27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Diverse Subject Didactics and General Didactic Perspectives in Teacher Education
May Jehle, Marion Plien, Anja Müller, Kerstin Pohl, Julia Hasselwander, Susanne Geiger
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany
Presenting Author: Jehle, May
At the outset of the establishment of the Network 27 on Didactics, Learning and Teaching, the field of didactics, learning and teaching, and teacher education was characterized by its fragmentation. Thus, there was a strong motivation to overcome this fragmentation by searching for common ground (Hudson/Schneuwly 2007; Hudson/Meyer 2011). In a similar way the German discourse on teacher education regards the fragmentation of the whole course of teacher education as a constant challenge (Korthoff/Terhart 2013; Blömeke 2009). This fragmentation between distinct phases and institutions, but also between the various disciplines involved lead to a fragmentation of the professional pedagogical, general and subject-specific didactical knowledge and to a lack of a common terminology which impedes a coherent course of teacher education (Grammes 1998; Reusser 2008). In addition, some observe a trend in the recent discourse which promotes cross-disciplinary work instead of disciplinary teaching (e. g. Dussel 2020). At the same time, there are still references to positions which emphasize the importance of specialized knowledge and warn against a risk of deprofessionalization (Young/Moller 2016; Reh/Caruso 2020). The efforts to develop a general subject didactic (Bayrhuber et al. 2017; Rothgangel et al. 2020) might also be interpreted as a response to these lines of discussion (Reh/Caruso 2020).
Against this backdrop, we can formulate as a core challenge in teacher education, how to link the knowledge of the subject-specific didactics in teacher education to develop professional practical competencies across the disciplines as well as to deepen the subject-specific knowledge?
This question was also an initial point for the project presented in this paper. In this project we have set up an interdisciplinary team which consists of members of the didactic departments in the social sciences, geography and German. Our aim is the development of interdisciplinary multimedia online learning units for teacher education which address selected core aspects of both subject and general didactics: subject-specific concept of education (Bildung), subject-specific culture of exercises, language in specific subjects, fostering of competencies, structuring lessons, and media. These multimedia online learning units contain various materials as short video clips, podcasts, interview sequences with teachers and students, appropriate specialist literature, further reading suggestions, and training and reflection exercises. The materials should be suitable to be used in courses of teacher education as well as for the purpose of independent studies. By using the learning units pre-service teachers should deepen their subject-specific competencies and also develop an interdisciplinary didactical perspective.
The course of the project follows a step plan for the discussion and development of the learning units (for more details see the paragraph on methodology). In our paper, we will present preliminary results of the first phases of our projects and further questions and perspectives for the following phases.
Specifically, we will focus on results, questions, perspectives relating to the question to the common ground and subject-specific characteristics within the selected core aspects:
What do we learn from these results about the aim of fostering professional practical competencies across the disciplines in the context of teacher education? In general, what can we learn about the aim of an interdisciplinary perspective in teacher education as such? More specifically, in which aspects can an interdisciplinary perspective in teacher education support the development of subject-specific competencies? In which aspects does it support an interdisciplinary didactical perspective? Finally, how can we integrate these results in the online learning units for teacher education?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedBy embedding the whole project into the course of teacher education, we adopt an approach of action research for higher education didactics (Altrichter/Posch 2007; Reason/Bradbury 2008; Noffke/Somekh 2009). The methodological procedure follows a “spiral of cycles” (Elliot 1991, 69) what means consecutive steps of exploration, discussion, development, implementation, and evaluation that repeatedly follow each other.
In the first phase, we integrate selected core aspects of the learning unit as focal points into subject-specific courses of teacher education and organize additional interdisciplinary workshops. In the second phase we continue with the detailed work on these learning units in which we also implement interdisciplinary courses related to these key themes. While the subject-specific courses focus on subject-specific characteristics of these core aspects, the interdisciplinary workshops and courses include the collective work on lesson planning and teaching materials as well as developing models to depict the common ground and subject-specific characteristics within these aspects.
By the integration of the discussion and the development of the learning units into subject-specific and interdisciplinary courses and workshops in teacher education we intend to include as many various perspectives on the specific issues been negotiated (Posch/Zehetmeier 2010). During the subject-specific and interdisciplinary courses and workshops one part of the team serves as participant observers and documents the discussions in the working phases. Moreover, we document all materials produced by the participating pre-service teachers in the working phases. Additionally, we enrich these sources and materials with guided expert interviews about the six thematic foci of the online learning modules which we conduct with students and teachers.
Within our interdisciplinary team, we conduct comparative analyses of all documents and materials in relation to the subject-specific discourses. On that basis, we identify similarities and differences between the various perspectives as well as a possible common ground and subject-specific characteristics within the six thematic foci of the online learning units. Parallel to these discussions we will develop the learning units and evaluate the implementation of materials and exercises in progress.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe first aim of our project is the development of the multimedia online learning units and the generation of appropriate materials and exercises. Moreover, we intend accompanying research and an interdisciplinary discussion to contribute to the theoretical discourse on a possible common ground and subject-specific particularities in lesson planning (Hopman 2007; Hudson 2007). The selected core aspects of the learning units enable a topical comparative analysis as regards subject matter. Based on that, we can identify thematic aspects that facilitate or complicate the discussion of a common ground and an integrative didactical perspective. The discussions within the courses and workshops in teacher education as well as the conducted interviews enable the consideration of various, also practice-related, perspectives. Based on that, we can identify the needs of pre-service teachers and develop appropriate materials and exercises for the online learning units. In doing so, we finally can contribute to the ongoing discussion how to integrate subject didactic research into the practice of teacher education.
ReferencesAltrichter, Herbert/Posch, Peter (2007): Lehrerinnen und Lehrer erforschen ihren Unterricht. Unterrichtsentwicklung und Unterrichtsevaluation durch Aktionsforschung. Bad Heilbrunn.
Bayrhuber, Horst/Abraham, Ulf/Frederking, Volker/Jank, Werner/Rothgangel, Martin/Vollmer, Helmut Johannes (2017): Auf dem Weg zu einer Allgemeinen Fachdidaktik. Allgemeine Fachdidaktik Band 1. Münster, New York.
Blömeke, Sigrid (2009): Lehrerausbildung in Deutschland. In: PÄD-Forum: unterrichten erziehen 37/28 (1): 5-8.
Dussel, Ines (2020): The Shifting Boundaries of School Subjects in Contemporary Curriculum Reforms. Towards a Post-Disciplinary Curriculum? In: Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 66, 5: 666-689.
Elliot, John (1991): Action research for educational change. Buckingham.
Grammes, Tilman (1998): Kommunikative Fachdidaktik. Politik – Geschichte – Recht – Wirtschaft. Opladen.
Hopmann, Stefan (2007): Restrained Teaching: the common core of Didaktik. In: European Educational Research Journal, 6, 2: 109-124).
Hudson, Brian (2007): Comparing Different Traditions of Teaching and Learning: what can we learn about teaching and learning? In: European Educational Research Journal, 6, 2: 135-146.
Hudson, Brian/Meyer, Meinart A. (Eds.) (2011): Beyond fragmentation: Didactics, Learning and Teaching in Europe. Opladen, Farmington Hills.
Korthoff, Hans-Georg/Terhart, Ewald (2013): Teacher education in Germany. Traditional structure, strengths and weakness, current reforms. In: Scuola Democratica 3: 1-9.
Noffke, Susan E./Somekh, Bridget (Eds.) (2009): The SAGE Handbook of Educational Action Research. Los Angeles et al.
Posch, Peter/Zehetmaier, Stefan (2010): Aktionsforschung in der Erziehungswissenschaft. In: Enzyklopädie Erziehungswissenschaft Online. Weinheim, München. DOI: 10.3262/EEO07100148.
Reason, Peter/Bradbury, Hilary (Eds.) (2008): The SAGE Handbook of Action Research. Participative Inquiry and Practice. Los Angeles et al.
Reh, Sabine/Caruso, Marcelo (2020): Entfachlichung? Transformation der Fachlichkeit schulischen Wissens. Zur Einführung. In: Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 66, 5: 611-625.
Reusser, Kurt (2008): Empirisch fundierte Didaktik – didaktisch fundierte Unterrichtsforschung. Eine Perspektive zur Neuorientierung der Allgemeinen Didaktik. In: Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 10, Sonderheft 9: 219-237.
Rothgangel, Martin/Abraham, Ulf/Bayrhuber, Horst/Frederking, Volker/Jank, Werner/Vollmer, Helmut Johannes (Eds.) (2020): Lernen im Fach und über das Fach hinaus. Bestandsaufnahmen und Forschungsperspektiven aus 17 Fachdidaktiken im Vergleich. Allgemeine Fachdidaktik Band 2. Münster New York.
Young, Michael/Muller, Johann (2016): Curriculum and the specialization of knowledge. Studies in the sociology of education. New York, London.
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Can We Cross? Exploring the Epistemic-Linguistic Line in an In-service Teacher Education Context
Sanna Riuttanen, Johanna Ennser-Kananen, Saara Jäntti
University of Jyväskylä, Finland
Presenting Author: Riuttanen, Sanna;
Ennser-Kananen, Johanna
The objective of this study is to explore possibilities and practices of translanguaging for epistemic equity in teacher-researcher workshops. More specifically, we report on a series of 4 in-service teacher workshops on translanguaging that we, three researchers and teacher educators, held in an adult basic education (ABE) center in small-town Finland. We analyze our data (audio recordings) through a lens of knowledge and translanguaging theory with the goal of understanding the potential for working towards pedagogies of epistemic justice with the teachers.
De Sousa Santos (2007) understands “Modern Western thinking” as “abyssal thinking” as it “consists of a system of visible and invisible distinctions'' (p. 45) that draw a line, an abyss, beyond which knowledges do not exist. According to de Sousa Santos, it is particularly “popular, lay, plebeian, peasant, or Indigenous knowledges” (p. 47) that exist beyond this epistemic abyss, to which we would add the knowledges of another epistemically marginalized group: adult learners from African, South American, West Asian, and Eastern European countries, who come to Finland as refugees or migrants, often with a history of interrupted formal education. As de Sousa Santos contends, the abyss of epistemic erasure serves to justify and perpetuate the colonial project of epistemic imperialism, where so-called “Western” educational institutions aim to impart their accredited knowledges onto those perceived as lacking them. Scholars in the area of language education have applied his framework to linguistic practices (García et al., 2021) and explained how continued colonial logic bans certain linguistic practices beyond the abyss by considering them, if at all, to be inadequate (e.g., non-academic).
To challenge this abyssal thinking, they have suggested to adopt translanguaging as a pedagogy and political stance: “Translanguaging rejects abyssal thinking; it is a way to understand the vast complexity and heterogeneity of language practices, avoiding [...] their evaluation in the negative terms of the colonial imaginary line” (García et al., 2021, p. 208). We build on this existing work in our attempt to design linguistically and culturally sensitive teacher education (Lucas & Villegas, 2013; Paris, 2012), which aims to support teachers in crossing the pervasive epistemic line (i.e. engage in what we refer to as “line crossing”) by understanding students’ linguistic and other epistemic resources as assets and tapping them for their learning. In line with a translanguaging-as-a-polticial-stance (Wei, 2022) approach, our workshops did not merely focus on recognizing diverse linguistic resources, but also on questioning the norms and standards that reify linguistic compartmentalization (e.g. separation into named languages or language families) and on bringing marginalized languages and knowledges to the center of educational activities.
Some work focuses on translanguaging as a practice, describing linguistic practices that surface in any context where multilinguals interact, such as trilingual families (Paulsrud & Straszer, 2018), CLIL classrooms (Jakonen, Szabó & Laihonen, 2018), or businesses (Räisäinen, 2018). Research in the translanguaging-as-practice paradigm from Finnish contexts that focuses on normalizing multilingual interaction in educational spaces, may include findings that show potential for embrittling linguistic norms (e.g., Jakonen, Szabo & Laihonen, 2018; Lehtonen, 2019; Nikula and Moore, 2016), but typically refrains from tapping into antioppressive scholarship. Some recent work has taken up translanguaging as a political stance and brought it in dialogue with budding research on Finnish coloniality (author, 2022; author, 2023). This study contributes to this line of work as it explores the potential of translanguaging for epistemic justice in an ABE context. We ask:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis paper reports on a series of 4 workshops for in-service teachers at a community college for ABE in small-town Finland, which serves a linguistically and culturally diverse population of adults with migrant or refugee experience, including some students with emerging print literacy and many with interrupted formal education (sometimes referred to as “LESLLA”).
ABE in Finland is organised by schools, municipalities, or third sector operators, and is financed by the Ministry of Education and Culture. ABE teachers serve one of the most heterogeneous groups of students in Finland, particularly in terms of their linguistic, cultural, and educational backgrounds. They typically do so without any targeted education, even though research has found continuous education for these teachers to be crucial (Hos, 2016). Following Vinogradov’s (2013) advice on developing LESLLA teachers’ knowledge on early literacy instruction, teaching, refugee/migrant experiences, language acquisition, and adult learning, we designed workshops on translanguaging, which were aimed to encourage the teachers’ to support their students’ multilinguality and challenge monolingual and raciolinguistic ideologies that limit their opportunities for participating in school and society.
During 4 afternoons (12 hours), three researchers (the authors) from the closest university (120 km) worked with 9 teachers (of Math, Literacy, Finnish, Culture Courses, History, Science, and Biology) on issues around translanguaging. The workshops were part of a larger critical ethnographic study that is currently ongoing at the school and examines the discursive construction of epistemic il/legitimacy (Who knows? Academy of Finland, 2020-2025). We were thus able to draw on long-standing relationships and ongoing fieldwork to identify participants and familiarize ourselves with the school context. The workshops included activities such as discussions of research, reflection on personal and professional experiences, material design, and peer observations.
Data for this paper stems from transcripts of audio-recordings and fieldnotes from the workshops, as well as open-ended, semi-structured interviews with the teacher participants. After organizing and transcribing the data, we collaboratively identified instances of “line recognition” (i.e. participants’ acknowledgments of an epistemic line) through close reading of half of the data set and discussion. We then looked for such instances more systematically across all transcripts and fieldnotes and merged them into the themes of “describing the line”, “considerations for (not) crossing”, and “crossings”, which enabled us to uncover some of the complex pedagogical, social, and interpersonal negotiations that became evident in the participants’ discourse from the workshop sessions.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsA preliminary data analysis suggests that teachers were familiar with translanguaging as a classroom practice, whereas translanguaging as a pedagogy and political stance was more elusive and controversial.
Teachers seemed torn between their empathy for the students and pressure to comply with curricular and workplace expectations (describing the epistemic line). As they spoke about the challenge of eliciting (standard) written or spoken Finnish from students, they reflected on their willingness to accept or reward non-standard student output as a potential disservice to their students. While they identified “understanding of second language users” as a skill they had developed, they also argued that overusing this skill would not prepare their students for their workplace practicum or working life (considerations for not crossing the line).
The discourse of “preparing students for working life” ties in with neoliberal ideologies of multilingualism as commonly represented in EU policies and debates, which serve the purpose of creating “a common European citizen who could communicate across languages to trade, sell, and enlarge markets” (García et al, 2021, p. 217) and is thus in opposition to the decolonial effort of translanguaging. A crossing of the line would imply an orientation against neoliberal ideologies that permeate ABE contexts (author, 2020). However, our analysis also revealed instances of line crossing as translanguaging, for instance, when teachers strategically encouraged multilingual interaction to negotiate meaning, co-developed practices for creating translanguaging spaces, and recognized existing yet unfamiliar epistemic repertoires (e.g., students being able to solve math problems correctly in a way the teacher did not understand).
We discuss our findings and implications for policy and practice, as well as a reflection on our own positionalities as white, European, middle-class academics. The finished paper will be submitted to Teaching and Teacher Education, Nordic Studies in Education, or the International Journal of Multicultural Education.
ReferencesCreese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching?. The modern language journal, 94(1), 103-115.
García, O., Johnson, S. I., Seltzer, K., & Valdés, G. (2017). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.
García, O., Flores, N., Seltzer, K., Wei, L., Otheguy, R., & Rosa, J. (2021). Rejecting abyssal thinking in the language and education of racialized bilinguals: A manifesto. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 18(3), 203-228.
Hos, R. (2016). Caring is not enough: Teachers’ enactment of ethical care for adolescent students with limited or interrupted formal education (SLIFE) in a newcomer classroom. Education and Urban Society, 48(5), 479-503.
Jakonen, T., Szabó, T. P., & Laihonen, P. (2018). Translanguaging as Playful Subversion of a Monolingual Norm in the Classroom. In G. Mazzaferro (Ed.), Translanguaging as Everyday Practice (pp. 31-48). Springer. Multilingual Education, 28.
Lehtonen, H. (2019). Monikielisyys koulussa - yksikielisestä instituutiosta limittäiskieliseen opetukseen. Kielikello, 4. https://www.kielikello.fi/-/monikielisyys-koulussa.
Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory into practice, 52(2), 98-109.
Nikula, T. & Moore, P. (2016). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 237-249.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational researcher, 41(3), 93-97.
Paulsrud, B. & Straszer, B. (2018) “We know the same languages and then we can mix them”: A child’s perspectives on everyday translanguaging in the family. In G. Mazzaferro (Ed.), Translanguaging as Everyday Practice (pp. 49-68). Springer. Multilingual Education, 28.
Räisänen, T. (2018). Translingual Practices in Global Business : A Longitudinal Study of a Professional Communicative Repertoire. In G. Mazzaferro (Ed.), Translanguaging as Everyday Practice (pp. 149-174). Springer. Multilingual Education, 28.
Santos, B. S. de (2007). Beyond abyssal thinking: From global lines to ecologies of knowledges. Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 30(1), 45–89.
Vinogradov, P. (2013). Defining the LESLLA teacher knowledge base. In Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition. Proceedings of the 8th symposium. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University Printing House (pp. 9-24).
Wei, L. (2022). Translanguaging as a political stance: implications for English language education. ELT Journal, 76(2), 172-182.
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Teaching Sustainable Development and Social Responsibility (SDSR) in Higher Education: What Diversity in Teaching Practices?
Jana Quinte, Sophie Kennel
Université de Strasbourg, France
Presenting Author: Quinte, Jana
In order to address the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) set by the United Nations in 2000, the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation developed the Green Plan (2009) as well as the national reference system for Sustainable Development and Social Responsibility (SDSR). During the last couple of years, the French Higher Education institutions have thus been seriously working out the ways of teaching their students the SDSR. The author of the recent ministerial report Jean Jouzel (2022) urged the universities to raise students’ awareness on these matters.
In this study carried out in one of the French universities, we are interested in the teaching practices used by higher education teachers and pedagogical teams in response to this “supranational political injunction” (Barthes & Alpe, 2012, p. 3). Among other things, we refer to the UNESCO (2017) report outlining learning objectives aimed at reaching Sustainable Development goals, as well as pedagogical approaches addressing Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). Various studies have identified teaching practices that can foster the Sustainable Development Competences (SDC) (Cavicchi, 2021; Lozano et al., 2017).
In addition to identifying teaching practices, this study allows us to clarify how one can integrate the topics of SD and SDG in different higher education training programmes (Lozano et al., 2015). We will confront these results with students’ perceptions of teaching practices aimed at fostering SD competences (Cavicchi, 2021).
More generally, our study addresses the problem of education for sustainable development in the context of higher education in France. How is it integrated in different programmes? Which forms can it take? We aim at identifying both the place the SD competences take in the higher education programmes and the existing teaching practices used by teachers. We also confront the results with the inputs from the international research.
Our hypothesis is that the SD takes a significant place in the content of the programmes that aim at developing competences in the domain of SD. Our second hypothesis is that university teachers have few teaching practices based on the principles of the transformative learning even if they consider them important.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedOur research ground is based in one of the French universities, namely, that of Strasbourg. Having a weak political engagement in implementing the SD education up to now, it has seen an ambitious roadmap proposed for the years to come.
For this exploratory study, we have targeted three programmes that explicitly demonstrate the intention of teaching SD. It gave us the target audience of 30 teachers and 150 students.
In order to verify our hypotheses, we have conducted a survey in January 2023 among our identified target audience. The survey had four objectives:
• to identify the SD topics that both teachers and students considered important to address and those really studied in practice;
• to identify the SD competences that both teachers and students considered important to be developed and those really developed in practice;
• to have a better vision of the pedagogical practices used by teachers to foster the development of the SD competences;
• to identify pedagogical practices based on the principles of the transformative learning and how these practices are perceived by students.
We made the choice of using the questionnaire model used for studying inclusive pedagogical practices in the framework of the Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory (ITSI) developed by Lombardi and Murray (2011). Its value and originality lies in the fact that it allows to compare the expressed values and intentions with their real application. The questions are thus organised as follows:
• I think it is important to… (Likert scale: Strongly disagree/Disagree/I did not think about it/Agree/Strongly agree)
• I used in my lesson… (Likert scale: Never/Sometimes/Most of the time/Always/I did not have the opportunity to do it)
We have also complemented our questionnaire with the items coming from other models used in scientific or institutional publications. What concerns the topics of SD education, we rely on the 17 objectives of the 2030 agenda (UNESCO, 2017, 2022). As for the competences, we used the reference system offered by Brundiers et al. (2021). We have also made a list of pedagogical practices described in the scientific literature (Cavicchi, 2021; Duguet & Morlaix, 2012; Lozano et al., 2017) and we proposed a classification of the responsible pedagogical practices.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWe have currently been analysing the collected data and could present the results during the ECER if our communication is accepted.
However, we can already discuss the contribution of our research in respect to scientific knowledge and methodological approach.
On the one hand, our study is a part of a larger existing research on the problem of SD education and it relies on the international scientific publications in the domain and the use of the tested methodologies that can facilitate the comparative analysis. On the other hand, we offer a new approach to questioning the problem that allows us to cross opinions with real practice of both teachers and students. This makes our work original.
This first exploratory study is the beginning of an ambitious research project. Following the first stage that was limited to a specifically targeted audience, we are extending our study in the coming months to other profiles and actors working in other contexts: large student population cohorts, Master students, other disciplines. Strasbourg University is a part of the European Grouping of Cross-border Cooperation (EGCC) “Eucor – European campus” that unites five universities of the Upper Rhine and the EPICUR Alliance with its eight universities. It, thus, has access to international partnership that can be involved in a study of the SD education on a larger scale.
On the local level, we will pursue a deeper study of teaching practices and their effects on student learning in the framework of the action research: which pedagogical practices do teachers prefer? How do these practices relate to the competence-based approach? Do they relate to the programme-based approach? What are the effects on the development of students’ competences?
ReferencesBarthes, A., & Alpe, Y. (2012). Les" éducations à", un changement de logique éducative? L’exemple de l’éducation au développement durable à l’université. Spirale-Revue de recherches en éducation, 50, 197‑209.
Brundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebrián, G., Cohen, M., Diaz, L., Doucette-Remington, S., Dripps, W., Habron, G., Harré, N., Jarchow, M., Losch, K., Michel, J., Mochizuki, Y., Rieckmann, M., Parnell, R., Walker, P., & Zint, M. (2021). Key competencies in sustainability in higher education—Toward an agreed-upon reference framework. Sustainability Science, 16(1), 13‑29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00838-2
Cavicchi, C. (2021). Higher Education and the Sustainable Knowledge Society : Investigating Students’ Perceptions of the Acquisition of Sustainable Development Competences. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.664505
Duguet, A., & Morlaix, S. (2012). Les pratiques pédagogiques des enseignants universitaires : Quelle variété pour quelle efficacité ? Questions vives recherches en éducation, Vol.6 n°18, 93‑110. https://doi.org/10.4000/questionsvives.1178
Jouzel, J. (2022). Sensibiliser et former aux enjeux de la transition écologique et du développement durable dans l’enseignement supérieur (p. 90). Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche. https://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/fr/remise-du-rapport-sensibiliser-et-former-aux-enjeux-de-la-transition-ecologique-et-du-developpement-83903
Lombardi, A., & Murray, C. (2011). Measuring university faculty attitudes toward disability : Willingness to accommodate and adopt Universal Design principles. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 34(1), 43‑56.
Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., & Scarff Seatter, C. (2015). Teaching organisational change management for sustainability : Designing and delivering a course at the University of Leeds to better prepare future sustainability change agents. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 205‑215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.031
Lozano, R., Merrill, M. Y., Sammalisto, K., Ceulemans, K., & Lozano, F. J. (2017). Connecting Competences and Pedagogical Approaches for Sustainable Development in Higher Education : A Literature Review and Framework Proposal. Sustainability, 9(10), Art. 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101889
UNESCO (2017). L’éducation en vue des objectifs de développement durable objectifs d’apprentissage. UNESCO.
UNESCO (2022). Knowledge-driven actions : Transforming higher education for global sustainability.
|
