The study is grounded in transformative learning—learning as a deep change in one’s relation to world and nature (Mezirow; Sterling; Wals). It combines ecological pragmatist humanism (Honnacker) to critique anthropocentric humanism while maintaining moral responsibility, and mobilises education otherwise (Stein et al.) and unlearning (Zembylas) to question habitual, growth‑centric imaginaries. Together, these frames orient pedagogy toward building “macro‑ethics” for planetary citizenship (da Silva).

Substantively, the project responds to the Finnish Nature Panel’s and related reviews’ calls to strengthen biodiversity content, move beyond a purely natural‑science focus, and develop pedagogies that address attitudes, values, and action for environmental citizenship. It critiques how neoliberal and growth‑oriented logics in education displace ecological values and narrow sustainability to instrumental goals.

1. How does a transformative biodiversity education, grounded in ecological pragmatism, prepare children for a society oriented to planetary citizenship and “macro‑ethics”?
2. In what ways can combined arts-, science-, and technology-based pedagogical methods enable a shift from natural‑science-oriented nature education and anthropocentric sustainability education toward transformative biodiversity education and planetary environmental citizenship education?
   
3. Which conceptual advances arising from this work are applicable to Finnish education policy—moving from value‑neutral nature education toward critical, transformative biodiversity education?
   

Objectives:

• Design and study a transdisciplinary pedagogical model that integrates outdoor learning in forest sites, arts‑based inquiry, and citizen‑science‑supported technology to deepen understanding of biodiversity, interdependence, and human impacts.
  
• Support children’s emotional processing (e.g., eco‑anxiety) through arts‑based practices that cultivate constructive hope without utopian technofixes, while acknowledging uncertainty and complexity.
  
• Produce actionable insights for curriculum and policy development that strengthen biodiversity education and environmental citizenship in the Finnish basic education system.

Conceptually, the project advances a meliorist stance: resisting both nihilism and naive progressivism by committing to long‑term (un)learning that constructs new affective infrastructures for alternative modes of thinking, feeling, and acting amid ecological crises.

The empirical design is action research in collaboration with Tampere Taidekaari’s “Taidemetsä” (Art Forest) programme, complemented by limited pilots in regular school environments (eco‑social education network schools) and with primary teacher students at Tampere University. The action‑research cycle iteratively codesigns, implements, documents, and analyses a four‑part pedagogical model with children in Grades 1–6: (1) biodiversity observation via citizen‑science and mobile apps (e.g., species identification; co-operation with Luontokoulu Korento for natural‑science analysis); (2) inquiry into selected indicator species and multispecies interdependencies (3) exploration of nature–culture interfaces, tracing human impacts and mitigation; and (4) arts‑based (un)learning processes to initiate and sustain transformation in nature relations. Data include children’s artworks; app‑generated artefacts; visual documentation (photos/videos); the researcher’s field diary; and semi‑structured interviews with children and key stakeholders (Taidekaari facilitators, partners). Analysis proceeds dialogically with participants and stakeholders across cycles, guided by the project’s theoretical framework (transformative learning, ecological pragmatist humanism, education otherwise, unlearning). A complementary document analysis examines the Finnish core curriculum for basic education and derived learning materials focusing on nature/biodiversity education, extending prior work conducted on climate education. This yields policy‑relevant insights and recommendations. Ethics: The study follows national ethics guidelines for research with children; informed consent (guardians/children) is obtained; continuous ethical monitoring is built into playful, arts‑based, and dialogic participation options to minimise potential harm and recognise participant benefit. University ethical review will be sought (spring 2026). Partnerships & reach: Municipal and regional collaborations (e.g., City of Tampere’s climate/environment policy unit; Ekokumppanit; eco‑social education network) and ECIU partner universities support broader impact and methodological exchange—especially around citizen‑science and educational technology.

-A validated transdisciplinary pedagogical model for critical biodiversity education that blends outdoor learning, arts‑based inquiry, and citizen‑science‑supported technology for Grades 1–6. -Empirical insights into how (un)learning processes (affective, ethical, cognitive) shift children’s nature/world relations, fostering environmental citizenship oriented to macro‑ethics and planetary responsibility. -Documentation of how arts‑based practices help children work through eco‑emotions (e.g., anxiety) to sustain engagement without defaulting to technosolutionist optimism—thus strengthening constructive hope and agency. -A critical analysis of curriculum and learning materials that identifies gaps and misalignments (e.g., growth‑centric or individualised framings) and offers policy recommendations to centre biodiversity, justice, and collective responsibility within Finnish basic education. -Transferable concepts and tools for education policy and teacher education, including guidance for urban school contexts and teacher‑education courses. Cumulatively, the project contributes to theory by specifying how ecological pragmatist humanism operationalises in primary education; to methodology by integrating arts‑based and citizen‑science approaches within action research; and to practice by offering implementable designs for biodiversity‑centred environmental citizenship education.

Becht, A., et al. (2024). Climate anxiety and adolescents’ pro‑environmental behaviour. J. Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 65(10), 1270–1282. da Silva, M. L. (2011). Information, Communication, and Planetary Citizenship. In Handbook of Global Communication and Media Ethics (Vol. 1), 41–53. Haraway, D. (2015). Anthropocene, capitalocene… Environmental Humanities, 6(1), 159–165. Honnacker, A. (2020). Pragmatic Humanism and the Posthumanist Challenge. Contemporary Pragmatism, 17(1), 70–84. Kallio, K. P., Bami, N., & Sulonen, M. (forthcoming, accepted 5 Oct 2025). A glaring shortage of climate mobility education. EERJ. Laininen, E. (2019). Transformative learning and eco‑social civilisation. Ammattikasvatuksen aikakauskirja, 20(5), 16–38. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice. NDAACE, 1997(74), 5–12. Ojala, M. (2012). Hope and climate change in youth. Environmental Education Research, 18(5), 625–642. Pihkala, P. (2020). Eco‑Anxiety and Environmental Education. Sustainability, 12(23), 10149. POPS (2014). Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. Finnish National Agency for Education. Stein, S., et al. (2023). Beyond colonial futurities in climate education. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(5), 987–1004. Sterling, S. (2011). Transformative learning and sustainability. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 5, 17–33. Väkkärä, V., et al. (2024). Research‑based Environmental Citizenship (Finnish Biodiversity Panel Report 3B/2024). Wals, A. E. J. (2010/2015). On relativism, uncertainty, democracy…; Critical interpretation of value‑laden environmental relations. Environmental Education Research; various. Zembylas, M. (2024). Unlearning emotional imperialism in education. Discourse, 45(4), 569–582.