Pedagogical design principles in rural basic education for the 'amazon as a subjetc of rights' approach
https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6241-1546
Se formulan principios de diseño pedagógico sustentados en evidencia cualitativa y diálogo teórico. Principios que operativizan el enfoque Amazonía como sujeto de derechos en educación básica rural. Se empleó un enfoque cualitativo interpretativo enmarcado en investigación basada en diseño (IBD). El material empírico está compuesto por entrevistas a seis docentes (dos rondas), entrevistas y grupos focales con veintidós estudiantes en una institución rural del Caquetá (Colombia), y diez sesiones observación participante. Los hallazgos muestran desconocimiento generalizado del concepto sujeto de derechos, una reducción de lo ambiental a conductas individuales, fracturas entre discurso escolar y práctica comunitaria, y emociones territoriales sin canales institucionales de acción colectiva. Por último, se proponen cuatro configuraciones pedagógicas modulares, con secuencia flexible y criterios cualitativos de aprendizaje, a partir de ocho requerimientos que fundan siete principios transferibles.
Agyeman, J., Schlosberg, D., Craven, L., & Matthews, C. (2016). Trends and directions in environmental justice: From inequity to everyday life, community, and just sustainabilities. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 321-340. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-090052
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813
Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203153185
Boyd, D. R. (2017). The rights of nature: A legal revolution that could save the world. ECW Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsqmip.2022.1.33.46
Byrne, D. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity, 56, 1391-1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y
Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala de Casación Civil. (2018, 5 de abril). Sentencia STC4360-2018 (Rad. 11001-22-03-000-2018-00319-01). STC4360-2018-2018-00319-011.pdf
Edirisinghe, A. (2024). Nature as a sentient being: Can rivers be legal persons? Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 33(1), 113-125. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12529
Fraser, N. (2009). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. Columbia University Press.
Fritsche, I., Barth, M., Jugert, P., Masson, T., & Reese, G. (2018). A social identity model of pro-environmental action (SIMPEA). Psychological Review, 125(2), 245-269. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000090
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032004003
Gudynas, E. (2015). Derechos de la naturaleza: Ética biocéntrica y políticas ambientales. Tinta Limón.
Guevara-Herrero, I., Bravo-Torija, B., & Pérez-Martín, J. M. (2024). Educational practice in education for environmental justice: A systematic review of the literature. Sustainability, 16(7), 2805. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072805
Hoadley, C., & Campos, F. C. (2022). Design-based research: What it is and why it matters to studying online learning. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 207-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2079128
Hoppe, A., Fritsche, I., & Chokrai, P. (2023). The “I” and the “We” in nature conservation-investigating personal and collective motives to protect one’s regional and global nature. Sustainability, 15(5), 4694. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054694
Hrabetz, B., Kraus, E. B., & Gruber, H. (2024). Social identity in environmental protection engagement: How are different kinds of identity related to different types of engagement? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 54(12), 776-786. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.13072
Kahui, V., Armstrong, C. W., & Aanesen, M. (2024). Comparative analysis of Rights of Nature (RoN) case studies worldwide: features of emergence and design. Ecological Economics, 221, 108193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108193
Kauffman, C. M., & Martin, P. L. (2017). Can rights of nature make development more sustainable? why some ecuadorian lawsuits succeed and others fail. World Development, 92, 130-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.017
Kauffman, C. M., & Martin, P. L. (2021). The politics of rights of nature: Strategies for building a more sustainable future. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/13855.001.0001
Kranz, J., Breitenmoser, P., Laherto, A., Krug, A., Schwichow, M., y Tasquier, G. (2025). Science education for collective agency in the climate crisis: a social identity approach. Research in Science Education, 55(4), 1149-1173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-025-10282-w
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2019). Conducting educational design research (2.ª ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315105642
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2021). Educational design research: Portraying, conducting, and enhancing productive scholarship. Medical Education, 55(1), 82-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14280
Miles, M., Schindel, A., Haq, K., & Aziz, T. (2025). Advancing environmental justice education: A critical review of research and practice. Environmental Education Research, 31(7), 1461-1480. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2025.2483443
Misiaszek, G. W. (2021). De-distancing ‘us’ from the rest of Earth: ecopedagogical analysis and approaches. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 30(1-2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2021.1880333
Misiaszek, G. W., & Rodrigues, C. (2023). Six critical questions for teaching justice-based environmental sustainability in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 211-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2114338
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Obczovsky, M., Bernsteiner, A., Haagen-Schützenhöfer, C., & Schubatzky, T. (2025). Systematizing decisions in design-based research: From theory to design. Science Education, 109(2), 523-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21915
O’Donnell, E. L., & Talbot-Jones, J. (2018). Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and India. Ecology and Society, 23(1), Artículo 7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09854-230107
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Pelizzon, A. (2020). An intergenerational ecological jurisprudence: the supreme court of colombia and the rights of the Amazon rainforest. Law, Technology and Humans, 2(1), 33-44. https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.v2i1.1476
Petel, M. (2024). The illusion of harmony: power, politics, and distributive implications of rights of nature. Transnational Environmental Law, 13(1), 12-33. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2047102523000262
Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining environmental justice: Theories, movements, and nature. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199286294.001.0001
Schulte, M., Bamberg, S., Rees, J., & Rollin, P. (2020). Social identity as a key concept for connecting transformative societal change with individual environmental activism. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72, 101525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101525
Slimani, M., Lange, J., & Håkansson, M. (2021). The political dimension in environmental education curricula: Towards an integrative conceptual and analytical framework. Environmental Education Research, 27(3), 354-373. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.1879023
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.
Tinoca, L., Piedade, J., Santos, S., Pedro, A., & Gomes, S. (2022). Design-based research in the educational field: A systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 12(6), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12060410
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
Trott, C. D., Lam, S., Roncker, J., Gray, E.-S., Courtney, R. H., & Even, T. L. (2023). Justice in climate change education: a systematic review. Environmental Education Research, 29(11), 1535-1572. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2023.2181265
Trott, C. D. (2024). Envisioning action-oriented and justice-driven climate change education: Insights from youth climate justice activists. Children & Society, 38(5), 1802-1823. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12846
van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van den Akker, R. M. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 1-14). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives.. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504-535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
Walker, G. (2012). Environmental justice: concepts, evidence and politics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203610671