Researchers and Research in Environmental Education: A critical review essay on Mark Rickinson's report on learners and learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In reviewing Mark Rickinson's report analysing research focused on 'Learners and learning in environmental education' from 1993 to 1999, the authors of this article bear in mind three broad questions around which the paper is organized. First, what is the posture adopted by Rickinson while reviewing what he calls the 'evidence base' stemming from selected empirical studies? The first part of this paper tries to identify the main aspects of his referential framework. Answering such a question improves one's reading of the report from the 'inside' but also helps looking at it from the 'outside' and to envision it from different complementary perspectives. This leads to a second question. Could there be another story we could write from the same 'evidence base'? In the second part, we thus give our own account from this review of the 'evidence base', by focusing on what it tells us about 'researchers and research' in environmental education instead of focusing solely on 'learners and learning': which conceptions of learning, of environment, of environmental education, of evaluation and of research in general underlie researchers' work? These observations lead to the third question. What other avenues of research could be identified and explored? This third part raises some issues about theoretical speculative research, philosophical research, interpretative research, critical research, postmodern research and finally issues about actors involved in research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".