Conference Agenda

The purpose of this research is to study if the engagement of vulnerable 13-15 years old students in outdoor activities, such as gardening, can reduce delinquent behaviors and help them integrate to a larger extent in the educational system

School delinquency has entered the daily agenda of teachers and appears more and more frequently in today's schools at all levels of education (Panoussis, G. 2013). The forms it can take are varied and carry different weight. We recognize verbal and physical violence towards classmates and teachers as school delinquency (Bika, 2011; Artinopoulou, 2013). According to Bunia (2018), delinquency can be categorized into direct - that is, more physical - but also indirect- violence, which includes verbal violence and/or social exclusion, school bullying - from mockery to sexual harassment - as well as other negative behaviors that they deviate from the school rules. Bernardos (2003) categorizes school delinquency in school misdemeanors such as for example indiscipline regarding dress code and generally decent appearance - earrings, intense coloring, extreme haircuts - but also indiscipline in moral matters such as inappropriate behavior, swearing, impudence and lies (Bounia 2018, Ericson, 2001, Rigby 2001). Skavdis (1995) define school delinquency as any behavior that hinders the educational process from absenteeism and indifference to disturbing the classroom and using the mobile phone while prohibited. Tzifas (2005) on the other hand focuses on behavioral problems such as copying and lack of cooperation, misbehave and indifference with the aim of becoming the focus of attention.

It has been argued that certain forms of environmental education can positively affect youth’s development and well-being, including delinquency, school failure, and child maltreatment, as well as enhancing happiness, health, high quality relationships with adults (Doyle and Krasny 2003; Schusler and Krasny 2010; DuBois et al. 2017). More specifically, it is proposed that recreational, social, and stewardship activities as well as collective actions and participation in decision making, and intergenerational co-operation and support that are incorporated into environmental education projects could enhance informal socializing, trust, and associational engagement which are considered as important elements of youth’s personal and social development. These conditions can be achieved in programmes such as community gardening, tree planting, stewarding parks or urban farming (Delia & Krasny 2018; Weissman 2015). Moreover, these projects can be the means by which low-income, vulnerable and at risk youth can engage with nature and potentially learn about the environment, while fostering positive youth development as youth engage with community environmental action (Schusler and Krasny 2010). These programs may not always include a series of planned educational activities, however they warrant study as an important means by which urban youth engage with and learn about their environment

Within the above line of reasoning, the present research investigates whether highly vulnerable children can, through engagement with nature and activities outside the classroom, reduce incidents of delinquent behavior. In addition, it investigates if it is possible for these children to show examples of assimilation in the school environment and regulations.

Curriculum knowledge is tied to a disciplinary organization set to create ever-increasing specialization; producing knowledge that is efficient in solving disciplinary and technical problems, but often unsuitable for dealing with complex, socio-environmental issues. New ways of practicing research, and of thinking its role in society, appear necessary to overcome the empasse, and to enable the production of knowledge which is relevant, contextual and inclusive of a plurality of legitimate perspectives (Benessia et al., 2012).

This paper draws on a recent project, BRIDGES (Building Reflexivity and Response-ability Involving Different narratives of knowledGE and Science) focussed on a specific socio-ecological dimension of the current global health crisis – the fertility of soil. Since the early 2010’s, the UN has identified soil degradation as one of the most critical planetary concerns, alongside climate change and biodiversity loss; moreover, soil fertility is relevant to several SDGs (1, 2, 11, 12, 15) with SDG 15 Life on Land being an issue that is particularly relevant to the Italian context, where 14 hectares of cultivable soil per day are lost to urbanisation (Munafo, 2019). However, alternative views exist on what constitutes ‘fertile soil’ (FAO, 2019) and how it can be measured, according to different disciplines, operating at different levels and time-scales. In addition, decision-making processes about the different uses of soil will need to balance economic considerations with questions about the health of people and ecosystems. Hence, the governance of soil is a trans-disciplinary issue involving diverse fields of knowledge and practices, a plurality of languages, methods and scales.

In these circumstances, the ‘post-normal’ turn has garnered momentum in policy studies and in the scientific community itself (Waltner-Toews et al., 2020) as well as in education (Colucci-Gray, 2014) as a participatory model of decision-making advocating for an “extended peer community”, with a wider set of stakeholders, each one holding a partial but legitimate perspective. Yet, such approaches are not mainstream. For example, Meijer et al. (2016) reported that while the new "epistemology of the European identity" in policy-related science is formally requiring a full integration of all social actors in decision-making, researchers consider these as “peripheral activities” without straight-forward value for them. A “tacit hierarchy between science and society”, bearing the idea that “certain kinds of knowledge are better than others” makes on a par relationships difficult. Indeed, such contradictions are linked to dominant narratives that express wider imaginations about the world, what is to be valued and the place and agency of humans versus others more than humans. Held tacit, these narratives define and demarcate the horizons of possible and acceptable action: they project and impose classifications; they distinguish issues from non-issues, and actors from non-actors. Hence, for a change to occur both “research cultures and research practices have to be reconsidered, decoupling from the desire for control over Nature and the future, and recovering the relational dimension of “how humans ask and respond to each other, taking more seriously the experimental craft of all kinds of practitioners, not only humans” (Haraway, 2016, p. 68).

Drawing on demarcation as a powerful heuristic tool, this paper inquires into the narratives of research arising from the experiences of a group of multidisciplinary researchers involved in arts-based practices of digging in the soil. The study looks at how participants came to understand and redefine the parameters of their research work, focusing on:

1. What cultural and social norms underpin the ways in which researchers talk about and legitimise their ideas of research?

2. To what extent does the artistic dimension enable a reflection on the intrinsic values of human dependency from soil?

We studied the development of environmental motivation in a group of vulnerable elementary school children who participated in a school kitchen garden project.

Within the theory of Environmental and Sustainability Education (ESE) motivation is an important subject of research as it is considered the condition where a person has or acquires intrinsic and extrinsic incentives (motives), to involve into pro-environmental behavior and actions (Christodoulou and Korfiatis, 2019; Darner, 2012). From an educational point of view, the aim is to support those types of motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic) who are more strongly connected with students’ personal development and well-being. Indeed, various studies in the domain of environmental and sustainability education have shown that integrated and intrinsic types of motivation for participation and action are connected with empowerment, self-efficacy and ownership, as well as with a longer sustaining of a behavior or action (Dutta and Chandrasekharan, 2017; Murakami, Su-Russell and Manfra, 2018).

The Self Determination Theory (SDT) of motivation pays particular attention to factors or conditions that enhance motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Specifically, the SDT states that in order to foster motivation, the basic psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness must be supported (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Karaarslan et al., 2014). However, very few studies have analysed the actual conditions under which specific motivational projects have been implemented, i.e., if participants had indeed experienced the conditions that supposedly constitute the cornerstones of a motivational approach. Εvidence derived from those studies is quite interesting even though reveals contradictions. For example, Legault and Pelletier (2000) report that children who were part of an EE project engaged in ecological behaviors motivated less by extrinsic motives than did children who were part of a control group. Contrary to these results, Boeve-de Pauw and Petegem (2017) have found that 6th grade as well as 12th grade students participating in the well-known eco-school project developed external rather than internal environmental types of motivation. Karaarslan, Ertepınar, and Sungur (2014) argue that the various institutional EE projects promote rather non self-determined pro-environmental behaviors. In this way they emphasize the development of extrinsic motivation. As a result, Karaarslan et al. (2014) comment, many EE campaigns fail in enduring participants’ motivation toward the environment. In another study, Renaud-Dube et al. (2010) argue that elementary school children are more likely to exhibit external rather that self-determined types of environmental motivation, but it is important to increase autonomous environmental motivation at that age. Therefore, there is a need to study how psychological variables affect vulnerable young students intention to act for the environment and for sustainability (Uitto, Boeve-de Pauw, and Saloranta, 2015; Boeve-de Pauw, and Petegem, 2017).

School garden projects are considered as ideal contexts to fulfill vulnerable students psychological needs. For example, school gardens enhance students’ competence and relatedness (Pollin and Retzlaff-Fürst, 2021; Christodoulou and Korfiatis, 2019), empower their sense of autonomy, by controlling their own survival needs (e.g., food, land, tools) (Okvat and Zautra, 2011), and promote their social well-being and the quality of the natural environment (Tidball and Krasny, 2011).

Within the above line of reasoning, this study aims to answer the following questions: 1. How the development of the psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness affect vulnerable students’ environmental motivation? 2. Are there other conditions – except of those three psychological needs – that influence students’ environmental motivation and future environmental intentions?

Young people play a major role in the (future) implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and in a successful sustainable transformation on a global but also on a regional scale. Thus, it is time to offer effective support and attractive learning opportunities for the young generation, so that they can gain the necessary competencies and are empowered to actively take part in the transformation process.

However, the question remains how these learning settings can be designed so that all young people are addressed, motivated, and well equipped for working on solutions for future challenges. To develop adequate learning interventions, we need to know more about the awareness of sustainability and the sustainability competencies of young people. In Germany, there are several well established surveys which collect data about the everyday life, attitudes and opinions of young people on a regular basis [1-5]. This is a good starting point, nevertheless, we assume that there are relevant differences between different regions which we should be aware of while developing new learning interventions. The existing data from the German studies does not allow to have a closer look only on the data set of a specific area, i.e. in our study the northwest part of Lower Saxony with rural regions. Furthermore, we put a focus on the diversity of young people concerning their social background, their interests, and their needs in order to address all social groups and to give them the chance to participate and contribute to the transformation process. In many existing studies, there is a pre-bias towards groups with a higher affinity to sustainability since these persons are probably more open to participate in interviews on this topic, for instance. Consequently, we conduct focus group discussions with a diversity of groups of young persons from different contexts to learn more about their awareness of sustainability and their sustainability competencies.

This lays the basis for the development of learning interventions which are grounded on the concepts of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) [6] and learning workshops [“Lernwerkstaetten”], a concept that emerged in the German speaking countries in the 1990s [7]. Thus, the new formats rely on action-oriented and transformative pedagogy with a focus on the learners, reflection loops, participation, and explorative and interconnected learning as main pedagogical principles [8 and 9]. In addition, the design of the learning environment plays a major role to implement these pedagogical claims. Here, the concept of learning workshops gives a valuable frame especially on how an environment is designed so that it guarantees diverse ways of learning, an atmosphere of astonishment, irritation, exploration, invention, and inspiration [10].

The combination of existing experiences with these concepts and the newly gained data from the focus groups allow us to develop new approaches tackling the challenge of actually empowering young people to actively take part in the sustainable transformation.

In order to reflect on cross-regional aspects but also to identify regional specifics, the exchange on a European level can be very helpful. Even though, we start on a regional level with addressing groups of young people, our findings and the newly developed concepts can be part of an international discourse about how to empower young people for the globally needed sustainable transformation. However, for this discourse, the groundwork of actually understanding the addressed groups is important; with our study, we aim at contributing to this.

This paper takes a novel approach to sustainability research using photo-elicitation and auto-photography to explore student and staff perceptions of sustainability on campus, and analysing a sample of images of sustainability from university web-sites. The research investigates both intended and unintended messages, and their potential impact on the university community and web-site visitors. Whilst the psychology of environmental communication has been explored at the individual level, little has been done at the institutional and organizational level (Hansen and Machin, 2013). This research aims to bridge that gap by looking at communication (intended or otherwise) about sustainability enshrined in university campuses and marketing. Visual research presents an opportunity to gain rich insights into people’s understandings of sustainability, offering an innovative approach to exploring the hidden curriculum of sustainability. In a world rich with visual stimuli, where imagery is fundamental to our construction and comprehension of ourselves, of nature, and of others, the ways in which sustainability is perceived can be strongly influenced by visual cues and images. We hope to draw out recommendations for raising the profile of sustainability activities on campus.

Research Questions

How has Situational Analysis (Clarke, 2003, 2005, Clarke et al, 2018) be used in environmental education research with secondary school pupils in Scotland and Austria?

What opportunities and challenges are experienced in using this research approach in environmental education research?

Objectives

To demonstrate the use of Situational Analysis (SA) in complimentary case studies across two European countries.

To identify and describe the common and diverging experiences of this methodological approach in relation to environmental education research.

Overview

Young people are taking increasingly public and overtly political action in response to environmental concerns. Schools can play a central role in eco-citizenship and climate change education supporting young people in navigating current environmental challenges. However, the capacity for schools to do this is inconsistent and often inadequate. Following a new-materialist approach, two examples of environmental education programmes are explored here to show how schools can be transformative places.

The first of these projects, based in Austria, is the research-education-cooperation k.i.d.Z.21_aCtiOn2. This research provides a new perspective to these debates by collaborating with high school students on the climate-friendly transformations of their schools, thus connecting quality education (SDG4) and climate action (SDG13) (United Nations, 2015). Supported by interdisciplinary researchers, the school students assessed and tried to reduce the CO₂ emissions of their schools. The second project, based predominantly in Scotland, involved explores how environmental citizen science can contribute to lived eco-citizenship experiences for young people while they are in formal schooling. A major finding was that environmental citizen science experiences offers opportunities to connect pupils with scientific research practices in a way that offers authentic citizenship opportunities not ordinarily available in schools.

Both of these research projects utilised Situational Analysis (Clarke, 2003, 2005, Clarke et al, 2018) as their major analytic method. Situational Analysis (SA) uses cartographic techniques to explore and analyse the research situation. Three main mapping approaches are used;

1. situational (messy and relational) maps that lay out the major human, nonhuman, discursive, and other elements in the research situation of concern and provoke analyses of relations among them;

2. social worlds/arenas maps that lay out the collective actors, key nonhuman elements, and the arena(s) of commitment within which they are engaged in ongoing negotiations, or meso level interpretations of the situation; and

3. positional maps that lay out the major positions taken, and not taken, in the data vis-à-vis particular discursive axes of variation and difference, concern, and controversy surrounding complicated issues in the situation.

(Clarke, 2003, p. 554)

The intention of these maps is to bring out the complexities, to subject the research situation to a rich and deep analysis that includes the human and non-human actors present in, and impacting upon, the intention of the research (Clarke, 2003). Clarke (2005) describes the use of this cartographic approach as a break with the traditional researchers’ ways of working, thereby generating unique insights into the situation. This approach was deemed to be appropriate when uncovering and understanding the complexity of environmental education programmes situated within formal school settings. The particular attention given to the more-than-human elements of the situation was attractive in attending to the relational and spatial complexities generated in these complementary research projects situated in different European countries.

Social media offers new ways of online communication and learning. Especially sustainability topics are widely discussed and presented on online platforms like Twitter, Pinterest, and Twitch. Furthermore, social media has the potential to compensate learning differences because it facilitates informal learning. Education for sustainable development (ESD) is not only important in formal learning settings like schools or universities. Informal learning is also crucial to reach everyone in their lifelong learning processes in order to fulfill the 17 sustainable development goals set up by the UN as part of the Agenda 2030.

STUDY OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE

We live in troubled times. Faced with increasingly serious and urgent, wicked sustainability challenges (Lönngren & van Poeck, 2021; United Nations, 2015), such as climate change, pandemics, and violent conflict , more and more people experience anxiety, hopelessness, and worries about the future (Barrineau et al., 2022; Ojala et al., 2021; Pihkala, 2020). The United Nations’ Agenda 2030 with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; United Nations, 2015) may offer a comforting illusion of a yellow brick road to a known and livable future. Yet, complex systems studies have shown that the future is not only unknown but ultimately unknowable (Dewulf & Biesbroek, 2018; Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993). In light of such radical uncertainty, Barrineau et al. (2022) argued that environmental and sustainability education (ESE) is not only about “promoting [pre-defined] skills and competencies in sustainability education with which to equip students to tackle sustainability challenges” (p.3) since we do not know yet what competencies they will need. The only thing we know for certain is that future generations will need to develop knowledge, skills, and practices that are different from those we know today, that is, those that have given rise to our current predicaments. In other words, students need to “learn something that is not yet there” (Engeström & Sannino, 2010, p. 2).

In recent years, a range of educational theories and concepts that touch upon this type of learning have increased in popularity. For example, Engeström et al. (Engeström et al., 2022; Engeström & Sannino, 2010) have drawn on cultural historical activity theory to examine expansive learning processes that allow learners to develop “expanded pattern[s] of activity, corresponding theoretical concept[s], and new types of agency” (Engeström & Sannino, 2010, p. 7). Similarly, Barrineau et al. (2022) have described emergentist education as a form of teaching and learning that engages with “the possibilities of the not-yet-imagined” (p.2). Others have described related theories, such as transformative and transgressive social learning as crucially important in ESE (Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2015).

These and other traditions of transformative and expansive learning theories have in common that they attend to the role of social interaction for learning, stressing that learning always takes place in social contexts (Lenglet, 2022; Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2015; Van Poeck et al., 2020). Another common thread through many approaches is an attention to spirituality, affect, and/or emotions (Hoggan, 2016; Lenglet, 2022; Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2015). For example, Hoggan (2016) argued that learners must be “emotionally capable of change” (p. 61), pay attention to emotional experiences, and learn to utilize emotional ways of knowing. Similarly, Östman et al. (2019) have used pragmatist theories to argue that strong embodied experiences can trigger transformative learning. This intersection between expansive learning, social interaction, and emotions is the focus of our contribution.

The aim of our study is to explore how expansive learning can manifest in and through emotional interaction when student groups engage with wicked sustainability challenges. To do so, we draw on positioning theory as a theoretical tool that allows us to study emotions as a form of social interaction (Harré & van Langenhove, 1999) rather than something individuals have and experience. More specifically, we explore processes of emotional positioning (Lönngren et al., 2021; Lönngren & Berge, forthcoming), analyzing how students use emotions discursively to position themselves – and each other – in relation to their (expansive) learning and (future) agency to work for sustainable and desired futures.

In understanding the conditions for human health and wellbeing, microbial relationships emerge as both benefitting and impairing health and wellbeing, while global burdens of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are primarily borne by the global south. Found everywhere in our lives microbes are especially important in our health care systems and the food supply chain; from farm to table (Ma et al; 2021). While AMR has long been identified as a health issue, it has only recently acquired global political momentum. Following the highlighting of AMR by the UN (2015) and WHO (2015) as an emerging sustainable health challenge connecting human, animal and environmental health (One Health). Furthermore, health and AMR are interconnected with ecological, economic and social sustainability challenges (Ward, Kristiansen, & Sørensen, 2019; Veenker & Paans, 2016), including a need for research on AMR-education (Mölstad et al., 2017; Pavydė et al., 2015; Wernli et al.,2017). Food security represents such a nexus, being an enduring sustainability challenge in Southern Africa. Food availability, accessibility and affordability disproportionately affected the health of communities in the global south, emphasising the importance of health education that engages One Health as a focus for social justice and health equity (Pithara 2019: Ruger, 2010).

This paper answers the special call on envisioning the role of health and wellbeing education in advancing social justice and health equity, by (re)envisioning antimicrobial resistance[1] through two co-creation research workshops. As antimicrobial resistance, impacts and links all three spheres of One Health (human, animal and environmental health) exploring it becomes crucial as part of health education for Sustainable Health(y) Futures. Considering all three spheres of One Health, the reported workshops crucially resulted in the generation of bio-social innovations for health education. This took the form of novel health practices that included the (re)envisioning of how to address resistance in the health-care system, food production and consumption as well as built and natural environments.

Furthermore, the paper responds to the overarching theme of ECER 2023 by reporting on a co-creation research workshops on how diversity in ways of knowing health and well-being intersects with diverse health-related values. The paper explores how a diversity of value-knowledges(s) emerge and transact as part of engagements between lecturers/researchers and students in a Zimbabwean university setting. As such, the focus is on ways of doing knowledge together, developing joint epistemological practices and generating shared ways of coming to know health as part of (re)envisioning resistance. (Re)envisioning thus becomes an emerging process of working together for sustainable health(y) futures, where the future is not set but the subject of engagement from a diversity of value-knowledges. Through the results of the workshops, the paper surfaces embedded understandings of how to develop practices and conduct health education that engages with social justice and health equity through developing contextually relevancy to a society like Zimbabwe, where the health care system is under severe stress. These results can find purchase outside the Global South as healthcare systems around the world are struggling to respond to increased demand (Papanicolas 2019).

The paper aims to explore knowledge co-creation regarding the intersections of health, food and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as a basis for health education practices that integrate human, animal and environmental health as biosocial innovations.

Three research questions are formulated:

• How do participants articulate the intersections of health, food and antimicrobial resistance (AMR)?
• How do the intersections, as articulated by workshop participants, create opportunities for developing health education practices that integrate human, animal and environmental health?
• What forms of biosocial innovation do the health education practices engender for (re)envisioning resistance for sustainable health(y) futures?

[1] The emergence and spread of resistance among microbes to medicines,

Context

The UN’s IPCC (2022) continues to warn about the dire consequences of inaction in response to human-induced climate change. Its evidence, showing extensive disruption to ecosystems, affecting billions of lives across the planet, is provoking a renewed focus on education at all levels, going beyond knowledge of issues towards empowerment and action to mitigate climate impacts and improve adaption capacity (see UNESCO, 2018). With an urgency to accelerate our efforts and the prioritisation of climate change education (CCE) made explicit through education policy (Vision 2030+, Education Scotland 2016 and Department for Education, 2022), teachers report that they lack capacity and demand more support in the delivery of CCE (Dunlop and Ruston, 2021). In parallel, school communities are facing unprecedented levels of climate anxiety and dissatisfaction amongst children and young people (Hickman et al., 2021). Within this context the voices of headteachers as brokers of change are largely invisible and this ongoing project is focused on discerning:

- The decision-making process of headteachers in assessing the urgency and importance of CCE.

- The barriers and possible pathways forward in relation to the implementation of high-quality CCE for children and young people.

Literature

Headteachers play a critical role in brokering school improvement through effective implementation practices and organisational management (Albers and Pattuwage, 2017), yet their perspectives are largely absent from the literature on how CCE could be embedded across a school. This is in stark contrast to classroom teachers whose views on climate change education have been explored extensively (see Dunlop and Ruston, 2021). Whilst Müller et al., 2020, proposes a theoretical framework for school development towards sustainability based on relevant literature on leadership, there are limited studies on how headteachers approach the development of CCE at a school level. Furthermore, from a curricula perspective, the literature is less focussed on a headteacher’s position as a powerful actor within the school community in enabling a response to the increasingly loud, collective voices of children and young people for climate justice (Verlie and Flynn, 2022). Based on the identified gaps in the literature, the research question being addressed is “What are the barriers and possible pathways to leading the implementation of high-quality climate change education with a school community?”

Theoretical framing

Within a socio-cultural framework (Hestness, McGinnis and Breslyn, 2016), the project explores how headteachers are key to creating coherence (OECD, 2015) between different levels of curriculum making (van den Akker, 2010) and their role in working across these levels as a mediator, as well as responding to the needs of their students, teachers and wider school community to create hope in light of the climate emergency (Ojala, 2011). Within this context, the sociocultural nature of effecting systemic change in an organisational context is being explored through the lens of a headteacher’s day-to-day priorities, accountability measures, socio-economic drivers and political issues.

Context and Research Question:

Teachers in India are under tremendous pressure to constantly take on the burden of student success. This pressure is multiplied in a densely populated and competitive country such as India. As such, teachers are often directly held responsible for the shortcomings in student academic outcomes.

What is often overlooked is that there are many external factors that limit or restrict teachers' ability and agency to perform their work in a meaningful manner. While many factors such as policy (Datnow, 2012), curriculum (Priestley et al., 2012), and assessments (Poulton, 2020) have been studied in India and globally, one factor has consistently been ignored: weather-related school closures. In particular, extreme weather conditions that recur yearly, and are incrementally worsening.

In Delhi, extreme temperatures (cold and heat) every year leads to schools being closed for multiple days in January and May. Additionally, extreme weather exacerbates existing hazardous smog conditions in Delhi from the month of September through November (Basu, 2019); making in-person schooling untenable for weeks. Hence, in the context of this high-pressure education environment, coupled with weather-related repeated school closure, we ask the following research question: How have weather-related closures at schools impacted teachers' agency to work with students in Delhi, India?

Theoretical Framework:

While the concept of agency and more specifically, teacher agency has been discussed richly over the past decades, there have been a few different ways in which agency has been understood and utilized. While some have theorized that agency is an object that resides inside a person (Giddens, 1986; Bandura 2001), others have argued that it is the structures around the person that impact their agency (Emirbayer and Mische, 1998). However, in the past few decades, the concept of agency as something ecological and to be achieved by interacting with the environment actively has taken prominence (Beista and Tedder, 2007). This paper uses a socio-cultural (Archer, 2000) and ecological approach (Beista and Tedder, 2007; Pantic and Florian, 2015) of agency, to unpack how teachers' agency might be restricted by contextual factors around them. More specifically, we use the ecological model put forward by Beista and Tedder (2007) to examine how the agency of private school teachers in India is impacted and mediated by school closures due to extreme weather conditions.

Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges facing humanity. It is increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weather events – such as droughts, wildfires, and heatwaves – and raising average day and nighttime temperatures in many regions across the world (Pereira et al., 2022). Children are more vulnerable to climate change related stressors, both because they are physiologically and neurocognitively immature and because they have a greater number of life years before them to be exposed (Clark et al., 2020). Climate stressors’ detrimental effects on physical health have been well-documented, and a nascent literature addresses effects on children’s mental health (Vergunst & Berry, 2021). The education literature has, however, so far examined climate change and education mainly through a curricular lens – that is, how children are taught about climate change. Much less attention has been paid to how the results of climate change may affect children’s educational access, participation, and outcomes.

Heat is one of the most wide-spread emerging climate related stressors, with higher average temperatures and heatwaves already being observed both in Europe and worldwide. A growing body of literature indicates that heat exposure can negatively affect school access, learning, and education outcomes. For example, higher day-of-test temperatures have been associated with lower exam scores (Graff Zivin et al., 2020; Park et al., 2021) and lower graduation rates (Park, 2020), while higher classroom temperatures are linked with reduced performance on cognitive tests and curricular tasks (Wargocki et al., 2019). Furthermore, heat can undermine children’s education outcomes indirectly – for example, when reduced or lost agricultural yields lead to poverty and malnutrition and disrupt school attendance and learning (Teevrat, 2017). In other words, gains in education could be eroded worldwide as hotter temperatures become more common with advancing climate change.

The existing literature on heat and education outcomes is located across a breadth of disciplines, ranging from economics to psychology to international development. It consequently employs diverse methodologies, assumptions, and definitions that can make overall findings difficult to appraise (Ring et al., 2011). The aim of the present review is to synthesise the extant literature using scoping review methods. Since increasing global temperatures are now certain under all future climate change scenarios (IPCC, 2021), establishing a link between heat exposure and education outcomes could have immediate policy implications – adding further urgency to the case for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and bolstering support for adaptive strategies to protect vulnerable populations.

RQ1: How can working with technology mediate elements of deliberative communication while working on an inquiry project related to renewable energy technology?

RQ2: How can working with renewable technology strengthen a whole school approach (WSA) into making the school more sustainable?

The aim of deliberative communication is to reach a joint consensus or at least agree to disagree in a classroom context. There are five distinct elements of deliberative communication in the school (Englund, 2006). The participants:

1. are given space and time to present and challenge different views via argumentation;
2. listen to, tolerate and respect each other’s argumentation;
3. reach a shared will-formation, such as a joint consensus, or are aware of different views, or at least agree to disagree;

1. do not accept everything as the “truth”, even if uttered by a teacher/authority; and
2. essentially fulfil elements a–d without teacher control.

The elements (a–c) makes up the core elements of deliberative communication (Englund, 2006). Element (d) is about schools being an integrated part of the public sphere and therefore makes up an arena where different views and values will be challenged by fellow students and teachers (Englund, 2015). Element (e) is relevant due to group projects/plenary discussions, and this is a communicative process where meaning is established among equals without teacher control (Englund, 2015). To achieve the elements (a-e) may require handling a specific theme to assess (Englund, 2006), such as renewable energy-technology.

According to Mitcham’s Thinking through technology (1994), one can conceptualise technology in four dimensions (These four dimensions are all present when dealing with technology):

A) Objects in technology can be such as tools, machines, other types of physical artefacts or technological processes (De Vries, 2016). Technological objects have a “social side”, they have a purpose (Mitcham, 1994), they are to be used for something by someone. Moreover, this applicability is also an important aspect in the design or redesign of technological objects (De Vries, 2016).

B) Knowledge: Declarative- (factual), procedural- (“know how”), conceptual- (“know that”) and metacognitive knowledge are different knowledge types that are co-depended on each other and can develop symbiotically when handling technology (Barak, 2013).

C) Activities in technology can be such as maintaining, operating, working, manufacturing, designing, inventing, and crafting (Mitcham, 1994, p. 210). Activities relies on procedural and conceptual knowledge in the processes of creating technological objects, using, judging and assessing artefacts during student collaborations (Pirttimaa, Husu, & Metsärinne, 2017). .

D) Volition is connected to choices, intentions, ambitions, motives and will (Mitcham, 1994, p. 247). Volition therefore demands reflections and considerations regarding the design, the use of technology and its effect on society.

We have used Englund’s five elements (a–e) in combination with four dimensions of how to conceptualize technology (A–D) to investigate how they might interact. Levinson (2010) argues that handling technoscientific issues can take place through the process of deliberative discussions (Levinson, 2010, p. 82).

Research indicates that successful implementation of education for sustainability (EFS) involves altering the school culture into a more sustainable everyday practice (Gan & Alkaher, 2021). Thus, dialogues can play a central part of a school culture or ethos (Mathie & Wals, 2022) the culture can be developed by having the students participating in democratic discussions concerning sustainability issues, for instance examine the energy consumption at their school (Mathar, 2015). Enabling democratic discussions on sustainability issues, may strengthen the students’ oral practices which can be viewed as an important characteristic of school culture, and we suggest that this can take place through the conduct of deliberative communication while working with renewable energy-technology supporting WSA in fostering sustainable schools.

In 2020, the transport sector was responsible for around 23 % of the greenhouse gas emissions (European Commission 2022, p. 127). The EU Commission’s Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy (European Commission 2020) and the European Green Deal envision a shift from trucks to the green modes of transport rail and inland waterways. Inland Waterway Transport (IWT) represents an eco-friendly, CO2-saving mode of transport (Schroten et al. 2019) (European Commission 2019). To succeed a modal shift to IWT, a shift in the mindsets of logistics staff is needed, leading to the requirement of knowledge about IWT (Beil and Putz-Egger 2022) (Putz and Schauer 2014).

The goal of this paper is to present intermediate findings from the ongoing research project Quinwalo+ (Qualification Inland Waterway Logistics), funded by the German Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport and initiated by the German Boatmen’s Exchange in Duisburg (Schifferbörse e.V 2023). Quinwalo+ aims at analyzing and developing teaching materials for IWT in Germany in order to foster a shift to the green transport mode IWT (European Commission 2011, p. 7).

In the field of logistics education, insights not only from the Quinwalo+ findings but from ongoing expert exchange show that IWT is underrepresented in German speaking countries. This is also reflected by Breinbauer et al. (2012) where recommendations for sustainable education in intermodal transport in Austria are given to policy makers, public institutions and other relevant actors. Ricoy and Sánchez-M (2022) underline the importance of gaining ecological awareness and knowledge at an early age (p. 15). It can be hypothesized, however, that educators in German speaking countries often lack the requisite knowledge and awareness of the IWT-impact themselves, which, unfortunately, leads to the topic’s underrepresentation in both, school curricula and teacher education (cf. Putz and Schauer 2013). In that context, Santos et. al. (2010) underline the impact of information and education policies for behavioural change, and point out that the advertising and marketing effect for triggering behavioural change should not be underestimated either (p. 47). The UNESCO (2020) launched a policy paper with recommendations for education for sustainable development (EDS), which recalls the responsibility of policy makers to review education systems and to “integrate ESD into education policies, […] learning environments, curricula, teacher education […].” (p. 32), and recommends capacity building of educators to empower them to transfer and develop their abilities to teach for sustainable development (priority action area 3, p. 36).

The Austrian research project REWWay (Research and Education in IWT) can be identified as a pioneer in this context. Since 2015, teaching and learning materials on the topic of IWT with a focus on the Danube have been made available online (Logistikum 2023). Research conducted, revealed, that there is no comparable online educational material on IWT in Germany or with focus on the Rhine River. This is where the Quinwalo+-project, realized by researchers of the Department for Sustainable Transport at the Logistikum, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, comes in. Quinwalo+ aims at

a) analysing and evaluating curricula and existing online and offline teaching materials about IWT in Germany

b) creating a set of inspiring teaching materials on IWT with focus on Germany/the Rhine River

c) raising awareness of IWT as a sustainable alternative to freight transport by truck.

The created IWT-teaching materials, which will be completed by the end of 2023, focus at both, vocational schools with a logistics focus, and vocational and general schools without a logistics orientation in German-speaking countries. It is planned by the initiators to offer them open source on an online-IWT-platform to encourage educators to update their teaching content regularly (cf.van Hoek 2001).

In times of climate crisis education needs to get students to experience, understand and put into words the problems we face. Accordingly, an educational practice needs to be developed that encourage students to reflect on what it means to be human in relation to other species. For this, literary texts can be used, not only to create knowledge about biological diversity but also to create hope for possible futures.

Earlier, Lyngfelt and Söderberg (2021) have demonstrated how knowledge about the relationship between ecological, economic and social sustainable development can be explored educationally by the use of narratology; ‘voices’ in literary texts are linked to voices of prospective students in classrooms, making it possible to explore the interdependence of ecological, economic and social sustainability. The study proposed draws on this conception of narratology and understands eco-literacy as an interaction between creative inarticulacy and creative articulations. This approach is theoretically based on Gadamer’s interest for the interplay between ‘the known’ and ‘unknown’, and the meaning of ‘horizons of understanding’ (Gadamer, 2004). Additionally, Bakhtin’s perception of dialogue is important here, since it focuses on what difference communication does to us rather than on dialogue itself (Bakhtin, 1999). The study proposed draws on this by considering the polyphony of voices in a classroom to be utterances reflecting a variety of dimensions of contexts in time and space. A listener response approach to polyphony, including both listeners’ criticism and self-criticism, is suggested to be able to develop understanding in terms of sensitiveness and attention (Adelmann, 2012). To focus interaction between closeness and distance to literary texts, is here important to understand the interplay between sensitiveness and attention to eco-systems and biological diversities. It is this understanding that makes work with eco-literacy possible, defining it as a reflecting educational practice, crucial for work with sustainability at school.

To sum up, this study aims at investigating how literary texts can be used to create knowledge about biological diversity and climate change through shared reading, and by doing so explore possibilities of shared reading sessions to create hope for possible futures.

The research questions are as follows:

1. Do shared reading sessions create reader engagement and possibilities for readers to position themselves in relation to societal challenges due to climate change, and in that case how does shared reading methodologically promote this process?

2.Do shared reading sessions, according to the readers, create hope and a sense of agency individually and collectively? If so, how is this reader response related to the choice of texts and the performance of the shared reading sessions?

Objectives:

In recent years, sustainable development (SD) has gained wider appeal in Norwegian educational research and several voices from various professional environments are now exploring sustainability issues (Kvamme & Sæther, 2019b). We therefore see the need for a systematic literature review, i.e. a transparent and thorough review of the research in the field where high demands are placed on being explicit in the choice of method and selection criteria (Newman & Gough, 2020). The review consists of two parts, one for each of the following research questions:

RQ:

1. What characterises research on sustainable development in Norwegian research?
2. How does the research relate to the concept of sustainable development?

The first part of the study describes what is being researched (such as subjects, levels and participants). This is useful for identifying main patterns and tendencies in the research, and for pointing out any gaps that need to be filled with more research in the future. The second part of the study stems from our recognition that the SD concept comprises tensions and we are interested in investigating how these tensions are expressed in the research field. The tension between continued economic growth and greater protection of nature and the environment is often highlighted as the strongest (Purvis et al., 2019; Sinnes, 2015). Also, the debate about whether economic growth leads to more or less social inequality and whether social justice should take precedence over environmental concerns are additional expressions of tensions within the term (Connelly, 2007).

Theoretical framework

The first part of the review uses a descriptive approach where overviews are made of what subjects, levels (primary, secondary, teacher students, etc.), and focuses of attention are. In the second part we make use of Hopwood et. al.’s model of placing articles within a model balancing socio-economic vs ecological considerations, and what level of change is considered needed. Is it sufficient to make changes within the status-quo? Are larger changes required but within the system? (Reform) Or do we need to change the whole system? (Transformation). This framework is used to be able to get a holistic impression of the research field and where centres of gravity are.

Over recent decades, globalisation processes have accelerated the development of economic, social, cultural and political transformations, producing an enormous impact on a planetary scale. In addition to the concept of globalisation, others have appeared that are used synonymously (mundialisation, internationalisation, universalisation, etc.). They were originally used to refer mainly to the break-up of financial market borders, since other types of barriers are still in place to prevent, for example, the free movement of people from countries in the South to the North. One of the key characteristics of this term is its markedly polysemic nature. However, it has mostly been applied to three basic issues: the exponential growth of trade on a planetary scale, the prominence that transnational corporations have acquired, and the speculative speed of the movement of financial capital (Morton, 2018; Brand, Görg, & Wissen, 2020). As a consequence of these processes (which have varying repercussions in each context), in recent years it has become increasingly evident that we live in a historical moment of enormous interdependence and eco-dependence (Bourn, 2021).

In order to respond to the inequalities and impact of globalisation, educational processes with different approaches have been developed over recent decades. These initiatives have had a common objective: to train citizens to fight against the negative effects of these processes (economic and gender inequalities, environmental crises, migration, etc.). The focus of educational experiences has varied according to their context of reference.

More specifically, in Spain, the educational response to these processes was initially based on the concept of Development Education (DE), which has progressively evolved in several generations. Currently, there is reference to a sixth generation DE approach. These experiences are based on the concepts of Post-development Education, Critical Global Citizenship Education or Education for Social Transformation. With varying nuances these approaches seek to understand the impact of globalisation processes on citizenship (Mannion, Biesta, Priestley, & Ross, 2011; Rizvi, & Beech, 2017; Stein, Andreotti, & Suša, 2019). At present, debates on Global Citizenship Education (GCE) in Spain highlight the need to move towards more critical models that educate citizens to understand unequal power relations between the countries of the global North and South (Pérez-Pérez, 2016).

The analysis of the recent publication of the organic law regulating the Spanish education system (LOMLOE, 2020) shows that this law aims to promote educational experiences that support justice and sustainability, as well as the development of a more global concept of citizenship. To improve the effectiveness and sustainability of these proposals in the long term, it is necessary to begin with the analysis of experiences inspired by the GCE approach developed over the last few years. To this end, the authors of this work have carried out research focused on finding out how these actions were being developed in order to understand the objective of the pedagogical approach of these GCE experiences. Based on this analysis, they aim to promote new projects inspired by a more critical GCE model, in contrast to other softer models (Andreotti, 2006). This focus is the result of the diagnosis of previous work that identifies the need to analyse the multiple dimensions (goals pursued, methodologies, contents, etc.) of the curricular objectives of experiences that are already in progress (Blackmore, 2016; Calvo, 2017; Santamaría-Cárdaba, Franco, Lourenço, & Vieira, 2022).

This paper presents some process results from an investigation funded by the Spanish Ministry of Competitiveness entitled Researching new socio-educational scenarios for the construction of global citizenship in the 21st century (R+D+i project PID2020-114478RB-C21 financed by MCIN/AEI /10.13039/501100011033).

We live in times of sustainability crises, referring to climate crisis, ongoing degradation of biodiversity and ecological systems, persisting global inequity (United Nations, 2015), and the lack of sufficient mitigating measures. Reflecting on this situation within the context of education, this paper rests on a basic assumption. The call for an educative response to the sustainability crises (UNESCO, 2019) necessitates exploration and reimagination of the ethical dimension. This assumption is drawn from the observation that the ethical dimension distinguishes and provides meaning and significance to the sustainability agenda (United Nations, 2015). The overall aim of sustainability is ethical (Kemp, 2011), aiming at safeguarding and protecting life on earth, prompting the transformations from harmful to sustainable human practices and the adaptations to the crises that are already here.

In education policy documents this ethical dimension is increasingly expressed in discourses referring to shared responsibility, societal values and the common good, including both UNESCO documents (UNESCO, 2015, 2021) and OECD publications (see for example the OECD Learning Compass (OECD, 2021).

On the other hand, the field of ethics education (also referred to as moral education, values education, and character education), has traditionally aimed at fostering individual responsibility for other human beings within stable nation states. This characterizes all three traditions often referred to (Althof, 2014), that is the values clarification approach, moral reasoning and character education. This conclusion should not be made without nuances. In a review of research contributions in Journal of Moral Education over a period of 40 years, Lee & Taylor state: “Moral education, however individual in its research orientation, has pro-social ends and means” (Lee & Taylor, 2013: 423). Still, a predominant individual focus is persistent within this tradition.

The limited interest within ethics education to extend individual responsibility to the communal and political field, may more broadly be conceived of from the perspective of political philosophy and moral philosophy (Larmore, 2013). Historically moral philosophy (or practical philosophy), with Aristotle as the classic proponent, has been seen as the more general discipline, dealing with the good and the right in all its manifold aspects, including the realm of politics. Another approach departing from Hobbes, sees political philosophy as an autonomous discipline. People tend to disagree on what is the right and the good, and a society necessitates the establishment of authoritative rules that are binding. This is the task of political philosophy distanced from moral philosophy.

Considering both the shift within the education policy field pointed at above with reference to UNESCO and OECD, and the complexities and pervasiveness of the present sustainaibility crises, I suggest that ethics education should be re-imagined as ethical-political education. There is certainly individual responsibility involved, but the challenges that become visible in environmental and sustainability education are societal and political in character.

In this paper, we report on a two-year project that sought to explore the opportunities for and experiences of engaging with sustainability education, citizenship education, and character education among Icelandic youth.

The project explores interdisciplinary issues that arise when addressing sustainability and questions of individual and societal well-being. The approach is grounded by the idea, voiced by UNESCO, that addressing issues of sustainability and well-being requires that considerations, principles and methods from both sciences and humanities be brought together.

An adequate response to sustainability challenges cannot be limited to single perspectives, disciplines or ways of knowing. (UNESCO, 2014, p. 177)

In 2015, the UN launched the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 17 universal development challenges for humanity. Education is considered a key instrument to achieve the SDGs, as well as goal four being ‘Quality Education’, which includes the following target:

By 2030 ensure all learners acquire knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including among others through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development. (UNESCO, 2017, p. 8)

UNESCO (2017) emphasises developing learners’ empowerment to act and to participate in socio-political processes; and action-oriented, transformative, problem-oriented, collaborative and inter/transdisciplinary pedagogies. Here sustainability-, citizenship- and values- or character education are brought together.

The project was premised on the idea that the fields of sustainability education, citizenship education and character education must work together, not only to meet contemporary social and environmental challenges but also to further the core elements of each field, both as areas of research and practice. Sustainability-, civic-, and character education all examine questions of personal and societal well-being, and several scholars have argued these fields support each other (Althof & Berkowitz, 2006; Peterson, 2020; Tilbury, 1995), and there are certainly traditions within education where citizenship, character, and sustainability go hand in hand (Kristjánsson, 2013; Öhman, 2016).

However, despite the considerable overlap between the three educational fields, divides and tensions exist. In current education, these three areas are often seen as not only distinct, but as at odds with each other, even in conflict (Jerome & Kisby, 2020; Jordan, 2022; Vare & Scott, 2007; Wals, 2011). We have found, in our ongoing research, that educators tend to think of character education as primarily individual focused, rather than also society/social participation focused (Wals, 2011; Jordan, 2022). We have also seen that educators concerned with citizneship education, engagement, democracy and pluralism tend to avoid character education (Aðalbjarnardóttir, 2010), commonly on the grounds that they are too paternalistic or hostile to the values of a pluralistic, democratic society (Halstead & Taylor, 2000; Kristjánsson, 2013).

The challenge here is to educate individuals and, at the same time, influence societies and global systems so that people can live a flourishing life that is compatible with cultural diversity and the environmental fragility of the earth. As such the project aimed to explore the experiences of and opportunities for integration of practice in the fields of sustainability-, citizenship-, and character education in the context of Icelandic youth, though with potential implications internationally.

The project was comprised of three sub-projects – one each at the conceptual/theoretical, individual/student, and institutional/school level. This paper will report on the second (individual/student), which explored the viewpoints of Icelandic students aged 12–18, guided by the research question: How do young people experience their opportunities for engaging with sustainability-, citizenship- and character education within educational and recreational settings?

Current socio-environmental problems are in part, it can be argued, a result of reductive thinking in modern science, the essence of which has remained largely unchanged for three centuries. Such a reductive and quantitative approach to science, linked to a mechanical model of nature (Robbins, 2005), separates humanity from nature whereby the scientist becomes an onlooker onto something of which they are not a part. This has been contributary to the problems of the Anthropocene, posing a threat to humanity and all living things on the planet (Rockström et al., 2009). Yet, even acknowledging this, science is still seen as an important contributor to the resolution of these problems (Tortell, 2020). Nevertheless, in recent years there has been critique of the way in which some methodological aspects of scientific research are conducted (Ahn et al., 2006), particularly in relation to complex socio-environmental issues. Such thinking, it is suggested, has to be changed to develop approaches more suited to the current era (Raven, 2002). However, the current model of science is not the only possibility and there is a growing interest in more holistic approaches that result in an integrated sustainability science (Kates et al., 2001). This is similarly probed at the level of science education, with many authors suggesting that schools need to approach science in a different way to enable young people to have a much greater understanding of the complex interconnectedness of living and material processes and the way in which social and environmental issues are inextricably intertwined (Bencze, 2017; Gray & Colucci-Gray, 2014). It has been suggested that there is a need to complement the prevalent quantitative, reductive science education with a more qualitative, phenomenologically-based science process (Østergaard et al., 2008). One such approach was developed by J W von Goethe (Richards, 2002), which, it is said, can result in the metamorphosis of the scientist (Amrine, 1998) and foster a deeper sense of responsibility and care for the natural world (Seamon, 2005). Goethean science forms the foundation to much of Steiner/Waldorf educational principles (Rawson & Kiel, 2018) but is largely unrecognised in mainstream schools. The idea of imagination and insight is one key aspect of Goethean science which is developed in particular ways and involves heightened sensory awareness and artistic sensitivities (Hoffmann, 2020), but Goethean science is also a very rigorous, methodological, phenomenologically based approach that aligns very well with existing scientific methodology and has promise for a renewed approach to school and university science and our relationship with the natural world. This paper explores the possibilities for a sustainability science education incorporating aspects of the Goethean science methodology and which aligns well with current thinking in STEAM and embodied, enactive education (Colucci-Gray et al., 2017).

Using a Delphi style approach, the research undertaken for this paper explored the characteristics and method of Goethean science, considering whether this more qualitative, holistic, methodology provides any promise in complementing the dominant quantitative and reductionist approach used in the sciences and what it offers for environmental and sustainability education in schools. Consideration is given to how these can be translated into science education at primary and secondary levels and inform the perceptions of educators as to their potential efficacy and implementation.

Research Questions

1. What is the key element of Goethe’s science that stands it apart from modern mainstream science?

2. What is the role of the arts in Goethean science?

3. Is Goethean science a transformative process? If so, in what way?

4. What are the main challenges to integrating a Goethean method into mainstream school science education?

In the course of various UN programs (UN Decade for Sustainable Development, Sustainable Development Goals), education is addressed as a central factor for the sustainable transformation of economy and society (Venkataraman, 2009). Extended education and all-day schools seems to be particularly relevant for this area, since on the one hand there are extended time and opportunity spaces as a supplement to classical teaching and on the other hand there are synergies in terms of content, since the usual goals and methods of extended education seem to be predestined for topics and forms of action of education for sustainable development (e.g. Stoltenberg & Burandt, 2014).

If the context-input-process-outcome model of school quality (e.g., Ditton, 2000) is used, the question of the quality of extended education arises in addition to contextual factors (endowment of resources and structural factors), pedagogical process quality, and impact: What should be the topics of Extended Education? Klafki (e.g. 1985/2007) sees epoch-typical key problems (such as the climate crisis or global social inequality) as the central content and the contribution to solving these problems as the central category of general education. Supplemented by the concept of leisure needs, this results in a model for the content quality for extended education. If Klafki's model is supplemented accordingly, six dimensions of general education in all-day schools emerge: In addition to pragmatic educational goals (literacy, etc.) and subject instruction, aesthetic goals and play, epoch-typical key problems (e.g., Sustainable Development Goals of the UN) and leisure needs (e.g., recreational needs or participation needs) would have to be added. This has numerous implications for the context-input-process-output-outcome model of Ditton (2000), since in view of the complexity and magnitude of these educational goals, teaching and extended education would have to be increasingly thought of together. Also - following this way of thinking - school processes are connected to global processes of sustainable development, which brings numerous implications about the task of school and general education (which Klafki subsumes under the concerns of self-determination, co-determination and solidarity).

Subsequently, it appears relevant whether the factor of content quality in the sense of global-social problems is, first, conscious or important to educators and, second, whether indications of this educational dimension are already reflected in pedagogical processes - based on the state of research that much is known about the equipment and professional impact of all-day schools, but little about the processes. The following research question was pursued: How does the integration of epoch-typical key problems in all-day schools relate to other educational dimensions on the level of intentions and processes?

Therefore, a for the federal state of Vienna (Austria) representative study (Loparics, 2022) was conducted. The study is supplemented by qualitative data (interview and observation) to target the process level.

This empirical study on leadership actions investigate Education for sustainable development (ESD) in Swedish schools. School leaders at five schools in one Swedish municipality are interviewed twice in 2018 and 2020, to evaluate effects from a longitude school improvement project focusing ESD.

Actions can be seen as the school leader individual response on a direct stimuli. The school leader take action. Agency on the other hand is the gathered experience of such stimuli and the alternative possibilities at hand for a school leader to act upon (Feldman & Pentland 2003). Leadership agency in this study is defined the sense making of ESD over time by school leaders acting by experience, or what Hallenberg (2018) call expert agency, based in their own actions and related to other school leaders way of acting as a collective (Tourish 2014). The study adds knowledge to how individual leadership actions can contribute or counteract ESD implementation. Further aspects that drives and establishes ESD over time in schools; leadership agency on ESD is outlined.

A review study on school leaders and education for sustainable development, ESD (Mogaji & Newton, 2020) reported the need to make school leaders more aware of ESD, as a way to empower students to handle sustainable. Research onschool leadership to raise quality in ESD active schools points out a lack of connection between inner school organizational routines that give support to ESD and the external organizational routines that connect education to the surrounding society (Mogren & Gericke, 2017), which in ESD is a guarantee of the relevance of education to the learner. Knowledge on school leadership and ESD as exemplified is based on case studies that point out important starting points for an effective ESD implementation, holistic ideas (Leo & Wickenberg 2013; Mogren, Gericke & Scherp, 2019) collegial approaches in the school organization (Gericke & Torbjörnsson, 2022) and legitimizing functions (Mogren & Gericke, 2019). This study builds on the knowledge identified at the formulation arena of ESD and take it one step further, studying the realization arena, what actually falls out in practice of ESD implementation over time, based on initial intentions. The formulation arena of a project, setting the scene is not a guarantee for successful implementation, instead schools often fail in their ambitions on ESD (Hargreaves, 2008) and certification programs on ESD with initial ambitions is not always successful (Olsson, Gericke & Chang Rundgren, 2016 ).

Sense making activities is a methodological approach in school improvement and used in this study to understand practice (Weick, 2001). Sense making deals with challenges in the daily work patterns for school leaders, when ordinary frames of reference are disrupted and new understandings needs to be incorporated (Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstefeld, 2005). How school leaders make sense of ESD; couple the formulated visions to the practical outcomes of ESD is understood in this study by the framework of coupling mechanism (Liljenberg & Nordholm 2018). The framework of coupling mechanism seeks to understand more than if organizational routines on ESD are in place, but also their outcome and how they are used in practice. The coupling mechanisms is categorized according to either accommodation mechanisms leading to permanent changes of structures and routines in the organization for ESD. Mechanisms can also be assessed as assimilation, then leading to superficial changes, or decoupling mechanisms that shows no positive effects of implementation of ESD or even hinder changes in education.

Research questions:

A, What leadership actions are identified for reaching accommodation in an ESD school improvement process?

B, How is leadership agency in ESD formed and characterized in practical ESD implementation?

ESD-oriented school certification/accreditation programmes are an integral part of the educational landscape in Germany and many other countries. Schools located in or near National Natural Landscape (NNL) such as UNESCO Biosphere reserves and National Parks shift their engagement with these natural sites and their Educational Centres from the occasional visit and the use of outdoor education activities towards establishing a long-term cooperation when becoming a “Biosphere Reserve School” or “National Park School”. According to the certification programmes schools are provided with an “instrument” for implementing thematic topics of SD in the context of the Biosphere reserve into their learning and teaching and a “guideline” of systematic structural implementation of ESD for example leading to changes in institutional practices. A key role in this supporting process is assigned to certification criteria are considered in line and covering the key elements of a Whole School Approach (WSA) or a Whole Institution Approach to implementing ESD (see Mathar, 2015; Wals & Mathie, 2022; Horst, 2021).

While there is conceptual and theoretical work on (effective) school improvement (see Reezigt & Creemers, 2005) and increasingly empirical studies on the impact of external instruments such as school inspection and school competitions e.g. (Dedering, 2017; Albers, 2016), there is limited work on the impact of school certification programmes in ESD on the voluntarily participating schools.

Out assumptions on the project matter are grounded in an understanding of school development as a "systematic, purposeful and self-reflective development process of schools [...], which aims at professionalizing school processes within schools and optimizing the quality of learning provision […]” (Maag Merki, 2018, 2). Further, we hold the premise - based on conceptual work on effective school improvement by Reezigt and Cremers (2005) - that a school certification programme’s impact results from its qualities for changes to the “contextual factors” (raising pressure for school to improve; providing resources/support to school for improvement) and for impacting a schools’ “process factors” (strengthening aspects of a schools improvement culture and improvement processes).

We aim to contribute understanding on how schools engage with the school certification criteria, or in other words, how they recontextualise the requirements, and if and how it impacts on their internal school development processes. Further, we are interested in the views of experienced project leaders on success factors for their respective certification programme.

For the empirical study we turned the research aim into the following research questions (RQ):

RQ 1: How have school leaders, ESD facilitators (and their school community) implemented (ESD) learning opportunities on SD and the biosphere reserve site in the curriculum and their daily institutional practice?

RQ2: How is this process supported, hindered or challenged by the certification scheme?

RQ3: What success factors for supporting schools in their school development processes on implementing ESD in a WSA are identified by project leaders?

Objectives

In a literature review of Norwegian research on sustainable development within education it was concluded that socioeconomic issues are emphasised less than environmental issues (Mellingen and Tollefsen, forthcoming). Similar findings are seen in research from Sweden and Finland showing that the economic dimension of the sustainable development (SD) concept is the dimension that receives the least attention in teaching about sustainable development (Berglund, 2020; Uitto & Saloranta, 2017). Socioeconomic issues and the economic dimension are part of what “development” in the “sustainable development” concept was meant to reflect. In their book “Towards sustainable development: on the goals of development and the conditions of sustainability” from 1999, Lafferty and Langhelle argued that the “development” part was receiving less focus, a tendency they described as “disturbing” (p. 15). They understood “development” to speak to social justice and taking responsibility of how our actions affect those far away also within our own generation.

In an education context one could argue that some of these issues are covered in teaching outside the “sustainable development” context. Is it a problem then that it to a lesser extent is considered part of the SD concept?

The objective of the research project is to explore this question and also the possibilities and challenges of teaching about socioeconomic issues and the economic dimensions of the sustainable development concept. The following research questions will be addressed using an exploratory approach:

1. What reflections and concerns do primary education pre-service teachers bring forth concerning teaching about socioeconomic issues within a sustainable development context?
2. What can an exploration of didactical approaches to issues related to these issues and the economic dimension uncover in terms of possibilities and challenges?

An aim is to borrow didactical approaches both within the social sciences subject and others, and develop new ones, in order to encourage awareness and reflections regarding whether or not these issues belong to the SD concept, and what potential difference it makes in how we speak of the concept, if it does matter.

Theoretical framework

The project combines critical pedagogy and political ecology as theoretical frameworks. Critical pedagogy’s ambition of making oppressive structures visible (Giroux, 1997) is used to encourage asking questions of the status quo and being able to imagine other ways of envisioning futures. Political pedagogy (Benjaminsen & Svarstad, 2010) contributes with its interdisciplinary nature and its critical realism addressing the nexus between an objective reality and our different understandings of reality, exploring taken-for-granted truths of dominating narratives and the interests they serve.

Urgent need for collective transformation in human activity is the baseline of critical approaches in sustainability education, climate change education and environmental education. Scholars in these fields emphasize the potential of education to challenge the prevailing cultural norms that maintain unsustainable lifestyles and systems. However, a major gap between scholarly ideals and their implementation in educational systems persists. Better understanding of learning processes through which social, behavioural and cultural change may occur, including the key factors that enable or inhibit these processes, is needed to underpin transformative climate change education. (Andreotti et al. 2018; Evans et al. 2017; Zilliacus & Wolf 2021).

Value-action gap is a construct used to describe the discontinuity between an individual’s personal, pro-environmental values and their behaviour: even though people are environmentally aware, they don’t always act in a pro-environmental manner (Grandin et al. 2021). In order to develop effective educational approaches to overcome the value-action gap, psychological barriers and enablers of pro-environmental behaviour and climate agency need to be well understood. In this paper, we present empirical research on an under-researcher topic in this area: the role of growth mindsets (i.e. lay theories of malleability) as enablers of young people’s climate change agency.

Fixed and growth mindsets are networks of core beliefs about the nature of humans and cultures. Beliefs concerning the extent to which individual and group traits are malleable or fixed shape people’s ways of making sense of the socio-cultural reality and influence their ways of thinking about and acting towards change. Fixed mindset indicates low belief in the ability of humans and human groups to change, whereas growth mindset is a construct that is used when referring to a tendency to hold high beliefs in the malleability of human qualities. In intergroup contexts, growth mindsets predict, for instance, less aggression and anxiety and more openness and willingness to work toward improvement. Relevance of the mindset-phenomenon for education is amplified by the fact that even brief mindset interventions, if carefully contextualized and adapted to target populations, have achieve powerful and long-lasting impact on people’s willingness to work towards both personal change and change in the world. (Dweck & Yeager 2019; Goldenberg et al. 2020; Rattan et al. 2017)

Research which connects mindsets with climate change agency is also emerging. According to these recent studies, growth mindset about the world is associated with attitudes towards climate change, beliefs about its mitigation as well as pro-environmental behaviour (Duchi et al. 2020; Soliman & Wilson 2017). However, research that would explore how some of the core mindset dimensions – beliefs about the malleability of persons as well as beliefs about the malleability of human groups – are associated with climate change agency, is missing. In this paper, we present empirical evidence of the association between mindsets and climate change agency among European young people. The study is part of European Consortium CCC-CATAPULT (Challenging the Climate Crisis: Children’s Agency to Tackle Policy Underpinned by Learning for Transformation), which researchers young people’s experiences of and learning around the climate crisis in four European cities: Bristol (UK), Tampere (Finland), Galway (Ireland) and Genoa (Italy).

Sustainability challenges are complex, where values and knowledge form the basis for the decisions made (Block et al. 2019). In a teaching and learning perspective, sustainability education (SE) therefore includes more than a specific knowledge content. According to Vare and Scott (2007), SE must also be about developing students' skills, such as the ability to think critically and to test ideas and explore the dilemmas and contradictions that are built into sustainability issues.

A pluralistic approach to sustainability issues is emphasized as beneficial if the goal is to develop students' ability to relate critically and at the same time democratically to different perspectives on environmental and development issues (Öhman, 2004). In a pluralistic teaching tradition, students get the opportunity to actively participate in social discussions, and teaching focuses on a more democratic approach that involves examining and discussing different opinions and perspectives on issues (Sandell et al., 2005; Öhman & Öhman, 2013). The teaching focuses on illuminating different perspectives on sustainability issues, and that these are given room to be explored, discussed, and critically examined. Research has pointed to the potential of a pluralistic approach to SE in order to create a critical and exploratory classroom climate around fundamental contradictions about, for example, economic growth, economic development and environmental and social sustainable development (Berglund & Gericke, 2022).

To be able to participate in a pluralistic approach to SE, students must be open-minded to taking on different perspectives. Students' open-mindedness is therefore an important prerequisite for the success of pluralistic sustainability education.

According to Baehr (2011) an open-minded person is characterized by being able and willing to transcend cognitive standpoint in order to take up or take seriously the advantages of a cognitive standpoint that differs significantly from one's own. Baehr (2011) emphasizes that it is not enough to be able to show open-mindedness, but there must also be a willingness to do so. Riggs (2016) extends Baehr's (2011) definition. An open-minded person is aware that there are other points of view than his own when it is not expressed explicitly or is confrontational, which requires that an open-minded person is sensitive to various clues that indicate other points of view (Riggs, 2016). Furthermore, the person must be able to assess which points of view are worth opening up to, so that the person does not have a standard that is so high that no point of view is taken into account or that the person underestimates most points of view so that they are not seen as worth opening up to. This study builds on Riggs' (2016) definition of open-mindedness.

An approach for pluralistic teaching about complex sustainability issues can be deliberative or agonistic. Both approaches include tolerance and respect for alternative points of view but with a deliberative conversation the goal is to reach a common agreement through rational arguments. In an agonistic conversation, emotions are recognized and the goal here is to position oneself in relation to the others' perspective, without the goal being consensus. Both approaches presuppose students' open-mindedness to listen to and explore others' perspectives, and that they show willingness to critically evaluate their own perspectives.

Our question is: Are younger students (9-11 years) open to listening and taking in others' perspectives than their own? This leads to the following research questions:

RQ1: How do students (9-11 years old) respond to opinions that differ from their own?

This study was conducted within the project CriThiSE (https://www.ntnu.no/ilu/crithise), which is supported by The Research Council of Norway, project number 302774.

The aim of the study is to analyse how researchers handle value-premises in environmental and sustainability education research. The theoretical perspective that is used consists of three ways of dealing with value-premises:

1. Value-premises are explicitly stated and argued for,

2. Values-premises are explicitly stated but not argued for, and

3. Values-premises implicitly incorporated without discussion and seen as given and unproblematic.

We will, furthermore, argue that it is crucial that researchers critically reflect on and argue for the choice of values-premises – as opposed to other value-premises (and values) – and discuss the possible consequences of not doing so.

Scientific research is traditionally based upon observation and empirical knowledge; it describes and explains and has the observable world in its focus. Scientific research thus differs from religion, ideology, and politics as these are built on opinions in which people’s values and norms are blended with descriptions and explanations (Myrdal 1970).

An implication of the focus on the observable world in science is that values – normally thought of as goals – in themselves are beyond the reach of scientists in their scientific – empirical – endeavour. Scientific research is characterized by scientific value relativism meaning that a value in itself cannot be empirically proved to be better or more correct than another value.

Our point is that scientific research, in the sense of observation of observable reality, cannot prove that specific values are inherently superior and more important than other values (Brecht 1959). For example, if one considers the Covid-19 pandemic and the issue of the lock-down and its effects or consequences, there is no way for scientists to prove, through observations, that saving human life in itself is superior to, for example economic growth, human freedom, physical health, young people's education or the absence of domestic violence. Scientific research can, of course, by observation identify what values individuals, groups of citizens, politicians or policy makers prefer. But this is something different than choosing and deciding between conflicting values.

It is important to acknowledge that scientific research and scientific value relativism are bound together due to science focus on observation of reality. However, the claim is not unproblematic. Scientific research is performed by humans and is therefore, to a high extent, impregnated by values. Scientific research is characterized by value-based choices in all its parts, from the selection of a problem and theory, the operationalization, the collection of data to the analysis and the conclusions. But science is also in many cases driven by a chosen value-premise or, differently expressed, a chosen goal that the scientist desire and wants to be achieved. If we turn it around; there are few scientists who believe that scientific research is totally free from values. The key point, however, is that value-premises and values can be handled in a least three different ways: (1) Value-premises are explicitly stated and argued for, (2) Values-premises are explicitly stated but not argued for, and (3) Values-premises are implicitly incorporated without discussion and seen as given and unproblematic (Myrdal 1970).

This study analyses environmental and sustainability education research from the three ways in which value-premises can be handled. It furthermore discusses why it is important that researchers critically reflect on and argue for the choice of values-premises.

Today, humanity finds itself facing fundamental transformations to its relationships with the environment. For better or worse, these transformations are likely to shape and define the coming century. The ongoing planetary and humanitarian crisis requires transformations which may help humans regain their relationships with themselves, their communities and the environment. Education generally, and education for sustainable development specifically, are seen as the key drivers– or at least as significant factors, in shaping those transformations in the desired direction (compare, for example, Rieckmann 2017 and Wals 2011).

However, the question of whether formal education specifically can contribute to desired social changes is a controversial topic in educational science.

Some argue that schools in particular can be an essential factor for (desired) social change (compare, for example, Archer 2013, Tröhler et al. 2011). Educationalists, however, have repeatedly pointed out that education in general and schools in particular are a decisive factor in the reproduction of normalized social relations to the environment (compare, for example, Berndfeld's (2006) fundamental critique of education and the idea of social change through education). Assuming that schools are a place for the reproduction of social-natural-relations, they have become a battleground for social or political movements that are seen as drivers of social change, such as the youth movement Fridays for Future.

The symposium starts at this interface of education and social movements as outlined above. The aim of the symposium is to highlight the scientific research on different aspects of the aforementioned questions, to analyse them and to bring them into discussion with each other.

The first contribution asks from a normative (educational) philosophy perspective what knowledge climate activists should have in order to achieve their goals -- above all, to build political pressure in favor of the desired transformation.

The second contribution of the symposium conducts an empirical analysis in the context of Fridays for Future and asks about the pedagogicalisation of political problems, the politicisation of pedagogical ideas and what can be concluded from this for education for sustainable development.

The third contribution analyses intrinsic factors that can accelerate actions against climate change by examining pedagogical programs. The author also discusses these programs through the lens of international frameworks for ESD and climate change. The analysis aims to contribute to the dialogue through the question: what kind of education for climate action are we aiming for?

The fourth and final contribution focuses on students’ engagement and how formal educational settings can learn from informal educational settings such as social movements. Student engagement as part of ESE-practice is as crucial as civil engagement when it comes to educate students efficacy in taking civil action on sustainability issues. Therefore, a transdisciplinary approach will be fruitful to explore student engagement. Following research aim guide the exploration: how can ESE practice establish student engagement in sustainability issues and its function in developing students’ capability to take civic action to achieve sustainable development?

The symposium will be structured as follows:

A maximum of 15 minutes will be available for each of the four individual contributions. This means that the content of these contributions will remain very structured and focused. Immediately afterwards, Helge Kminek will comment on the authors’ contributions, especially from the perspective of the philosophy of science. In other words, the four contributions will be questioned about the ways in which research could be systematically advanced.

In the remaining 20 minutes will be devoted to audience questions and discussion. If there are no questions from the audience, the contributors will refer to each other.

The population seems increasingly aware of climate change, with groups such as Fridays for Future spreading awareness and organising demonstrations worldwide to pressure political leaders into taking action. However, false beliefs concerning climate change are widespread, even among the politically active (Eurobarometer 2019, Leiserowitz et al. 2019). Such false beliefs may lead them to concentrate their efforts on ineffective actions. For example, they may focus on separating recyclable material from their waste, which are minimally effective in addressing climate change. They may also engage in radical activism that risks being counterproductive, though they intend to foster public support and political action (Patterson & Mann 2022). Such phenomena show a lack of orientation among activists , who often have trouble understanding how to become effective agents of change. My consideration posits that perhaps for younger generations to actively participate in climate change mitigation, they need more than awareness of civil disobedience and of climate change itself. Perhaps there is the need to rethink, and fully grasp, young people’s roles both as individuals and as members of a collective. As individual agents, humans can contribute to cutting emissions by reducing their own. As collective agents, they can exercise pressure on political leaders to promote a climate agreement. These actions are not mutually exclusive, but they are different and presuppose the acquisition of different kinds of knowledge: individual agents aiming to cut emissions need to know how to best to go about that, while collective agents aiming to exercise pressure on political leaders need knowledge of the most effective approaches/channels for getting their message across. This contribution will specifically focus on activists’s aim to exercise pressure on institutions through civil disobedience and demonstrations. Through argumentative analysis of texts produced by activists and spread through their web pages or social media channels, interviews, and slogans used in demonstrations, I aim to identify intellectual attitudes or postures ("epistemic vices” – Cassam 2019) that tend to produce suboptimal epistemic outcomes. Furthermore, it will be shown how, in many cases, young people seem to lack an understanding of deliberative processes in democracies. This results in ineffective actions; complaints and protests either directed toward people who have only limited responsibility, or performed at the wrong time. I ultimately argue that (young) activists would benefit from a deeper knowledge on the functioning of deliberation in democracies, and need a more thorough understanding of the decisional processes leading to climate policies.

Cassam Q. (2019). Vices of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press EC (2019), Special Eurobarometer 490, Climate Change. https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion Leiserowitz A., Maibach E., Rosenthal S. et al. (2019) Climate change in the American mind: November 2019. Yale University and George Mason University. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication Patterson S., Mann M.E. (2022) Public Disapproval of Disruptive Climate Change Protests. Annenberg Policy Center, Penn State University.

‘Why learn without a future’ was written on the front banner of a ‘Fridays for Future’ (FFF) demonstration in Germany in 2019. In addition to climate policy, such expressions call pedagogy into question. For when future-oriented educational promises are fundamentally uncertain, they must be justified, especially if a ‘climate crisis’ is assumed – a circumstance that was recently discussed in the field of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in Germany (see Holfelder et al., 2021, Kminek et al. 2022). Given this line of argumentation, I am interested in what is stated in the FFF context about what to do with this diagnosis. The commitment of those involved with FFF could be understood as giving priority to fighting climate change over their participation in educational institutions such as schools (regarding the history of school strikes see Teune, 2020). At the same time, FFF actors themselves perform pedagogical practices, e.g. in Germany as part of a Public Climate School. Conceptually, these actions are linked to the promise of transforming feelings of power- and helplessness in the struggle against a ‘climate crisis’ into experiences of self-efficacy (SFF, 2021). Pedagogical positions are thus simultaneously criticised and actualised in the FFF context, which constitutes an inherent tension, which suggests the question: should attending educational programs be deferred in favor of the fight for climate justice, or is the former a prerequisite of the latter? To reconstruct how this question is answered in the FFF context, I examine statements using the Sociology of Knowledge approach to discourse by Keller (2011). One way of condensing his central concern is to ask: who can or may say what, where and with what consequences (see Keller, 2011, p. 206)? I considered this question in relation to a wide range of material from the FFF context. Based on a comparative analysis, which focuses on the (re)production of ‘subject positions’ (see Keller, 2011, p. 235) in ‘discourse fragments’ (see Keller, 2011, p. 234), I illustrate in my contribution how positioning in what I call ‘demonstrative engagement’ conveys pedagogicalisation of political problems and politicisation of pedagogical ideas. I then discuss this interpretation with regard to its implications for ESD and come to the conclusion that 'demonstrative engagement' may well represent an adequate orientation for pedagogical practice based on the contemporary diagnosis of a ‘climate crises’ and at the same time, from a more systematic point of view, cannot escape its inherent contradiction.

Holfelder, A.-K., Singer-Brodowski, M., Holz, V., & Kminek, H. (2021). Erziehungswissenschaftliche Fragen im Zusammenhang mit der Bewegung Fridays for Future. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogik, 67(1), 120–139. Keller, R. (2011). Wissenssoziologische Diskursanalyse: Grundlegung eines Forschungsprogramms (3rd ed.). Interdisziplinäre Diskursforschung. VS; Springer Fachmedien. Kminek, H., Holfelder, A.-K. & Singer-Brodowski, M. (2022). Zukunft war gestern – Zur Legitimität der Pädagogik in Zeiten der sozial-ökologischen Krise. In Bünger, C., Czejkowska, A., Lohmann, I. & Steffens, G. (Eds.), Jahrbuch für Pädagogik 2021. Zukunft – Stand jetzt (pp. 265–276). Beltz Juventa. SFF. (2021). Public Climate School: Konzeptpapier [Students for Future (SFF)]. https://publicclimateschool.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/PCS-Konzeptpapier_Oktober-2021.pdf Teune, S. (2020). Schulstreik. Geschichte einer Aktionsform und die Debatte über zivilen Ungehorsam. In S. Haunss & M. Sommer (Eds.), Fridays for Future – die Jugend gegen den Klimawandel: Konturen der weltweiten Protestbewegung (pp. 131–146). transcript.

Education is considered to be the roadmap for tackling the global challenges. Climate change, is a wicked problem that threatens the continuity of life (Lehtonen, Salonen & Cantell, 2019). Throughout the last decade, efforts to reorient education to more radical and deliberate forms of learning, seem too vague and insufficient to respond to the urgent call of youth for an education that should promote action in the face of the current climate emergency. The role of education seems to be, and remain uncertain concerning questions as to how we approach education for climate action. Critical issues for strengthening climate action through education include shifting away from standardization and social reproduction and towards education for all and social change, from discipline based education, towards project based education, from knowledge based education towards value driven education, and from traditional forms of teaching towards more deliberate and action oriented pedagogies. These issues seem more demanding considering that many research findings regarding youth climate change knowledge, climate change concern and climate change action indicate that there is: a) knowledge misconceptions on climate change , b) gaps between knowledge and action and c) a low self-efficacy to participate in climate actions (Kolenatý, Kroufek & Cincera, 2022; Scoullos & Zachariou; 2022). Based on the above considerations the aim of this paper is to: identify the inherent ingredients of climate action in relation to the model of Anticipation-Action-Reflection, (OECD 2019) to examine the pedagogies that lead to climate action (“Walk to talk”, Whole School Approach, community based learning, peer learning), and c) to discuss the main characteristics of the education that leads to climate action (agency, political will, rethinking teaching techniques, supporting teachers) (Monroe,Plate, Oxarart, Bowers, & Chaves, 2017). The above issues will be: examined under the lens of various programs that applied in Cyprus the period 2018-2022, such as the international program “Unesco Associated Network Schools” and the national programs “Action for Climate Change: The Climate calls for S.O.S.” and discussed in accordance with international and regional ESD Frameworks such as the implementation framework of the UNECE Strategy for ESD 2021-2030, the ESD Mediterranean Action Plan 2030, the UNESCO ESD#2030 etc (UNECE 2022; UNESCO 2020) that developed for supporting countries to work more effectively in the field of ESD and Climate Change Education. Our aim within this discussion is to contribute to the wider dialogue concerning which education for climate action we are aiming for.

Ehlers, S., et al. (2021). Education for Climate Action: Why education is critical for climate progress. CARE International. Evicted BY Climate Change: Confronting the Gendered Impacts of Climate Induced Displacement. Kolenatý, M.; Kroufek, R. & Cincera, J. (2022). What Triggers Climate Action: The Impact of a Climate Change Education Program on Students’ Climate Literacy and Their Willingness to Act. Sustainability, 14, 10365. Lehtonen, A., Salonen, A.O. & Cantell, H. (2019). Climate Change Education: A New Approach for a World of Wicked Problems. In: J.W. Cook (Ed.), Sustainability, Human Well-Being, and the Future of Education (pp. 339-374). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. Monroe, C.M., Plate, R. R., Oxarart, A., Bowers, A. & Chaves, A. W. (2017): Identifying effective climate change education strategies: a systematic review of the research, Environmental Education Research. OECD (2019). Conceptual learning framework: Anticipation-Action-Reflection Cycle for 2030. The future of education and skills 2030. Scoullos, M. & Zachariou, A. (2022). Climate Change Education and Outreach in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East Region. UNECE (2022). Framework for the implementation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Strategy for Education for Sustainable Development from 2021 to 2030. ECE/CEP/AC.13/2022/3. UNESCO (2020). Education for Sustainable Development: A roadmap #ESDfor2030.

Civil society engagement is key to achieving sustainable development and environmental goals. In addition, students engement is vital in environmental sustainability education (ESE) and its aim to enrich students’ democratic participatory and deliberative way of life. This paper builds on the concept "action competence”. Sass, et al (2020) break down action competence into “the willingness, commitment, knowledge, skills and confidence to engage in finding solutions to controversial problems or issues” (p. 6). In addition, Öhman & Sund (2021) argue that the commitment is “crucial for turning knowledge about sustainability problems/issues into action” (p. 2) and continue, arguing that, “a commitment speaks back to you, in the sense that you want to do something” (p. 3). This paper is limited to explore teaching in which students can transform the experience of controversial sustainability issues - i. e issues consisting of beliefs and arguments that are beyond judgment and scientific evidence - into active engagement such as civic action. However, student engagement is a complex entity. This paper takes a transactional approach on engagement, which means that engagement is an experience taking place between an individual and his environment’’ (Dewey, LW 13, p. 25). The environment is ‘‘whatever conditions interact with personal needs, desires, purposes, and capacities to create the experience’’ such as toys with which he/she is playing, others with which he/she is talking, or books which one is reading (LW 13, p. 25). Here, experience is defined as the process and result of which a living organism tries to do something to and undergoes by its environment (Dewey, LW 9). Furthermore, the environment involves other-than-humans. Consequently, the teacher is vital in setting the scene when it comes to engaging students in CSI and civic action. However, there is a lack of research on teachers' didactical work how to transform students’ engagement in CSI into civic action. However, in social movements theory engagement is vital and pervasive, which also regards research fields such as student engagement and political participation. Can formal educational settings on student engagement learn from informa settings? Therefore, a transdisciplinary approach will be fruitful to explore student engagement. Following research aim guide the exploration: how can ESE-practice establish student engagement in sustainability issues and its function in developing students’ capability to take civic action to achieve sustainable development? Following research questions guide the exploration: engagement for whom, engagement in what, engagement for what purpose and to what end?

Dewey, J., 1988. Experience and education. In: J.A. Boydston, ed. The later works, 1925–1953. Volume 13: Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1–62. Dewey, J., 1986. How we think. In: J.A. Boydston, ed. The later works, 1925–1953. Volume 9: Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 105–351. Niesz, T. (2022). Education as a social movement tactic, target, context, and outcome. In Handbook of civic engagement and education (pp. 68-82). Edward Elgar Publishing. Öhman, J., & Sund, L. (2021). A didactic model of sustainability commitment. Sustainability, 13(6), 3083. Sass, W., et al. (2020). Redefining action competence: The case of sustainable development. The Journal of Environmental Education, 51(4), 292-305. Underhill, H. (2019). Learning in social movements: Emotion, identity and Egyptian diaspora becoming logically and emotionally invested in the continuing struggle. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 59(3), 365-388. Vallee, D. (2017). Student engagement and inclusive education: reframing student engagement. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(9), 920-937 Van Poeck, K., Vandenplas, E., & Östman, L. (2023). Teaching action-oriented knowledge on sustainability issues. Environmental Education Research, 1-26 Wildemeersch, D., Læssøe, J., & Håkansson, M. (2022). Young sustainability activists as public educators: An aesthetic approach. European Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 419-434.

Transformative learning has become one of the most important learning theories in the context of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) (i.e. Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2015, Rodríguez Aboytes/ Barth 2020). Based on the work of Jack Mezirow and rooted in humanistic approaches, social-constructivist learning theories and critical theory explain the shift of deeply hold assumptions following several phases of reflection and discourse. On the one hand, the potential of transformative learning theory is to zoom into the process-like phases of individual and collective engagement with sustainability issues (i.e. Pisters et al. 2020). On the other hand, it enables a focus on long neglected adult learning (and in particular continuing education) - in contrast to the learning of young people, who have emerged as the drivers of global sustainability efforts. A particular potential of transformative learning is that it can explain the self-regulated shift of meaning-perspectives in regard to sustainability issues within learning environments that are less structured and not obligatory, and characterized by their informal communication and exchange processes within groups of learners or community of practices (Singer-Brodowski 2023).

Transformative learning theory can also be used to explain inner resistances to change or disruptions especially when it comes to emotionally triggered hindrances to critical thinking (Mälkki 2019). For this reason, it is an insightful learning theory against the backdrop of the increasingly polarized debates about transformation paths towards sustainability, the multiple conflicting goals in the sustainability context, the systemic inertias that are rarely addressed in the context of ESD (Boström et al. 2018), and the permanent ambivalences that even sustainability-affine people face if they try to contribute or foster sustainability transitions. Nevertheless, especially the linkage between individual and collective learning processes are under-researched and the question arises how these learning processes can be arranged, if they are driven by the individual. To explore these issues the symposium will focus on the following main questions:

Which potential does transformative learning theory has to explain individual and collective learning trajectories?

How do other, long-standing educational theory traditions approach transformation processes and what can we learn from this?

Which educational formats are suitable to enable transformative learning within the context of sustainability?

How can transformative learning processes be measured and evaluated?

The symposium will integrate three research projects that are focusing on the above-mentioned questions in different ways. Paper 1 by Katrien van Poeck and Leif Östmann will present a transactional perspective on learning and introduce transactional analytical methodologies. They use the LESTRA project to deeper explore three core ideas in transactional learning theory: 1) the concept of transaction, 2) the phases of habit, crisis, and creativity, and 3) the interplay of continuity and transformation ‘in action’.

The second paper of Alexandra Reith and colleagues refers to the work at the International Academy for Environment and Sustainability (TES) of the Federal Environmental Agency of Germany, which aims at identifying and fostering professional competencies for sustainability within innovative workshop formats. The research project TESACADEV (Development of an Evaluation Concept for Supporting the Competencies of the TES Academy) supports this endeavor through screening adequate evaluation approaches.

The third paper by Lily Ann Wolff and colleagues sheds light on theoretical developments of Mezirow transformative learning theory. It highlights the connection to the concept of Bildung und discusses the role of transformative learning in sustainability transitions. It uses examples from the SveaSus project.

Transformative learning (Mezirow 1978) is gaining increasing attention in research on sustainability education and on the learning of adults while striving for sustainability transitions. While, as Singer-Brodowski (2023) argues, this theoretical perspective holds strong potential to address under-investigated aspects of education and learning in the context of sustainability issues, its attention for transformation of deeply held and emotionally invested assumptions about the world and oneself and for learners’ capacity to (collectively) contribute to societal change is not unique. Also, other traditions in educational/learning theory such as social learning (e.g. Wildemeersch & Vandenabeele 2007) and Argyris and Schön’s (1978) theory of single- and double-loop learning have addressed this. This paper focuses on how the long-standing tradition of pragmatist educational theory and in particular the application of Dewey’s transactionalism in didactic research (Garrison et al. 2022) has addressed the topic. We explore what pragmatist theory and transactional analytical methodologies have to offer and how this can complement transformative learning theory to deepen our insight in transformativity in learning processes. The paper elaborates three theoretical and analytical principles and discusses their potential for investigating transformativity. First, we discuss the central concept of ‘transaction’ (Dewey & Bentley 1949) – distinguishing it from self-action and inter-action – with its emphasis on how persons and their environments transform simultaneously and reciprocally through a continuous, dynamic interplay between intrapersonal aspects and aspects – interpersonal, institutional, and material – of the environment. Second, we explain how a pragmatist approach to the phases of habit, crisis, and creativity that mark human action (Shilling 2008) results in a focus on the disturbance of habits and customs as a crucial driver for learning and, potentially, for the (trans)formation of behaviour, assumptions and societal systems (Van Poeck & Östman 2021). Third, we emphasise the value of detailed empirical investigations of the interplay of continuity and transformation ‘in action’, i.e. on how change is actually made through people’s actions in transaction with the environment (De Roeck & Van Poeck 2023). Drawing on empirical examples from case studies of diverse settings aimed at creating more sustainable agri-food, mobility, and energy practices, we illustrate how a transactional perspective on transformativity allows to investigate the entanglement of individual and collective learning, to approach learning as a more-than-cognitive endeavour which involves affect, desire, commitment, and imagination, and to gain insight into how facilitators can grasp the transformative educative potential of ‘educative moments’ (Garrison et al. 2015).

Argyris, C., Schön, D.A. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA . Dewey, J., Bentley, A. 1949. Knowing and the known. Southern Illinois University Press. De Roeck, F., Van Poeck, K. (forthcoming). Agency in action. Towards a transactional approach for analyzing agency in sustainability transitions. EIST. Garrison, J., Östman, L., Öhman, J. (2022). Deweyan Transactionalism in Education. Beyond Self-action and Inter-action. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Garrison, J., Östman, L., Håkansson, M. (2015). The Creative Use of Companion Values in Environmental Education and Education for Sustainable Development: Exploring the Educative Moment. EER 21 (2): 183–204. Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education Quarterly, 28(2), 100–110. Shilling, C., 2008. Changing Bodies. Habit, Crisis and Creativity. Sage Publications Inc, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi. Singer-Brodowski, M. (2023). The potential of transformative learning for sustainability transitions: moving beyond formal learning environments. Environment, Development and Sustainability. Van Poeck, K., Östman, L. 2021. Learning to find a way out of non-sustainable systems. EIST, 39, 155-172. Wildemeersch, D., Vandenabeele, J. (2007) Relocating social learning as a democratic practice, in R. van der Veen, D. Wildemeersch, V. Marsick, & J. Youngblood (Eds.) Democratic Practices as Learning Opportunities, pp. 23-36. Rotterdam: Sense.

The International Academy for Transformation and the Environment (TES Academy) of the German Federal Environment Agency is responding to the massive demand for further educating and training of managers and decision-makers (professionals) in the context of sustainability. The TES Academy aims at promoting mutual learning activities for professionals within different organizations and sectors. Within the TESACADEV project (Development of an Evaluation Concept for Supporting the Competencies of the TES Academy) evaluation concepts for educational formats and trainings were investigated with regard to their applicability for TES. While there are some advanced academy approaches to enable and foster transformative learning (e.g., Moore et al. 2018), the concept remains ambitious and the state of research about evaluation of transformative learning processes or sustainability-related competencies as a result of such learning is not mature. For this reason, the paper’s focus is on the following research question: Which competencies do professionals need to contribute to social transformation processes and how can education formats and trainings aiming to strengthen these competencies be evaluated? To answer this question, different methods were applied: The first step was to conduct a systematic literature review following the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al. 2020) on professional development and sustainability-related competencies. Papers about educational formats and trainings for educators have been excluded within this review. The results yield a set of relevant competencies that complement previous competence models (Foucrier/ Wiek 2019, Lozano et al. 2017, Redman/ Wiek 2021, Salgado et al. 2018). In a second step, existing academies for the development of sustainability-related professional competences were identified and their education and evaluation concepts were surveyed using expert interviews. In a third step, two workshops of the TES Academy were accompanied in the context of a participant observation. Thematically, these workshops were related to the two overarching concepts of resilience (December 2022) and corruption (February 2023). The results include a map of different evaluation approaches for the TES that take into account different aspects like the participants’ backgrounds, the methods applied or the facilitators’ ability to accompany the learning processes.

Foucrier, Tamsin; Wiek, Arnim (2019): A Process-Oriented Framework of Competencies for Sustainability Entrepreneurship. In: Sustainability 11 (24), S. 7250. DOI: 10.3390/su11247250. Lozano, Rodrigo; Merrill, Michelle; Sammalisto, Kaisu; Ceulemans, Kim; Lozano, Francisco (2017): Connecting Competences and Pedagogical Approaches for Sustainable Development in Higher Education: A Literature Review and Framework Proposal. In: Sustainability 9 (10), S. 1889. DOI: 10.3390/su9101889. Moore, Michele-Lee; Olsson, Per; Nilsson, Warren; Rose, Loretta; Westley, Frances R. (2018): Navigating emergence and system reflexivity as key transformative capacities: experiences from a Global Fellowship program. In: Ecology and Society 23 (2). DOI: 10.5751/ES-10166-230238. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ Perez Salgado, Francisca; Abbott, Dina; Wilson, Gordon (2018): Dimensions of professional competences for interventions towards sustainability. In: Sustain Sci 13 (1), S. 163–177. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-017-0439-z. Redman, Aaron; Wiek, Arnim (2021): Competencies for Advancing Transformations Towards Sustainability. In: Front. Educ. 6, Artikel 785163. DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2021.785163.

Numerous scholars have further developed Mezirow’s transformative learning theory, some of them together with Mezirow, others without him. Therefore, the ideas have developed in many directions, and come to focus on several aspects of the basic theory or to emphasize new directions. The theory has even been fragmented (Cranton and Roy 2003). As alternatives to Mezirow’s mainly cognitive approach, transformative learning now focuses on holistic, extra rational and integrative perspectives (Merriam and Bierema 2013), highlighting embodied and intuitive knowledge, and individuals in social relations (Lange 2009). Some of the new perspectives are influenced by depth psychology, post-structuralism, and posthumanism (Cranton and Roy 2003). Thus, fundamental discussions have dealt with if transformative learning is rational or extra-rational; imaginative, cognitive, or emotional; as well as if it is individual or social (Cranton and Roy 2003). According to Kovan and Dirkx (2003), Mezirow’s approach is too cognitive and rational. Therefore, they put emphasis on emotions, spirituality, and imagination in a broader sociocultural learning context. Transformative learning can awaken strong emotions and feelings of vulnerability. Of this reason, the educator needs to be responsive and aware of the students’ comfort levels (e.g., King and Heuer 2009). Since the roots of transformative learning partly have the same foundation as Bildung, there are also overlapping between the Bildung and the transformative learning theory. The idea of Bildung is based on the assumption that humans are capable of acting in a way that exceeds the immediate present. The notion of Bildung discusses what it means to be human (Fuhr, 2017). There are increasingly views, implementation methods, and interpretations of transformative learning that connects the theory to sustainability. To meet the needs of sustainability education, transformative learning is a complicated theory that must be developed, tried out, and evaluated methodically (Wolff 2022). Yet, like Bildung it might even be impossible to assess (Buttigieg and Calleja 2021), and it is definitely not a quick fix. In this paper, we will critically discuss various views on transformative learning and the relevance in relation to sustainability education, make comparisons to Bildung approaches, and present a few examples on experiences from a sustainability project (SveaSus) aiming at transformative learning. We will especially focus on embodied place-based learning methods, the role of emotions in learning processes, and the creation of safe spaces.

Buttigieg, K., & Calleja, C. (2021). Bildung and transformative learning theory: Two peas in a pod? Journal of Transformative Education, 19(2), 166–185. https://doi. org/10.1177/1541344620971673. Cranton, P., & Roy, M. (2003). When the bottom falls out of the bucket: Toward a holistic perspective on transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(2), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1541344603001002002. Fuhr, T. (2017). Bildung: An introduction. In A. Laros, T. Fuhr, & E. W. Taylor (Eds.),Transformative learning meets Bildung: An international exchange (pp. 3-15). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. King, K. P., & Heuer, B. P. (2009). Transformative learning in adult basic education. In J. Mezirow, E. W. Taylor, & Associates (Eds.), Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher education (pp. 172–181). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kovan, J. T., & Dirkx, J. M. (2003). “Being called awake”: The role of transformative learning in the lives of environmental activists. Adult Education Quarterly, 5 3 (2), 99 – 118. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0741713602238906. Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. San Francisco: Wiley. Wolff, L-A. (2022). Transformative learning. In S. Idowu, R. Schmidpeter, N. Capaldi, L. Zu, M. del Baldo, & R. Abreu (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sustainability management. Cham: Springer Nature.

In research on sustainability transitions (ST), learning is often considered vital for transforming our world into a more sustainable direction (van Mierlo et al. 2020). Recent reviews of literature (Goyal & Howlett 2020, Van Poeck et al. 2020, van Mierlo & Beers 2020) shed light on why learning is regarded key to foster transitions, what people are assumed to learn in STs, and what are gaps in the currently available scientific knowledge on the topic. ST researchers have been arguing for learning as a prerequisite for the creative development and maturation of novel practices that provide alternatives for currently non-sustainable regimes, for questioning what is taken for granted, for developing shared visions and plans, for creating new knowledge, for disseminating ideas and experiments, for collective problem-solving, etc. (Goyal & Howlett 2020, Van Poeck et al. 2020). As to what is or ought to be learned, reference is made to practical learning outcomes (e.g. more sustainable technologies and practices, innovative solutions for sustainability challenges), conceptual learning outcomes (e.g. new knowledge, commitment, visions, framings), and relational learning outcomes (e.g. new networks, trust) (Van Poeck et al. 2020). The literature reviews of van Mierlo and Beers (2020) and Van Poeck et al. (2020) also reveal important theoretical and empirical research gaps that can be summarised as a poor conceptual and empirical underpinning. This symposium addresses these gaps in the state of the art and aims to contribute to overcoming some of the identified shortcomings.
Van Mierlo and Beers (2020, p. 255) argue that ‘learning processes have hardly been conceptualised, discussed and elaborated within the field’ and sharply criticise the fact that well-established research fields related to learning that could provide valuable insights are ‘broadly ignored or loosely applied’ (Ibid.). Although several authors explicitly refer to learning theories, not all studies apply learning theories and several do it only superficially which results in conceptual haziness and confusion of the process and outcomes of learning (Boon and Bakker 2016, Benson et al. 2016, Beers et al. 2016, Singer-Brodowski et al. 2018, Sol et al. 2018, Van Poeck et al. 2020, Van Poeck & Östman 2021). These observations, van Mierlo et al. (2020, p. 253) argue, highlight the need for conceptual work that goes ‘beyond a superficial use of notions such as social learning and double-loop learning’. Furthermore, the empirical knowledge base for progressing our understanding of learning in STs is weak. Learning is often assumed to take place, but is neither specified nor critically investigated (van Mierlo et al. 2020). Van Poeck et al. (2020) illustrate that many empirical research contributions do not convincingly reveal that, what and how people are learning in practices striving for STs and that, too often, strong claims are made without sufficient empirical evidence.
In this symposium, we present and discuss four papers that – theoretically, methodologically, and empirically – contribute to opening-up the black-box of what and how people learn while trying to tackle sustainability problems. The first paper does so by integrating three conceptual frameworks that deal to a different extent with reflexivity, collective processes, and the role of materials for learning and practices. The second paper presents and illustrates an analytical approach for creating practically useful knowledge on how to facilitate learning in view of STs. The third paper presents empirical investigations on the role of emotions within learning processes in STs.

Facing unprecedented socio-ecological challenges sustainability transition studies call for new modes of problem-solving encouraging processes of social learning (van Mierlo & Beers 2020). A central aspiration is that processes of social learning should transform socio-ecologically harmful everyday practices and engender novel sustainable habits and lifestyles. However, sustainability transition literature was found to insufficiently conceptualize how learning takes places in everyday life and affects practices (Boström et al. 2018). To enhance the understanding of this relationship, this contribution introduces three complementary concepts that elucidate distinctive aspects of learning processes and the formation of practices. In the next step the three concepts are integrated into an analytical framework to better conceptualise and investigate how learning takes place in everyday life. All three concepts deal to a different extent with reflexivity, collective processes and the role of materials for learning and practices. The community of practice approach lays emphasis on how meaning is negotiated in communities that characterise through collective activities, roots and objectives (Wenger 1998). Further, the relation between the identities of the individual members of those communities and learning processes is elucidated. Practice theory captures how actors form practices by aligning specific meanings, competencies and materials (Pantzar & Shove 2010). If practices are performed repeatedly those linkages are reinforced and begin to stabilise the practice. Further, practices of different domains (e.g. working, shopping, mobility) mutually depend on each other and build practice complexes, which further stabilize everyday doings. The third concept, transactional theory, is based on work of pragmatist thinker Dewey. It possesses explanatory power with regard to how change comes about in everyday life. Different kinds of situations are conceptualised, in which actors hesitate to continue with their habits and potentially start a reflexive inquiry (Östman 2010, Van Poeck et al. 2020). We argue to take the transactional perspective as a starting point for understanding how reflexive processes take place in everyday life and integrate insights from the communities of practice approach and practice theory. The former can provide a potential collective learning path for specific communities and shed light on the dynamics of identity formation and learning. The latter enhances our understanding of how learning can irritate the reproduction of practices by considering socio-material entanglements and complexes of practices.

Boström, Andersson, Berg, Gustafsson, Gustavsson, Hysing, Lidskog, Löfmarck, Ojala, Olsson, Singleton, Svenberg, Uggla, Öhman, 2018. Conditions for Transformative Learning for Sustainable Development: A Theoretical Review and Approach. Sustainability 10, 4479. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124479 Östman, 2010. Education for sustainable development and normativity: a transactional analysis of moral meaning‐making and companion meanings in classroom communication. Environmental Education Research 16, 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620903504057 Pantzar, Shove, 2010. Understanding innovation in practice: a discussion of the production and re-production of Nordic Walking. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 22, 447–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537321003714402 van Mierlo, Beers, 2020. Understanding and governing learning in sustainability transitions: A review. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 34, 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.08.002 Van Poeck, Östman, Block, 2020. Opening up the black box of learning-by-doing in sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.12.006 Wenger, 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.

While sustainability transitions (ST) research widely acknowledges the importance of learning for realising transitions, it often remains black-boxed what exactly people are learning in practices striving for a more sustainable world as well as how learning takes shape and is facilitated (van Mierlo et al. 2020). Convincing empirical evidence of what it is that influences learning is very rare (Van Poeck et al. 2020). Yet, precisely that type of knowledge is needed to identify impactful interventions and, thus, to provide guidance for improving learning processes in the context of STs (Van Poeck & Östman 2021). To address this gap, this paper focuses on facilitating (non-formal) learning in the pursuit of STs. We present and illustrate an analytical approach that is designed to develop useful knowledge on how learning processes in the context of STs can be facilitated. Theoretically, it combines and integrates dramaturgical analysis (Feldman 1995, Hajer 2005), transactional pragmatist theory (Dewey & Bentley 1949, Ryan 2011), and didactical theory on teaching and learning (Östman et al 2019a,b). The framework conceptualises the facilitation of learning in terms of scripting, staging, and performance (Van Poeck & Östman 2022). Scripting involves formulating purposes and clarifying the roles of facilitators and participants. Staging involves the organisation of a learning environment which brings certain objects/phenomena into attention and offers certain tasks for the participants. The performance can be grasped in terms of a variety of facilitator moves: actions and interventions that help to guide the participants’ learning. We explain the methodology and illustrate its application with empirical examples from case studies of diverse settings aimed at creating more sustainable agri-food, mobility, and energy practices. The analysis shows how facilitators’ choices and actions affect the participants’ learning and highlights the importance of consciously governing ongoing meaning-making in the pursuit of contributing to transitions, of anticipating the performance already in the planning, of well-considered interventions (‘facilitator moves’) in the performance, and of building-in check-points to explore the participants’ response to the facilitator’s actions. While fully recognising that facilitating learning in view of STs is not a matter of effectively changing participants’ thinking and acting towards predetermined outcomes, our research shows that, nevertheless, it does require careful and well-considered planning and steering in the pursuit of helping the participants to jointly develop promising pathways towards a more sustainable world. The results of our empirical analyses reveal diverse ways in which facilitators’ work can help accomplishing this.

Dewey, Bentley, 1949/1991. Knowing and the known. Southern Illinois University Press. Feldman, 1995. Strategies for Interpreting Qualitative Data. SAGE Publications Inc. Hajer, 2005. Setting the stage. A dramaturgy of policy deliberation. Administration & Society, 36(6), 624-647. Östman, Van Poeck, Öhman, 2019a. A transactional theory on sustainability learning. In: Sustainable Development Teaching: Ethical and Political Challenges. Routledge, 127-139. Östman, Van Poeck, Öhman, 2019b. A transactional theory on sustainability teaching: Teacher moves. In: Sustainable Development Teaching: Ethical and Political Challenges. Routledge, 140-152. Ryan, 2011. Seeing Together. Mind, Matter, and the Experimental Outlook of John Dewey and Arthur F. Bentley. American Institute for Economic Research. van Mierlo, Beers, Halbe, Scholz, Vinke-de Kruijf, 2020. Learning about learning in sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 34, 251-254. Van Poeck, Östman, Block, 2020. Opening up the black box of learning-by-doing in sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 34, 298-310. Van Poeck, Östman, 2021. Learning to find a way out of non-sustainable systems. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 39, 155-172. Van Poeck, Östman, 2022. The Dramaturgy of Facilitating Learning Processes: A Transactional Theory and Analytical Approach. In: Deweyan Transactionalism in Education. Beyond Self-action and Inter-action. Bloomsbury Publishing, 123-135.

Emotions play an important role in sustainability transitions (Martiskainen & Sovacool 2021) as well as in learning processes connected to sustainability issues (e.g. Gan & Gal 2022, Manni et al. 2017). Yet, there is a lack of empirical studies outlining exactly how emotions contribute to or can impede change processes and how they are implicated in learning toward such change. It is thus our ambition to pinpoint how emotions can be generative or restrictive for such learning in terms of enabling change to occur. The theoretical contribution of this paper is to identify which functions emotions fulfil in the learning process. We conceptualise the generative function of emotions with the help of pragmatist literature on education and learning, and specifically Dewey’s (1938, 1957) pragmatist theory. Emotions can, for example, act as disturbances which might start a learning process and motivate people to reflect on their current habits and find ways of resolving problems (Östman et al. 2019). We also stress how a desire for a different future can help drive the learning process forward (Garrison 1997) toward the emergence of alternative ways of being (Garrison et al. 2015). In this case, emotions play a crucial role in people enacting change. Emotions can, however, also have a restrictive function. Feminist literature (e.g. Ahmed 2014, Boler 1999) offers, for example, insights into how certain emotional customs or rules structure how people are able to feel and which emotions they are able to express in learning situations. Emotions and emotional rules can create barriers to finding creative solutions, limit which concerns can be taken up in the learning process, and orient people toward certain changes but not others. For the empirical contribution of this paper, we study several cases of energy transitions-in-the-making in Germany, namely transitions away from lignite coal mining and the development of energy communities. We draw on observations of collective learning situations and interviews on participants’ perceptions of, and emotions connected to, these learning situations. We use a transactional methodology for analysing learning (Östman & Öhman 2022) to create insights into which emotions are taken up in the learning process and how they influence the learning. With the help of pragmatist didactical theory and (pragmatist) feminist literature on emotions, we then establish in which ways emotions might have been generative or restrictive in the learning situations contributing to sustainability transitions.

Ahmed, 2014. The cultural politics of emotion. Edinburgh University Press. Boler, 1999. Feeling power: Emotions and education. Routledge. Dewey, 1938. Experience and education. Free Press. Dewey, 1957. Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. Random House Modern Library. Gan, Gal, 2022. Student emotional response to the lesser kestrel environmental and sustainability education program. Environmental Education Research, 1–22. Garrison, 1997. Dewey and Eros: Wisdom and desire in the art of teaching. Teachers College Press. Garrison, Östman, Håkansson, 2015. The creative use of companion values in environmental education and education for sustainable development: Exploring the educative moment. Environmental Education Research, 21(2). Manni, Sporre, Ottander, 2017. Emotions and values – a case study of meaning-making in ESE. Environmental Education Research, 23(4), 451–464. Martiskainen, Sovacool, 2021. Mixed feelings: A review and research agenda for emotions in sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 40, 609–624. Östman, Öhman, 2022. A transactional methodology for analysing learning. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1–17. Östman, Van Poeck, Öhman, 2019. A transactional theory on sustainability learning. In Van Poeck, Östman, Öhman (Eds.), Sustainable Development Teaching: Ethical and Political Challenges (pp. 127–139). Routledge.