Introduction
Education is a medium that can support the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) agenda, especially goal 13 on climate action (Mensah, Reference Mensah2019). The SDGs provide the foundation for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) (Eleni et al., Reference Eleni, Pauw Jelle, Petegem Peter-, Sinakou, Boeve-de Pauw and Van Petegem2019; Sinakou, Boeve-de Pauw, Goossens & Van Petegem Reference Sinakou, Boeve-de Pauw, Goossens and Van Petegem2018), where addressing climate change is considered an integral element (Sato & Kitamura, Reference Sato and Kitamura2023). However, since its introduction in 1992 at the Earth Summit (Rio de Janeiro), and its reaffirmation in 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Japan), ESD as a global document has received various responses, ranging from positive to critical. On the one hand, ESD can integrate climate change topics into the curriculum (Parry & Metzger, Reference Parry and Metzger2023) and equip young people to face future impacts (Sharifi et al., Reference Sharifi, Feng, Yang, Dunlop and Rushton2022). On the other hand, ESD emphasises market-oriented solutions to educational problems (Jickling & Wals, Reference Jickling and Wals2012) and reflects the hegemony of a growth-driven sustainability paradigm (Kopnina, Reference Kopnina2020). It privileges quantitative measures and technological progress (Wijesooriya & Brambilla, Reference Wijesooriya and Brambilla2021), while climate change is at times framed narrowly as a scientific issue, neglecting socio-political and cultural dimensions (Asante et al., Reference Asante, Yalley and Amissah2024).
Schools are a meeting place for various paradigms, perspectives, discourses and orientations, which are different and can even conflict. On the one hand, environmental practices conditioned by social and cultural structures can facilitate reflexive engagement among teachers and students, and on the other hand, they can hinder such engagement. In general, environmental practices in schools across various countries show diverse dynamics between conditions that enable change (Avelar et al., Reference Avelar, Silva-Oliveira and Pereira2019; Sass et al., Reference Sass, Quintelier, Boeve-de Pauw, De Maeyer, Gericke and Van Petegem2021; Sinakou et al., Reference Sinakou, Boeve-de Pauw, Goossens and Van Petegem2018) and conditions that limit it (Bedford, Reference Bedford2022; Kopnina, Reference Kopnina2020; Parker & Prabawa-Sear, Reference Parker and Prabawa-Sear2019; Schild, Reference Schild2016; Wijesooriya & Brambilla, Reference Wijesooriya and Brambilla2021). In Indonesia, previous research has been limited to the formulation of climate change adaptation strategies (Suhaeb et al., Reference Suhaeb, Tamrin and Jumadi2024), and the suitability of program implementation and evaluation (Wibowo et al., Reference Wibowo, Sumarmi, Utaya, Bachri and Kodama2023), but not how environmental agents carry out reflexivity towards climate change.
This dispute often stems from the tension between structure, namely social and cultural conditioning, and the capacity of environmental agents to reflect. Research on the relationship between structure and agency in climate change studies, especially in schools, still needs to be completed (Bhatasara, Reference Bhatasara2015). The tradition of defining agency is still based on the objective social paradigm, namely the agent’s response to external factors or structures (Arts, Reference Arts2000), or the subjective, namely personal free will (Gynnild, Reference Gynnild2002) and acting independently of structural constraints (Loyal & Barnes, Reference Loyal and Barnes2001). In this debate, the interaction of objective and subjective is proposed (Ahearn, Reference Ahearn2001), which is a relationship that is mutually presupposed or dual (Parsons & Giddens, Reference Parsons and Giddens1980). Therefore, there is a potential duality between the interaction of structure and agency, namely how institutions are reproduced — through norms, rules and routines at the institutional level (Parsons & Giddens, Reference Parsons and Giddens1980) — or contested through socio-political practices shaped by understandings, values, resources and relationships at the agency level (Calderon & Westin, Reference Calderon and Westin2021). Anthony Giddens’ (1980) view of the duality between social structure and agency has invited criticism from Margaret Archer because placement practices do not guarantee that every individual who enters a social environment can do what is expected (Himmelstrand & Archer, Reference Himmelstrand and Archer2002). Therefore, Archer does not use duality but analytical dualism, seeing agency as potentially limited and enabled by social relationships (Connor, Reference Connor2011). Individuals can practice personal reflexivity or internal conversations when social structures limit or enable them (Archer, Reference Archer2008). Despite the differences between Giddens and Archer in conceptualising agency and structure, they both maintain the idea of agency as an individual property centred on reflexivity. This emphasis on individual agency can make the audience feel empowered and responsible for their actions.
Through Archer’s (Reference Archer2008) analytical dualism framework, social structures in roles, norms, institutions and culture in the form of values and beliefs will influence choices and actions. However, they cannot fully determine the agent because both interact through reflexivity or internal conversation. Reflexivity is Archer’s basic idea, which mediates between agency and structure and is characterised by four modes of internal conversation: communicative reflexivity, which needs to be confirmed and resolved by others before leading to action; autonomous reflexivity, independent decision-making; meta-reflexivity, which critically evaluates previous internal dialogues and is critical of practical actions and dominant values; and fractured reflexivity, which cannot lead to purposeful action and only exacerbates personal stress and disorientation. Archer (Reference Archer2012) considers that communicative reflexivity has a reproductive effect among different modes of reflexivity, while autonomous reflexivity and meta-reflexivity have a transformative character. However, Archer’s view of internal conversations is not without criticism. Caetano (Reference Caetano2014) highlights Archer’s reluctance to consider routine actions due to cultural conditioning. Archer prefers meta-reflexivity and autonomous reflexivity to communicative and fractured reflexivity (Burkitt, Reference Burkitt2016).
Regarding climate change, climate reflexivity is the feeling that one is part of a larger natural environment in which climate plays a significant role and one’s actions have an impact (Haugseth & Smeplass, Reference Haugseth and Smeplass2023). Several studies that utilise Archer’s framework have shown its effectiveness in encouraging individuals to reflect on their values and actions through public forums (Evans, Reference Evans2014) and through social interaction in education and community (Davidson, Reference Davidson2012), showing how social structures shape and limit individuals’ internal ideas (Mutch, Reference Mutch2004); and how individuals’ ability to participate in the climate crisis depends on their reflexive capacity (Davidson, Reference Davidson2012). Individuals’ willingness and ability to engage in action require reflective consideration through internal conversations. Climate change is not just a technical problem through knowledge transfer, rather what is needed is for individuals to internalise climate issues and make meaningful decisions to act. Climate reflexivity is important in emphasising critical reflective awareness and environmental agency concerns. Critical reflective awareness creates an inclusive environment where people feel involved and committed to the cause of climate change.
This study aims to describe the involvement of teachers and students as internal agents in responding to and reacting to the narrative of the global climate change agenda brought by Education Sustainable Development-Indonesia (ESDI) as an external environmental agent. In this study, borrowing Archer’s concept, ESDI is called a Promotional Interest Agent (PIA). Meanwhile, teachers and students are referred to as Primary Agents (PA), consisting of two teacher agents: Program Supervising Teacher (PST), Extracurricular Assistant Teacher (EAT) and student agent (SA). Amidst the ongoing debate and research gap, it is interesting to examine further the role of each agent involved, the interaction between environmental agents and the role of reflexivity in addressing climate change. This study will uncover hidden voices through internal and external discussions and reflective considerations between environmental agents. We also show how students, as part of the educated middle class, are positioned as active and reflective subjects who need to be given a voice and empowered. Students are not only consumers of knowledge but also producers who play an active role as agents of socio-ecological transformation in addressing climate change.
Methods
This study uses critical ethnography to uncover freedom, pressure and behavioural constraints in environmental education practices in school. The birth of this critical ethnography occurred when the debate on agency and structure was raging (Carspecken, Reference Carspecken2020). Critical ethnography uses a critical approach to ask about fairness, freedom, hidden agendas, repression and behavioural constraints. Repression as a situation means that thoughts and actions are limited or shackled, and individuals do not have the opportunity to recognise various choices (Thomas, Reference Thomas2011). The context studied is a high school in East Java Province, Indonesia, which participated in the global agenda through the “40 Day Challenge for Sustainability” (40-DCfS) competition through climate change awareness and action. The informants in this study consisted of two internal school agents, one external agent and 22 students. The first internal agent was a senior female teacher (PST) who supervised the extracurricular subject Pendidikan Lingkungan Hidup (PLH, Environmental Education, EE) and concurrently held the position of vice principal. The second internal agent was a male part-time teacher (EAT), who assisted in PLH and had a background as an environmental activist. In addition, one external agent (PIA), a male leader of Education Sustainable Development–Indonesia (ESDi), was included as an informant. The student informants consisted of 22 individuals (nine males and 13 females) aged over 16 years (SA). They were drawn from two extracurricular programmes, namely PLH and Kelompok Ilmiah Remaja (KIR, Youth Scientific Group), which were combined into one 40-DCfS team.
PIA held the 40-DCfS competition to promote the SDGs and ESD agendas. This competition was first introduced to the school through information from a pamphlet containing an invitation, “What actions will you and your school take to deal with climate change?” with the competition theme, “Let us increase the awareness and real action of the younger generation in dealing with climate change.” Data was collected intensively from February, the beginning of the introduction or socialisation of the programme, until June 2023, the beginning of planning, implementation, reflection, evaluation and final selection to the announcement of the competition winners. During the activity, the researcher was in the school environment for almost two months, spending time with teachers and students to conduct moderate participant observation, follow online and offline conversations, informal interviews, photos and field notes during the 40DCfS competition. This study has obtained institutional approval to review the online data collection protocol, especially using social media at the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Airlangga University. The protocol was implemented with utmost adherence to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and following standard procedures for human research and personal data protection guidelines, ensuring the highest level of ethical conduct. To comply with ethical academic research criteria, prior to the interview, each participant completed a consent form containing information detailing the purpose and procedures of the study to protect their privacy. This study has considered the issues of anonymity, confidentiality from third-party access, freedom of participants to withdraw from the study and obtaining voluntary consent from informants to avoid ethical violations. Specifically for collecting student WhatsApp conversation data, the collection of WhatsApp conversation data was conducted following a request submitted by student representatives, which was first discussed and agreed upon internally. This effort ensures that there is no coercion and that all members consciously and voluntarily provide joint consent and permission to provide copies of conversations. It is ensured that all members of the WhatsApp group whose data is used have understood the purpose of using the data and the guarantee of confidentiality and anonymity. Data accuracy is obtained by repeated re-checking to obtain thick and rich descriptions. The collected data were then transcribed, items and units were identified and catergorised to find key themes and then interpreted as theoretical constructions through the conscientisation process, namely viewing reality in a social process where there is an imbalance so that the observed reality is only the reality on the surface (Carspecken, Reference Carspecken2020).
Results
This section will be examine how the reflexivity of environmental agents through internal conversations mediates agency and structure in school. PIA can produce ideas and knowledge constructions for the primary agents in running cultural mechanisms. Climate change is an issue and entry point to carrying out global action or global citizenship, as well as a discourse for the world of education, especially in schools. The goal is for the issue to get more attention, not just as an additional curriculum and learning content. PIA wants education to be able to play a role, support and make development a success through contributions by making the issue of climate change an entry point. School through PA are expected to contribute to implementing ESD as a derivative of SDGs.
Reflexivity of environmental agents
This section examines the reflexive capacities of environmental agents, focusing on PIA as an external agent and PST, EAT and SA as internal agents in schools, and how they articulate reflexivity through thoughts, emotions, values and competencies that shape their decisions.
PIA reflexivity
By framing SDGs, ESD and climate change discourse, PIA is interested in making the global agenda a form of initial contribution to handling climate change and constructing shared knowledge, especially for school PAs. When asked what the organisers’ hopes were, one of the leaders and initiators of PIA said that it was an effort to raise awareness and real action in tackling climate change by paying attention to the three pillars of development:
[…] At least we can educate schools and educate students that climate change is not just discourse. However, it is a shared challenge […] we want to know how they can build character-building habits in 40 days, that is, building habits at least […] So three important things are often considered partial because the pillars in ESD are three, there is the economy, there is the environment, there is social […] if it can have an impact on the economy, that is better. […] So, for example, there are plants, and then there is fruit processed, sold, and consumed by the community. So, these three things will be fulfilled economically and socially. Socially, how is the community involved? Economically, how the products produced can be sold and distributed from their packaging (interview, PIA leader).
This statement shows that PIA wants education actors in schools to be aware of the importance of making climate change not only a conceptual issue but also a real and concrete issue. Through a 40-day habituation, PIA hopes the practice can be contextualised and internalise as part of everyday life. In addition, schools are expected to contribute to the implementation of ESD by fostering connections among the environmental, social and economic pillars, ensuring that these dimensions are addressed holistically in education. Thus, it is understood that PIA wants the main environmental agents in schools to build awareness, habituation of action, reflection skills and integration of all ESD pillars into climate action.
According to the theme and content of the poster, this competition emphasises sustainable awareness and actions that focus on mitigating the impacts of climate change. PIA admitted that prevention is problematic when asked why the focus is on adaptation and not prevention. Efforts that can be made are limited to simple steps to reduce the impact:
[…] Yes, it will be challenging to prevent it if climate becomes a global issue. There is no way we can take shelter; it is impossible. That is why what we can do is overcome it. We can overcome it by taking simple steps to reduce the impact. We cannot stop climate change that has been happening for a long time […] now what can we do, yes we overcome it in what form, yes small action, small actual actions, discipline with waste […] indeed I did not give details of what they wanted to do, let the participants explore their respective competencies (interview, PIA leader).
From the statement, PIA wants to emphasise that climate change is a global process that requires environmental responsibility through simple and real actions such as building an awareness around waste. PIA considers this action as a local contribution to the global issue by providing space for school environmental agents to express themselves freely in responding to the issue of climate change. In line with the importance of implementing the global agenda through the issue of climate change, PIA seeks to rethink the concept of ESD by emphasising attention to economic values, lifestyle, awareness and habitual practices:
[…] So, now we think about ESD and how valuable waste is. Vegetable and onion scraps are composted and returned to the ground; we utilise tree trunks to be processed into furniture. If we minimize the use of plastic, our shopping habits will be goodie bags. This is also a small action. So that is what we have to teach our children […] this is expected to color education in Indonesia in the future […] So I only act as a facilitator (interview, PIA leader).
This statement shows that PIA wants the ESD pillars integrated into daily learning and actions. PIA hopes that there will be a shift from the role of teachers from the control centre to the role of facilitators who empower students through changes in mindset and sustainable environmental actions. This empowerment of students is not just a goal but a source of inspiration for the potential they hold in shaping a sustainable future. It can be said that PIA’s reflexivity seeks to strengthen the capacity of every environmental agent, including students, to form their action orientation. It is understood that PIA, as an external agent, seeks to trigger reflexivity and change by offering alternative narratives in the form of ESD into sustainable practices in schools.
PA reflexivity
PA, consisting of PST, EAT and SA, is the main agent of the school in the 40-DCfS climate change action. The role and position of PST is as a mediator who functions to bridge the interests of the success of the agent programme, the interests of promotion and the needs of agents in school to achieve programme goals. The existence of PST is very vital because, through its initiative, it can revive the environmental education extracurricular programme that had stagnated. To realise this, PST emphasises the need to start with small actions for sustainable living:
[…] this is an extraordinary experience, our children change the culture […] experience in changing the mindset, the way of thinking from initially not caring to now caring more […] how we can instill in our children that minor actions are reducing the use of single-use plastic, not throwing away food, leftover vegetables. This has a significant impact on sustainable living. Of course, this is not easy for us to understand, but it can be done because I am sure all supervising teachers always set an example for the children (interview, PST).
The statement explained that PST is trying to emphasise the change in environmental care culture in school through habituation practices, changes in mindset, the importance of role models and small daily actions. PST acknowledges that these changes are not easy but is optimistic that they can be achieved through collective effort towards achieving common goals. PST also hopes that this competition can be used as an opportunity to learn from each other and exchange ideas:
[…] this is an extraordinary experience for us to be able to manage time so that the program continues to run in any condition […] so changing behavior starting from ourselves as program implementers and those we are exposed to the program […] the message that I convey to the children and colleagues is that this competition is not just a competition but also an opportunity to learn from each other and exchange ideas about the importance of awareness and concern for the environment (interview, PST).
This statement illustrates the reflection of internal school agents that have experienced a shift in attitudes and behaviour. PST assesses that there has been a reinterpretation of the competition, not just a competition but also building collective awareness and space for exchanging ideas. This reflexivity highlights the importance of consistency and adaptation in carrying out programme actions even when faced with various challenging situations and time constraints.
The results of the reflection delivered by PST appear different from those expressed by EAT. Although both are teachers, EAT’s perspective is more critical. Regarding the urgency of the competition, “EAT said that the competition is indeed needed, but the most important thing is that students and school should use it as a benchmark for their abilities.” When asked about the involvement of school community support during the 40-DCfS competition, “EAT criticise that students were often asked to care for plants, but other school residents, including teachers, did not participate, giving the impression that more students were being ordered around.” EAT considered this note necessary, so there will be more invitations than instructions in the future. EAT believes that those who give instructions are not always involved, but those who invite them will be involved. EAT’s form of critical reflection shows that corrective improvements are needed in creating an atmosphere that supports the full involvement and active participation of school residents as environmental agents.
Regarding the opportunity for student discussion, EAT said that this space is available. However, it is still limited because it is still under the shadow of teacher dominance in interacting with students. EAT assessed that on several occasions, students still felt afraid or hesitant to express their opinions, especially if they had different opinions from the teacher. Through the internal conversation, the agent’s ability to reflect by questioning the dominant conditions in the school is seen. Therefore, in facing and responding to this situation, EAT sees the need to continue to encourage students to express and explore their opinions:
[…] it is more of an impact of his hesitation not to convey his wishes. I want to chat, for example; what else can we do? Try to explore here […] My hope is, if there is a problem, we chat (Interview, EAT).
EAT’s statement shows a more critical and open reflexivity than PST. EAT is aware of the communication barriers that arise, thus encouraging the importance of opening up a space for dialogue and communication to explore ideas. This reflexivity illustrates a critical awareness of communication barriers within the school community. By emphasising the importance of open dialogue and joint exploration, EAT believes that the active participation of all environmental agents is the key to the programme’s success. In addition, EAT believes that teachers and students need to learn together on the condition that they must kill arrogance:
[…] So, for example, there is a program where students are merely told what to do. Teachers should also be part of the school community, so they need to be ‘legowo’ [open and accepting] and also take care of plants […] However, I have not seen the entire school community moving together, and the character of hegemony over people still exists—like instructions or orders coming from teachers […]Teachers’ arrogance must be set aside. This is more about lifelong learning; teachers and students learn together […]The point is to recognise equality, to give students space to speak, and to be more friendly with them, while still respecting customs and politeness. (Interview, EAT).
This statement further confirms that EAT has displayed teacher reflexivity that understands school power dynamics and environmental culture. EAT is aware of the school hierarchy and hegemonic culture that hinder collective participation. EAT wants to emphasise the importance of an open attitude and the need to strengthen equality and dialogue as a foundation for continuous learning between teachers and students while still paying attention to politeness as a social value that is mutually recognised. EAT also assesses that the reasoning of some students is still lacking during PLH activities, and there is another tendency that they are still closed to other discourses so that when discussing PLH extracurricular activities, their reasoning tends to only run in place:
[…] reflection has been done, but I still see that students’ reasoning abilities are not running […] That is why reasoning must be built […] So, their reasoning needs to be improved […] When talking about PLH extracurricular activities, the reasoning is in it […] Finally, if you often discuss, see the reality of all this as a process, then over time it develops. (Interview, EAT).
This quote contains EAT’s deep reflexivity regarding the learning process and development of students’ critical reasoning in the context of environmental education. Then, when asked about the reflection on climate change action after the 40-DCfS competition, EAT highlighted the challenges of the sustainability of environmental programs in school:
[…] What is this concept after the competition is held, what is the effect on other school, and what is the impact […] because it is sustainable, Sir? It should be in sync with the initial idea of sustainability. So it is not just limited to the competition […] if the competition is, for example, a soccer competition, badminton is finished, it is finished […]If I may ask, then my question is how serious is talking about climate change? Do not make it just superficial, only on the surface […] in the end, in my language, maybe greenwashing […]The method is through discussion, just doing activities together […] students see the shadow of the teacher, they are already afraid. Moreover, they do not come out facing each other in one forum. That is one of the reasons I created my student group. Yes, even though it is not optimal. (Interview, EAT).
Through this internal conversation, EAT’s capacity as a primary agent to question the dominant conditions within the school becomes evident. EAT emphasises that climate action should not be reduced to superficial or symbolic without substantive commitment, which risks sliding into greenwashing practices. Further criticism highlights concerns about the seriousness and sustainability of programmes that often remain limited to temporary events. To address this, EAT underscores the need to create alternative spaces for learning and collective activities. Such reflexivity illustrates EAT’s role as a critical and proactive internal environmental agent.
Meanwhile, the results of SA’s reflection regarding concern and action towards the environment are understood as efforts to maintain and care for the environment so that it becomes a habit in the future. SA assessed that awareness of change is needed because the situation has already occurred: “If we do not guard it, who else will guard it.” Through the 40-DCfS events, one of the students who also became the competition leader said that the activities carried out were intended to help maintain the importance of the environment, starting with small things. SA admitted that his awareness continued to increase until it became a habit, at least for himself. When asked how to overcome misunderstandings, discussions were a way to bridge differences and find solutions:
[…]So in the discussion, we learn to have one view, so different people, we have to find the answer, we have to be able to find a way out without misunderstanding or feeling of disagreeing with each other […] some children do not understand, what does it mean by that. So, as we explain again, and finally, after three times, they understood (Interview, SA 1).
SA’s statement highlights the discussion experience as a collaborative process to reconcile different views. There is an awareness of the importance of negotiating meaning and effective communication to avoid misunderstandings or conflicts. SA acknowledges the importance of patience and empathy and consider consolidation and collaboration the keys to success. When asked about the benefits of reflection and evaluation during the competition, SA sees these as a good opportunity to review ideas:
[…]its use is to assess the programs we run and what we will do. The evaluation and reflection activities give us and make us champions, Sir. that is what makes us judge for ourselves whether our previous program had an impact or not and whether it can be continued like that. (Interview, SA 2).
This statement reflects an understanding that evaluation and reflection are integral parts of the social learning process. Through such processes, students actively assess the impact of activities while positioning themselves as agents who are not only participatory but also critical and responsible in supporting school environmental sustainability programmes. One student agent acknowledged that they had not expected the so-called tetes embun or dew drop technique to be useful in life, as expressed in the following:
[…]we as students must first know the dangers of climate change so that we can take action and realise that what we do must be done continuously and become a habit, so that the surrounding environment is maintained and oxygen supply is preserved. (Interview, SA 3).
Another SA said the same thing:
[…]from what I understand about sustainability, we can continue to live today until tomorrow, provided it is carried out continuously and can be accepted by society. One example is a waste bank. So what is the ‘tetes embun’ [an automatic watering system using recycled bottles], Sir? It turns out that dew drops benefit humans. (Interview, SA 4).
In this context, the dew drop technique refers to a simple irrigation method using recycled plastic bottles filled with water that slowly drip to water plants automatically. For students, this practice serves not only as a practical lesson in sustainable living but also as a metaphor for small, consistent actions — like drops of water — that collectively contribute to environmental care. This reflection highlights an emerging understanding of sustainability and illustrates the students’ commitment as primary agents in schools to addressing climate change issues.Furthermore, related to the experience gained during the competition, it was said that an SA could provide valuable experience to collaborate and build solidarity between friends:
I am happy that the children can also collaborate well, and this feeling can increase the sense of solidarity between friends. So, for example, we discuss or form groups […] Well, that also requires high solidarity. If there is no solidarity, then each will clash […] So the solidarity of children is also very high. (Interview, SA 1)
This statement shows SA’s reflexivity and focuses on the social aspect of the learning process and collective action. SA realises that collaboration and group work requires a strong sense of solidarity as an important foundation in building cooperation while avoiding conflict. This reflexivity shows SA as an environmental agent aware of group dynamics, conflict management and strengthening social values in collective sustainable action.
Silent conversations
Conversations between the main agent in the school environment are carried out directly, namely through face-to-face or indirect communication through the WhatsApp Group. During the competition, at least five WhatsApp Group were used, perhaps more beyond the researcher’s knowledge. An internal WhatsApp Group specifically for SA was created because the WhatsApp discussion would be more flexible without the presence of school representatives such as vice principals and teachers. Meanwhile, the other two WhatsApp Group included teachers, PIA facilitators and students. The researcher could not become a member of the SA WhatsApp Group because of its very special nature. However, the researcher managed to obtain a copy of the conversation one of the SAs gave to determine its contents. Before providing a copy of the conversation, the SA representative had previously communicated the researcher’s request to obtain approval and permission from the student WhatsApp Group members. From the conversation in this digital space, the researcher obtained valuable and interesting information because, in the conversation, there was a “silent conversation” or “hidden conversation” that most likely could not be obtained through interviews or field notes. During the competition, the WhatsApp Group dynamics showed various student expressions such as complaints, protests, debates and objections to the burden of assignments they experienced. On several occasions, the group admin changed the community’s name to “Babu Sekolah” or “Complaints about Being a School Servant.” The term “babu” in this context is used satirically to describe the feeling of being a student who is constantly being ordered and burdened with work, like a servant or informal worker. In this situation, students appear to be trying to evaluate the structural conditions they experience such as pressure from teachers, the competition system, or institutional expectations — and externalise them through humour, satire and collective identification in the digital space.
When students were asked about the terms or expressions, only a few students, including Rani, Vincent, Vania and Mita (pseudonyms), were willing to discuss openly. In contrast, the others tended to be silent and only smiled when asked. Rani mentioned task the students took on, such as cleaning and maintaining the school garden area, which was the job of the school gardener. This contrasted with Rizal and Vania, who admitted to being influenced by talk from other students outside the PLH extracurricular, who often referred to them as errand boys or schoolmaids. Meanwhile, Mita, who is also the admin of the WhatsApp Group specifically for students, considered it more a result of the complaints of students who had to work hard to divide their time between simultaneously attending class, completing competition bills and other extra activities.
Some of the children were just messing around and felt like they were just told to, but actually, it was not; we entered because we wanted to, not because we were told to […] at first, the children thought like wow, we were cleaning the school […] for example, like the trash bank, sometimes many children needed to weigh, then process, sort so it took much energy so it felt like they were told to. (Interview with Mita)
This statement reveals an ambiguity and complex reality, namely between enthusiasm and a burdensome obligation. SA’s reflection shows the existence of internal negotiations between intrinsic motivation and the experience of physical workloads, such as cleaning the school and weighing and sorting garbage.
Most of the competition activities were carried out in the school environment. Because they began to feel bored with the activities, SAs began observation and interview activities to obtain information about public opinion regarding climate change issues. One SA called the activity a camouflage activity. In addition to conducting observations and interviews, students can also have a picnic by bringing food supplies that have been brought from their respective homes to be served and eaten with fellow SAs at tourist attractions. The tourist attractions students visit are mangrove forest areas managed by the local government. One SA said, “This is a picnic activity disguised as observation.” On various occasions, SA discussions often discussed statements made by PST. Sometimes, some questioned the prohibitions given, and not infrequently, the debate ended in an “argument.” In several conversations, it was found that SAs were forced to follow orders by PSTs to make and complete reports, but SAs could not refuse. Sometimes, several SAs also critically questioned conceptual changes from the initial idea that had been agreed upon by PST and EAT. In response to this, several SAs proposed to re-evaluate the programme actions that had been implemented and proposed to ask PST for an explanation of the conceptual changes:
[SA-1]: Yesterday, I discussed many evaluations. The core of the program introduced from the beginning differed from the first ten-day program collected in group 6. [SA-2]: Okay, that is right, so a more in-depth evaluation is needed, so do not forget to come, friends, because this is important. (Online conversation, SA)
The conversation illustrates the awareness of the inconsistency of the initial programme plan with its implementation. This discussion signifies an effort to strengthen the joint commitment to in-depth evaluation. Criticism also emerged from several SAs, who said that some of the actions carried out were merely muscle work, and there was even an invitation to demonstrate regarding the beach clean-up action. However, the conversation was ultimately not carried out because of fear. Among them, some said they would be scolded if they did not follow the orders given:
[…] moving plants, just muscle work […] Come on, tell me, is it better to cancel or postpone, I said yes […] yes please […] Scared, aaaaaaa, time to ‘faint’ [a kind of joke or expression for a difficult effort], goodbye everyone […] Friends who took pictures of the interview in the light garden, send […] please don’t forget, the teacher [PST] is chasing me. (Online conversation, SA).
Based on excerpts from several conversations, some responses are not singular but quite diverse depending on how certain situations and conditions are expressed subjectively. In this position, it seems that students know who they are dealing with, in this case, the PST, who is also the vice principal. The findings of this study indicate that students as climate change agents in school do not merely receive information passively but actively reflect and formulate actions through internal conversations and in digital spaces such as WhatsApp. As a key finding, digital conversations such as WhatsApp act as a space for reflection and negotiation of ideas for SA regarding climate change actions. A description of the internal conversation process through the reflexivity mode that occurs in climate change mitigation actions is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Modes of reflexivity of environmental agents
Based on the concept of agency and four modes of internal conversation borrowed from Archer, the summary in Table 1 shows that the results of each environmental agent’s reflexivity towards climate change mitigation actions are quite diverse and spread across each environmental agent. First, communicative reflexivity is shown by the tendency and need for agents to confirm other people’s considerations before taking action. Second, autonomous reflexivity is more based on personal gains, such as instrumental success and excellence, that can maximise profits. Third, meta-reflexivity is characterised by critical conversations in which the participants evaluate and reflect before taking action, checking the results of their actions and those of others. However, this study did not find fractured reflexivity; instead, it found a silent conversation mode, namely between internal and external conversations that occurs specifically between student agents unknown to others. This silent conversation show how student reflexivity develops informally in digital spaces like WhatsApp.
Discussion
In addition to exploring various modes of reflexivity according to Archer’s (Reference Archer2012) typology, this study also found extraordinary conversations among students, namely a silent conversation whose position is between internal and external conversations. This condition occurs when the teacher shows an overly dominant and instructive role through special or indexical terms that only circulate among fellow students and are unknown to outside parties, including the teacher. The term “school babu” indicates the emotions and expressions of students that contain hidden voices but do not appear in external conversations between environmental agents. In this position, agents not only carry out parts that have been previously determined through conditioning both structurally and culturally, which are objective, but agents have the potential to show all forms of subjective expressiveness, both those that tend to be positive and negative in conveying views, beliefs and agent constructions of situations and conditions. The implication is important to accommodate a reflective approach as a social learning space in reflecting on climate action experiences in school. As stated by Archer (Reference Archer2008), the difference between objectivity and subjectivity or structures that objectively condition agents and actions cannot solve the problem of mediation. Hence, it requires reflexive consideration of social agents.
According to Archer’s (Reference Archer2012) typology of reflexivity, promotional interest agent can be understood as an active agent whose reflexive orientation is predominantly characterised by autonomous reflexivity. In this case, such an agent maintain their independent internal conversations, which lead directly to instrumental actions or to achieving success. However, although minimally, the agent also shows communicative reflexivity, especially during the socialisation and mentoring of programmes for the leading school agents. This is because its internal conversations are self-sufficient, enabling action without the need for confirmation or endorsement from other school agents. The interactions built by this external agent are more dominant in the objective perspective but also provide a place for subjective perspectives by giving school agents the freedom to choose and elaborate on climate change mitigation actions. This effort is in line with several studies that encourage an open and democratic school climate for active participation (Schulz et al., Reference Schulz, Fraillon, Agrusti, Ainley, Losito and Friedman2018), facilitating students in environmental activism (Reis, Reference Reis2020) and participatory processes in producing shared knowledge between experts and citizens (Smederevac-Lalic et al., Reference Hadjichambis, Reis, Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, Činčera, Boeve-de Pauw, Gericke and Knippels2020).
Likewise, the role and position of the programme supervising teacher is as a mediator who bridges the interests of the external promotional agent and facilitates the needs of students in school to achieve programme goals. The supervising teacher acts as an active agent with dominant communicative reflexivity, meaning that internal conversations require completion and confirmation by others before leading to action. The teacher emphasises the importance of sensitivity, initiating small actions, collaborating for common goals and bringing climate change issues to the forefront. At the same time, with regard to sensitivity to environmental change, the supervising teacher acknowledges the need for support from colleagues and school leaders. This indicates a significant link between reflexivity and collectivity (Nairn, Reference Nairn2019), where reflexivity is understood not only as an individual process but also as embedded in social and material relationships that support the development of sustainable communities (Allen, Reference Allen2015; Casey et al., Reference Casey, Lichrou and O’Malley2017).
In addition, the supervising teacher also shows autonomous reflexivity, namely those who maintain their independent internal conversations, which lead directly to action. This is evident in the strong initiative to sustain environmental activities, to remain actively engaged and to pursue school recognition by winning competitions. In achieving programme success, the supervising teacher emphasises collaboration to achieve common goals. Individuals willing and able to engage in reflexive relationships and responsible actions toward a sustainable society must be aware of their priorities and concerns and act by changing their routines (Golob & Makarovič, Reference Golob and Makarovič2022).
However, the extracurricular assistant teacher shows a different reflexivity, assessing that the culture of instruction is still more potent than the invitation. The teacher also noticed that on several occasions, there was fear or hesitation in expressing opinions, especially when they differed from those of the teacher. This ability to reflect by questioning dominant school conditions is evident in the teacher’s internal conversations. Such concerns resonate with Cavener and Vincent (Reference Cavener and Vincent2021), who suggest that students be encouraged to reflect critically on themes of justice, social oppression, ethics and values, including practical experiences in real life. This also confirms Archer’s argument that individuals can practice personal reflexivity when social structures are perceived as constraining or empowering and that how individuals negotiate between structure and agency will depend on how reflexivity is achieved through internal conversations (Archer, Reference Archer2007).
In fostering student capacity, the extracurricular assistant teacher highlights the importance of speaking up — encouraging students not to hesitate or remain silent, but instead to communicate openly. These concerns show that although the environmental actions carried out have provided meaningful experiences for students, the ability to be more critical in examining environmental practices is essential for improving future action. This is reflected in the teacher’s desire to encourage a more democratic school climate, to foster critical reasoning, to resist greenwashing and to question the seriousness of promotional interest agents in implementing sustainability programmes. Such reflections illustrate meta-reflexivity, as the teacher critically engages with environmental information and arguments to inform effective choices (Golob & Makarovič, Reference Golob and Makarovič2022). According to Archer’s (Reference Archer2012) typology of reflexivity modes, this teacher demonstrates multiple modes of agency, combining communicative reflexivity, autonomous reflexivity and meta-reflexivity.
Meta-reflexivity refers to a critical re-evaluation of one’s inner dialogue and social environment and involves concerns beyond individual success alone, thus potentially going beyond existing narratives, ideologies, rules and affiliations (Golob & Makarovič, Reference Golob and Makarovič2022). The tendency of agents to reflect critically on their own internal conversations and social actions can be an important asset for the process of social–ecological transformation in the future. Archer (Reference Archer2012) assessed that communicative reflexivity has a reproductive effect among the existing modes of reflexivity, while autonomous reflexivity and meta-reflexivity have a transformative character. The same opinion was expressed by Nastar (Reference Nastar2023) that meta-reflexivity is an ideal type of reflexivity in the context of sustainability research, including climate change issues, because meta-reflexivity can enable researchers to take a critical stance in answering questions about positionality and normativity in research, being critical of methodological choices and questioning dominant assumptions about how sustainability research should be conducted.
Meanwhile, the student agent’s reflection is related to sustainability action, assessing it as a continuous effort for a better tomorrow and believing consolidation and cooperation are the keys to success. Through collective action, students experience exchanging ideas, complementing one another and developing social ties grounded in a spirit of togetherness. They place the discussion process as a space to exchange ideas while still learning to respect each other’s views. Discussion is a way for them to reach conclusions or solutions while facilitating the creation of closeness and mutual understanding. Based on their conversations, the discussions have provided quite a lot of social learning, such as making decisions and learning to understand different points. According to Archer (Reference Archer2012), when young people are confronted with different views and considerations, reflexivity becomes an essential process in navigating new circumstances generated by wider social changes. It also serves as a key to explaining how different individuals can act differently even within the same situation. Thus, reflexivity as the primary agent in schools emphasises the importance of commitment, consistency, sensitivity, real action, collaboration and a better life. Sustainability is interpreted as a continuous effort towards a better life, with consolidation and cooperation being key.
In this position, Archer includes them in the communicative reflexivity mode, namely, an internal conversation that requires confirmation from and by others before leading to action in determining how knowledge production should be developed (Archer, Reference Archer2012). This is relevant to Stein’s (Reference Stein2019) view regarding the need for internal conversation for practitioners looking for ways to involve young people in the complex planning process and in imagining their future. For Ojala (Reference Ojala2017), hope is an important component of agency and shows that critical and semi-realistic hopes can pave the way for taking action. Therefore, educators need to work constructively to respond to the anxiety and hopes of the younger generation in developing their capacity to act in the face of climate uncertainty (Ojala, Reference Ojala2016).
Archer (Reference Archer2014) emphasises that agents are not entirely determined by their social structure or external conditions but have the autonomy to choose and act according to their understanding and interpretation of the situation. Therefore, Archer (Reference Archer2002) advocates for an analytical dualism to maintain the relative autonomy between structure and agency, each with its generative mechanisms and causal powers. For Archer, at any given time, pre-existing structures can constrain and enable agents whose actions produce intended and unintended consequences, which reproduce (morphostasis) or change (morphogenesis). Archer (Reference Archer1995) then introduces the Morphogenetic/Morphostatic (MM) approach as an explanatory framework that helps investigate structural change over time. This approach is often illustrated in phases labelled as T1 to T4: structural conditioning (T1), social interaction (T2–T3) and structural elaboration (T4). In this article, however, we refer to these phases in descriptive terms for clarity. Thus, structure logically precedes the action that changes it (structural conditioning), social interaction represents the period of action, and structural elaboration occurs after the action.
In the findings of this study, structural conditioning is the point where a promotional interest agent introduced the SDGs and ESD agendas through the climate change GAP into climate change mitigation actions in school. Previously, a structure guided the practices of the primary agents in school, consisting of teachers and students, in practicing environmental actions. Social interaction is the period during the implementation of the 40-DCfS competition. This section aims to study how structure, culture and agency interact over time regarding climate change mitigation through the environmental agents’ various strategies and action mechanisms. Structural elaboration is a period of social elaboration in the form of actions taken to change the situation, such as morphogenesis or morphostasis. The morphogenetic approach aims to identify and describe the structure in the form of environmental agent knowledge construction, the mechanisms in environmental agent interactions and properties in the form of environmental agent reflections in applying climate change awareness and action in schools. Archer believes it is impossible to explain how agents reproduce or transform objective social contexts without examining their subjectivity in the form of the causal power of agents and the mediating power of their internal conversations.
The findings in this study indicate that agents have actively demonstrated their respective reflexivity characteristics. Archer’s framework is needed to help unify the various structural factors and agents that interact with the emergence of reflexivity by analysing how individuals become active agents and how they are involved in reproducing or changing structures (Nastar, Reference Nastar2023). For Archer (Reference Archer1995), human agency is possible because people’s thoughts, feelings, values and abilities influence their decisions. Archer (Reference Archer2007) argues that individuals practice personal reflexivity when social structures are perceived as constraining or empowering, and how individuals negotiate between structure and agency will depend on how reflexivity is achieved through internal conversations. However, personal reflexivity and a sense of active agency depend on the individual’s social context, which is aligned with their main concerns and life goals (Archer, Reference Archer2007).
Archer’s framework is rooted in the view of critical realism (Nastar, Reference Nastar2023). Researchers with a critical realist perspective understand that there is a real world outside themselves, which produces phenomena that can be observed empirically but whose true nature is hidden from direct perception (Archer & Maccarini, Reference Archer and Maccarini2013). According to Bhaskar’s (Reference Bhaskar1998), the deepest “empirical” layer represents things that can be observed and experienced. These are things that we can see and feel. In the context of this study, “empirical” can be seen through the movement of awareness and action to address climate change sustainably, which external agent, acting as an external agent, initiated and communicated to the internal school agents. The next layer, “actual,” represents observable events and non-events. The observable layer includes how the climate change discourse contained in the activity guidelines is responded to, observed, understood, debated and accepted by the school environmental agent. At this stage, an agency based on the power of reflexivity allows for consideration of adaptation and adjustment, including the possibility of rejecting certain perspectives or further developing them through dialogue, discussion and deliberation. Finally, the outermost layer, “real,” represents the causal structure and mechanism, namely the SDG and ESD agendas as structures introduced in schools. This layer aims to identify deeper causal structures and mechanisms in the objective domain. As a note, Bhaskar’s explanation is intended to criticise misunderstandings, especially epistemic errors regarding science. The error in question is the habitual attitude that reduces ontology (what exists) to mere epistemology (what is known). For critical realism, many things and events are not observed or experienced in the actual realm, and others can be observed or experienced in the empirical realm.
This study has shown the emergence of communicative reflexivity modes, autonomous reflexivity and meta-reflexivity, but no fractured reflexivity was found. This study found a silent conversation mode. This conversation occurred specifically among students and was not known to outside parties. Recognising silent conversations is important in understanding environmental agents’ reflexivity in developing awareness, building will and translating these into environmental actions to address climate change. This situation shows that the process of communicative reflexivity that Archer considers as conservative and continuous reproduction is not entirely accurate because, through the mode of reflexivity, students can have silent or hidden conversations. Through these conversations, students can take environmental actions even though they have not received prior approval from the teacher. This mode of reflexivity is between communicative reflexivity and autonomous reflexivity. This means that the form of reflexivity shown by students is not entirely based on the results of communicative reflexivity, between teachers and students and autonomous reflexivity, the will and choice of the students themselves, but is the result of the meeting of the two. This condition is relevant to a number of other studies that suggest promoting the process of subjectification in schools while learning to compromise and negotiate (Biesta, Reference Biesta2020), encouraging discussion of climate change through dialogue (Swim et al., Reference Swim, Geiger, Sweetland and Fraser2018); students participate in arguments, debates and decision-making regarding climate change (Dawson & Carson, Reference Dawson and Carson2017).
The discussion of reflexivity is essential for effective sustainability research because it can determine how social and ecological issues should be framed and what solutions should be prioritised to address sustainability challenges more effectively and inclusively (Wittmayer & Schäpke, Reference Wittmayer and Schäpke2014). Reflexivity also helps sustainability researchers become more aware of the values, worldviews and power relations that shape how they know and conduct research (Staffa et al., Reference Staffa, Riechers and Martín-López2022). When we interact we are emotionally attached and interdependent with others, and our actions and choices are shaped not only by cognitive reflexivity but also by internal dialogues and external considerations such as situations of ambivalence and contradiction. Therefore, it is important to consider how subjective reflections and inter-subjective interactions can be accommodated simultaneously. Through this effort, it is hoped that opportunities will be created for schools to revise the implementation of climate change education to be more empowering for environmental agents. In this sense, sustainability action provides the broader framework for socio-ecological transformation, while climate change action focuses on urgent mitigation and adaptation. Reflexivity enables both to be connected in school practices.
Conclusion
Each environmental agent has demonstrated the role and variation of reflexivity in implementing climate change GAP in schools. In climate action, the main environmental agent in schools not only acts as a programme implementer but also as a reflective subject who actively interprets, negotiates and even questions the conditioning of existing socio-cultural structures. The relationship between teacher interactions and students can be facilitated and limited in a micro-sociological context. The two can interact dynamically, sometimes dominating, interdependent, connected, disconnected and connected and disconnected again. By utilising Archer’s reflexivity framework, this study, in addition to identifying three modes of communicative, autonomous and meta-reflexive reflexivity, also revealed how silent conversations exist in digital conversation spaces such as WhatsApp. The disconnection of students’ understanding of the importance of carrying out climate change actions can give rise to hidden internal interaction dynamics. Silent conversations in the digital realm that are familiar to students have become a space for articulating student agency in dealing with climate change issues. Suppose Archer’s framework through the mediation of reflective considerations emphasises internal conversations. In that case, the research findings show the existence of silent conversations that bridge internal and external conversations, especially among student agents. Recognising and understanding the reflexivity of environmental agents and students’ silent conversations are essential in developing awareness, willingness and action in actions to address climate change in schools. Therefore, integrating a reflective approach in the design of the ESD curriculum is recommended, especially in climate action. In addition, it is recommended that attention be given to how subjective reflections and inter-subjective interactions can be accommodated simultaneously to empower environmental agents in climate change actions. For students, a learning space is needed that opens up opportunities to reflect on their climate action experiences through dialogue, discussion forums and digital media, fostering a sense of engagement and commitment.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the participating teachers, students and school communities for their valuable contributions to this research. Special thanks are extended to colleagues at Universitas Negeri Surabaya Center for Educational Studies and colleagues at Transformative Education Research Group Indonesia.
Financial support
The author gratefully acknowledges the support of Universitas Negeri Surabaya, which contributed to enabling the fieldwork component of this study.
Ethical standards
This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines. All participants were informed about the purpose of the research and gave their voluntary consent prior to participation. Anonymity and confidentiality were ensured, and no personal or sensitive data are published.
Author Biographies
Ganes Gunansyah is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia. His research focuses on environmental and sustainability education, teacher professional development and socio-ecological transformation in schooling and community contexts.
Moh. Salimi is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education at Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia.
Tauran is a Lecturer in the Faculty of Social Sciences and Political Sciences at Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia, and a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Helsinki, Finland.
Indar Sabri is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Language and Arts at Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia.
Open access
