of critical analysis particularly in the pattern of thoughts concerning the issue and commented on the relevance of paradigm in realising the goals of the research. For instance, citing the symbiotic relationship between environmental, social, and economic sustainable development and the need to sustain literacy in the graduates level or higher education is somewhat pertinent particularly when its corroborated by evidence supporting preferred graduate attributes and benefits that may be received through acquisition such knowledge and skills. In taking the worldview of the issue, it is however not clear if the literary works used to inform academic resistance, uncertainties in the meaning of literacy, integration issues, limitations and others represent global perspectives. Examination of the article’s reference list suggests that most of these works are from UK while some are from United Nations which in essence does not necessarily represent the world perspective. Critical Analysis of Research Methodology The methodology on the other hand is clearly stated and adequately explained. The case study approach as suggested by Stake (1995) was used to explore the issue while the field study and data collection was conducted in a UK university. The article explained the selected methodology and how it is going to be applied in the research. However, there seems inconsistency in the way the methodology is applied as there is no indication on the method used to determine the sample size. According to Sim & Wright (2000), it is important to determine the required sample size particularly in studies concerning inferential statistics (p.361) which Winter & Cotton (2012) evidently wants to acquire in order to explain and prove their hypothesis. From detailing the usefulness of the case study method and clarifying the research strategy, the article actually jumped to data collection procedure and unexpectedly presented a data analysis. Moreover, the article did not present any alternative method of research or justification on why it chooses to apply this particular method. Defining or explaining the case study method does not necessarily mean reliability, relevance, and applicability particularly in sensitive issue such as the influence of hidden curriculum in students’ conception of sustainability. By analysis, the article could have been more effective if it presented the strength and weaknesses of other methods, the advantage of case study approach over quantitative approaches, the relevance of case study method in this type of research and the data to be collected, its ability to analyse data, and reliability in producing credible results. Critical Analysis of Data Gathering Method As state, the researcher wants to minimise influence as much as possible and therefore applied a broadly ethnographic approach enabling students to be an observer for the study. Consequently, the students were several tasks including recording (using video camera) their observations of sustainability on campus and later subjected to semi-structured interviews. However, although the data collection approach is somewhat innovative and effectively explained in the article, there seem some inconsistencies with the way this data collection was conducted. For instance, it seems so easy to ask students to record the observations of campus sustainability, video their friends and ask for opinions, make verbal commentary, and being interviewed as if they were obligated and required by law to cooperate with Winter & Cotton. The article presented the research actual data gathering so perfect creating an impression that everyone can do this type research every day. Moreover, data collection seems unaffected by ethical issues as evidenced by its “recruited” students to perform Stage 1 which is actually to video other student in the campus and receive a small honorarium for it. Moreover, despite the nature of data collection there is no indication that the research made an attempt to acquire institutional permit or protect their subject against privacy invasion. Participants were actually given a “limited brief” which detail is again not mentioned in the article and “stimulated recall” which the authors claim can enhance recollection of events by replaying short clips in the video that were taken by the same participants earlier. According to Creswell (2003), researchers doing data collection must respect participants and the site of research because many ethical issues arise during this stage of research. For instance, to avoid putting participants at risk, a research plan should be submitted to the Institutional Review Boards of the university campus so they can assess the potential for risk such physical, psychological, social, economic, or legal harm (p.64). The article is actually impressive in the early part of the introduction but gradually fail as it approaches the methodology section. For instance, note that the section “The Current Study” came before Methodology which is a bit inconsistent considering the fact that the methodology is not even introduced. It could have more understandable if this section is written somewhere in the Methodology Section as “Population Selected for the Study” or “Target Population”. According to Bethlehem (2009), it is a good practice to introduce the research’s target population in the introduction but its detail should be in the methodology section where the researcher define and describe the population characteristics (p.318). Considering these flaws, there seems some problem with Winter & Cotton’s ability to explaining the critical part of their research. It should be noted that the consequences of using small sample size is only discussed at the last part of the methodology section. More importantly, this important part of research methodology was placed after discussing the details of data analysis that is similarly inadequate in terms of technical details. Critical Analysis of Findings, Critique of local practices and university as a learning institution The article presented a critique of sustainable and unsustainable practices around the university using the data collected by six student researchers. The data were mostly associated with the environmental aspect of sustainability such energy efficiency and waste recycling. The critique also generalised that process of video-making enable the student researchers to acquire a broader knowledge of sustainability such as sustainable procurement. However, this critical analysis found no explanation why despite the fact that a considerable number of students expressed their conceptions about sustainability, the data presented and critique of local practices were based only on the conceptions of the six participants which is so small considering the population of the university. Moreover, is it really the intention of this research to get accidental data rather than specific perceptions of sustainability? For instance, aside from sustainable and unsustainable practices identified, there is not much useful information regarding the hidden curriculum which is actually the core of this article. Although four out of six student researchers criticized the role of the university in sustainability, it is not clear how norms, values, and beliefs are transmitted. It is also somewhat confusing to find Winter & Cotton (2010), being superficial about student awareness of university’s external track record in sustainability when they assumed the statements of four student researchers as a “broader conception of campus sustainability” despite their number (sample size issue), credibility (as an inexperience researcher) researcher, and honorarium (paid to do the video). Moreover, the use of the term “surprised” to describe participants’ reaction about the university’s sustainability credentials seems inappropriate particularly when Winter & Cotton (2010) see their comments as provoking. This is because (disregarding the voice of the majority) being surprised does not necessarily mean university management’s shortcomings (which these authors evidently want to imply) as it can also mean ignorance or misunderstanding of university approach to sustainability. For instance, saying that “I don’t feel like there is a big message being sent or anything” or the statement “I didn’t see much information around the uni, in fact I did not see anything” does not necessarily mean there is none but Winter & Cotton (2012) readily assume that “This provoked critique about how the university as an organisation communicated sustainability to the student population”. Note that this article before this critique mentioned the presence of posters about recycling, free-range animal procedure and energy efficiency around the campus. Critical Analysis of the Reflection on Students’ Own Role in Sustainability Issues This part of the article seems make more sense as it adequate discussed the “unsustainable practices” of students who Winter & Cotton (2012) assumed were not aware of the university credentials on sustainability. The discussion on this part of the article actually balanced the issues and encourages focus on specific problems particularly in the promotion of pro-environmental behaviour and being part of university decision-making process. In “Change in perspective and transformational action”, note that awareness and self-determination are now seen as a major solution which is contradictory to findings (the Winter & Cotton’s interpretation in particular) of seems sole responsibility of the university to enhance the hidden curriculum. This is evident in the reflection that the video-making task as a student researcher enable transformative learning about sustainability and encouraged interest on sustainable values, beliefs, and attitudes which Winter & Cotton (2012) termed “unexpected findings”. Critical Analysis of Discussion As expected, Winter & Cotton (2012) consistently emphasise the “unawareness” of the university sustainability credentials but this time specifically mention the potential impact of the hidden curriculum on students understanding of sustainability. However, the authors finally admitted that interpretation of the research result is problematic mainly because the research did not find what it is looking for. As mentioned earlier, the “accidental” data collection strategy with no specific target will yield contradicting data resulting to equally problematic interpretation. In fact, the conclusion is bit out of range from the aim of the research which is to “make the hidden curriculum visible” (see critical analysis of conclusion). Critical Analysis of Conclusion Winter & Cotton (2012) conclude that students are very aware of energy and climate change issues but having little knowledge of issues surrounding social and economic sustainability. They are concern about the limited actions of their peers and the university, and want to participate in decisions regarding sustainability inside the campus. However, there is no indication how students and the university can make the hidden curriculum visible. In fact, the findings according to Winter & Cotton illustrate the impact of the hidden curriculum on students’ conception of sustainability rather than informing the reader on ways to make the hidden curriculum known to all students. Critical Analysis of Contributor and Reference Section This part of the article has no inconsistencies as far as best practices in research design are concern. In fact, the contributors used a relatively significant number of relevant, credible and reliable sources of information which is helpful to research conducting a sensitive social phenomenon such as the role of hidden curriculum in environmental sustainability. Reference list: Babbie E, (2010), The Practice of Social Research, US: Cengage Learning Bethlehem J, (2009), Applied Survey Methods: A Statistical Perspective, US: John Wiley & Sons Creswell J, (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, UK: SAGE Winter J. & Cotton D, (2012), Making the hidden curriculum visible: sustainability literacy in higher education, Environmental Education Research, 18:6, pp.783-796 Sim J. & Wright C, (2000), Research in Health Care: Concepts, Designs, and Methods, UK: Nelson Thornes Read More