How is biodiversity understood in compulsory education textbooks? A lexicographic analysis of teaching programs in the French-speaking part of Switzerland

Abstract

Biodiversity education, as part of a broader environmental education is an important topic, not only for politicians, journalists but also teachers. In the educational context, it is now recognized that students have to be taught biodiversity, its conservation and how to use it in a durable. In this paper, we are interested in assessing how biodiversity, as part of environmental education, is understood and presented in compulsory education textbooks in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. We performed a lexicographic analysis on IRaMuTeQ on the programs of natural science and of humanities and social sciences on all levels of education in compulsory education in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. Results show that biodiversity is at the heart of the program. Moreover, the program promotes a scientific approach but also emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinarity by including terms from geography, history, etc.: the environment is widely mentioned, and the impact of human behavior is addressed, notably regarding resource and energy consumption. This analysis shows that the program adopts a holistic vision of the concept of the living, integrating scientific as well as environmental aspects.

Keywords:

• Educational programs
• biodiversity
• environmental education
• environmental protection

Introduction

Today, biodiversity and sustainable development are top of mind: everyone is related to it, be it researchers, politicians, journalists and teachers. As highlighted by Rockström et al. (2009), the rate of biodiversity loss represents a quantifiable boundary that should not be crossed in order to prevent human to cause environmental change. As they reveal, the critical rate of biodiversity loss has largely been overstepped, and human activities represent the main cause of the increase of biodiversity loss, notably with the changes in land use (i.e. converting natural ecosystem into agriculture or urban areas). However, despite the awareness of the urgency related to biodiversity and its loss, some studies suggest that public knowledge regarding the definition of biodiversity remains low: as shown by Lindemann-Matthies and Bose (2008), nearly two thirds of their Swiss sample (both children and adults) reported never having heard of biodiversity. While these results are similar to the ones observed in the United States (Turner-Erfort 1997 in Lindemann-Matthies and Bose 2008), a more recent study conducted by Filho and colleagues report more encouraging results: in their study, two-thirds of European citizens declare being ‘familiar’ with the concept of biodiversity (Filho et al. 2016). Although newer results are encouraging, they nevertheless reveal that biodiversity needs to be brought to the attention to the general population. Thus, the integration of biodiversity education in school curricula is crucial. Such integration allows to make the new generation aware of how to preserve it and how to adopt sustainable use of biodiversity (Navarro-Perez and Tidball 2012).

In this article, we are interested in how the concept of biodiversity was understood in compulsory education textbooks. More specifically, we investigate the place of biodiversity education and are interested in how biodiversity is presented in the official curricula (Plan d’Etude Romand - PER). To answer these objectives, we conducted a lexicographical analysis. This analysis highlights central constructs as well as their relationships (Marty 2018). This methodology allows to bring out different elements that might not have emerged through content analysis (Garnier and Guérin-Pace 2010). We further used segments of the corpus to illustrate each class. In the following sections, we will begin by defining what biodiversity is and how it is taught in (French-speaking) curricula.

Defining and teaching biodiversity

In 1992, The United Nations Convention adopted the following definition of biological diversity: ‘the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part: this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.’ (United Nation 1992, Article 2). This definition highlights two important levels of diversity: the level of species and the level of ecosystems. Literature further highlights a third level, referring to the genes found in each species (dell’Angelo-Sauvage and Gallezot 2018; Meekaew and Ketpichainarong 2018).

Two main approaches are highlighted in the literature to study biodiversity: the natural and the evolutionary dynamics approach of biodiversity. The natural approach defines biodiversity as bio-physical-chemical processes, but also includes diversity with regard to non-human living beings. In such approach, species are considered as having their own realities, and are defined at the biological level: one specific species is defined by its cross-fertilization (Barroca-Paccard, Orange Ravachol, and Gouyon 2018). In this way, biodiversity is defined by its functional characteristics. In contrast to this approach, the evolutionary dynamics of biodiversity considers that species cannot be considered outside of the evolutionary process that gave birth to it. As such, a given species is only one arbitrary level in its temporal dynamic evolution (Wiley 1978 in Barroca-Paccard, Orange Ravachol, and Gouyon 2018) In this approach, the evolutionary history predominates, and biodiversity corresponds to a construction of the evolutionary history of life (Lhoste and Voisin 2013).

When one thinks about biodiversity, one often thinks about its protection. Regarding biodiversity protection, two approaches exist. The first approach is the conservationist current (Miller 2013). This approach suggests that nature consists in natural resources that human has to handle. In that sense, biodiversity has an instrumental value (Barroca-Paccard, Orange Ravachol, and Gouyon 2018). At the individual level, such approach emphasize how human has to behave to limit their impact on the natural resource (for example, by preferably consuming seasonal fruits and vegetables). In contrast, the preservationist approach refers to a non-utilitarist way of considering nature. In such approach, the relation between human and nature is more balanced: humans modify a preexisting equilibrium in nature. Thus, humankind is considered as a potential destroyer of biodiversity, and things have to be done to limit their impact. Natural reserves and protected areas are good example of a preservationist approach to biodiversity protection (Barroca-Paccard, Orange Ravachol, and Gouyon 2018).

As Barroca-Paccard proposed, these epistemological points of view can be summarized into two axes which refer 1) to the scientific approach to biodiversity and 2) to the protection of biodiversity. Figure 1 below depicts the scientific dimensions linked to biodiversity comprehension on axis one (x-axis). On the second axis (y-axis), Figure 1 highlights the dimensions focusing on biodiversity protection, which notably discuss the place humans have within nature and their position toward biodiversity loss.

Figure 1. Synthesis axes to study biology. Adapted from Barroca-Paccard, Orange Ravachol, and Gouyon 2018.

Interestingly, recent work has suggested that biodiversity should be considered as a hybrid concept between science and governance (Alpe and Girault 2010). More specifically, these authors suggest that the framing of biodiversity does not only refer to biology or more generally to a scientific domain. Instead, they suggest that biodiversity is strongly related to a societal concern, which highlights the various dimensions embedded within this concept, be it social, economic and political (Alpe and Girault 2010).

Differently stated, biodiversity may be approached in different ways depending on who approaches it (i.e. politicians, biologists or teachers), how one approaches it (by focusing on the functional characteristics of the species or on its evolutionary perspective), and how one considers biodiversity protection (i.e. by adopting conservationist or protectionist approach). Based on the variety of angles through which biodiversity can be studied, challenges inevitably arise when on think about teaching biodiversity.

Besides providing a definition of biodiversity, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development has emphasized the importance of teaching this discipline (Alpe and Girault 2010). However, as Gayford (2000) suggests, biodiversity is poorly defined in the field of education. As highlighted by the author, there is no clarity ‘regarding the underlying assumptions, values, ethics and possibilities’ (Gayford, 2000, p. 348) in teaching biodiversity. Indeed, as biodiversity is a frontier object (Alpe and Girault 2010), it mobilizes a set of actors (farmers, industrialists, politicians, ….) who each have their own definition of what nature is, what the goods provided by biodiversity are, or how to consider ecosystems (Alpe and Girault 2010). Consequently, the issue of biodiversity can be addressed, in the context of education, by science teachers as well as teachers of economics, geography, history, etc. (Gayford, 2000). This suggests that education has to embrace all these dimensions (Kassas 2002). This relates the question of teaching biodiversity with the more general question of environmental education. As highlighted by Kassas (2002), biodiversity education is often part of environmental education, which holds the purpose to develop the awareness and the concern of the whole population toward the environment.

In Switzerland, biodiversity is part of environmental education and education for sustainable development. As highlighted by the program, education for sustainable development « leads to orientations in Humanities and Social Sciences, in Natural Sciences » (éducation21). Note that éducation 21 is the National Competence and Performance Centre for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in Switzerland. This foundation was mandated to foster and anchor ESD in compulsory school in Switzerland in accordance with the official curricula (PER). As such, éducation 21 provides teachers with teaching materials, help and advice regarding the concrete implementation of ESD.

In our context, environmental education focuses on the link between humans and their environment, notably by studying the causes of human activities and their impact on both nature and society (éducation 21). Environmental education issues are integrated within natural science as well as humanities and social science programs. The purpose of this education is to get environmental knowledge, to understand socio-economical interactions, as well as the link between human and nature. This emphasizes the new role of contemporary school: it is not only required to transmit knowledge, but also to share a scientific and civic culture with pupils: school must help pupils to become informed and critical citizens.

In Switzerland, environmental education strongly related to education for sustainable development. Indeed, most objectives of environmental education are the same than the objectives of education for sustainable development, except that environmental education emphasizes on environmental aspects only. Also, while the PER advocates for education for sustainable development, the canton de Vaud has adopted another terminology and focuses on ‘sustainable education’ (DFJC 2021). Two main points are emphasized for this modification: first, education for sustainable development refers more to academic knowledge regarding sustainability than to the United Nation program and the politics it conveys. Second, education for sustainable development now tends to regroup multiple fields of ‘education for…,’ making the education for sustainable development not clear in terms of pedagogical purposes (DFJC 2021). In that sense, the canton de Vaud advocates for a sustainability education. The canton thus advocates for a sustainability education referring to all disciplines so that pupils understand the world and are able to develop and express it. As emphasized by the United Nation, all disciplines can be involved so that each individual may be part of the global change, with a focus on sustainability (UNESCO 2017).

From this point of view, and particularly with regard to the concept of biodiversity, this implies not only making pupils aware of the scientific but also the societal aspects associated with this theme. Thus, Lhoste and Voisin (2013) propose several guidelines to promote a problematizing education of biodiversity. More specifically, they suggest (1) to take into consideration the different levels of biodiversity, (2) to integrate societal dimensions in the study of the concept of biodiversity while mobilizing rich and complex scientific knowledge, (3) and to question the construction of scientific knowledge and science-society relations in order to work on the management of biodiversity.

Several research has been conveyed on biodiversity curricula in French and French-speaking Canadian manuals. Barroca-Paccard, Orange Ravachol, and Gouyon (2018) notably reveal that when teaching biodiversity, French manuals focus primarily on the notion of species, highlighting and naturalist perspective (dell’Angelo-Sauvage and Gallezot 2018). This result echoes Girault et al. (2008) cited by Franc (2014), as well as Lhoste and Voisin (2013), who point out that in official French and Quebec prescriptions, a naturalistic and anthropocentric position is adopted.

While previous work has already been performed in various context, we are interested in analyzing the current situation in French-speaking Switzerland. Our contribution thus focuses in providing an initial monitoring on how biodiversity is presented in compulsory education textbooks in the French-speaking part of Switzerland.

Using a lexicographic analysis, we analyzed how the current teaching programs introduced the concept of biodiversity. This analysis allows us to study how biodiversity is introduced, which concepts are mobilized, how they are linked to each other. We are further interested in how biodiversity is anchored in and related to environmental education and more generally with sustainability education.

Method

Corpus

The analysis was conducted on the current curricula for the natural sciences and the humanities and social sciences; natural sciences regroup disciplines such as natural science, environment, physics, chemistry and biology, while humanities and social science regroup the disciplines of geography, history and citizenship education. We selected such corpus as environmental education is not a discipline per se but is considered to ‘affect the entire training project; in particular, it leads to orientations in Humanities and Social Sciences, Natural Sciences’ (education21). We selected the programs of three cycles (cycle 1: years of school 1 to 4, age 4 to 8; cycle 2: years of school 5 to 8, age 8 to 12; cycle 3: years of school 9 to 11, age 12 to 15). We also took into account the texts explaining the programs for general education. General education is designed to make several contributions which are not anchored in any specific didactic. Notably, the role of general education is to introduce students to the complexity of the world. Through the research and processing of varied information, it encourages the construction of arguments and debate. General education is strongly related to specific disciplinary contributions, and more specifically with education for sustainable development.

Analyses

The curricula (PER) is available online on the PER website in a pdf format. We thus download all the files necessary based on the criteria above and adapted them in a word format. All the files were integrated in one single document to constitute our final corpus. Since the data collected were textual, we chose to set up an automatic lexicometric analysis. This analysis is based on the automated implementation of a corpus analysis (Derobertmasure 2012): this type of analysis allows to highlight the existence of lexical profiles, and to analyze the relations between elements. We chose to use this type of analysis to understand how the concept of biodiversity was understood in compulsory education textbooks. In order to carry out this analysis, we used the IRaMuTeQ software, which is an interface to R. This software offers the possibility of carrying out lexicometric analyses similar to those proposed by the Alceste software.

The corpus was organized in Initial Context Units (ICU; Bart 2011; Reinert 1983). ICU represent how the whole corpus is divided and segmented in specific units. In our case, different ICU were made for each level (1, 2 and 3). Before starting the analysis per se, we performed lemmatization on the whole corpus so that words such as ‘education’ and ‘educator’ were regrouped in a similar form – ‘educ*.’ After this, the initial text was converted into a set of forms that can be subjected to different statistical treatments. The analyses focus on ‘active’ forms (as opposed to ‘tool words’; depending on their grammatical status). The first step of the analysis consists of a top-down hierarchical classification following Reinert’s method (Reinert 1983, 1990). This method works in an iterative way: the software initially groups all the textual units into a single class. At each steps, the analysis then separates the biggest class into two, in order to maximize a given criteria (Reinert, 1990). In our case, the criteria was to maximize the Chi², which represents the inertia between classes (Reinert, 1990). At the end of this analysis, the software proposes a classification tree schematically representing how the classes are constituted (Garnier and Guérin-Pace 2010), by grouping together forms that are not only present in the same context units but also absent from other contexts (Bart 2011). This analysis groups corpus segments according to the ‘differentiated distribution of their vocabulary’ (Arnoult 2016, p. 296) and offers a number of ‘lexical worlds’ that can be considered as many points of view of the object studied (Arnoult 2016). The software associates a list of forms (or words) with each of these worlds; the degree to which each word belongs to his world is defined by Chi² (Arnoult 2016).

Following this hierarchical classification, we performed a factorial correspondence analysis. This analysis provides an overall representation of the corpus, which allows the reader to better visualize class proximities (Beaudouin and Lahlou 1993). We also performed a similarity analysis on each of the classes highlighted by the hierarchical classification. This analysis is based on a co-occurrence index (i.e. situations where the presence of a form in a text gives an indication of the presence of another form). If the two terms have a high co-occurrence, it means that they are used in a common context. This analysis produces a graph in which the words are the vertices of the graph, and the lines represent the co-occurrences between them (Ratinaud 2009). The thickness of the lines represents the strength of the relationship between the words.

Note that these analyses do not search for an understanding of the text. Instead, they try to understand how the elements constituting the texts (i.e. the words) are organized. While we report the results of the analyzes, we also need to look into the text to enrich and complete it.

Results

Descriptive analyses

Table 1 reports descriptive analyses of the whole corpus, divided by levels. We searched for the occurrence of the term ‘biodiversity’, ‘diversity’ and ‘living.’ Interestingly, biodiversity does not appear in the early years of school, but it is more present in levels 2 and 3. In contrast, diversity is often mentioned in the first cycle (12 occurrences) but it decreases in cycles 2 and 3. Finally, the term ‘living’ is very often mentioned through all cycles.

Table 1. Overview of the corpus (for each level, the number of occurrences of biodiversity, diversity and living as well as the total number of words and hapax¹ in each corpus).

Level	Information
1	0 occurrences of biodiversity, 12 occurrences of diversity, 39 occurrences of living 5428 words, 269 hapax
2	5 occurrences of biodiversity, 0 occurrences of diversity, 37 occurrences of living 7587 words, 531 hapax
3	4 occurrences of biodiversity ; 2 occurrences of diversity; 13 occurrences of living 6195 words, 447 hapax

Top-down hierarchical analysis

This analysis revealed four classes (see Figure 2). Based on the words significantly associated with each class, results suggest the following interpretation of the classes.

Figure 2. Dendrogramm representing the classes.

The first class (32.3%) can be interpreted as the very study of life: the most significant words in this class are ‘living’, ‘environment’, ‘plant’, ‘animal’, ‘life’ and ‘organism.’ ‘Diversity’ is also mentioned to a certain extent. The second class (28.3%) refers to the question of space and its management: terms such as ‘culture’ and ‘society’ are integrated in this class. The third class (21.5%) highlights a scientific approach, since there is a strong reference to the notion of result, hypothesis, observation, interpretation and measurement. Finally, the fourth class (18.3%) highlights issues related to consumption and its challenges such as production, access and risks related to consumption.

In order to study the proximity of the classes defined in the top-down hierarchical analysis, we then performed a correspondence analysis.

Correspondence analysis

This analysis revealed two main axes (see Figure 3): the first axis (axis 1-x axis) explains 41.2% of the total variance (also called ‘inertia’ – Abdi and Béra 2014), and allows us to distinguish between classes 1, 2 and 4. Class 4 is located on the lower side of the axis, class 2 in the middle and class 1 on the upper side of the axis. This axis allows us to highlight the different components of the study of life. Axis 2 (y axis in Figure 3) explains 32.3% of the total variance and allows us to distinguish classes 1 and 3. Thus, the second axis makes it possible to distinguish between the definition of biodiversity and its study in schools. Indeed, at the upper end of the axis, we observe the definition of biodiversity as defined in the first class, while the scientific approach figures at the lower end of the axis.

Figure 3. Correspondance analysis.

Similarity analysis

The last analysis concerns the proximity analyses of the corpus by class. For each class, we performed a similarity analysis that presents the organization within each of the classes highlighted in the hierarchical analysis. We then examined the corpus segments in which the mentioned terms appeared to establish a context around the mentioned terms.

Class 1: Living things and the definition of biodiversity

The first class contains 52 occurrences of the word ‘living’. This term is strongly related to the term ‘environment’ (32 occurrences) – as highlighted in Figure 4. Taken in context, this term directly appeals to the issue of biodiversity, the diversity of habitat environments. The analysis of similarities shows the proximity of the concepts ‘needs’, ‘describe’ and ‘identify’: thus, the program mentions the importance of ‘identifying the needs of animals’ (Cycle 1, natural science section), and ‘identifying the needs of the living’ (Cycle 1, general education section, but also ‘distinguishing the needs of the inhabitants and the different realities’ (Cycle 3, humanities and social science section), as well as ‘questioning the economic and cultural needs’ (Cycle 2, humanities and social science section).

Figure 4. Similarities of the Class 1.

The central term ‘living’ in this class is also directly linked to ‘plant’ (26 occurrences) and ‘animal’ (29 occurrences) - see Figure 3. This refers to the issue of species diversity, and the distinction between the plant and animal worlds. In the PER, it is stated that ‘the comparison between living beings, plants and animals, and between environments has been privileged in order to encourage the consideration of biodiversity’ (Cycle 2, natural science section). Moreover, the term ‘life’ is strongly linked to the term ‘living.’ Taken in context, the curriculum mainly mentions ‘life cycle’ and ‘form of life.’

The terms ‘organism’ (14 occurrences) and ‘reproduction’ (13 occurrences) are strongly related to the term ‘living.’ In the corpus, the term ‘organism’ is mentioned in several ways: on the one hand, when the cells of the organism are mentioned, and on the other hand, when it is explained that we are interested in the survival of organisms. This point makes the link with the question of reproduction and thus the evolution of species.

Finally, the term ‘living’ is directly linked to the notion of ‘diversity’ (19 occurrences) but also to ‘unity.’ The program therefore balances ‘taking diversity into account’ while ‘highlighting unity and diversity’ (of the stages of reproduction, of life cycles, of living things). Moreover, the program also emphasizes the importance of recognizing the ‘characteristics that make living things unified in their apparent diversity’ (Cycle 1, general education section).

This first class therefore presents the different aspects of the living things. Our co-occurrence analysis suggest that living is directly studied in relation to (1) environment, (2) plants and animals and (3) a scientific approach. This suggest that this class emphasizes the study of living through a scientific approach, and thus be mostly anchored in science didactics. This class further highlights that Swiss French-speaking curricula promote a global and comprehensive approach to living things as a whole.

The second class contains the following words: ‘space’ (65 occurrences), ‘organization’ (21 occurrences), ‘place’ (23 occurrences), ‘scale’ (22 occurrences), and ‘development’ (18 occurrences) – see Figure 5. This class directly refers to the importance of human actions on space (‘identify economical, environmental, and social impacts of human activities’, Cycle 2, humanities and social section) and the environment as there is discussion of ‘why humans are present in some places rather than others’(Cycle 3, humanities and social science section) and an intention to ‘explain the impacts of human actions on space at different scales’ (Cycle 3, humanities and social science section). This class also notes the ‘relationship between human-related developments and their impact on the quality of life of people or the environment’ (Cycle 2, humanities and social science section). This class thus appears strongly anchored in humanities and social science, and more specifically in the didactic of geography.

Figure 5. Similarities of the Class 2.

The question of organization mainly concerns dimensions related to geography and refers to the organization of neighborhoods or networks. However, this term also appears in the context linked to the living world when mention is made of ‘the different levels of organization of life’ (Cycle 3, natural science section), which may echo the first class found in our previous analyses.

Thus, this class highlights the importance of humans and the consequences of their actions on the environment, and a concept which may be approached from different didactics.

Class 3: The scientific process

This class is defined by the following terms: result (29 occurrences), hypothesis (34 occurrences), observation (42 occurrences), question (23 occurrences) and measure (19 occurrences) – see Figure 6.

Figure 6. Similarities of the Class 3.

On all levels, the program establishes the importance of ‘multiple back-and-forths between questioning, hypothesis, finding, data collection and analysis, observation, experimentation and development of an explanatory model’ (Cycle 1, 2 and 3, natural science section). Thus, observation is strongly linked to the ability to pose hypotheses, which are themselves directly linked to questioning, experimentation, the problematic and, more generally, to the approach adopted in a research process.

The notion of results follows directly from this, since the program defines the importance of proposing an ‘explanation based on the results of an observation or experiment’ (Cycle 1, natural science section). The results are thus linked to the interpretation that is made of them. Pupils are taught to ‘explore and observe, and find an explanation from the results of such observation or experiment’ (Cycle 1, natural science section). They are also encouraged to ‘identify, in the documents they have, relevant and useful information to answer to a geographical questioning’ (Cycle 2, humanities and social science).

Finally, the analysis of similarities highlights the proximity with the questions of drawing, measure, data or diagram. This reveals the importance ‘selecting the appropriate measure’ (Cycle 1, general education section), use the ‘appropriate way to report results … using drawing of observations, pictures, texts, numbers or schemes’ (Cycle 2, natural science section) and the information resulting from the scientific approach.

This class thus promotes a scientific approach, and thus is strongly anchored in the natural science didactics. However, as suggested by our co-occurrence analysis, it seems that general education also promotes such approach, which thus emphasizes that the scientific approach is not only anchored in one specific didactic. Indeed, the general education is supposed to ‘makes operational various contributions that are not only related to school disciplines’ (education 21).

Class 4: Consumption and management of resources

In this class, the most prevalent occurrences are ‘consumption’ (34 occurrences) and ‘production’ (30 occurrences). The issue here is therefore the management of resources (both production and consumption). As highlighted in the PER, pupils have to be sensitized to ‘recognize the impact of human behavior on the environment by identifying the main necessary conditions to maintain human, animal and vegetal life; by recognizing their own consumption habits, what influences them and what consequences such habits may have on the environment’ (Cycle 1, general education section). As shown in Figure 7, the issues are related to energy (production), as well as access to it, and more generally to the question of resources. Indeed, students are taught about the ‘production and consumption of (.) different sources of energy’ (Cycle 3, humanities and social science section) and ‘the challenges and inequalities regarding climate change’, how ‘their purchases have ecological consequences’, and they are encouraged to ‘find solutions to diminish the ecological consequences of production, transportation and consumption of a product’ (Cycle 3, humanities and social science section).

Figure 7. Similarities of the Class 4.

Furthermore, on the production side, the terms ‘environment’ (11 occurrences) but also risks (15 occurrences) and consequences (15 occurrences) appear. In that sense, the program emphasize that students have to ‘understand the reasons and the extent of the damages, imagine solutions in the context of a sustainable development of production and consumption’ (Cycle 3, humanities and social science section). The analysis also shows that the economic dimension linked to the question of resources is taken into account, since the terms ‘analysis’ (13 occurrences) and ‘economic’ (11 occurrences) are attached to this term.

Although previous classes (notably classes 1 and 2) appear to be strongly anchored in specific disciplines, class four seems to be directly related to sustainable education, and thus may be a more trans-disciplinary class.

Discussion

The purpose of this article was to study the curricula of French-speaking Switzerland and to observe to what extent biodiversity is understood in this program, and if it is, what are the concepts related to it. We carried out a lexicographical analysis of the text books in compulsory education in French-speaking Switzerland regrouping all the elements related to environmental education. In this analysis, we were able to show that living organisms and their diversity are at the heart of the program of environmental education: the first thematic class that emanates from this corpus brings together living organisms and the concepts that are linked to them. This thematic class consists of the diversity of living organisms, the different environments as well as the life cycles. These elements echo the definition of biodiversity proposed by the United Nations Convention, which emphasizes diversity within species and within ecosystems.

Our analysis further highlights three points: first, biodiversity is considered in a descriptive vision (Barroca-Paccard, Orange Ravachol, and Gouyon 2018). Living things are studied in their environment, and we try to identify the different living species - both with reference to fauna and flora. The variety of species as well as their evolution appear as a central aspect of the definition and teaching of living things. This point is also emphasized by Barroca-Paccard, Orange Ravachol, and Gouyon (2018), who point out that knowledge focuses primarily on the notion of species, highlighting a naturalist perspective (dell’Angelo-Sauvage and Gallezot 2018). This result echoes Girault et al. (2008) cited by Franc (2014), as well as Lhoste and Voisin (2013), who point out that in official French and Quebec prescriptions, a naturalistic and anthropocentric position is adopted. Our results further highlight such anthropocentric position as the PER emphasizes the impact that humans have on their environment.

Second, environmental education is approached through a scientific reasoning. Our lexicographical analysis shows that the terms used to study life in the PER are linked to terminologies related to the scientific approach, such as observation, hypothesis and results. This is in line with previous research suggesting that the PER aims to transpose the scientific approach usually practiced by researchers into the classroom (Marlot, Audrin, and Morge 2019). In this context, educators refer to the ‘Nature of Science’ (Bell 2007). This concept defines not only the relationship between ways of knowing, the type of knowledge (theories, facts, etc.) as well as the methods (observation, measurement, inference, prediction, etc.). Thus, the PER seems to suggest that students should be familiar with the epistemology of the scientific discipline. According to our analyses, teaching biodiversity also goes through this process and teachers are encouraged to develop students’ ways of thinking, speaking, acting (Jaubert, Rebière, and Pujo 2010).

Finally, our results emphasize how biodiversity is addressed through various didactics such as geography, history and economy. More specifically, hierarchical analysis and the similarity analysis have highlighted the issue of consumption and management of resources, addressing thus the societal dimension of environmental education. Furthermore, our results highlight the notion of space and the question of human intervention and its consequences on the environment. This point deeply anchors the study of biodiversity in its interdisciplinary context and in the broader environmental and sustainable education: concepts such as consumption and/or management of resources, as well as the consequences of human interventions on the environment, call upon other disciplines such as geography, history or economics. This point echoes the comments of Alpe and Girault 2010), who advocated for a biodiversity education that does not only involve science educators but also other disciplines such as history and economic and social sciences at different levels of education. These elements are in line with our results which show that the different types of diversity (natural and cultural) are thematized in the PER. The integration of societal issues in the study of biodiversity contrasts with the results reported by (Barroca-Paccard 2015; Barroca-Paccard, Orange-Ravachol, and Guyon 2013, Barroca-Paccard, Orange Ravachol, and Gouyon 2018) 2). However, this may be because they focused on science, technology as well as life science. Despite this difference, Barroca-Paccard, Orange Ravachol, and Gouyon (2018) also highlighted that the program emphasized the exploitation of environmental resources and the particular place of human in such environment as their action have effects on their environment (Barroca-Paccard, Orange Ravachol, and Gouyon 2018; Lhoste and Voisin 2013). Indeed, human may exploit living organisms and other living organisms may be seen as a potentially advantageous resource for humanity (Fortin, 2018). If humans are not necessarily represented as destroyers of biodiversity (Barroca-Paccard, Orange-Ravachol, and Guyon 2013), the question of the impact of their behaviors has to be taught to pupils, notably as individuals first need to understand the concepts related to it before being able to adopt adequate behaviors (Franc 2014).

A limitation of our study is the methodology used. While lexicometric analysis allows us to carry out a text analysis, there is no underlying ‘intention’ as to the definition of the meaning of the analyzed text. As highlighted earlier, this analysis doesn’t search for an understanding of the text but tries to understand how the elements constituting the texts (i.e. the words) are organized. This analysis allows us to emphasize the most frequently mentioned themes, but as a consequence, other themes that would appear in isolation (without not being fundamental) become invisible. Moreover, this analysis highlights the themes mentioned in relation to biodiversity, but does not provide information on the actual implementation of the program in the school context. Finally, in this research we focused on the analysis of curricula. However, it cannot be assumed that what is written in the curricula is also teaching content. Moreover, depending on whether one focuses on environmental education, education for sustainable development or sustainability education, biodiversity may be addressed differently. Thus, future studies could study actual teaching practices and teachers’ point of view regarding the teaching of biodiversity.

Conclusion

As the word ‘biodiversity’ enters the field of education, it brings with it a number of challenges. Indeed, the definition of this term is still vague. Our contribution focused on providing an initial monitoring on how biodiversity is presented in compulsory education textbooks in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. Results highlighted that life and its diversity are at the heart of the curricula. Biodiversity is studied through an anthropocentric position, as the curriculum highlights the impact of humans on their environment. Moreover, an interdisciplinary approach is proposed: the program proposes an approach to living organisms through many disciplines since it not only emphasizes the importance of understanding living organisms in their environment, but also studies the question of resources related to the preservation of living organisms.

This research was able to highlight the presence of biodiversity in the PER, and raises the importance of the role of education in raising awareness about biodiversity (Navarro-Perez and Tidball 2012). Biodiversity and sustainable development must thus be integrated into the education of tomorrow’s students: by working on education and awareness of biodiversity issues, education has a central role: to transform attitudes towards nature. Thus, education must continue to encourage individual interest and motivation towards biodiversity (e.g. Barroca-Paccard 2021). To do so, many innovative educational devices have recently been developed. In particular, devices using mobile augmented reality (MAR) have been proposed to study biodiversity (Ingensand, Ertz, and Piot 2018; Piot, Perrin, and Sander 2018), and results suggest that these lead to better learning among students, increased motivation (Meekaew and Ketpichainarong 2018), as well as more emotions such as interest in the subject matter (Harley et al. 2020). Future research should encourage the use and creation of such tools, keeping in mind that the goal of biodiversity education is not only to develop knowledge and skills but also to cultivate attitudes that would enable society to meet these demands and responsibilities (Kassas 2002).

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Funding of Switzerland under Grant number: 407740_187313.

Disclosure statement

The author declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung

Notes

1 A Hapax refers to words which occur only once in the corpus.