Since its inception in the 1960s, the Faculty of Environmental Studies has been known for its unique graduate program, now comprising both MES and PhD components. In its official promotional material, FES emphasizes that at the core of these programs "is the belief that there can be no single defined program of study for all students, that the pattern of learning experiences should meet individual needs and that learning is a lifelong endeavor for which the student assumes responsibility."
In effect, this means that there is no core curriculum in the FES graduate programs. This individualized and self-directed model allows the student to define who they are, what they want to learn, and how they want to learn. The options are endless, both in terms of substantive areas of interest as well as pedagogical approaches to these areas.
The Plan of Study is the document through which students articulate their backgrounds, substantive interests, and methodological orientations. This plan is developed and revised over a student's program in consultation with an academic advisor, thus reflecting the dynamic process of change that one goes through in an intensive interdisciplinary program. The whole notion of a core curriculum, or canon, is questioned as each plan is unique, defined by the students. They may choose to approach their studies mainly from a theoretical perspective, or mainly from a practice-based approach, or a combination of the two. In designing their program, students may choose to learn through any number of methods: intensive reading courses, field experiences - both local and international, student-organized courses, hands-on workshops, the use of art and media as tools of inquiry and modes of expression. Both disciplinary and epistemological boundaries are challenged.
So how does this model respond to issues of diversity and equity? On the one hand, its openness provides the space for diverse students to name the issues that are important to them and to define the learning approaches that are most appropriate to them, their focus and goals. The Plan of Study begins with a personal narrative that allows students to situate their current interests in the context of their personal, cultural, and intellectual history. This is certainly a place where one may clearly identify the ideas, interests, and ways of knowing/learning that are central to one's multi-faceted identity - in terms of race/ethnicity, class, gender, ability, sexuality, relationship to the non-human world, etc.
Some will question, however, the plan of study model itself, suggesting that it is not value-neutral (nor can any model be so), that it is, in fact, based on a very liberal, rationalist and linear way of thinking reflected in a proposed format that requires the development of specific learning objectives and strategies. The plan has been challenged by Aboriginal students, for example, who have proposed alternative models, such as medicine wheel teachings as a framework for articulating one's interests. In most cases, such challenges are honoured and students can propose an alternative form of plan to fit their epistemological orientation.
Another critique is that the plan is based on a very individualist way of thinking, counter to some cultural practices that stress accountability to community, collaborative work, etc. There have been attempts to introduce issues of diversity and equity into the group orientation to the plan, to suggest that students take these into account in developing their personal plans. But some will say that diversity and equity questions do not apply to them, a classic response of denying our relationship to these issues. In these cases, then, the openness of the plan can mean that such questions are not addressed. How can this more individual analysis be challenged and expanded to include structural questions of inequities that limit marginalized individuals and groups? These are ongoing questions for the program, and for any faculty member or student interested in diverse constructions of knowledge, power, and ways of knowing and learning.
The Environmental Research and Action Workshop, or ENVS 1200, is a first year required undergraduate course in the Faculty of Environmental Studies. It offers new BES students the opportunity to work collaboratively in groups, to investigate issues of equity and sustainability, to develop basic research skills, to engage in diverse forms of action, and to reflect on the learning that comes through participatory and action research.
During the 2003-2004 academic year, the class of 150 included students from over fifty countries of origin, with a very small minority representing families living in Canada for more than three generations. This is increasingly the demographic of our classes, reflective of the GTA, and a source of pride for York University.
But how do we tap the richness of this diversity in the learning process? One of the most popular assignments in ENVS 1200 is intergenerational interviews. Once groups are formed to focus on particular issues, group members undertake this activity:
Interview your parents and grandparents (or people of their generations, to cover a span of 50 years) about their understanding of and involvement in the issue your group has chosen to research, and how they saw this issue (in terms of equity and sustainability) when they were your age.
Consider how differences in culture, gender, class, and age influence how people see this issue.
Select from your interviews a couple of key points or stories that will illustrate the shifts over three generations in your family (and the influences of the above differences), in terms of how they see the issue you are researching.
Highlights are then shared orally in a tutorial session, with some students offering photographs or other props to illustrate what they had learned from older family members. The intergenerational interviews have three stated objectives:
This assignment has many unanticipated side effects. Some students say this is the first time they have had conversations of this nature with their parents and grandparents, learning aspects of their history about which they were totally unaware. It counters the tendancy for second generation immigrants to devalue their parents' experiences. For some parents and grandparents, this activity connects them not only with their offspring but also with their studies. This activity has stimulated one parent, for example, to seek out materials related to their son's or daughter's research. There is a validation of the knowledge that is accrued through life experience and families are brought into a collaborative research process which deepens their understanding of their own experiences.
Even though the multicultural nature of our classes is often taken for granted, students rarely have the opportunity to learn so much about their fellow classmates. When the intergenerational interviews are shared, they feel much more connected with each other, and find surprising commonalities as well as rich differences. When taken collectively, there is a very rich source of comparative data that broadens the social and historical analysis of the issue being researched. One group, for example, that was focusing on the issue of borders all had historical experiences of being uprooted from their homelands; while this was a common experience, the contexts were very different and provided material for a rich analysis of the different causes of dislocation.
Finally, the activity also provides us as teachers with information about our students that helps us to understand where they were coming from, what influences might account for their particular perspectives, skills, and struggles. One group, for example, that was investigating the corporatization of universities was made up of students who were all the first in their families to go to university. This limited the kind of information they could get from their parents, and also revealed some of their academic challenges. Another limitation of the project has been a tendency for students to idealize the past, stressing in particular the attachment to place and family of their grandparents but failing to note the repressive factors that were likely responsible for the migratory patterns that lead their grandparents to Canada. Similarly, students have tended to be critical of their own situation of intense work schedules, busy family lives, and fast food without exploring the seeming ease by which they adopt and accept such a lifestyle. One challenge of the seminar leaders has been to provide more balance to the idealization of the past.
Nonetheless, the intergenerational interviews offers both affective and cognitive learning, often building bonds within families as well as within the class, and validating diverse personal, family, and cultural experiences as sources of knowledge. By asking students to reflect on the generation, culture, gender and class aspects of their experiences, we move toward a more shared critical analysis of time and power as reflected in our own histories.