The impact of language framing on critical elaboration in sustainability education

Because what people do individually and collectively is not based solely on what they know, the way educators communicate concepts in sustainability education is of utmost importance. Framing may impact recognized antecedents of pro-environmental behavior (such as attitudes) as well as traditional educational outcomes (e.g., critical thinking). Because commonly used frames are based in metaphors that tend to portray nature as a resource and resist ecological realities (e.g., the finite nature of matter), sustainability education may actually undermine pro-environmental behavior. This study examines the impact of framing on critical elaboration in sustainability education. Participants were college students in introductory ecology and recreation courses. Using a 2x2 fully factorial design, students read text; that portrayed humans as either a part of nature (systems metaphor) or apart from nature (nonsystems metaphor) in either active or passive voice and responded using a thought-listing technique. Responses were then coded for critical elaboration. Data were analyzed using an analysis of variance, which revealed no interaction of voice and metaphor type effects. A comparison of main effects means revealed significant differences. Frames that used a systems metaphor rather than a nonsystems metaphor elicited higher critical elaboration scores. Frames that used active rather than passive voice elicited more critical elaboration. Implications for future research and for sustainability education are discussed.