Teaching and Teacher Education 142 (2024) 104531

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Research paper

Understanding practice architectures in food systems education: A

case study
Kerry Renwick a, *, 1, Lisa Jordan Powell b, Gabrielle Edwards a
a
Department of Curriculum & Pedagogy, Faculty of Education, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
b
Center for Human & Environmental Sustainability and STEM Division, Sweet Briar College, Sweet Briar, VA, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Practice architectures provide a framework for understanding how educators transform theory into action. In a
Food systems education case study based in British Columbia, Canada, participant K-12 educators identified motivations for engaging in
Practice architectures food systems education and how these influenced both the content and approaches used in their classrooms. Our
Praxis
study indicates a growing concern among educators for students to understand how food is implicated in a
sustainable future and how it connects with an array of environmental, economic, and social issues. Findings
from our case study suggest that teachers engage with practice architectures based on specific intentions that
shape food systems education.

1. Introduction
Teaching practice is often viewed as technical with a focus on
transmission of material and skills from one mind to another. While
teachers often draw from a centrally determined curriculum, how it is
enacted within the classroom elicits a particular alchemy manifested as
experiences. In the process of creating practice, teachers’ ideas and
knowledge about the content meld and transform because of the social
connections and arrangements with and between everyone in the
classroom. The material and skills being taught are filtered through the
classroom context, environment, and backgrounds of all involved. All of
these constitute forms of communication that include what is said, how
things are done, and the subsequent interrelations.
While this alchemy is present in all classrooms, it is particularly
salient when what is being taught is explicitly framed as about
improving how students are able to live–their health, well-being, and
community-based roles (Aoki, 1993). Teaching young people about food
systems is an example of this type of curricular area (Adlong, 2008;
Renwick et al., 2021). Food-related curriculum documents are largely
developed by governmental ministries or departments of education, but
they are ultimately actioned by teachers in their classrooms. By imple­
menting curriculum, teachers make decisions based on their un­
derstandings about the young people they work with.
This article explores how, through interpretation of curricula,
teachers strive to build their students’ capacity to live well and collec­
tively to make the world a better place. Food systems education is an
accessible topic that enables teachers to build on their students’ expe­
riences and use these to bridge to issues in the wider world. For example,
food systems are drivers of climate change while concurrently being
impacted by climate change (Weber et al., 2020; Wilson & Levkoe, 2022;
Wittman et al., 2010). In this case study, we examine what teachers
communicate about their enactment of food systems education curricula
in their classrooms in British Columbia, Canada. We use the theoretical
framework of practice architectures to recognise teachers’ un­
derstandings and values about food systems through their practice as
evident in the sayings, doings and relatings that they use.
2. Food systems education in schools
A food system may be defined as “an interconnected web of activ­
ities, resources, and people that extends across all domains involved in
providing human nourishment and sustaining health, including pro­
duction, processing, packaging, distribution, marketing, consumption,
and disposal of food. The organization of food systems reflects and re­
sponds to social, cultural, political, economic, health and environmental
conditions and can be identified at multiple scales, from a household
kitchen to a city, county, state or nation” (Grubinger et al., 2010).
Courses in agriculture and food preparation skills have been part of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kerry.renwick@ubc.ca (K. Renwick).
1
Present/permanent address: University of British Columbia, Department of Curriculum & Pedagogy, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6S0G3, Canada.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104531
Received 16 September 2022; Received in revised form 10 February 2024; Accepted 19 February 2024
Available online 29 February 2024
0742-051X/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc/4.0/).
K. Renwick et al.
public school curricula in the United States, Australia, Canada, and
elsewhere since the early twentieth century, often framed as vocational
agriculture or home economics (Casey, 2009; Nickols et al., 2009; Stage
& Vincenti, 1997) and primarily offered to secondary school students. In
the 1990s, as part of efforts focused on increasing the number of fresh
fruits and vegetables in school lunches in response to childhood obesity
concerns, programs such as the Edible Schoolyard Program emerged
(Powell & Wittman, 2018). These programs sought to educate students
about food production and preparation through hands-on experiential
learning in school gardens and classroom cooking programs. School
garden and cooking education has proliferated since then in the US,
Canada, and Australia. In recent years, there has been increasing interest
in educating students about social, political, and ecological aspects of
food systems in response to growing concerns about environmental
sustainability and power imbalances in contemporary food systems
(Bentsen & Pedersen, 2020; Renwick & Powell, 2019).
Since the 1970s, global food systems have become highly corporat­
ized (Devin & Richards, 2018). Corporations have increasingly made use
of technology, lengthened the food chain well beyond state borders, and
standardised outputs. This move towards commodifying food is a capi­
talist process (Parker & Johnson, 2019). In Australia, this has meant that
food retailing has collapsed into a market duology (that is, Coles and
Woolworths) in which these two corporations “are responsible for the
production, distribution and sale of food” (Devin & Richards, 2018, p.
199). This structure is often not able to accommodate disruptions, and is
driven by a reductionist view of the world, including aspects such as the
organization of supply chains around the concept of ‘just-in-time,’ using
minimal warehousing, and depending on reliable transportation. Recent
COVID conditions have put such structures to the test with heightened
demand when consumers stockpile, while supplies were disrupted due
to farm and delivery workers becoming ill and needing to isolate. Both
responses have resulted in empty supermarket shelves and contributed
to spreading both the emotional and physical effects of food insecurity
across greater numbers of people.
Shannon et al. (2015) describe US food systems as “generally effi­
cient at producing large quantities of food, minimizing human labor
requirements, and diminishing the economic costs of production, but …
associated with serious health and ecological impacts” (p. 152). Neff
et al. (2009) echo these concerns, positing that policy determines food
supply and that it “is driven by financial and political power in the food
system, including agribusiness and food processing lobbies” (p. 288).
They go on to argue that the food supply contributes to health disparities
based on income, race, and locale. There are similar concerns about
Canadian food systems in regards to ecological and economic sustain­
ability, as well as human health (Rojas et al., 2011; Wilson & Levkoe,
2022). In Canada, Weiler (2018) notes the farming sector’s reliance on
migrant workers, a situation that has been highlighted during the early
stage of the COVID-19 by pandemic lockdowns and movement re­
strictions. Insufficient numbers of farm workers were also seen in other
countries such as Australia (Greenville et al., 2020) highlighting the
inequitable work conditions noted by Weiler (2018), including long
hours, low pay, substandard living conditions and provisional access to
health care.
Movements toward more ecologically sound, socially just, and
economically equitable food systems have proliferated around the
world. These range from encouraging individual actions such as ‘eat
local’ and the Slow Food movement (Bentsen & Pedersen, 2020; Fer­
guson & Thompson, 2021), to focusing on food systems (Weber et al.,
2020), to working toward changes that necessarily extend beyond food,
such as the food sovereignty movement’s calls for global shifts in power
structures (La Via Campesina, 2018). While food systems education
considers gardening and cooking as promoting health and self-reliance,
and thus doing good, food systems education that emphasizes building
capacity for political and social action is a way to move beyond doing
good for individuals and families and toward the goal of making the
world a better place (Meek & Tarlau, 2016; Renwick & Powell, 2019).
2
Teaching and Teacher Education 142 (2024) 104531
When educators engage with food systems education, they create
what Aoki (1993) calls a ‘curricular landscape’ that comes alive in the
classroom through the teacher’s intentions and the interactions between
both teacher and students and students and students (Renwick et al.,
2021). Kemmis and Mutton (2012) also recognise how a teacher’s
practice is both “made in and through actions and interaction” (p. 9)
within the classroom space. In food systems education, the focus on both
social justice and sustainability enables teachers and students to create a
shared landscape and to understand problems within current food sup­
ply practices. There is also the creation of possibilities for new and
healthier ways of being in the world (Aoki, 1993; Kemmis & Mutton,
2012).
3. Why is food systems education important?
Reimers (2006) notes how one key aspect of public education is to
develop citizenship for both local and global purposes. This is evident in
the context statements within curriculum documents that coalesce
around key themes associated with what a young person needs to know
and do within their immediate social environment and how they
contribute to a bigger political and environmental context (Renwick,
2017). Such statements include the provision of ‘equal opportunities for
quality education for all’ in Japan (Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology, n.d., n.p.); Australian students being
‘able to learn, contribute and shape their world now and in the future’
(ACARA, n.d., n.p.); and how young people in South Africa have op­
portunity to develop ‘knowledge in local contexts, while being sensitive
to global imperatives’ (Department of Basic Education, n.d., n.p.).
These context statements indicate that development of curriculum
documents by bureaucratic bodies within specific state boundaries is
driven by a concern for young people to experience educational content
that conveys specific or what becomes common knowledge and shapes
cultural dispositions (Brennan, 2011; Renwick, 2017). While apparently
benign in intent, Evans (2008) discusses how curriculum documents are
not politically neutral and inevitably privilege certain learning in­
tentions over others. With similar concerns, Codd (2005) identifies how
public education in New Zealand shifted from ‘social democratic values
of collective responsibility and egalitarianism’ (p. 13) under a govern­
ment enacting neoliberalism.
Guiding educators in our case study, the provincial curriculum in
British Columbia (BC) expresses an intent for schools to develop citizens
who “are competent thinkers and communicators, and who are
personally and socially competent in all areas of their lives” (MoE, n.d.,
n.p.). Reimer’s (2006) concern for public education being for citizenship
is explicit within this statement as is a sense of both personal and col­
lective responsibility for living well. Moving from the context statement
to specific content, the BC Curriculum contains explicit curriculum
competencies related to food (MoE, n.d.) that begin in the first year of
formal schooling at the kindergarten level.
Within the BC Physical and Health Education curriculum, initial
explorations of how to identify a variety of foods and how these foods
contribute to health and well-being are developed over time to more
nuanced understandings about individuals making healthy food choices,
to engaging with actions that are of benefit to the wider community.
There is also opportunity to develop food handling and preparation
techniques. Considerations of ethical issues related to the food system
are present from Grade 9 in the Applied Design, Skills and Technology
curriculum, which also contains specific reference to health, economic,
and environmental factors that influence food choices. When teachers
offer food systems curriculum content, they interpret the curriculum
according to what they know about their students, while also being
guided by what they consider to be ‘right and proper’ about food
(Sadegholvad et al., 2017). The phrase ‘right and proper’ is used within
Kemmis and Smith’s (2008) consideration of learning through experi­
ence. They highlight particular practices that demonstrate a moral
goodness such that consequences “will be good for all the people
K. Renwick et al.
involved and affected” (p. 16). Within food systems education, the
phrase is significant in that it highlights the need for engaging with food
in ways that enable living in sustainable and ethical ways.
The BC curriculum offers clear expectations about areas of knowl­
edge to be covered and offers one example of information that teachers
are required to engage with (Kemmis, 2010; Kemmis & Smith, 2008).
The curriculum documentation makes clear the instrumental actions
and related outcomes that are to be achieved; therefore, one justification
of the importance of food systems education is its presence within the
formal/official curriculum. A second justification, and perhaps a more
important one given the consequences of climate change (IPCC, 2022), is
how the ways in which food systems are implicated in global ecological
degradation. This degradation in turn impacts food availability;
emerging scenarios identified by the IPCC (2022) include compromised
food production and increased food insecurity. It is this second justifi­
cation that offers insights into the moral goodness of both thinking
differently and enabling action that reflects Kemmis and Smith’s (2008)
right and proper action. This is not just because food is on the curricu­
lum, but because not building understanding and capacity for action
around food systems reinforces unsustainable ways of living (Kemmis &
Mutton, 2012). While curricula like the BC curriculum provide a struc­
ture for learning possibilities, teachers make decisions about how to
achieve the goals set out in the curriculum. Through these decisions they
are making moral judgements about what is right and proper that are
enabled through praxial thinking.
4. Practice
Practices, such as those enacted within classrooms, have been
investigated in a number of ways. While Hager (2012) notes that prac­
tice is a contested term, and there is “no discernible agreement on the
meaning and scope” (p. 17), he goes on to generate a classification of
practice across a continuum of human activity. At one end of the con­
tinuum is inclusive practice that is defined as being anything that
humans do either at a macro level such as cultural activity or the micro
associated with a specific activity such as gardening or cooking (Anto­
nacopoulou, 2008). At the other end of Hager’s continuum are exclusive
accounts, that is activity that has strictly defined and specific criteria
that need to be met before something can be called practice.
Nicoli (2017) contends that “practices are inevitability entangled
with material arrangements” (p.21), and this has led to thinking about
practices according to what is produced rather than considering prac­
tices as performances in and of themselves. The performance of practice
is not a single event; rather, it has durability and reoccurs over time.
Practices such as sayings and doings are grounded in those spaces where
they are enacted, in social life between people who keep the practice
viable (Kemmis, 2022).
Kemmis and Grootenboer (2008) posit that practices are situated and
therefore require the practitioner to make appropriate judgments based
on their readings and re-readings of the situation that contribute to
ongoing learning. In his discussion of exclusive practices, Hager (2012)
draws on Higgins’ (2003) analysis of McIntyre’s exploration of internal
and external goods to demonstrate how components of practice are
interconnected in complex ways:
• Outstanding work or performance (which the practitioner
appreciates)
• What it is like to be engaged in the practice (which the practitioner
experiences as good)
• An excellence of character (which the practitioner displays)
• A ‘biographical genre’ – what it means to live as a practitioner
(which shapes the practitioner’s life) (Higgins, 2003, pp. 287–288).
Higgins’ approach not only identifies ways in which practice be­
comes evident, it also creates possibilities for seeing both the practice
and the practitioner. Making judgments about practices and how they
3
Teaching and Teacher Education 142 (2024) 104531
enable learning in constructive ways also elicits understanding about
value positions embedded within practice and implicates a sense of self
as an agentic, moral actor.
5. Practice architectures and food systems education
Practices and practice architectures are interrelated in that a practice
architecture takes account of what constitutes a practice and how a
practice is both shaped and is shaped by the social context in which it is
enacted (Mahon et al., 2016). With this in mind, a practice architecture
that is focused on food systems education becomes a project that en­
compasses what the educator intends; their actions as sayings, doings,
and relatings; and what can be achieved because of the focus on food
systems.
Kemmis (2022) identifies practice architectures as a site-ontological
theory because it involves human activity or practice that both shapes
and is shaped by the moment and place where the activity is occurring
(Mahon et al., 2017). Further, Kemmis (2022) argues that it is a theory
whose purpose “is to discover the conditions of possibility for practices”
(p. 75). Practice is a social reality; it is enacted within the intersubjective
space between people as expressed in cultural-discursive arranges as
language, in material-economics arrangements as work, and through
socio-political arrangements as power relations. These arrangements
coalesce into practice architectures. In order to perceive the practice
within these arrangements, Kemmis et al. (2014) have identified three
specific signifiers – doings, sayings, and relatings. Diagram 1 demon­
strates how the ways and means by which these signifiers align to create
a particular practice involving “involving utterances and forms of un­
derstanding (sayings), modes of action (doings), and ways in which
people relate to one another and world (relatings) that ‘hang’ together in
characteristic ways in a distinctive ‘project’” (Mahon et al., 2017, p. 8).
Through the use of the three signifiers, educators are communicating the
purpose of what they want to achieve (Kemmis, 2022) with young
people through their practices in their classrooms.
In their description of practice architectures, Edwards-Groves et al.
(2016) describe how sayings, doings, and relatings signify a particular
communicative action (Kemmis, 2008; Kemmis & Grootenboer, 2008;
Kemmis & Smith, 2008; Mahon et al., 2017). They are representative of
“the cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political ar­
rangements that are influenced by and influence recognition” (p. 322) of
practices within social contexts. Mahon et al. (2016) note that these
arrangements exist together in those spaces where practice is enacted
thereby shaping or preconfiguring a specific practice within a practice
architecture (Kemmis & Grootenboer, 2008) (see Fig. 1).
Using the theory of practice architectures, there are possibilities for
rethinking food systems education in K-12 contexts. Understanding the
practices of educators offers possibilities for understanding how they
shape their pedagogical practices as a social project such as represented
in Diagram 1. Firstly, there is a clear motivation or intention that edu­
cators are attempting to achieve as a moral actor. Secondly, they act
through the integration of doings, sayings, and relatings as forms of
practice. Finally, educators have particular ends or outcomes that they
are aiming to achieve (Mahon et al., 2017). The use of food in K-12
classrooms offers a number of educative possibilities. As a content area,
food and nutrition information is used as a basis for understandings
developing and active bodies, and to gain insights into different
socio-cultural structures (Higgs, 2015). These classroom experiences
offer possibilities to develop individual and collective knowledge that is
informed by local conditions (Kemmis et al., 2014).
Within their practice, teachers communicate their purpose for spe­
cific content, ideas and possibilities to their students to build a collective
knowledge within the classroom. Table 1 provides examples of
communicative actions relevant to food systems in each of the three
arrangements. Seen together the three signifiers combine to form a
practice architecture, reveal what is intended, and demonstrate possi­
bilities for practice (Kemmis, 2022).
K. Renwick et al.
Table 1
Food system education practices (Renwick, 2023; based on Kemmis & Mutton,
2012).
Dimension/medium Actions/Praxis
Cultural-discursive Sayings: “environmentally responsible and sustainable,”
arrangements “know where food comes from,” and speaking about food
Medium – language systems relevant topics
Material-economic Doings: “connecting to the land,” “being sustainable
arrangements consumers” and doing relevant things
Medium – work
Social-political Relatings: “understanding how food, land and our
arrangements wellbeing are intertwined,” “being respectful of others,”
Medium – power and changing one’s relationship to others and the world
in appropriate ways
Drawing from their research work over four years in schools in two
different Australian states, Kemmis et al. (2014) have been able to
demonstrate that it is possible to use practice architectures to gain
insight into teachers’ actual and intended practices within their class­
rooms (Mahon et al., 2017). Thus, what teachers say, do and relate in
reciprocal ways with their students is a way to “see” practice in context
of the classroom.
Practices occur in particular places as part of social life (Kemmis &
Mutton, 2012), and food has always been a key aspect of social life.
Consequently, explorations of food and food systems through commu­
nicative actions offer many possibilities for understanding teachers’
knowledges and motivations for particular content and approaches
within their classrooms. For instance, food practices are more than
reading labels and recipes. They also require nuanced understandings
about how food (re)inscribes the connections within human ecologies
and to ecologies of the natural world (Powell & Renwick, 2019; Vaines,
1996).
For example, a practice architecture could include the following
knowledges and relationships to environmental conditions:
● Understanding that plant-based food in the diet represents a lighter
ecological footprint (Lang et al., 2009);
● Availability of fruits and vegetables locally at accessible prices
(Williams et al., 2012); and
● Viewing of other living things in the world such that animals do not
solely exist for human consumption (Coulter, 2016).
To engage with such understandings underscores the sociomaterial
conditions we as human beings experience through food. In thinking
about the relationship between people and food as materials requires
teachers to function in praxial ways where they make moral and value
judgments about what is right and proper in food systems education
(Kemmis & Smith, 2008).
6. Education as a moral activity
In their exploration of Dewey’s moral inquiry and deliberation, Liu
(2014) reiterates Dewey’s position for schools to engage with moral
education. Liu identifies three elements of Dewey’s moral inquiry: that it
i) is a practical judgment made within specific situations; ii) reflects the
moral significance of the subject; and iii) contributes to a new social
order. Noddings (2002) argues that moral development is in part the
result of our interactions with others as well as a person’s capacity to
engage in self-reflection and understanding, arguing that “moral edu­
cation is devoted to the understanding of self and others” (p. 15). Lilja
et al. (2023) also posit that students need opportunity to experience
moral education through approaches that include active participation,
co-operative learning, and encountering a variety of ethical perspec­
tives. This brief scoping of moral education offers some insights into its
intentions for students, but there is also a need to consider teachers and
their roles as both model and mentor (Lickona, 2009).
4
Teaching and Teacher Education 142 (2024) 104531
The work of classroom teachers and other educators has been
described by Kemmis and Smith (2008) in two different ways. Drawing
on different types of reasoning identified by Aristotle, Kemmis and
Smith (2008) first identify how teachers engage through actions facili­
tated around a particular means-end event or using a reasoning that is
instrumental and focused on achieving an identified objective or
outcome. This is what Aristotle calls ‘making action’ and is typified in
predetermined lessons for learning or specific knowledge and skills to be
attained (Renwick, 2015). Secondly teachers can act in a way where the
reasoning centers on actions that are able to demonstrate ‘moral good­
ness’ where the action is by people and for their daily life in ways that
are proper or right (Kemmis, 2010). The type of reasoning that guides
this type of action known as praxis (Renwick, 2015). For teachers, praxis
can be seen in their focus on developing the young people in their
class/es according to what is of concern to them and to the benefit of
humanity (Kemmis & Smith, 2008; Liu, 2014). Thus, Kemmis and Smith
(2008) draw on praxis with its intent to educate for a ‘greater moral
purpose’ (p. 16) and to action an outcome that is defined by what is
‘right and proper’ (p. 16).
Educators are engaging in complex negotiations on a daily basis as
they balance numerous aspects of their work. They need to consider
content to cover and how they teach that content against classroom
interactions and management, within the context of the needs and ex­
pectations of their students. This is facilitated alongside teachers’ need
to understand and interpret not only what is going on in the classroom,
but also within current and future community and economic contexts
and wider ecological systems (Kemmis & Grootenboer, 2008). Interest in
food systems is one topic where those working in schools are able to
draw in young people and engage with their interests while also
enabling learning through different lenses such as health or ecological
sustainability (Renwick et al., 2021). This approach goes beyond a
collection of facts and figures about food production; rather, it recog­
nises that as social beings we are framed by our social context, and our
lives are constituted by our everyday actions and our inclusion in (and
exclusion from) our families and communities (Kemmis & Grootenboer,
2008). Additionally, this approach provides insights into current “social,
cultural, ecological, and political spheres of life” (Bacon et al., 2011, p.
194) and possibilities for change based on connecting with and
participating in networks that include social movements (Adlong,
2008), such as social justice (Passidomo, 2013) or food sovereignty
(Wittman et al., 2010).
Praxis in educational contexts is driven by motives and values
(Adlong, 2008; Kemmis, 2010; Kemmis & Smith, 2008) that become
evident in action, both individual and communal (Kemmis, 2010). Ax
and Ponte (2010) underscore this point saying that “(w)e become people
in and through the social environment and morality is the essence of
this” (p. 31). For educators such as teachers, this becomes evident within
the moral commitment to what they do and how they action their
pedagogy. Communal action is informed by the motives and values that
educators draw from to serve the young people in their classrooms and
the ideas that they contribute to social events and happenings.
The theory of practice architectures invites exploration of the
everyday and associated practices. This includes consideration of the
dimensions that influence and shape a person’s practice; however,
people also have agency to act in particular ways within the constraints
of a practice architecture’s dimensions. A person’s actions and their
practices are informed by praxis where what they say and do and how
they relate in ways that are intended to achieve what is both right and
proper. Fig. 2 offers a way to visualise the relationships among these
components.
Building on Mahon et al.’s (2017) argument that social reality can be
explored through practice architectures, this article argues that food
systems education draws upon our relationships and participation as a
collective, to act in a way that morally benefits us socially and ecolog­
ically (Adlong, 2008; Kemmis, 2010; Lilja et al., 2023; Liu, 2014). Thus,
considerations of teachers’ descriptions of their practice—that is what
K. Renwick et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 142 (2024) 104531

conducted in Vancouver, there was some engagement with educators

Fig. 1. Practices are composed of sayings, doings and relatings that hang
together in projects.
(Source: Kemmis et al., 2014, p. 33).
they say, what they do and how relations are managed—also reveals
their motives and values that inform the specific practice architecture.
7. Methods
This article draws on research conducted as part of a larger project on
K-12 food systems education in BC; while most of the work was
based in other parts of the province. This research project is a case study.
As noted by Baxter and Jack (2015), case studies are well-suited to
answering questions of ‘why’ (e.g. motivations) and ‘how,’ while
allowing researchers to consider the influence of context (in this case,
the BC Curriculum and their classrooms).
The ethics approval from The University of British Columbia (H18-
00341-A0055) enabled the use of qualitative research methods,
including surveys, interviews, participant observation and use of sec­
ondary data such as grant applications and reports from schools on their
activities. In this article the data is drawn from the survey and in­
terviews. The survey was developed to enable teachers across British
Columbia to participate. The interviews enabled exploration of teachers’
motivations and what they reported as the sayings, doings, and relatings
used within their classroom when focusing on food systems. These three
signifiers are a means to elicit teachers’ practice in specific contexts and
the possibilities of such practice.
The initial survey invited individuals who provide food systems ed­
ucation in B.C, including both classroom teachers in public schools and
community educators who work through community organizations and
government agencies to participate. This communication included a
description of the research and informed consent forms. Thirty-two
elementary and secondary teachers responded to the survey, in addi­
tion to sixteen community educators. Eleven participants were recruited
from among survey participants who had indicated a willingness to be
contacted for an interview with six elementary and 5 secondary
teachers.
The responses provided in the interviews are an example of Geertz’s
(1973) concept of thick description where it is possible to have a more
in-depth study of teachers’ practices as phenomenon because it is
teachers who are sharing their local knowledge of what is occurring in
their social lives and enabling broader cultural interpretations (Tardy,

Fig. 2. The interrelationship between motives and values, practices and practice architecture arrangements to create a project.
(Source: Kemmis et al., 2014, p. 34).

5
K. Renwick et al.
2021). By providing a thick description there is more than a ‘level’ of
detail rather it is within the interpretation that complexity builds. By
asking teachers to describe their practices through their articulation of
signifiers (Kemmis, 2022; Kemmis et al., 2014), it is possible to make
meaning that enables us ‘to understand that we see, and understand, in
contexts’ (Freeman, 2014, p. 832).
In the survey, we asked the question, “Why did you decide to become
involved in food systems education?” Responses of K-12 teachers to this
survey question provided initial information which we used to develop
themes to probe in our interviews. Between March 2020 and August
2020, one of our team members conducted eleven interviews with K-12
classroom teachers; while interviews were also conducted with five
community educators, those interviews are not included in the data and
analysis for this article, as the focus here is on classroom teachers
enacting curriculum. These interviews were fully transcribed, and
scanned for the common themes of doings, sayings, and relatings that
teachers reported using. We also identified teachers’ values and their
motivations for engaging in food systems education and the practices
they used in the classroom. Scanning for these themes was initially done
by one of the co-authors and subsequently checked by the other two
authors. We then identified and compiled sections of the interviews
where these themes were present to facilitate analysis.
Drawing on the understanding that practice architectures are a site-
ontological theory where practices are grounded in the site where they
are enacted (Kemmis, 2022, p. 75) it is a theory that can be used as an
analytical resource. Drawing from Yin’s (2014) descriptions, this case
study is focused on understanding the generalisability of the theory of
practice architectures rather than frequency. Instead of frequency of
response, the analytic generalisability focuses on teachers’ descriptions
of practices as phenomenon, that is occurring within classrooms as a
specific context. The analysis of these responses has been presented as a
way to explore the site-ontological theory of practice architectures and if
its propositions have merit (Yin, 2013, 2014). This article provides a
single descriptive case study that has been designed to illustrate teach­
ers’ motivations and signifiers of their practice, as they engage with food
systems education with their students. In doing so it invites the reader ‘to
render social action in a manner that comes closest to the action as it is
understood by the actors themselves’ (Feagin et al., 2016, p. 8) in this
case, teachers.
In this article, teachers’ practice is used to explore the research
proposition that teachers engage with food systems education with their
students as part of their project of making the world a better place. The
idea of education as a moral activity was one theme that emerged from
both the surveys and the interviews with the BC educators who partic­
ipated in our study. Within the interview transcript sections, we were
able to identify each of the three signifiers as practice that educators
were using to develop their food education projects. We classified the
words that could be used to represent the sayings, doings, and relatings
that educators used when engaging their students with food systems
education. Through this classification, we developed an understanding
of both the motivations and the specific signifiers that the educators in
our study applied when developing food systems education opportu­
nities with their students. The following section provides examples of
teacher’s responses for each signifier, illustrating ways in which teach­
ers described their context specific practice.
8. Results
The teachers who participated in this research provided descriptions
of the areas of content used within their teaching and learning. They also
provided insights into why they enacted their classroom practices as
they did, by sharing their underpinning intentions. The practices
occurring in a classroom are inherently social and create a way of being
and inter-relating between the teacher and the young people in the
classroom and among those young people. These practices create a so­
cial project that, in this case, is centered on food.
6
Teaching and Teacher Education 142 (2024) 104531
9. Identifying practice architectures within food systems
education
Drawing on Kemmis et al.’s (2014) practice architectures and the
associated signifiers–doings, sayings and relatings–it is possible to see
how the BC educators in this study shape their pedagogical practices
around food. In both the interviews and open-ended responses in the
survey, teachers provided insights into their exclusive accounts of their
practices within the classroom (Kemmis et al., 2014). While it is noted
that these signifiers both happen and hang together (Mahon et al., 2017)
in that they exist in reciprocal relationship with and because of each
other, the initial analysis was structured to identify what could be
constituted as examples for each. From this it was possible to determine
how these specific sayings, doings, and relatings are harnessed and
subsequently generate a project in pursuit of practices (Kemmis et al.,
2014), related to food systems.
9.1. Doings
As a mode of action, exploration of doings offers possibilities to
understand this signifier as behaviours but also processes associated
with making. In any consideration about food there is an inevitable
emphasis on practice. K-12 teachers were concerned that their students
knew where their food came from and that food production was the
result of agriculture. They spoke about practical food skills associated
with growing and preparing food.
“To get children connected to the land, to plants and to growing and
harvesting food.” (Respondent 1: Elementary school teacher)
These practical skills were linked to communal and ecological
practices, including an idea that students should have connections to the
land and plants around them. Not knowing where food comes from was
presented as a gap in young people’s knowledge. This was seen as a
concern because it represented a loss of consumer agency within the
food system.
“Everyone needs to eat and I feel there is a disconnect between today’s
youth and food literacy. Equipping individuals with the skills and tools to
navigate this complex system in engaging ways fuels my current practice.”
(Respondent 2: Secondary school teacher)
Teachers viewed the food system as complex rather than linear, as
they factored in not only modern production methods but also impli­
cations and impacts on both human and natural environments. There
was an understanding that all of these ideas were intertwined, and that
an educator would shape their practice around building student capacity
to “navigate” these complexities.
9.2. Sayings
What and how things are said offers a way to understand practice
through language and discourse, descriptions, interpretations, and jus­
tifications. What is said relies on both the ‘food words’ being used and
the culture within the classroom. Classroom codes for specific behav­
iours and knowings are elicited through shared activities. For instance,
teachers provided their specific stances on issues related to food systems
and their reasoning for why they took that stance.
“I’m personally interested in climate change and how that affects things.
… we never used to have forest fires like we do now and now we have them
every single year.” (Respondent 3: Secondary school teacher)
They were not indoctrinating; rather, they were providing a rationale
for their sayings as a way to help young people to understand different
perspectives.
K. Renwick et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 142 (2024) 104531

“Environmental causes (something) I am very passionate about … The “I have always been passionate about why we eat what we eat. Everyone
kids know exactly how (and why) I feel about recycling or composting or needs to eat and equipping individuals with the skills and tools to navigate
overpackaging of food.” (Respondent 4: Elementary school teacher) this complex system in engaging ways fuels my current practice. It is
important to the future lives my students will lead.” (Respondent 10:
These sayings also offered insight into what teachers saw as essential
Secondary school foods teacher)
for learning and developing lifelong skills and understandings that
would inform actions. There was a reinforcement of the central concept The practice would not be possible with any less than the three sig­
of food production as agricultural work and impacting the natural world nifiers (Mahon et al., 2017) since practice is dependent on all three.
rather than just as a retail commodity. Thus, practices are tangled together and within the classroom as a social
environment (Edwards-Groves, 2008) the food systems education proj­
“It’s important for students to know where their food comes from. To
ect emerges.
know that it doesn’t just comes off of a grocery shelf … that we have
The identification of specific words and statements makes it possible
choices to make in terms of not only what we eat but where it comes from
to see examples of all three signifiers that demonstrate teachers’ prac­
and that how we produce our food affects our natural resources.”
tices within food systems education. Table 2 provides examples of each
(Respondent 5: Elementary school teacher)
signifier provided by teachers. These signifiers are what teachers re­
Decisions about food consumption were linked to ethical positions. ported as their practices evident in their sayings, doings, and relatings.
Teachers wanted young people to understand how their choices had an Each signifier connects to a specific dimension that describes an
impact on not only how food was produced but also how such choices arrangement that can constrain or enable practice. These two aspects of
were intimately intertwined with environmental health. the signifiers and dimensions come together to generate a particular
practice architecture, by representing what teachers described as their
“Teaching kids about the fundamentals, to be environmentally conscious
practices and understandings about food systems education as a project
and sustainable and good stewards of the Earth. Everything we do, they’re
emerges (Kemmis et al., 2014).
the future.” (Respondent 6: Elementary school teacher)
The project underscores how the engagement with food systems
education is social and the practice is being shaped by various knowl­
9.3. Relatings edges and understandings occurring within the classroom space. The
food systems education project is clearly positioned around teachers’
This signifier reveals notions of connectedness and aspects of power concerns for environmental stewardship, social justice, and for young
that permeate practice (Kemmis et al., 2014; Mahon et al., 2017). Re­ people developing the necessary lifelong skills centered around food.
latings demonstrate ways in which people are brought into relationship
with each other and the practices they enact. 10. Food systems education as a moral/praxial endeavor
“So, with knowledge you have that responsibility to share it with others …
The teachers in this case study not only spoke about the sayings,
As I learn more, I can’t not share it and teach it with my students.”
doings, and relatings they used as practice, but also provided insights
(Respondent 7: Secondary school teacher)
into the ethical positions that underpinned their practices as moral
The classroom relationships are predicated on experiences as well as agents (Kemmis et al., 2017). Edwards-Groves (2008) describes teachers
intentions and determine what is both excluded and included in the as ‘praxis-oriented’ when they engage with conscious and continuous
practice. As a signifier, relating demonstrates the ways in which K-12 action that is guided by an understanding of what is both educationally
teachers relate to their students, the curriculum material being covered, right and sound. The choices that teachers make about their practice
and pedagogical practices that are used (Kemmis et al., 2014). Relatings require judgment about what is ‘right’ in the context of their classrooms
also connect the material to larger social issues and systems beyond the and in the lives of their students and is representative of their moral
classroom. integrity. Within this food systems education project, teachers spoke
about the educative moral intent and values that underpinned their
“It is important for the next generation to learn about major issues about
practices in food systems education.
food around the world. the cost to the planet due to our food habits,
Practices occurring within the food systems education classroom are
inequity …” (Respondent 8: Elementary school teacher)
“Becoming interested in climate change and also agriculture combined I
feel like there’s a lot of options to talk about the food systems in different Table 2
ways. Like the economics effects and how it affects social things.” Food system education practices (based on Kemmis & Mutton, 2012).
(Respondent 3: Secondary school foods teacher) Actions and Praxis Dimension/ Practice architecture
medium (mediating conditions)
Notions of respect and complexity are conveyed together with
acknowledgement of emotional responses and Indigenous un­ Signifier - Sayings; Cultural- Indigenous wisdom;
derstandings of interactions among human, non-human and greater- “environmentally discursive Knowledge with
responsible and sustainable,” arrangements responsibility; Responsibility
than human agents within the world. “know where food comes Medium - to understand; Seeing for
The sayings, doings and relatings offered by the teachers should not from,” and speaking about language understanding; To be a
be seen as separate; rather, they are parts of a whole approach to food food systems relevant topics caretaker, a steward;
systems education. Due to the way the offered sayings, doings, and re­ Lifeskills
Signifier - Doings: “connecting Material- Sharing; Participating;
latings hinge together it is possible to see how a practice develops
to the land,” “being economic Growing our own; Decision
through the use of all three signifiers. sustainable consumers,” and arrangements making; Taking
doing relevant things Medium - work responsibility
“It is important for the next generation to learn about major issues about
Signifier - Relatings: Social-political Understanding differences &
food around the world (source, local/imported, pesticides/GMOs, cost to “understanding how food, arrangements complexity; Understanding
the planet due to our food habits, inequity around the world/security, land and our wellbeing are Medium - power emotions & positionality;
healthy living, etc.). I had a desire to to get children connected to the land, intertwined,” “being Connecting to others –
respectful of others,” and human, non-human &
to plants and to growing and harvesting food.” (Respondent 9:
changing one’s relationship greater than human;
Elementary school teacher) to others and the world in Fostering respect
appropriate ways

7
K. Renwick et al.
the consequence of intentions and dispositions of those acting within the
space. Kemmis and Smith (2008) note that teachers as practitioners
cannot be separated from their practice and this was evident in the
statements made by teachers.
“My own beliefs and my own value systems (about sustainability) comes
through my teaching.” (Respondent 4: Elementary school teacher)
“It is important to the future lives my students will lead.” (Respondent
11: Secondary school teacher 4)
Part of teacher practices is their concern for content and how best to
convey it to their students; however, it is not a once-offered experience,
rather teachers engage in reflection and use this to inform their ongoing
learning and action.
“As I learned more about food, I needed to learn more about how it is
grown, produced, prepared, and discarded.” (Respondent 7: Secondary
school teacher)
By teaching about food systems, teachers are engaging with educa­
tion praxis where they are motivated by moral imperatives and values
(Edwards-Groves, 2008; Kemmis & Smith, 2008).
Teachers positioned their classroom educational praxis around what
they saw as necessary individual and communal action. There was a
recognition that engaging with food systems education was in service for
their students.
“It’s important because it’s the survival of our species, the survival of our
planet. It’s important to their health. It’s going to help inform their de­
cisions now, and also as they get older.” (Respondent 4: Elementary
school teacher)
The extent and complexity of food systems education content meant
that teachers saw a number of curricular entry points for food education.
They could leverage a number of content areas within the curriculum in
ways that offered students possibilities for deeper understanding and
application than if delivered in isolated ‘chunks’ of subject based
content.
“Food systems education allows me to have cross-curricular conversa­
tions that positively impact students understanding of who they are and
the place where they live.” (Respondent 11: Secondary school teacher)
Specific content about food was seen as being authentic in that it
enabled connections to students’ experiences.
“We look at reasons why people may or may not eat certain foods, that’s
more of a social fostering of respect and understanding of the different
ways that we do things. It also for me ties into helping to foster with them
an appreciation for the environment and stewardship of the environment.
That they really have ownership over, especially when they grow things
themselves.” (Respondent 9: Elementary school teacher)
There was also a justification for food systems education becasue it
corresponded to the intent of the mandated curriculum, indicating that
it reflected and enabled students’ “learning to the real world” (MoE, n.
d., n.p.) and contributed to their development as educated citizens.
As BC teachers in this study facilitated food systems education into
their classrooms they were doing so with a moral intent “to think and act
educationally in the right and proper way” (Edwards-Groves, 2008, p.
127). Teachers spoke to their concerns about students’ current and
future health and well-being and provided opportunities for young
people to develop a disposition for informed decisions that went beyond
immediate decisions about what to eat but to also consider the health,
social, and ecological impacts of their decisions.
11. Discussion
When participating in this research case study, teachers were asked
to reflect on their practice. They described their food systems
8
Teaching and Teacher Education 142 (2024) 104531
practices—that is their sayings, doings and relatings—that also
conveyed understandings about the practice architectures (cultural-
discursive, material economic and social political arrangement) which
made their practice possible (Kemmis et al. p. 180. Original emphasis).
Teachers are motivated to engage with food systems education with
their students as a way to make the world a better place—a learning
purpose that is inherently moral. This article positions food systems
education as being for the good of individual students while simulta­
neously being good for the local and global communities and the envi­
ronments we rely on (Kemmis & Mutton, 2012; Kemmis & Smith, 2008;
Powell & Renwick, 2019).
According to Kemmis (2022), “The most important purpose of the
theory of practice architectures is that it impels users to explore
everyday life and practices in order to discover what arrangements
enable and constrain how this or that particular practice unfolds. It in­
vites researchers to explore” (p.87). The teachers described their actions
and being stirred into practices (Kemmis et al., 2014) in an interde­
pendent and coherent way to generate a project of specific practices
around food. Teachers’ concern for the well-being of their students was
predicated on the hope that as young people grew up, they would have
the necessary skills and knowledge to make decisions about food in ways
that support their health and ecological sustainability. In directing stu­
dents to think about sustainability within the food supply, teachers
offered ideas about environmental stewardship and implications for
food as a social justice issue.
Teachers in this case study expressed a number of motivations for
their work and how it aligns with their worldviews in both contempo­
rary and future timeframes. These motivations frame teacher practices
and intention to provide young people with skills and understandings to
know about food – what it is, how it is produced, and how it connects us
ecologically. Such work is framed in helping young people to connect
with their everyday experiences of food while also directing their
attention towards future circumstances. Such motivations ranged across
needing to offer educative experiences around food that acknowledged
socio-cultural perspectives, cross-curricula conversations that enabled
holistic and comprehensive engagement, and development of ethical
positions associated with the production of food and environmental
sustainability.
This case study was limited in the geographic scope and number of
survey and interview participants. That said, teacher practices have
geographically-bounded (that is, set by the provincial, state, or national
government) curriculum standards providing a scaffolding structure
around them. As a case study, the participants’ responses offer insights
into their practices around food systems education within context of
provincial curriculum and their classrooms. Drawing on Yin’s (2014)
position that case studies can be utilised to examine existing theory,
what is presented in this article offers an examination of practice ar­
chitectures as a site-ontological theory. Future studies could consider
multiple geographic areas, though would need to account for differences
in curricular mandates across them.
12. Conclusion
The theory of practice architectures has been used to understand
teachers practices from early childhood to vocational education class­
rooms focused on areas such as literacy, science, and technology, and to
explore teacher professional development (Edwards-Groves, 2008;
Kemmis et al., 2009; Mahon et al., 2017. This case study of BC educators
has been an opportunity to use practice architectures to explore teach­
ers’ practices as they relate specifically to food systems education.
Understanding practices is not just about surveillance of what is
produced; it also requires attention to both what constrains and support
the development of any specific practice. Actions in social spaces such as
classrooms are shaped by the “sociomaterial conditions in which they
occur” (Kemmis, 2022, p. 201), offering an ontological view of practice.
Since actions occur within and because of the interactions between
K. Renwick et al.
people in a shared space they have the potential to develop into practices
when they are both repeated and sustained. The ways in which the BC
teachers in this study described how they enacted food systems educa­
tion offered insights into their sayings, doings, and relatings as practices
that are influenced by the arrangements as practice architectures to
create a project about food systems education.
Sociomaterial conditions change such that what people might value
at one time loses value in another and vice versa. Growing un­
derstandings of how modern food production is implicated in climate
change and is increasingly being seen as unstainable demonstrates a
shift in the relationship between people and food as a material. The
associated concerns find their way into classrooms as teachers enact
curriculum that aims to prepare young people for Twenty-first Century
life. When inviting consideration about teachers, their practices, and
change Kemmis and Mutton (2012) suggest that “It’s not just people who
need to change but the circumstances under which we relate to one
another and the Earth - circumstances that we, collectively have created,
and that we, collectively, must change” (p. 24).
Funding
This work was supported by the Canadian Social Sciences and Hu­
manities Research Council (SSHRC) [grant number 430-2018-00363].
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Kerry Renwick: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,
Validation, Project administration, Methodology, Funding acquisition,
Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Lisa Jordan Powell: Writing – re­
view & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Project adminis­
tration, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis. Gabrielle
Edwards: Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Formal analysis.
Declaration of competing interest
All authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
References
Adlong, W. (2008). Education and sustainability: Praxis in the context of social
movements. In Enabling praxis (pp. 217–240). Brill Sense.
Antonacopoulou, E. P. (2008). On the practise of practice: In-tensions and extensions in
the ongoing reconfiguration of practices. In D. Barry, & H. Hansen (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of new approaches in management and organization (pp. 112–131). Los
Angeles: Sage.
Aoki, T. T. (1993). Legitimating lived curriculum: Towards a curricular landscape of
multiplicity. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(3), 255–268.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (n.d.). F-10
Curriculum Overview. Retrieved from: https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-
10-curriculum/f-10-curriculum-overview..
Ax, J., & Ponte, P. (2010). Moral issues in educational praxis: A perspective from
pedagogiek and didactiek as human sciences in continental Europe. Pedagogy, Culture
& Society, 18(1), 29–42.
Bacon, C. M., Mulvaney, D., Ball, T. B., DuPuis, E. M., Gliessman, S. R., Lipschutz, R. D., &
Shakouri, A. (2011). The creation of an integrated sustainability curriculum and
student praxis projects. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12
(2), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371111118237
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2015). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/
10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573
Bentsen, K., & Pedersen, P. E. (2020). Consumers in local food markets: From adoption to
market co-creation? British Food Journal, 123(3), 1083–1102.
Brennan, M. (2011). National curriculum: A political-educational tangle. Australian
Journal of Education, 55(3), 259–280.
Campesina, La V. (2018). Retrieved from:. https://viacampesina.org/en/wp-content/
uploads/sites/2/2018/02/Food-Sovereignty-A-guide-Low-Res-Vresion.pdf.
Casey, J. G. (2009). A new heartland: Women, modernity, and the agrarian ideal in America.
Oxford University Press.
9
Teaching and Teacher Education 142 (2024) 104531
Codd, J. (2005). Neoliberalism, democracy, and education for citizenship in New
Zealand. In C. White, & R. Openshaw (Eds.), Democracy at the crossroads: International
perspectives on critical global citizenship education (pp. 13–30). Lexington Books.
Coulter, K. (2016). Beyond human to humane: A multispecies analysis of care work, its
repression, and its potential. Studies in Social Justice, 10(2), 199–219.
Department of Basic Education, (n.d.). National Curriculum Statements (NCS) Grades R -
12. Retrieved from: https://www.education.gov.za/Curriculum/NationalCurriculum
StatementsGradesR-12.aspx..
Devin, B., & Richards, C. (2018). Food waste, power, and corporate social responsibility
in the Australian food supply chain. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(1), 199–210.
Edwards-Groves, C. (2008). The Praxis-orientated self: Continuing (self-) education. In
S. Kemmis, & T. J. Smith (Eds.), Enabling praxis: Challenges for education (pp.
127–148). Sense Publishers.
Edwards-Groves, C., Olin, A., & Karlberg-Granlund, G. (2016). Partnership and
recognition in action research: Understanding the practices and practice
architectures for participation and change. Educational Action Research, 24(3),
321–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1129983
Evans, M. (2008). Citizenship education, pedagogy and school contexts. In The SAGE
handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 519–532). SAGE Publications
Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200486.
Feagin, J. R., Orum, A. M., & Sjoberg, G. (Eds.). (2016). A case for the case study. UNC
Press Books.
Ferguson, B., & Thompson, C. (2021). Why buy local? Journal of Applied Philosophy, 38
(1), 104–120.
Freeman, M. (2014). The hermeneutical aesthetics of thick description. Qualitative
Inquiry, 20(6), 827–833.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures (Vol. 5019). Basic books.
Greenville, J., McGilvray, H., Cao, L. Y., & Fell, J. (2020). Impacts of COVID-19 on
Australian agriculture, forestry and fisheries trade. Canberra, Australia.
Grubinger, V., Berlin, L., Berman, E., Belliveau, C., Fukagawa, N., Kolodinsky, J.,
Neher, D., Parsons, B., Trubek, A., & Wallin, K. (2010). Proposal for a food systems
spire of excellence at the university of Vermont (Vol. 3). UVM Extension Faculty
Publications. https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/extfac/3.
Hager, P. (2012). Theories of practice and their connections with learning: A continuum
of more and less inclusive accounts. In Practice, learning and change (pp. 17–32).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Higgins, C. (2003). MacIntyre’s moral theory and the possibility of an aretaic ethics of
teaching. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37(2), 279–292.
Higgs, S. (2015). Social norms and their influence on eating behaviours. Appetite, 86,
38–44.
IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In IPCC WGII
sixth assessment report. https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FinalDra
ft_FullReport.pdf.
Kemmis, S. (2008). What is professional practice? In C. Kanes (Ed.), Developing
professional practice. New York: Springer.
Kemmis, S. (2010). Research for praxis: Knowing doing. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 18
(1), 9–27.
Kemmis, S. (2022). Transforming practices: Changing the world with the theory of practice
architectures. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
Kemmis, S., & Grootenboer, P. (2008). Situating praxis in practice: Practice architectures
and the cultural, social and material conditions for practice. In S. Kemmis, &
T. J. Smith (Eds.), Enabling praxis: Challenges for education (pp. 37–62). Rotterdam:
Sense.
Kemmis, S., & Mutton, R. (2012). Education for sustainability (EfS): Practice and practice
architectures. Environmental Education Research, 18(2), 187–207.
Kemmis, S., & Smith, T. J. (2008). Personal praxis: Learning through experience. In
S. Kemmis, & T. J. Smith (Eds.), Enabling praxis (pp. 15–35). Brill Sense.
Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., & Edwards-Groves, C. (2017). Roads not travelled, roads
ahead: How the theory of practice architectures is travelling. In Exploring education
and professional practice: Through the lens of practice architectures (pp. 239–256).
Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P., & Bristol, L.
(2014). Changing practices, changing education. Singapore: Springer.
Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Hardy, I., & Edwards-Groves, C. (2009). Leading and learning:
Developing ecologies of educational practice. In Paper presented in the symposium on
‘ecologies of practice’ at the annual conference of the Australian association for research
in education, Canberra, November 29 to December 3, 2009.
Lang, T., Barling, D., & Caraher, M. (2009). Food policy: Integrating health, environment and
society. Oxford: OUP.
Lickona, T. (2009). Educating for character: How our schools can teach respect and
responsibility. Bantam.
Lilja, A., Franck, O., Osbeck, C., Sporre, K., Lifmark, D., & Lyngfelt, A. (2023). Teachers’
perspectives on ethics education–expressed as opportunities and challenges. British
Journal of Religious Education, 1–11.
Liu, X. (2014). The problem of character education and Kohlberg’s moral education:
Critique from Dewey’s moral deliberation. Philosophical studies in education, 45,
136–145.
Mahon, K., Kemmis, S., Francisco, S., & Lloyd, A. (2017). Introduction: Practice theory
and the theory of practice architectures. In In Exploring education and professional
practice (pp. 1–30). Singapore: Springer.
Meek, D., & Tarlau, R. (2016). Critical food systems education (CFSE): Educating for food
sovereignty. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 40(3), 237–260.
Ministry of Education (MoE) (n.d.) BC Curriculum. Retrieved from: https://curriculum.
gov.bc.ca/..
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, (n.d.). Basic Education
in Japan. Retrieved from: https://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/brochure/
title01/detail01/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2018/10/09/1409899-01.pdf..
K. Renwick et al.
Neff, R. A., Palmer, A. M., McKenzie, S. E., & Lawrence, R. S. (2009). Food systems and
public health disparities. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 4(3–4),
282–314.
Nickols, S. Y., Ralston, P. A., Anderson, C., Browne, L., Schroeder, G., Thomas, S., &
Wild, P. (2009). The family and consumer sciences body of knowledge and the
cultural kaleidoscope: Research opportunities and challenges. Family and Consumer
Sciences Research Journal, 37(3), 266–283.
Noddings, N. (2002). Educating moral people: A caring alternative to character education.
Teachers College Press.
Parker, C., & Johnson, H. (2019). From food chains to food webs: Regulating capitalist
production and consumption in the food system. Annual Review of Law and Social
Science, 15, 205–225.
Passidomo, C. (2013). Going "beyond food": Confronting structures of injustice in food
systems research and praxis. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community
Development, 3(4), 89–93.
Powell, L. J., & Renwick, K. (2019). “The world is our home”: Food literacy education
and Vaines’ conceptualization of ecology. International Journal of Home Economics,
12(2), 46–54.
Powell, L. J., & Wittman, H. (2018). Farm to school in British Columbia: Mobilizing food
literacy for food sovereignty. Agriculture and Human Values, 35(1), 193–206.
Reimers, F. (2006). Citizenship, identity and education: Examining the public purposes
of schools in an age of globalization. Prospects, 36(3), 275–294.
Renwick, K. (2015). Home economics as professional practice. International Journal of
Home Economics, 8(2), 19–35.
Renwick, K. (2017). Same same but different: Curriculum representations of health
education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 8(3), 273–288.
Renwick, K. (2023). Developing teacher identity through purposeful dialogue. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 128, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104135
Renwick, K., & Powell, L. J. (2019). Focusing on the literacy in food literacy: Practice,
community, and food sovereignty. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 111(1),
24–30.
Renwick, K., Powell, L. J., & Edwards, G. (2021). ‘We are all in this together’:
Investigating alignments in intersectoral partnerships dedicated to K-12 food literacy
education. Health Education Journal, 80(6), 699–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/
00178969211011522
Rojas, A., Valley, W., Mansfield, B., Orrego, E., Chapman, G. E., & Harlap, Y. (2011).
Toward food system sustainability through school food system change:
10
Teaching and Teacher Education 142 (2024) 104531
Think&EatGreen@ School and the making of a community-university research
alliance. Sustainability, 3(5), 763–788.
Sadegholvad, S., Yeatman, H., Parrish, A. M., & Worsley, A. (2017). What should be
taught in secondary schools’ nutrition and food systems education? Views from
prominent food-related professionals in Australia. Nutrients, 9(11), 1207.
Shannon, K. L., Kim, B. F., McKenzie, S. E., & Lawrence, R. S. (2015). Food system policy,
public health, and human rights in the United States. Annual Review of Public Health,
36, 151–173.
Stage, S., & Vincenti, V. B. (Eds.). (1997). Rethinking home economics: Women and the
history of a profession. Cornell University Press.
Tardy, C. M. (2021). What is (and could be) thick description in academic writing
research? Ethnographies of Academic Writing Research: Theory, methods, and
interpretation, 1, 21.
Vaines, E. (1996). Spheres of influence: A theoretical integration. In M. G. Smith,
L. Peterat, & M. DeZwart (Eds.), (2004). Home economics now: Transformative
practice, ecology and everyday life—a tribute to the scholarship of Eleanore Vaines (p.
148). Vancouver: Canada: Pacific Educational Press.
Weber, H., Poeggel, K., Eakin, H., Fischer, D., Lang, D. J., Von Wehrden, H., & Wiek, A.
(2020). What are the ingredients for food systems change towards sustainability?
Insights from the literature. Environmental Research Letters, 15(11), Article 113001.
Weiler, A. M. (2018). A food policy for Canada, but not just for Canadians: Reaping
justice for migrant farm workers. Canadian Food Studies/La Revue canadienne des
études sur l’alimentation, 5(3), 279–284.
Williams, L. K., Thornton, L., Crawford, D., & Ball, K. (2012). Perceived quality and
availability of fruit and vegetables are associated with perceptions of fruit and
vegetable affordability among socio-economically disadvantaged women. Public
Health Nutrition, 15(7), 1262–1267.
Wilson, A., & Levkoe, C. Z. (2022). Introspecting food movements in Canada: Unpacking
tensions towards justice and sustainability. Canadian Food Studies/La Revue
Canadienne Des études Sur l’alimentation, 9(2), 101–124. https://doi.org/10.15353/
cfs-rcea.v9i2.524
Wittman, H., Desmarais, A., & Wiebe, N. (2010). Food sovereignty: Reconnecting food,
nature and community. Oakland: Food first.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation,
19(3), 321–332.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.