Autores:
Gossart C.
online
1st conference of the ECO network (Ecological Crises & Organization)
TITLE OF PROPOSAL
Collaborating for sustainability: Solutions journalism and learning dynamics in a business school context
AUTHOR
Cédric GOSSART
Université Paris-Saclay, Univ Évry, IMT-BS, LITEM, 91025, Évry-Courcouronnes, France cedric.gossart@imt-bs.eu
ABSTRACT
This paper proposal fits the ECO WS objective titled “Pedagogical approaches related to ecological crises and organizations”.
Research objectives/questions
This paper aims to investigate the learning dynamics triggered by a pedagogical innovation for sustainability education. It is based on a 3 years experiment of an L3 course in a French public business school (IMT-BS) that has involved between 100 and 200 students each year.
The pedagogical innovation is a project-based course relying on Solutions Journalism (SoJo), which “investigates and explains, in a critical and clear-eyed way, how people try to solve widely shared problems. While journalists usually define news as ‘what’s gone wrong’, solutions journalism tries to expand that definition: responses to problems are also newsworthy. By adding rigorous coverage of solutions, journalists can tell the whole story.” In terms of learning, SoJo thus enables pursuing various objectives such as sustainability education or education for the media, while favouring team work and critical thinking. Therefore, it mobilises various learning mechanisms such as first or second order learning that have specific impacts in terms of sustainability changes and are defined in the next section.
The context of the course is as follows. It was developed in a French public business school (IMT-BS) seeking to enhance sustainability education for all its first-year students (since students usually enter French business schools after 2 years of prep schools, when they pass the exam and join a school, they are in L3). It results from a collaboration with the NGO Teragir specialised in sustainability education and member of the international network FEE (Foundation for Environmental Education). More precisely, the aim was to adapt the sustainability education programme of FEE called “Young Reporters for the Environment” (YRE, run by National Operators in more than 40 countries) to a higher education context, which had never been done before. After two years of giving a traditional course to 100 students at a time (2019-2020 & 2020-2021), I wanted to explore alternative pedagogical approaches and link up my professional activities with my voluntary ones (I have been a volunteer board member of Teragir for more than 20 years). Besides, I was in touch with the students’ sustainability club that wanted to consult first-year students about how to expand sustainability education in the school and I suggested to diffuse an online questionnaire to my students. To the question “In our opinion what are the best ways to learn about sustainability”, the 3 top multiple-choice answers were (1) Field visits, (2) Guest speakers; and (3) Serious games. Preparing SoJo reports, which include field visits, met all these expectations.
The aim of the project to be carried out by students in this course (titled in French “Organisations et enjeux sociétaux” -OES ) is to prepare a SoJo report that can take different forms accepted by the YRE programme (article, podcast, video). This is to be carried out in teams of 3 or 4 students, and in SoJo spirit the aim is to present a solution developed by an organisation (the course is a management science one) to address sustainability issues.
The course was relatively short since it corresponded to 1 ECTS (hence 20 hours of student work), and thus most hours were dedicated to team work, as evidenced in the below planning.
Because of time shortage the course was design to save as much time as possible for team work, which means that several activities had to be carried out before the first session (S1), such as reading syllabus & instructions and other sustainability-related documents placed in Moodle, watching introductory videos prepared by the lecturer (myself), and last but not least (Deliverable n°1) forming teams and choosing their own topic on Moodle. Advice was provided to find ideas and organisations to study.
To make sure that all teams were making smooth progress, very week of class there was a progress report to submit in Moodle that could be graded (“Livrable” -Deliverable) or not (“Check-in”). After submission I examined the reports and made comments via Moodle, graded the deliverables and summoned teams that did not deliver (points could be lost for each day of late delivery). Grades given to the four deliverables make up the final grade, minus possible deductions.
During class time teams were working autonomously, apart from the first session during which I introduced the course and clarified expectations with a colleague from Teragir. During that time, I was present in a videoconference room called “Helpdesk” that they could join by video of telephone call to ask questions or respond to mine, for example if they were late in their deliveries or heading in a wrong direction. The best final reports are presented on the course blog. All teams had to explain to which SDG the solution they were addressing was corresponding.
Conceptual framework
In addition to my teaching objectives, I also had research questions in mind. In an action research project, I explored the role of digital technologies in triggering specific learning mechanisms, notably first and second order learning.
With “first order learning” (FOL), fundamental assumptions, values and identities do not change; whereas with “second order learning” (SOL) these notions evolve. FOL is the type of reflection employed in daily activities. It helps people observe and act the same way as they always did, remaining in a comfortable cognitive space composed of previously acquired convictions. As for SOL (Geels & Schot, 2007; Johan Schot & Steinmueller, 2018; van Mierlo & Beers, 2020), it is a transformative learning process (Mezirow, 1997) enabling actors to change their worldviews, values and identities. By consolidating behavioural change, when people activate SOL their contribution to ecological transformation is much deeper (Köhler et al., 2019; J. Schot, Kivimaa, & Torrens, 2019).
When I reconstructed the course, I was concerned about that shift from a traditional one where I delivered knowledge about organisations and sustainability, and a project-based and never been done before experiment. What will my students learn in the end? What will remain in five or even two years? How can I make the most of the 20 available hours to raise their awareness about organisations and sustainability? Will they end up learning more than a few facts (FOL) or can they transform their worldview on that topic? (SOL)
As an organisation study scholar I was familiar with learning processes at individual and organisational levels (e.g. through the works of Chris Argyris (2003) for example), but not to their application to sustainability education. I thus decided to investigate the types of learning triggered by my pedagogical innovation and to present that project to the EU-SPRI conference, hence the following research question: “What types of learning processes do business school students use when preparing SoJo reports in teams?”
Methodology
To answer that question, I rely on several information sources:
1) Response to a questionnaire students have to answer upon completing the course;
2) Outputs produced by students (deliverables, check-ins);
3) Notes taken during my interactions with students;
4) Complementary interviews;
5) Focus group with best 2024 teams.
The course was well evaluated by students, I will present the data in the full paper and I am in the progress of gathering items 4 & 5. My aim is to go through this data and bring out the types of learning mobilised in this intense students’ learning experience.
In the conclusion, I will reflect upon changes in my teaching practices using the concept of social practice developed by Elisabeth Shove (2012), which I used in an aforementioned and forthcoming paper (Gossart, 2023). This will enable me to explore avenues to empower higher education about sustainability through social innovation.
References
Argyris, C. (2003). A Life Full of Learning. Organization Studies, 24, 1178–1192.
Geels, F., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36, 399–417.
Gossart, C. (2023). Beyond small ecological acts: How can digital practices activate second order learning? International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370715090_Beyond_small_ecological_acts_How_can_digital_practices_activate_second_order_learning
Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., … Wells, P. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1–32.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1997, 5–12.
Schot, J., Kivimaa, P., & Torrens, J. (2019). Transforming experimentation: Experimental Policy Engagements and their Transformative Outcomes. TIPC project.
Schot, Johan, & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47, 1554–1567.
Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and how it Changes. SAGE.
van Mierlo, B., & Beers, P. J. (2020). Understanding and governing learning in sustainability transitions: A review. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 34, 255–269.
Slides: https://partage.imt.fr/index.php/s/nCNsKCRb8wazAYt
Collaborating for sustainability: Solutions journalism and learning dynamics in a business school context
AUTHOR
Cédric GOSSART
Université Paris-Saclay, Univ Évry, IMT-BS, LITEM, 91025, Évry-Courcouronnes, France cedric.gossart@imt-bs.eu
ABSTRACT
This paper proposal fits the ECO WS objective titled “Pedagogical approaches related to ecological crises and organizations”.
Research objectives/questions
This paper aims to investigate the learning dynamics triggered by a pedagogical innovation for sustainability education. It is based on a 3 years experiment of an L3 course in a French public business school (IMT-BS) that has involved between 100 and 200 students each year.
The pedagogical innovation is a project-based course relying on Solutions Journalism (SoJo), which “investigates and explains, in a critical and clear-eyed way, how people try to solve widely shared problems. While journalists usually define news as ‘what’s gone wrong’, solutions journalism tries to expand that definition: responses to problems are also newsworthy. By adding rigorous coverage of solutions, journalists can tell the whole story.” In terms of learning, SoJo thus enables pursuing various objectives such as sustainability education or education for the media, while favouring team work and critical thinking. Therefore, it mobilises various learning mechanisms such as first or second order learning that have specific impacts in terms of sustainability changes and are defined in the next section.
The context of the course is as follows. It was developed in a French public business school (IMT-BS) seeking to enhance sustainability education for all its first-year students (since students usually enter French business schools after 2 years of prep schools, when they pass the exam and join a school, they are in L3). It results from a collaboration with the NGO Teragir specialised in sustainability education and member of the international network FEE (Foundation for Environmental Education). More precisely, the aim was to adapt the sustainability education programme of FEE called “Young Reporters for the Environment” (YRE, run by National Operators in more than 40 countries) to a higher education context, which had never been done before. After two years of giving a traditional course to 100 students at a time (2019-2020 & 2020-2021), I wanted to explore alternative pedagogical approaches and link up my professional activities with my voluntary ones (I have been a volunteer board member of Teragir for more than 20 years). Besides, I was in touch with the students’ sustainability club that wanted to consult first-year students about how to expand sustainability education in the school and I suggested to diffuse an online questionnaire to my students. To the question “In our opinion what are the best ways to learn about sustainability”, the 3 top multiple-choice answers were (1) Field visits, (2) Guest speakers; and (3) Serious games. Preparing SoJo reports, which include field visits, met all these expectations.
The aim of the project to be carried out by students in this course (titled in French “Organisations et enjeux sociétaux” -OES ) is to prepare a SoJo report that can take different forms accepted by the YRE programme (article, podcast, video). This is to be carried out in teams of 3 or 4 students, and in SoJo spirit the aim is to present a solution developed by an organisation (the course is a management science one) to address sustainability issues.
The course was relatively short since it corresponded to 1 ECTS (hence 20 hours of student work), and thus most hours were dedicated to team work, as evidenced in the below planning.
Because of time shortage the course was design to save as much time as possible for team work, which means that several activities had to be carried out before the first session (S1), such as reading syllabus & instructions and other sustainability-related documents placed in Moodle, watching introductory videos prepared by the lecturer (myself), and last but not least (Deliverable n°1) forming teams and choosing their own topic on Moodle. Advice was provided to find ideas and organisations to study.
To make sure that all teams were making smooth progress, very week of class there was a progress report to submit in Moodle that could be graded (“Livrable” -Deliverable) or not (“Check-in”). After submission I examined the reports and made comments via Moodle, graded the deliverables and summoned teams that did not deliver (points could be lost for each day of late delivery). Grades given to the four deliverables make up the final grade, minus possible deductions.
During class time teams were working autonomously, apart from the first session during which I introduced the course and clarified expectations with a colleague from Teragir. During that time, I was present in a videoconference room called “Helpdesk” that they could join by video of telephone call to ask questions or respond to mine, for example if they were late in their deliveries or heading in a wrong direction. The best final reports are presented on the course blog. All teams had to explain to which SDG the solution they were addressing was corresponding.
Conceptual framework
In addition to my teaching objectives, I also had research questions in mind. In an action research project, I explored the role of digital technologies in triggering specific learning mechanisms, notably first and second order learning.
With “first order learning” (FOL), fundamental assumptions, values and identities do not change; whereas with “second order learning” (SOL) these notions evolve. FOL is the type of reflection employed in daily activities. It helps people observe and act the same way as they always did, remaining in a comfortable cognitive space composed of previously acquired convictions. As for SOL (Geels & Schot, 2007; Johan Schot & Steinmueller, 2018; van Mierlo & Beers, 2020), it is a transformative learning process (Mezirow, 1997) enabling actors to change their worldviews, values and identities. By consolidating behavioural change, when people activate SOL their contribution to ecological transformation is much deeper (Köhler et al., 2019; J. Schot, Kivimaa, & Torrens, 2019).
When I reconstructed the course, I was concerned about that shift from a traditional one where I delivered knowledge about organisations and sustainability, and a project-based and never been done before experiment. What will my students learn in the end? What will remain in five or even two years? How can I make the most of the 20 available hours to raise their awareness about organisations and sustainability? Will they end up learning more than a few facts (FOL) or can they transform their worldview on that topic? (SOL)
As an organisation study scholar I was familiar with learning processes at individual and organisational levels (e.g. through the works of Chris Argyris (2003) for example), but not to their application to sustainability education. I thus decided to investigate the types of learning triggered by my pedagogical innovation and to present that project to the EU-SPRI conference, hence the following research question: “What types of learning processes do business school students use when preparing SoJo reports in teams?”
Methodology
To answer that question, I rely on several information sources:
1) Response to a questionnaire students have to answer upon completing the course;
2) Outputs produced by students (deliverables, check-ins);
3) Notes taken during my interactions with students;
4) Complementary interviews;
5) Focus group with best 2024 teams.
The course was well evaluated by students, I will present the data in the full paper and I am in the progress of gathering items 4 & 5. My aim is to go through this data and bring out the types of learning mobilised in this intense students’ learning experience.
In the conclusion, I will reflect upon changes in my teaching practices using the concept of social practice developed by Elisabeth Shove (2012), which I used in an aforementioned and forthcoming paper (Gossart, 2023). This will enable me to explore avenues to empower higher education about sustainability through social innovation.
References
Argyris, C. (2003). A Life Full of Learning. Organization Studies, 24, 1178–1192.
Geels, F., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36, 399–417.
Gossart, C. (2023). Beyond small ecological acts: How can digital practices activate second order learning? International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370715090_Beyond_small_ecological_acts_How_can_digital_practices_activate_second_order_learning
Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., … Wells, P. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1–32.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1997, 5–12.
Schot, J., Kivimaa, P., & Torrens, J. (2019). Transforming experimentation: Experimental Policy Engagements and their Transformative Outcomes. TIPC project.
Schot, Johan, & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47, 1554–1567.
Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and how it Changes. SAGE.
van Mierlo, B., & Beers, P. J. (2020). Understanding and governing learning in sustainability transitions: A review. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 34, 255–269.
Slides: https://partage.imt.fr/index.php/s/nCNsKCRb8wazAYt
Fecha de celbración:
Monday, 13 May 2024