| Annotation |
The task of updating the content of environmental education is acute all over the world due to the globalization
of the global resource crisis and the acute need to revise the value and worldview foundations of
human relations with nature. Ecological education is considered as the platform of education for sustainable
development, aimed at qualitative transformation of the interaction culture between society and nature. Directions
for updating the content of environmental clearly identified in the Jubilee Report of the Club of Rome
(2017), Roadmaps of the Global Action Program on Education for Sustainable Development (2014, 2021), the
Concept of environmental education in the system of national general education (2022). The documents emphasize
interdisciplinary, natural-scientific-social-humanitarian-technological, nature of modern environmental
education for sustainable development, its integrating function, which means orientation of all education
to ideas, values and meanings of behavior for sustainable development. Such global task demands serious
reorganization of teachers’ training content and professional development, and in a limited time. Our research
has shown that less than 2 % of general education teachers know and understand the goals of environmental
education for sustainable development. The authors consider staff preparedness for implementation of the
Environmental Education Concept to be critical. The article is devoted to description of the role, directions
and ways of ecological education of general education teachers through their networking. Generalization of
the seven years accumulated experience of such work has allowed to make the following conclusions. Serious
barriers in updating the value and worldview foundations of contemporary environmental education are:
subject reductionism, which dominates in teacher training, and insufficient attention to forming a picture of
the world in its unity and general cultural competence; technological unsolved problem of interaction between
subject teachers in solving “cross-curricular” subject problems; continued construction of environmental education
content “from the bottom up”, from the level of educational materials, rather than from the pre-subjects
level; and the lack of a clear and unified approach to environmental education. Ecological education of teachers
remains at the level of the 1980s, orienting them towards nature conservation and gradually forming their
anthropocentric view of the interaction between man and nature. It is concluded that there are worldview gaps
in the issues of environmental education of teachers. The means of ecological and pedagogical education for
overcoming such gaps within the network partnership of teachers are determined. Examples of increasing
accessibility of complex categories of modern environmental education for teachers-practitioners in order to
form ecocentric ideas of professional activity are given. |
| References |
1. Budaev, E. V., Chudinov, A. P. Cognitive Theory of Metaphor: New horizons. Proceedings of the Ural
Federal University, no. 1, pp. 6–13, 2013. (In Rus.)
2. Budaev, E. V. Chudinov, A. P. Metaphor in pedagogical Discourse: modern foreign studies. Political
linguistics, vol. 1, pp. 69–75, 2007. (in Rus.)
3. Chudinov, A. P. Russia in a metaphorical mirror: a cognitive study of political metaphor (1991–2000).
Yekaterinburg, 2001. (In Rus.)
4. Arutyunova, N. D. Language and the human world. Moscow, 1999. (In Rus.)
5. Khakhalova, S. A. Metaphor as a pedagogical tool. Bulletin of the BSU, no. 1–2, 2014. Web. 11.02.2022.
http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/metafora-kak-pedagogicheskiy-instrument (In Rus.)
6. Kovecses, Z. Metaphor: a practical introduction. Oxford University Press, 2002. (In Eng.)
7. Lakoff, G. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago. L.,
1987. (In Engl.)
8. Musenova, E. A. Development of ideas about the structure of matter in the study of chemistry in high
school. Ulyanovsk: UATREWI, 2007. (In Rus.)
9. Zakirova, A. F. Cognitive metaphors as a means of conceptualizing pedagogical knowledge. Bulletin
of the TyuMSU, no. 9, 2014. Web. 04.10.2022. http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kognitivnye-metafory-kak-sredstvo-
kontseptualizatsii-pedagogicheskogo-znaniya (In Rus.)
10. Trunov, D. The use of metaphors in psychotherapeutic work. Moscow, 1997. Web. 04.10.2022. http://
lacan.narod.ru/ind_met/Default_5.htm (In Rus.)
11. Pligin, A. A. Metaphor as a way of explaining important educational content and transmitting cognitive
strategy. Development of cognitive strategies of schoolchildren: theoretical foundations and practice. М:
South. Depart. of education, 2005. (In Rus.)
12. Pugach, V. E. Metaphor as a category of didactics. Web. 03.03.2022. http://kafmanedu.ru (In Rus.)
13. Sfard, A. On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher,
no. 27, 1998. (In Eng.)
14. Halbesleben, J. R. B., Becker, J. A. H., Buckley, M. R. Considering the labor contributions of students:
An alternative to the student-as-customer metaphor. Journal of Education for Business, no. 78, 2003.
(In Eng.)
15. Klarin, M. V. Innovations in teaching: metaphors and models: Analysis of foreign experience. M:
Nauka, 1997. (In Rus.)
16. Klarin, M. V. Metaphors and value orientations of pedagogical consciousness. Pedagogics, no. 1,
pp. 34–39, 1998. (In Rus.)
17. Dzyatkovskaya, E. N. Education for sustainable development at school. Cultural concepts. “Green
axioms”. Transdisciplinarity. Monograph. M: Education and Ecology, 2015. (In Rus.)
18. Mamedov, N. M. The context of environmental education. Lifelong education, no. 2, pp. 13–19, 2012.
(In Rus.)
19. Vernadsky, V. I. Scientific thought as a planetary phenomenon. М: Nauka, 1991. (In Rus.)
20. Moiseev, N. N. Universe. Information. Society. M: Sustainable world, 2001. (In Rus.)
21. Koptyug, V. A.: The way to nowhere or to the future? Nauka iz pervyh ruk, no. 4, 2006. Web.
04.10.2022. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/v-a-koptyug-put-v-nikuda-ili-v-buduschee (In Rus.) |
