Topic 5: Lessons learned and future practice

We have now reached the end of the course HEDS241, and in this final individual reflection I will look back on what I have learned this semester. I will also look forward, reflecting on how I can use the competences from this course in my own teaching. 

• What are the most important things that you have learnt through your engagement in this course? Why?

The most important things I have been introduced to in this course are the critical perspectives on education, universities, and sustainability education such as for instance Osberg, D. and Biesta, G. (2020), Lotz-Sisitka et al. (2015), Stein et al (2022), Orr 1991, It has been a comfort to know that I am not alone in thinking that the educational system is not doing what it preaches in terms of sustainability, and that we as educators are not giving students the competence they need concerning sustainability. For me it is important to acknowledge our shortcomings and mistakes before we can move on and do something about the problem.

I also found it very interesting to learn about all the different views on sustainability (Hopwood et al 2005). This helped me understand and interpret discussions I have had with others about sustainability. I also thought it was interesting to read some of the research concerning sustainability competences, and I especially liked the competence models that included implementation competency, such as Brundiers et al., 2021).

Figure: Sustainability competencies from Brundier et al (2021)

 

The models for sustainability didactics for higher education was what motivated me to take this course in the first place, and I did learn a lot about this topic. For instance, I learned that there are different approaches or teaching styles concerning sustainability education; normative, fact-based and pluralistic (Öhman and Östman, 2019). The pluralistic approach treats sustainability questions as political problems, where people might agree on the facts, but can have different ideas to how to solve the problem. The pluralistic tradition has been found to be the most promising way forward. 

We also learned about several different pluralistic didactic models for teaching sustainability, such as Constructive alignment and Tree of Science (Wilhelm et al., 2019), Wicked problems (Block et al., 2019), Sustainability commitment (Öhman & Sund, 2021), and finally Five forms of democratic participation (Lundegård & Caiman, 2019). I preferred the last one, as it resonates with my own teaching philosophy of student activity and participation.

·        How will your learning influence your practice?

I liked the pluralistic approach to sustainability education, and especially the the five forms of democratic participation-model. Without having had a name for it, I think that my teaching has been moving in this direction for a while. For instance I try to choose authentic learning situations that give room for student agency and creativity, as well as giving room for deliberate discussions and critical reflection.  However I still have a lot of work to do here concerning creating authentic learning situations. I also think I should make the didactic choices explicit for the students, especially since they are teacher students and it is important for them to reflect on didactics.

·        What are your thoughts about didactics for sustainability in your
own context?

As a teacher educator, I  think that I have more questions concerning sustainability didactics now, than I had before the course. Some of the questions I have are; What is the relation between the didactics in higher education and didactics that teachers use in school? Is it the same, or different? Do we need a special type of didactics in teacher education to give teacher students the type of educator competences that they need to teach their students about sustainability? Or can I teach my teacher students the Five forms of democratic participation, so that they can use them with their pupils?

·        What are you going to do as a result of your involvement in this course? Why?

 I have already started sharing some of my insights from this course with colleges. Recently I presented some of the didactic models that we have learned in this course in a transdisciplinary sustainability group at my Department. I think it is very important for us as teacher educators to discuss HOW we teach sustainability and not just whether we teach it or not, and I would like to contribute to this discussion. I hope in the future we can have more discussions and seminars on sustainability didactics, and perhaps we as colleges can even agree on choosing one model.

 ·        What suggestions do you have (activities and/or in general) for development of didactics for sustainability in your own teaching or context? 

This course has made me reflect on my own responsibility concerning teaching sustainability. As I mainly teach chemistry and science didactics for teacher students, I have felt that sustainability is not really my responsibility. However, some of the readings we have done for this course has made me rethink this. 

Figure: Chemical hazard symbol for environmental danger.

Environmental educator Orr argues that all education is environmental education, and he suggests that we should set a goal of ecological literacy for all students (Orr, 1991). Ecological literacy would mean that students can reflect on the ecological implications of all the topics that they learn about. So then, perhaps it is my responsibility to teach the ecological dimension of chemistry. Understanding hazard symbols are part of what students learn, but perhaps I could link this more clearly to the ecological consequences of use and chemical waste. When teaching the elements and the periodic table students could discuss the consequences of mining and use of elements such as titanium, lithium or gold. The teacher students could also discuss the ecological dilemmas of producing new materials such as plastic, or synthesizing chemicals such as PFAS, nicknamed "Forever chemicals", as they are persistant and stays on in the environment.

Sources:

Block, T., Van Poeck, K., & Östman, L. (2019). Tackling wicked problems in teaching and learning. Sustainability issues as knowledge, ethical and political challenges. In Sustainable Development Teaching (1st ed., pp. 28–39). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351124348-3

Brundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebrián, G. et al. (2021) Key competencies in sustainability in higher education—toward an agreed-upon reference framework. Sustain Sci 16, 13–29.

Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., and O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1):38–52.

Lotz-Sisitka, H., Wals, A. E., Kronlid, D., and McGarry, D. (2015). Transformative, transgressive social learning: Rethinking higher education pedagogy in times of systemic global dysfunction. 

Lundegård, I., & Caiman, C. (2019). Didaktik för naturvetenskap och hållbar utveckling - Fem former av demokratiskt deltagande. Education for science and Sustainable Development-Five forms of Democratic Participation. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 15(1), 38-53. (In Swedish)

Orr, D. (1991) What is education for?

Osberg, D. and Biesta, G. (2020). Beyond curriculum: Groundwork for a non-instrumental theory of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 

Stein, S., Andreotti, V., Susa, R., Ahenakew, C., and Cajková, T. (2022). From “education for sustainable development” to “education for the end of the world as we know it” Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54(3):274–287

Wilhelm, S., Förster, R., & Zimmermann, A. B. (2019). Implementing competence orientation: Towards constructively aligned education for sustainable development in university-level teaching-and-learning  Sustainability, 11(7), 1891.

Öhman, J., & Östman, L. (2019). Different teaching traditions in environmental and sustainability education. In Sustainable Development Teaching (pp. 70-82). Routledge.

Öhman, J., & Sund, L. (2021). A didactic model of sustainability commitment. Sustainability, 13(6), 3083.

 

 

 

Topic 4. The role of the universities in sustainability education

What is the role of universities when it comes to sustainability education? How can universities be a positive force in the transition to a sustainable society?  These are some of the questions we have been discussing in topic 4. Very often the ambitions and actions of universities seem to be going in the opposite directions as sustainability goals. For instance, the goals of international collaboration is in conflict with the ambitions to reduce climate gas emissions from traveling.

Some years ago my department at NTNU arranged a staff seminar in Estonia, and the Head of the department charted two planes to fly all staff to Tallin (This was in a time when the economy was still good). I think this story can be an interesting case for discussing topic 4, the role of the university in sustainability education. So hang on till the end, where I will tell you more about what happened and analyze the story in light of literature from topic 4. But first I will present some reflections on what I have read and learnt during this topic:

Foto: Caption from Universitetsavisa, 2018: "More climate friendly to fly to Tallinn than to take the bus to Røros. Can staff at NTNU fly with good  conscience?" 

This mess is made by educated people

In his article What is Education for, environmental educator David Orr (1991) reminds us that the loss of nature and species, and the emission of carbon is not the work of ignorant people, but largely a result of work of people with university degrees. Elie Wiesel, the famous author and holocaust survivor has made a similar point, saying that the holocaust happened even though the Germans were the best educated people on Earth. Wiesel asked what was wrong their education, and his answer was “It emphasized theories instead of values, concepts rather than human beings, abstraction rather than consciousness, answers instead of questions, ideology and efficiency rather than conscience.” Orr reminds us that “education is no guarantee of decency, prudence or wisdom.”  He stresses that this is not an argument for ignorance, but that the worth of education must be measured against the standards of decency and human survival.

Orr goes on to lists six myths that has laid the foundation for modern education, and that he thinks are causing the problems we have today:

1)     The myth that ignorance is a solvable problem. Orr reminds us that the emission of CFC-gases is an example of how our ignorance of the ozonlayer and what can destroy it made it possible for us to release gases that destroyed it.
2)     With enough knowledge and technology we can manage planet earth.
3)     Knowledge is increasing and by implication human goodness.
4)     We can adequately restore that which we have dismantled.
5)     The purpose of education is that of giving you the means for upward mobility and success.
6)     The myth that our culture represents the pinnacle of human achievement; we are modern, technological and developed.

 Orr also lists six principles for rethinking education:

1)     All education is environmental education
2)     The goal of education is not mastery of subject matter, but of one’s person
3)     Knowledge carries with it the responsibility to see that it is well used in the world.
4)     We cannot say that we know something until we understand the effects of this knowledge on real people and their communities.
5)     The importance of minute particulars and the power of examples over words. What is needed are faculty and administrators who provide role models of integrity, care, thoughtfulness and institutions that are capable of embodying ideals wholly and completely in all of their operations. Otherwise, the lessons being taught are those of hypocrisy and ultimately despair.
6)     The way learning occurs is as important as the content of particular courses. Process is important for learning. Courses taught as lecture courses tend to induce passivity.

Orr also goes on to suggest four main assignment for the campus; 1) Engange in a campus-wide dialogue about the way you conduct your business as educators. Does this college contribute to the development of a sustainable regional economy, or to the processes of destruction? 2) Examine resource flows on the campus; food, energy, water, materials and waste. Begin a process of finding ways to shift the buying power of the institution to support better alternatives that do less environmental damage, lower carbon dioxide emissions, etc. The results of these studies should be woven into the curriculum as interdisplinary courses. 3) Reexamine how your endowment works. Is it invested in companies doing responsible things that the world needs? And 4) Set a goal of ecological literacy for all students.

What is the situation now?

Three decades have passed since Orr’s recommendations. Has academia listened to his advice? Two articles on the reading list give some answers. In a study of universities from 45 countries Filho et al (2021) finds that universities are giving a growing emphasis to climate change. Based on the findings, the authors list some actions that universities may adopt, such as having a cross-cutting emphasis to climate change, identification of strengths and weaknesses in the curriculum, encourage staff to greater engagement by providing training programs for academic staff, and build a bridge between climate change teaching and research to maximize synergies. 

In a more recent article Filho et. al. (2023) gives six recommendations for how education institutions can cause greater engagement on climate change;

1. Curriculum Reform. Higher education institutions should review their curricula to ensure that current and future generations of students are educated in the fundamentals of climate science (in technical subjects) and the global effects of climate change (in non-technical ones).
2. Education & Awareness: Institutions should promote educational campaigns and public awareness initiatives to educate students and the public on the importance of reducing their carbon footprint.
3. Research: need for studies to deeply analyse difficulties of inserting climate change in university programmes and propose manners for overcoming them.
4. Collaboration: institutions should establish and enhance partnerships with local governments, non-proft organizations, and other stakeholders to collaborate on initiatives to mitigate climate change.
5. Renewable Energy -universities should practice what they preach.
6. Green Buildings.

 A framework for discussing the impact of universities

As we can see there are many recommendations for how universities could work to achieve sustainability education, but how to measure if they succeed? McCowan (2020) suggests a theoretical framework to measure the impact of universities on climate change. The framework sheds light on what the university is doing, and on the many pathways through which it impacts the society. According to McCowan there is little research on the impact of universities on sustainable development. What we know most about is the mitigation pathways relating to changes in the curriculum, and campus sustainability. We know less concerning knowledge production, public debate and service delivery activities of the university.

McCowan lists ten different mitigation pathways and five adaptation pathways, and lists how the pathways can impact the university, bridging actors, the society and the ecosphere. See figure. Some example of mitigation pathways are M1: Student acquires professional knowledge relating to climate change , M6: University provides a service directly to a community, M7: University provides directly environmental service, M10: University alters its own institutional functioning; impact on climate change mitigation. Some examples of adaptation pathways:  A1: University develops knowledge, skills and values in students, A2: University develops new products or technology.

Figure: Mitigation and adaptation patways from McCowan (2021).

McCowan also acknowledges that there are potential negative impacts for each of the mitigation pathways, and lists some of them, see figure.

Figure: Negative impacts of universities on climate change, from McCowan (2021)

Deep adaptation – we need to face the reality!

For this topic there were also several video lectures to explore. I saw the lecture by Professor Jem Bendell on Universities, Climate and Deep Adaptation. In this lecture Bendell argues that the world is facing massive consequences of climate change, and calling for radical changes in how universities work. He calls this radical change Deep adaptation and he proposes eight steps for how academia can achieve this: 1) face reality, 2) reframe strategy, 3) prioritise people, 4) get practical, 5) Level with students, 6) migrate teaching and research, 7) club together and 8) get political. 

Bendell also suggests that universities should have a Deep adaptation team who can work outside of the normal adaptation work. In such a team you would need for instance a psychologist, a wellbeing officer, a community engagement or public affairs officer.  

The staff seminar story

Coming back to my personal story about the staff seminar to Estonia and the two charted planes, what happened ? 

As nobody else seemed to question the climate impact of the seminar, I decided to ask whether the Head of the department had thought about the effect of climate gas emissions and also whether they had considered the message that arranging such a meeting had on students and the public. This became a debate in the university newspaper, where the Head of department claimed that flying to Tallin had a smaller carbon footprint compared to taking the bus to a nearby town. He defended his argument by claiming that emissions from flights was part of the EU quota system whereas emissions from bus was not part of the quota system. The sustainability manager at NTNU refuted this.

Applying the framework of McCowan we can analyze which impact the staff seminar had on climate change. In this case we can see how research-based knowledge in economy and EU quota was used to excuse emissions of CO₂, causing a negative impact on climate change by mitigation pathway M1 Professional development and M4 Application of knowledge. There was also negative impact for mitigation pathway M9, Awareness raising and M10 Campus sustainability, as the message that NTNU sent to its staff, students and society had a negative effect on climate change. 

The end of the story was that my colleges went on a nice trip, while I had a quiet protest and stayed at home. The debate in Universitetsavisa might have had a positive effect on awareness, though. 

This story happened five years ago, and awareness and knowledge has developed a lot since then. Now NTNU has an ambitious plan to cut emissions and there it states clearly that we are to cut emissions from flying. 

 

Sources: 

Bendell, J. (2020) Lecture on Universities, Climate and DeepAdaptation

Leal Filho, W.,  et al. (2021) Handling climate change education at universities: an overview.

Leal Filho, W.,  et al. (2023) Towards a greater engagement of universities addressing climate change challenges.

McCowan, T. (2020) The impacts of universities on climate change: a theoretical framework

Orr, D. (1991) What is education for?

Individual reflection for topic 3: Didactic approaches to teaching and learning in ESD

How should we teach in higher education to promote sustainability competence in our students? That has been the focus during the last weeks of the HEDS241 course. We have been introduced to five didactic models for teaching sustainability, and in webinars and group we have discussed how to interpret the models and how we can use these models to improve our own teaching. In this text I will first make a short resume of the different models we have learned about, and next I will reflect on how I can use some of these models in my own teaching.

Five didactic models for teaching sustainability:

1)     Constructive alignment and Tree of science.     

Wilhelm et al. 2019 describe two models that can be used to help organize teaching in sustainability. The Tree of science is a tool that can help faculty staff operationalize ESD-coherent teaching and learning. Wilhelm et al. couples this model with the Constructive alignment-model, that basically conveys the message that learning outcomes, content, learning activities and assessment activities need to be in alignment for students to learn.

 

Figure: Tree of science. From Wilhelm et al. 2019.

2)  Tackling wicked problems in teaching and learning.

      Block et al (2019) uses a typology of types of sustainability problems developed by others and discusses how to approach these types of problems in teaching and learning. They argue that sustainable development teaching shouldn’t be seen as one homogenous kind of practice. Instead, teachers should consider which kind of problems they are dealing with and choose a suitable approach; fact-based, normative or pluralistic. Block et al argues that a fact-based approach can be useful for structured sustainability problems, and normative approach can be used when there is little or no disagreement on norms and values. The more unstructured or wicked the sustainability problem, the more the teacher needs to use a pluralistic approach. 

      They also offer some principles to handle wicked types of problems in teaching; 1) treating facts modestly, allowing room for uncertainties and a plurality of normative perspectives; 2) engaging pluralistically with the basic principles of sustainable development, recognizing that there are no simple definitions or objective indicators that allow us to define what is sustainable or unsustainable once and for all and 3) designing issue-driven and problem-oriented teaching and learning practices; exposing students to concrete sustainability problems.

 

3)     Different teaching traditions on ESD.    

I read this article as more a description of a situation than a didactic model. Öhman and Östman (2019) described three traditions in environmental and sustainable education in Sweden; fact-based, normative and pluralistic. As the authors argue, it is important for teachers “to be aware of the traditions that exist within a subject in order to be able to make critical and conscious choices of educational content and methods.” In the fact-based tradition sustainability problems are regarded as knowledge-based problems. In this tradition more research, technology and information to the public are expected to lay the basis for sustainable development. The normative tradition treats sustainable problems as moral problems, and the problems are resolved by adopting environmentally friendly and sustainable values, norms and lifestyles. Finally, the pluralistic tradition treats sustainability problems as political issues, where people might agree on facts but still have different ideas about which solutions are the best.

 

4)    Five forms of democratic participation. 

In In their article, authors Lundegård and Caiman (2019) present a didactic framework for sustainability teaching and learning where students should be involved in democratic participation. Their model lists five types of participation:

                           I.          Deliberative discussions. The pedagogical paradox. For humans to learn they need to engage with others, but without communicative reflection tools it is impossible.

                          II.          Agency. Who we are and what we will become depends on the context. Planning the context, environments, artefacts in education (Biesta & Tedder, 2007)

                        III.          Creativity. Educative moments allow students to build new knowledge on their own experience, by being critical to and creative about new innovations and society trends

                        IV.          Critical reflection. A way to meet populistic trends in society. Being critical in this context mean especially being critical to natural science models of e.g. energy, biodiversity, gender or other models based in natural science.

                         V.          Authentic participation. Direct engagement, emotionally and bodily. Building relevance of knowledge in education-meaning making. (Meaning making by authentic participation)

 

5)     A didactic model of sustainability commitment. 

In this model the authors Öhman & Sund (2021) build on the idea that schools should support the creation of students’ desire and ability to contribute to a sustainable transformation of our world; sustainability commitment. The authors list three central aspects of sustainability commitment; Practical aspect, Intellectual aspect and Emotional aspect. The authors also describe how teachers can help students obtain sustainability commitment by certain teacher moves, e.g. actions that the teacher can carry out to create a learning environment for students, such as staging inquiry or scene-setting. Something I like about this article is that it stresses that emotions such as hope and fear are essential if students are to become dedicated and want to do something.  

Figure: Aspects of sustainability commitment. From Öhman & Sund (2021)

The models in relation to my own teaching

I have enjoyed reading about the different models, and have found interesting points in all of them. But I think I like best the model of Five forms of democratic participation . I like the principle of democratic participation and the focus on democratic ways of organizing the teaching. Also I found the five democratic ways of participating meaningful and do-able. For me it is easy to see how I can incorporate several of the democratic forms in teaching / learning activities we already do i in my classroom, I just need to make it explicit to myself and the students that this is what we are doing. 

One example: My colleges and I are now planning a new course for teachers in the use of school gardens for sustainability teaching. Through a simple activity where students learn to collect their own seeds from local plants and plant them, it would be possible for students to particpate in several of the forms of democratic participation. The garden and the activity of collecting seeds could function as an authentic setting for learning, in an environment and a situation that is relevant for the students' daily lives. The activity can also help develop the students agency and critical reflection, as students can learn to collect their own seeds, and also discuss why we buy seeds, and why it might be worrying if big companies control the seeds that farmers need.    

Coming up next time: The role of universities in sustainability teaching and learning. Looking forward to that topic as well!

Literature:

Block, T., Van Poeck, K., & Östman, L. (2019). Tackling wicked problems in teaching and learning. Sustainability issues as knowledge, ethical and political challenges. In Sustainable Development Teaching (1st ed., pp. 28–39). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351124348-3

Lundegård, I., & Caiman, C. (2019). Didaktik för naturvetenskap och hållbar utveckling - Fem former av demokratiskt deltagande. Education for science and Sustainable Development-Five forms of Democratic Participation. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 15(1), 38-53. (In Swedish)

Wilhelm, S., Förster, R., & Zimmermann, A. B. (2019). Implementing competence orientation: Towards constructively aligned education for sustainable development in university-level teaching-and-learning  Sustainability, 11(7), 1891.

Öhman, J., & Östman, L. (2019). Different teaching traditions in environmental and sustainability education. In Sustainable Development Teaching (pp. 70-82). Routledge.

Öhman, J., & Sund, L. (2021). A didactic model of sustainability commitment. Sustainability, 13(6), 3083.

Individual reflections topic 2 Competences in higher education

 Which sustainability competencies should students obtain in education? That is the question that we have been discussing for the past three weeks as part of the course HEDS241. We have had several articles on sustainability competencies on our reading list, and we had a webinar with professor Marco Rieckmann, University of Vechta. My reflection will be divided into two parts; 1) my own personal review on some sustainable competencies frameworks, and 2) a discussion on the more critical based articles we have been reading.

Competencies for sustainable development

I find the discussion on which competencies students should obtain very interesting. For several years I have been reflecting on how we teach this topic, based on experiences from my own Department but also from stories on how it is often taught in school. In my opinion there is at present a focus on teaching students about sustainability issues, but students hardly ever get opportunities to use their knowledge to do something, to make some action. The reading I have done during the last few weeks has shown me that the weighting of thinking versus implementation skills is also a discussion that have been going on among sustainability researchers. Here follows a very brief review on some of the articles on the reading list concerning competencies:

Rieckmann's 12 competencies:

In a Delphi study from 2012 Marco Rieckmann asked 70 experts in education for sustainable development (ESD) from Europe and Latin America about what they meant where the most important competencies for understanding central challenges facing world society and for facilitating development towards a more sustainable future. His results identified 12 key competencies, and among them the three most important were systemic thinking, anticipatory thinking and critical thinking. I found it interesting that several of the competencies in this framework are action competencies; such as being able to act fairly and ecologically, and planning and realizing innovative projects.

Figure 1: Sustainability competencies from Rieckmann (2012)

Wiek and Brundier 

Interestingly, other researchers have developed frameworks with only ‘thinking’ competencies and no action competencies, such as in the framework by Wiek et al (2015) where the following five competencies were identified: systems thinking competency, interpersonal competency, anticipatory competency, normative competency and strategic competency. However, in a more recent Delphi study, Brundier et al. (2021) revise the Wiek et al. framework and include two new competencies; implementation competency and intrapersonal competency. In the discussion concerning implementation competency, the authors write that students should not only learn from stakeholders how they have carried out change, but that students should “practice it themselves by actually implementing a sustainability solution in a specifc context, for example, on campus e.g., through campus living labs”. According to the authors implementation competency “catalyzes the cognitively driven integrated problem-solving competency into manifest changes on the ground” (Brundier et al., 2021).

Figure 2: Sustainability competencies from Brundier et al (2021)

UNESCO competencies

UNESCO list eight key competencies for sustainability; systems thinking, anticipatory competency, normative competency, strategic competency, collaboration competency, critical thinking competency, self-awareness competency and integrated problem-solving competency. Although this sounds like purely cognitive competencies, it is specified that strategic competency also involves the ability to “develop and implement innovative actions that further sustainability at the local level and further afield.”

Operationalising the competencies

One thing is what students should learn, but another thing is how we can operationalize the competencies. During these two weeks we have also been introduced to some articles and tools for this. I found the article Operationalising competencies in higher education for sustainable development (Wiek et al., 2015) very inspiring. In this article they present three examples of projects carried out in different student groups, for example a High school in Arizona, US, that was involved in a group work to improve a neighbouring district with economic and social problems. In the article they explicitly show how the various project activities help students develop sustainable competencies, such as collaboration and systems thinking. We have also been introduced to the web based tool A rounder sense of purpose, where there are example activities for how to teach the different competencies, such as the activity Clean water and sanitation where students address water issues in a systematic way.

Educator competencies

To be able to teach sustainability competencies, educators will also need a set of competencies. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2012) have identified four central competencies for educators; learning to know, learning to live together, learning to do, and learning to be. In their framework they have specified how the competencies can be implemented in the three essential characteristics of education for sustainable development; holistic approach, envisioning change and achieving transformation.

Figure 3: Sustainability competencies for educators, UNECE (2012)

I still have a fundamental question after reading and discussing all these competency frameworks; what is in effect the difference in terms of behavior between a person with sustainable competence and one who is completely ignorant about sustainability? It seems to me that universities put a lot of emphasis on cognitive competencies, but much less emphasis on making people able to use their knowledge to implement sustainable solutions. Personally, I sometimes wonder if there is any point in educating people in sustainability at all, if we don’t expect any change to happen. And this brings me over to the critical perspective.

Critical perspectives

All the competency frameworks that I have discussed so far can be said to be within a certain view of education, where education is seen an instrument. However, other authors challenge the current view of education and sustainability education. Here I will make an attempt to summarize some of the critical perspectives I have read:

The problem of resilience

Lotz-Sisitka et al (2015) refers to UNEP reports that show that while society has produced large amounts of knowledge of global environmental challenges, we do not have the capacity to respond. Having knowledge of issues is not enough to solve the problems. The authors also critique the concept of resilience in sustainability science and learning. They argue that there are many unhealthy systems and unstainable ways of thinking and acting that are very resilient, such as capitalism. According to the authors we need action-oriented capabilities, including development of new modes of learning. These are forms of pedagogy with emphasis on co-learning, cognitive justice, and formation and development of individual and systemic agency.

Education as instrument or murmurations

In a philosophical article, Osberg and Biesta (2020) challenge “the mechanic assumption of education” as a “passive instrument that exists primarily to fulfill the purpose(s) of its designer.” They put forward another way of seeing education; something that emerges on its own, and they compare it to how complex bird murmurations is an aestehetic pheonomen that is created by individual birds with no external goal. Osberg & Biesta argue that looking at education as an affective entity in its own right can be seen as an open-ended form of care for the future: “not a ‘good’ future that is already decided in advance”, but “a mode of engagement with an as yet un-manifest future.” It is a bit difficult to see how this can be translated into practical teaching in sustainability, but perhaps it means that future sustainability solutions should emerge as a result of the individual efforts in education.

Figure 4: Education as starling murmurations? Foto Tom Lee, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED,  Flickr.com 

An education for the end of the world as we know it

Stein et al (2022) turns the issue of sustainable education inside out. They say that instead of asking how we can reorient education to support sustainable development, we should ask what kind of education could prepare people “to face the impossibility of sustaining our contemporary modern-colonial habits of being, which are underwritten by racial, colonial, and ecological violence”. That is; “an education for the end of the world as we know it”.  Note that this does not mean the end of the world, only accepting a change in our way of living. 

They argue that such an education involves growing up and showing up. Growing up means being able to interrupt and limit harmful desires. It emphasizes the disposition to “see and sense oneself as entangled with and responsible to a wider world/metabolism”, while showing up is about feeling a commitment to interrupt denials, and to dig deeper to the root causes of our challenges.

Topic 2 has been a great journey, and I have learnt a lot and got some new perspectives. I have been especially happy to read the critical perspectives, as they resonate with many of the reflections and thoughts that I have had concerning education for sustainable development. 

Next week we move on to a new topic: didactic approaches to teaching and learning in education for sustainable development!

Sources:

A Rounder Sense of Purpose (2020).

Brundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebrián, G. et al. (2021) Key competencies in sustainability in higher education—toward an agreed-upon reference framework. Sustain Sci 16, 13–29.

Lotz-Sisitka, H., Wals, A. E., Kronlid, D., and McGarry, D. (2015). Transformative, transgressive social learning: Rethinking higher education pedagogy in times of systemic global dysfunction. 

Osberg, D. and Biesta, G. (2020). Beyond curriculum: Groundwork for a non-instrumental theory of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 

Rieckmann, M. (2012). Future-oriented higher education: Which key competencies should be fostered through university teaching and learning? Futures, 44(2):127–135. Special Issue: University Learning

Stein, S., Andreotti, V., Susa, R., Ahenakew, C., and Cajková, T. (2022). From “education for sustainable development” to “education for the end of the world as we know it” Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54(3):274–287

UNESCO (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2012). Learning for the future: Competences in education for sustainable development 

Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6(2), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6

Wiek, A., Bernstein, M. J., Foley, R. W., Cohen, M., Forrest, N., Kuzdas, C., Kay, B., and Keeler, L. W. (2015). Operationalising competencies in higher education for sustainable development In Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development, pages 265–284. Routledge