30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
The Role of Regime Elements in Higher Education Change Practices
Maarten Deleye1, Katrien Van Poeck2, Leif Östman1
1Uppsala University, Sweden; 2Ghent University, Belgium
Presenting Author: Deleye, Maarten
In attempts and movements to foster a sustainability transition of higher education, there is an inherent ambiguous relation with the current configuration of higher education. On the one hand, the notion of transition implies a radical change of the current regime (i.e. a break away from how the system is currently configured). On the other hand, the current regime can also provide valuable resources and tools to foster more attention for sustainability. For example, many quality assurance frameworks contain opportunities to promote transformative learning for sustainable development (Janssens, Kuppens, Mulà, Staniskiene, & Zimmermann, 2022).
This ambiguity has been briefly addressed and explored in literature on sustainability in higher education in relation to elements of marketization and corporatization of contemporary higher education. Whereas some argue against “compromise, accommodation and incorporation”, stating that practitioners should be more “political in their contestations of institutional practices” (Blewitt, 2013, p. 61) others are more nuanced, pointing at risks, pitfalls and limitations, but also opportunities of using the current regime to instill a change towards a more sustainable university (see e.g. Bessant, 2015; Bessant & Robinson, 2019; Bessant, Robinson, & Ormerod, 2015; Deleye, Van Poeck, & Block, 2019; Maxey, 2009). Maxey (2009), discussing contemporary higher education primarily in terms of the corporate university, states that we should move “beyond a binary framing of sustainability vs. corporatisation” (p.440) and that the way this relationship between sustainability and corporatization is to take shape is ongoing and not yet fixed. Especially in practice this openness is the case, because practice is much more complex than any possible ideological contradictions between sustainability and the way contemporary higher education is structured might make appear (Bessant, 2017).
In this paper, we aim to nourish and further substantiate the scholarly debate on this topic by approaching it as an empirical question: We aim to create detailed empirical knowledge on how exactly this tension is dealt with in practice. We do this by studying how university practitioners in a concrete change practice at an engineering faculty of a Belgian university navigate characteristics of the way the university is structured at the moment. The aim is to provide insights into how such regime characteristics affect how the sustainable university is envisioned and worked out in practice, but also how in turn such change practices might affect (the role of) regime characteristics in turn. Zooming in on one concrete change practice in a case study allows us to not only complement the existing research with detailed empirical insights on the processes of change in relation to existing regime. Such knowledge is also, we would argue, necessary to build up in order to scientifically substantiate the design of change processes in higher education.
This translates into one research question:
How do those involved in a sustainable university change practice – individually and as a collective – negotiate (i.e. recognize, negotiate, use, accept, counter, transform…) the current HE regime.
The object of study (empirical object) is a change practice where professors, lecturers and administrators meet on a regular basis to make the education at their faculty more sustainable, while negotiating institutional expectations of the university.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedAnswering the research question requires the construction of a specific methodological framework, which we design out of a combination of Transactional Didactic Theory and the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) on sustainability transitions, in combination with the analytical method Practical Epistemology Analysis (PEA).
First of all, an analytical model and empirical input is needed to operationalize “the current regime” for analytical use. This has to be done not only in abstract and theoretical terms (i.e. what is a regime), but also specific to this context (i.e. what does this regime consist of). For this, the results of an earlier MLP analysis of sustainability in higher education in Flanders (Deleye et al., 2019) are used. The MLP is a middle-range theory that helps to better understand transitions of complex socio-technical systems (e.g. mobility, energy and agri-food systems) (Geels, 2011). The MLP analysis by Deleye, Van Poeck, and Block (2018) offers, among other things, a description of the Flemish HE regime through the identification of regime characteristics, lock-ins and internal contradictions of the regime, which provides us with an operationalization of the regime tailored to the specificity of this study.
Secondly, for an understanding of how these regime elements are negotiated in the change practice, we turn to transactional didactic theory (Östman, Van Poeck, & Öhman, 2019; Van Poeck & Östman, 2021). Central in this theory is the focus on the interplay (i.e. transaction) between the intrapersonal and elements of the environment (Östman et al., 2019). However, not all of these elements are included in the collective meaning-making as it unfolds, which brings us to the concept of Privileging. Privileging refers to the dynamic process of inclusion and exclusion of such elements (Wertsch, 1998). In this sense, the regime elements are conceptualized as transactional resources that are used or not used in the meaning-making of participants in change practices.
To analyze this privileging process, we combine document analysis and interviews with key participants with observations of the HE change practice. The latter are analyzed with PEA (Wickman & Östman, 2002) which allows to trace in conversations what is privileged, how this privileging steers the meaning-making taking place (Van Poeck, Vandenplas, & Östman, 2023) and, thus, how this affects the (envisioned) endpoint of the sustainability change practice. This allows us to empirically reveal how regime elements function as transactional resources in the collective decision making in HE change practices.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe main object of knowledge of the study is to see which and how elements of the contemporary higher education regime play a role (i.e. function as transactional resources) in sustainability change practices, and, in turn, how these practices affect this regime. Our analysis of which of the 21 regime characteristics identified by Deleye et al. (2019) actually play a role in sustainability change practices and how this exactly takes place reveals how those involved in such practices to embed sustainability navigate regime elements: avoid obstacles and lock-ins, use particular elements to their advantage etc.
Such an empirical analysis of what happens in practice sheds further light on the ambiguous relationship of transition movements and practices with the current regime configuration and moves the debate on this topic beyond principled discussions by approaching it as an empirical question. By showing how specific elements of the regime that have been cursed because of their neoliberal aura (e.g. by Blewitt (2013)) can prove to be fruitful and meaningful in practice, while elements and concepts that have been highlighted in recent literature as potential opportunities for change (e.g. quality assurance frameworks by Janssens et al. (2022)) can prove to be more of a burden than a blessing in evoking meaningful change, our focus on how practitioners deal with such elements will hopefully both muddle previous dichotomies and shed light on how to move on.
ReferencesBessant, S. E. F. (2015). The marketisation of English higher education and the sustainability agenda: contradictions, synergies, and the future of education for sustainable development. Education for Sustainable Development: Towards the Sustainable University, PedRIO paper 9, 19-21.
Bessant, S. E. F. (2017). Exploring the interface of marketisation and education for sustainable development in English higher education. (Doctor of Philosophy). Keele University,
Bessant, S. E. F., & Robinson, Z. P. (2019). Rating and rewarding higher education for sustainable development research within the marketised higher education context: experiences from English universities. Environmental Education Research, 25(4), 548-565. doi:10.1080/13504622.2018.1542488
Bessant, S. E. F., Robinson, Z. P., & Ormerod, R. M. (2015). Neoliberalism, new public management and the sustainable development agenda of higher education: history, contradictions and synergies. Environmental Education Research, 21(3), 417-432. doi:10.1080/13504622.2014.993933
Blewitt, J. (2013). EfS. Contesting the market model of higher education. In S. Sterling, L. Maxey, & H. Luna (Eds.), The Sustainable University: Progress and Prospects: Taylor & Francis Group.
Deleye, M., Van Poeck, K., & Block, T. (2018). Duurzaamheid binnen universiteiten en hogescholen : een multi-level perspectief op het Vlaamse Hogeronderwijssysteem: Brussels Departement Omgeving.
Deleye, M., Van Poeck, K., & Block, T. (2019). Lock-Ins and Opportunities for Sustainability Transition: A Multi-Level Analysis of the Flemish Higher Education System. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 20(7), 1109-1124. doi:10.1108/IJSHE-09-2018-0160
Janssens, L., Kuppens, T., Mulà, I., Staniskiene, E., & Zimmermann, A. B. (2022). Do European quality assurance frameworks support integration of transformative learning for sustainable development in higher education? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 23(8), 148-173. doi:10.1108/IJSHE-07-2021-0273
Maxey, L. (2009). Dancing on a double edged sword: sustainability within university corp. ACME an international e-journal for critical geographies, 8(3), 440-453.
Östman, L., Van Poeck, K., & Öhman, J. (2019). A transactional theory on sustainability learning. In K. Van Poeck, L. Östman, & J. Öhman (Eds.), Sustainable Development teaching (pp. 127-139). New York: Routledge.
Van Poeck, K., & Östman, L. (2021). Learning to find a way out of non-sustainable systems. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 39, 155-172. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.04.001
Van Poeck, K., Vandenplas, E., & Östman, L. (2023). Teaching action-oriented knowledge on sustainability issues. Environmental Education Research, 1-26. doi:10.1080/13504622.2023.2167939
Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as Action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wickman, P.-O., & Östman, L. (2002). Learning as Discourse Change: A Sociocultural Mechanism. Science Education, 86(5), 601-623. doi:doi:10.1002/sce.10036
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
Primary School Teachers’ Views and Teaching of Critical Thinking: Implications for Sustainability Education
Teresa Berglund1, Ragnhild Lyngved Staberg2, Maren Skjelstad Fredagsvik2, Eldri Scheie3, Eli Munkebye2, Niklas Gericke1,2
1Karlstad university, Sweden; 2Norwegian University of Science and Technology; 3Norwegian Centre for Science Education
Presenting Author: Berglund, Teresa
Critical thinking (CT) has been emphasized as a key competence in education, and one of the most central competences to promote in sustainability education (SE) (EU Commission, 2016; Vare & Scott, 2007). CT is regarded an essential competence to be able to contribute to a sustainable society (Rieckmann, 2017), and considered a vital part in building up students’ action competence for sustainability (Schnack, 1998). In 2007, Vare & Scott pointed to the need to strengthen the focus on CT in SE, and CT as an area of development in education is yet still emphasized (Munkebye & Gericke, 2022; Frønes & Jensen, 2020). Studies have shown that teachers consider CT to be a central aspect of SE, however, there is a need for professional development to further teachers’ abilities to teach CT generally (Hasslöf & Malmberg, 2015; Frønes & Jensen, 2020), and specifically in relation to complex sustainability issues (Munkebye & Gericke, 2022).
CT has been defined in varying ways over time, however, there is a broad consensus that CT includes skills and dispositions (Lai, 2011; Facione, 1990). Skills concern elements such as e.g. analyzing, evaluating and problem-solving, and dispositions include e.g. fairmindedness, openmindedness and desire to be well informed (e.g. Lai, 2011, Facione, 1990). It is also argued that developing those elements is not sufficient; being a critical thinker also includes the concept of criticality, i.e. to exert CT in situations that call for it (Davies & Barnett, 2015). This is of importance when dealing with complex sustainability issues, which brings important implications for SE. Moreover, skills include cognitive components whereas dispositions generally are associated with the affective domain (Facione, 1990). Including dispositions may be important for developing CT that includes ethical considerations.
Sustainability issues are characterized by great complexity and often great uncertainty (Block et al. 2019). To find solutions that simultaneously benefit the environmental, social and economic dimensions that sustainability issues entail are often difficult (Öhman & Öhman, 2012). Vare & Scott (2007) emphasize the need to include activities that allow students to explore the contradictions inherited in sustainability issues. This makes sustainability a fruitful learning context for the development of CT, and equally important, CT becomes one important learning outcome of SE. A large-scale study from Sweden showed that students who experienced teaching that focuses on a multitude of perspectives and critical approaches to these also display a higher level of actions that promote sustainability (Boeve-de Pauw et al., 2015).
Several studies have shown that teachers often pursue an environmental perspective of sustainability, which implies a risk that the complexity is lost (Sund & Gericke, 2020; Borg et al. 2014). The opportunities for developing CT in SE might then be reduced. The study by Munkebye & Gericke (2022) indicated that teachers in Norwegian primary school associate CT to SE. However, both affective elements and interdisciplinary strategies were excluded from their teaching. Possibly, there is a risk that CT is taught without inclusion of ethical perspectives. Studies have found that teachers recognize the importance of CT, but many lack deeper understanding of what CT comprises and they often feel unprepared to teach it (Schulz & FitzPatric, 2016).
Many studies on competences in relation to SE are carried out within higher education. Against this background, the present study aims to identify what skills and dispositions primary school teachers relate to when they reflect on CT. The research is conducted within the CriThiSE-project, which aims to develop teaching of CT within SE. The research questions are:
- How do primary school teachers perceive the concept of CT?
- How do primary school teachers perceive CT in relation to their teaching?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe data for this qualitative study were obtained through two different sources; written reflection notes (N = 65) and interviews with focus groups of Norwegian and Swedish teachers (N = 69). We used purposive sampling to interview 19 focus groups of teachers in grades 5-9 in Norway and grades 4-6 in Sweden who teach various subjects to students of ages 10-13.
In advance of the focus group interviews, teachers were asked to reflect in written form on the question “What do you associate with critical thinking?). Before the interviews took place, all participants had consented to audio-recording, which was later on transcribed verbatim. In the interviews, the teachers were grouped based on which level and grade they were teaching. Thus, they represented a mix of different subjects within each group. A semi-structured interview guide was developed in advance of the interviews that made it possible to follow up responses to encourage participants to elaborate on their answers or reply to other’s comments. During the interviews, which lasted up to 1h, the teachers were asked to reflect upon what CT is and if and how CT is included in their teaching.
The data were analyzed by using thematic analysis as described by Braun & Clarke (2006). We applied an inductive approach to identify patterns across the data and at the same time, enable a theoretically grounded interpretation. During the first step, data were read several times and notes were made based on the contents in the teachers’ utterances and written reflections. In the next step, the data were coded inductively and independently by the first five authors, which generated a diversity of different codes. The codes were then reviewed and discussed, in order to identify similarities and differences. Coding was performed at both semantic and latent level (Braun & Clarke, 2006), in order to identify understandings of CT that were implicit in the teachers’ utterances. Since CT is generally defined based on skills and dispositions, and since our coding appeared to fit well into these categories, we decided to use these as main categories. The final step was to make joint decisions on what the main themes were and how to label them according to their meaning. This was made in an iterative way, several times returning to the interview transcripts for checking for example in what context something was expressed, to secure accuracy and credibility throughout the whole process.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn this stage, we present early findings. By the time of the ECER2023 conference, we will be able to present more detailed results.
Our findings indicate that teachers emphasize skills more than dispositions. Concerning CT in general, 17 codes for skills and 18 codes for dispositions were identified. The most emphasized skills were: pursue source criticism, ask questions, see an issue from different perspectives, argue, reflect, evaluate and discuss. The dispositions that were emphasized most were: be open-minded, do not believe in everything you hear, be brave, be investigative and be independent.
Turning to the teachers’ perception of CT in association with their teaching, we identified 13 codes for skills and 6 codes for dispositions. The mostly emphasized skills were: ask questions, pursue source criticism and discuss. The mostly emphasized dispositions were: be open-minded, be independent, do not believe in everything you hear, use common sense, be thorough, be critical to sources. To be open-minded and independent were the two that occurred most.
We see similarities between the teachers’ view of CT in general and CT in relation to teaching when it comes to skills. In both cases, pursue source criticism, see an issue from different perspectives and ask questions are commonly occurring. In the context of teaching, the skills pursue source criticism, argue, discuss, ask questions, self-reflection and thinking about consequences are more commonly occurring compared to their descriptions of CT in general. Dispositions were mostly occurring in their general perception of CT. However, be independent and be critical to sources are more common in association with teaching, and open-minded is about equally emphasized in both contexts. The results concerning skills and dispositions of CT will be discussed in terms of implications for SE.
ReferencesBoeve-de Pauw, J., Gericke, N., Olsson, D., & Berglund, T. (2015). The effectiveness of education for sustainable development. Sustainability, 7(11), 15693-15717.
Borg, C., Gericke, N., Höglund, H. O., & Bergman, E. (2014). Subject-and experience-bound differences in teachers’ conceptual understanding of sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 20(4), 526-551.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Davies, M., & Barnett, R. (Eds.). (2015). The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. Springer.
EU Commission. (2016). A new skills agenda for Europe: Working together to strengthen human capital, employability and competitiveness. Brussel: European Commission. Accessed 25 January, 2023, https://community.oecd.org/docs/DOC-131502
Facione, P. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (The Delphi Report). The California Academic Press.
Frønes, T. S., & Jensen, F. (2020). Chapter 1. Introduksjon: Like muligheter til god leseforståelse? 20 år med lesing i PISA. Universitetsforlaget.
Hasslöf, H., & Malmberg, C. (2015). Critical thinking as room for subjectification in Education for Sustainable Development. Environmental Education Research, 21(2), 239-255.
Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson's Research Reports, 6(1), 40-41.
Munkebye, E., & Gericke, N. (2022). Primary School Teachers’ Understanding of Critical Thinking in the Context of Education for Sustainable Development. In Critical Thinking in Biology and Environmental Education (pp. 249-266). Springer, Cham.
Öhman, M., & Öhman, J. (2012). Harmoni eller konflikt?–en fallstudie av meningsinnehållet i utbildning för hållbar utveckling." Harmony or conflict?–A case study of the conceptual meaning of education for sustainable development". Nordic Studies in Science Education, 8(1), 59-72.
Rieckmann, M. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. UNESCO publishing.
Schnack, K. (1998). Handlekompetence. Pædagogiske teorier. København: Billesøe & Baltzer.
Schulz, H. W., & FitzPatrick, B. (2016). Teachers’ understandings of critical and higher order thinking and what this means for their teaching and assessments. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 62(1), 61-86.
Sund, P., & Gericke, N. (2020). Teaching contributions from secondary school subject areas to education for sustainable development–a comparative study of science, social science and language teachers. Environmental Education Research, 26(6), 772-794.
Vare, P., & Scott, W. (2007). Learning for a change: Exploring the relationship between education and sustainable development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 1(2), 191-198.
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
Inspiring Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in Universities – The Importance of Professional Development for Higher Education Staff
Patrick Baughan
The University of Law, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Baughan, Patrick
This paper has its origins in a forthcoming book chapter (tentatively entitled ‘Professional development for staff for inspiring ESD’) which will form part of a new edited text about Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in international higher education that, subject to final confirmation with the academic publisher, will be published in 2024. Taken as a whole, the handbook will discuss perspectives on and practices for ESD in universities, examining how ESD can be embedded in all disciplines and departments by way of a ‘whole university approach’. Its chapters will address issues including (but not limited to): what ESD ‘is and means’; interdisciplinarity and staff engagement; whole institution approaches to ESD; ESD in the curriculum; assessment for ESD; leadership and governance; and, support for and evaluation of ESD initiatives.
My own paper will be based on my chapter contribution to this book. The key premise of the paper is: if higher education is to promote and innovate in sustainability, and our aim is to develop authentic sustainable graduates through learning, teaching and the broader student experience, our staff also need to be ‘sustainability literate’ – and enabled, through their own expertise areas, to be advocates for sustainability. Thus, I will problematise and discuss the need for appropriate and diverse ESD-based professional development opportunities for staff in higher education, be they university leaders, researchers, or educators. Key questions are:
- What are the professional development needs of higher education staff, to enable those staff to embed sustainability in their own curricula, teaching and assessment, accounting also for their own diverse disciplinary backgrounds?
- Is professional development for ESD sufficiently catering for all staff? What different professional development needs might specific staff need in order to fulfil their roles in a sustainability-informed way?
- How can we be more inclusive and participatory in our staff development about sustainability, to ensure that all staff perspectives are considered, thereby intersecting equality, diversity and inclusivity (EDI) principles with the development of ESD in our universities?
It will be argued that sustainability is relevant to all staff, and that there needs to be better ‘joining up’ of professional development activities, enabling staff, students and other partners to collaborate in their institutions rather than operating in ‘sustainability silos’. Further, that our professional development about ESD needs to be informed by student perspectives and experiences, utilising, for example, appropriate student partnership models (Cook-Sather et al, 2014).
The work is supported by a range of literature (see sample reference list below) but will make particular reference to the UNESCO Sustainability Development Goals, as well as the (UK) ‘Education for Sustainable Development Guidance’ document (QAA and Advance HE, 2021).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study - and its subsequent arguments and recommendations - will be based on the following secondary approaches:
(a) Use of ESD and academic development literature, including literature on higher education leadership, EDI as applied to sustainability (and relevant critiques of current approaches) and relevant policy and guidance publications. Example studies are listed in the reference list below, but this will be developed ahead of the conference paper.
(b) Reflection on and application of my own professional experience in relevant sustainability initiatives using a suitable approach (Moon, 2005). What I am referring to here is my own work on sustainability at several universities, including student-based collaborations, and my own attempts to develop professional development initiatives (including challenges I encountered). Also used here is my own previous published research on the role of academic development / staff development departments in undertaking professional development for sustainability. Finally, I have been involved in sector body events (e.g. ‘Sustainability Here and Now’ - campaign) which have yielded valuable records.
(c) The use and application of case-study examples, where successful professional development initiatives have been introduced, usually in conjunction with students and / or other parties. How have these worked and what wider ‘good practice’ ideas can be taken from them that others can apply?
My paper will be international in scope, but leave time for delegates to contribute their own experiences and ideas.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOutcomes and recommendations are being developed, but provisional, summary points can be offered here. First, there are examples of innovative, impactful professional development activity, often in partnership with students, or involving enterprise initiatives, yet these are not sufficiently widespread. Elsewhere, professional development for ESD is sparse, bit-part and siloed; in some cases, questions remain over who is responsible or whether there is sufficient desire for it. My early outcomes also indicate a clear need for sustainability to involve ‘everybody’ in higher education, via opportunity and responsibility. These issues need to be considered in relation to leadership of ESD in higher education institutions: whilst in some cases, this is established, in others, leadership of ESD needs to be defined. The UNESCO SDGs can be used a key informant to help embed sustainability in every part of every institution, but they need to be used in conjunction with other frameworks, guidance and expertise. In sum, staff professional development for ESD should be an exciting and inclusive venture as opposed to another ‘add on’ that staff are mandated to undertake. But we need shared, innovative provision to make this happen.
ReferencesBarlett, P. and Chase, G. (2013). Sustainability in Higher Education; Stories and Strategies for Transformation. Massachusetts, MIT Press.
Barth, M., Michelsen, G., Rieckmann, M. and Thomas, I. (Eds.) (2015). Routledge Handbook of Higher Education for Sustainable Development. London, Routledge.
Baughan, P. (2015). Sustainability policy and sustainability in higher education curricula: the educational developer perspective. International Journal for Academic Development, 20, 4, 319-332.
Baughan, P. (Ed.) (2021). Voices of Sustainability Blog Collection, York, Advance HE.
Caradonna, J. (2016). Sustainability: A History. Oxford, University of Oxford.
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C. and Felten. P. (2014). Engaging Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty. CA, Jossey-Bass.
Drayson, R., Bone, E., Agombar, J. and Kemp, S. (2014). Student attitudes towards and skills for sustainable development. York, The Higher Education Academy/National Union of Students.
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C. and Felten, P. (2014). Engaging Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty. CA, Jossey-Bass
Hopkinson, P., Hughes, P. and Layer, G. (2008). Sustainable graduates: linking formal, informal and campus curricula to embed education for sustainable development in the student learning experience. Environmental Education Research, 14, 4, 435-454.
Kale, S. (2020) ‘We need to be heard’: the BAME climate activists who won’t be ignored. The Guardian, 9.3.20.
Moon, J. (2005), ‘Reflection in Learning and Professional Development: Theory and Practice’, London, Routledge.
National Union of Students (2018). Sustainability Skills Survey 2017-18.
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) & Advance HE (2021) Education for Sustainable Development Guidance, Gloucester, QAA.
Stough, T., Ceulemans, K., Lambrechts, W and Cappuyns, V. (2017). Assessing sustainability in higher education curricula: A critical reflection on validity issues. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4456 – 4466.
Tilbury, D. (2021) Embed sustainability in university teaching to save the planet. Times Higher Education, 31st October.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives. Paris, France.
Smith, A. and Clark, J. (2022) The Intellectual and Practical Alignment of ESD: From a philosophy of ‘the University’ via admin processes to assessment specifics. Webinar for Centre for Educational Development and Innovation, University of Glasgow, 31.1.21.
Winter, J. and Cotton, D. (2012a). Making the hidden curriculum visible: sustainability literacy in higher education. Environmental Education Research, 18, 6, 783-796.
Wood, B., Cornforth, S., Beals, F., Taylor, M. and Tallon, R. (2016). Sustainability champions? Academic identities and sustainability curricula in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17, 3, 342-360.
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
The Significance of Martin Buber’s Theoretical Underpinnings of Relational Pedagogy to the Integration of ESD Higher Education
James Musana
Paderborn University, Germany
Presenting Author: Musana, James
‘Leaving no one behind’ is the core and transformative promise of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This pledge underscores the significance of education for sustainable development. However, the challenges facing education systems and teachers continue to intensify. For instance, the teaching environment has increasing become heterogenous and multicultural, classrooms have become more diverse, offering educators and institutions both opportunities and challenges, (Al Musawi et al., 2022: 1; Popova et al., 2018: 11; Sarı & Yüce, 2020: 90; Pit-ten Cate et al., 2021: 1). With such a complex combination, maintaining a balance among equity, delivering a fair and excellent education to all, identifying and attending to individual learning needs of learners has made a teacher’s job extremely challenging, (Burns & Van Damme, 2018: 54). The diversified teaching environment also makes teachers struggle to create closeness in relation to the student, in relation to fellow staff, and in relation to knowledge domains and the social situations, (Ramdani et al., 2022: 157; Mengesha, 2022: 1). Sometimes, it creates also frustrations, disharmony and digression in education institutions because providing all students with the skills and competencies required to thrive in education system and beyond means being able to meet their diverse sets of needs, (Cornelissen et al., 2015: 1; Burns & Van Damme, 2018: 57). This raises therefore the question, what is the best way to ensure that all students can succeed both in and outside the educational institutions’ learning environment? Research on pedagogies in innovative learning environments indicate that a first step in better serving all students is to move away from the ideal of homogeneity to consideration of diverse needs of learners in learning and teaching context, (Burns & Van Damme, 2018: 53). In this regard, the importance of relationships, of connections and of care, within learning and teaching environment, have recently come to the fore mainly within higher education institutions as a means to think beyond an uncaring neoliberal, competitive and individualizing education system, (Gravett et al. (2021: 1). Relational pedagogies position meaningful relationships as fundamental to effective learning and teaching and explore ways of fostering connections, authenticity and responsiveness, (Gravett and Winstone 2020). This study focuses therefore on integration of ESD as a relational teaching and learning process. In this conceptualization, the study explores how the theoretical underpinnings of relational pedagogy based on Martin Buber’s understanding of the twofold attitude of human beings toward the world, could be used to recast teachers’ diverse relations and harnessed to integrate ESD in teaching and learning activities. Buber’s twofold dimensions are the I-Thou or I-It relation. According to Buber, the I-Thou is a relation of subject-to-subject, while I-It is a relation of subject-to-object, (Buber, 1937: 3). The twofold dimensions reveal a dialogue, meeting, encounter, and exchange that can exist between human and human or human and non-human entities, (Buber, 1937: 4; Guilherme & Morgan, 2009 566). For Buber, education takes place when there is a relation and without relation education cannot take place, (Biesta, 2012: 584). The research question is: what is the significance of Buber’s theoretical underpinnings of relational pedagogy to the integration of ESD in teaching and learning activities? In other words, how could ESD be integrated in teaching and learning activities in the light of Buber’s relational pedagogical assumptions?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study employed a qualitative research paradigm because this research paradigm enabled the researcher to investigate, explore and gather in-depth information through active engagement with the research participants in order to gain a deeper understanding of ways in which ESD could be integrated into teacher education within the context of the participants´ natural setting, lived experiences and processes, and also grasp the meaning the participants ascribed to their experiences, processes and views. Research data were collected from four teacher education institutions in Uganda. Data were collected from teacher educators in order to collect their views on how ESD could be integrated in a relational teaching and learning process in teaching and learning activities. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews, observation and document analysis. A purposive sampling technique was employed and a number of 24 teacher educators participated in the study. During data analysis, data were coded, emergent patterns identified, refined, aligned, and distinct thematic categories created. Research trustworthiness was based on five criteria, that is, credibility, dependability, transferability, confirmability and reflexivity. Research ethical considerations were followed judiciously.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings of the study revealed that Buber’s philosophical underpinnings of relational pedagogy could be applied by teachers in five dimensions. These dimensions are relational ways associated with teachers’ professional life. These relations are teacher-student, teacher-teacher, teacher’s teaching subject-other subjects, teacher-community engagement, and teacher-nature relationships. These dimensions indicate avenues in which the philosophical underpinnings of Buber’s relational pedagogy could aid teachers in enhancing their relationships and also integrating ESD in teaching and learning activities. The teacher-student relational dimension is at the core of the teaching and learning process because the way teachers relate with their learners has a lot of influence on the learning process and outcomes. The remaining four relations are also very important because they enrich and support the integration of ESD in teaching and learning activities. For instance, teachers’ relationship and cooperation with colleagues is very important. A teacher needs also to relate well with their fellow teachers so that through networking and cooperation they produce and share knowledge about ESD integration. Whereas interrelationships among academic disciplines foster ESD integration through transdisciplinary teaching and learning. Furthermore, teachers through community engagement not only fulfill their professional mandate but also get an opportunity to connect theory with practice. Finally, peaceful co-existence with nature is in itself a sustainability mechanism. Therefore, the teacher’s body of values in relation to nature influences their commitment to integrating sustainability issues in teaching and learning activities. In brief Buber’s relational pedagogy can be an indispensable instrument for enhancing teachers’ ability and improvement on their relationship with students, colleagues, nature, and the wider society.
ReferencesAl Musawi, A., Al-Ani, W., Amoozegar, A., & Al-Abri, K. (2022). Strategies for Attention to Diverse Education in Omani Society: Perceptions of Secondary School Students. Education Sciences, 12(6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12060398
Aspelin, J. (2012). Co-Existence and Co-Operation: The Two-Dimensional Conception of Education. Education, 1(1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.edu.20110101.02
Burns, T., & Van Damme, D. (2018). Education and Diversity: Challenges and Opportunties. The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2018 Diversity for Competitiveness, 53–59. https://gtcistudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/GTCI-2018-web.r1-1.pdf
Dunnett, C., & Jones, M. (2020). Guidance for Developing Relational Practice and Policy. 77. https://www.babcockldp.co.uk/babcock_l_d_p/Core-Downloads/Covid/Back-to-School/vlog5/Guidance-for-Developing-Relational-Practice-and-Policy.pdf
Gravett, K., Taylor, C. A., & Fairchild, N. (2021). Pedagogies of mattering: re-conceptualising relational pedagogies in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1989580
Hershkovitz, A. (2018). The student-teacher relationship in one-to-one computing classroom. Paginás de Educación, 11(1), 37–66. https://doi.org/10.22235/pe.v11i1.1553
I. Kaplan & M. B. Bista. (2022). Welcoming Diversity in the Learning Environment: Teachers’ Handbook for Inclusive Education. In วารสารวิชาการมหาวิทยาลัยอีสเทิร์นเอเชีย (Vol. 4, Issue 1). UNESCO, Paris France.
Lundberg, A., & Stigmar, M. (2022). University teachers’ shifting views of successful learning environments in the future. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2115127
Mengesha, N. D. (2022). Practices and Challenges of Diversity Management to Ensure Educational Equity in Some Selected Secondary Schools of Jimma Zone. 3(4), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.scidev.20220304.12
Pit-ten Cate, I. M., Rivas, S., & Busana, G. (2021). Increasing the Diversity of the Teacher Workforce: Socio-Political Challenges to Reducing Inequalities in Access to Teacher Education Programs. Frontiers in Education, 6(May), 1–10.
Popova, Z., Medda-windischer, R., & Jiménez-rosano, M. (2018). Handbook on Teaching in Diversity (Erasmus Schulbildung (ed.)).
Ramdani, Z., Amri, A., Hadiana, D., Warsihna, J., Anas, Z., & Susanti, S. (2022). Students Diversity and the Implementation of Adaptive Learning and Assessment. Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Conference of Psychology, Health, and Social Science (ICPHS 2021), 639(Icphs 2021), 157–161.
Sarı, M. H., & Yüce, E. (2020). Problems experienced in classrooms with students from different cultures. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 13(2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2020.130204
Vranješević, J. (2014). The main challenges in teacher education for diversity. Zbornik Instituta Za Pedagoska Istrazivanja, 46(2), 473–485. https://doi.org/10.2298/ZIPI1402473V
Walsh, Z., Böhme, J., & Wamsler, C. (2021). Towards a relational paradigm in sustainability research, practice, and education. Ambio, 50(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01322-y
West, S., Haider, L. J., Stålhammar, S., & Woroniecki, S. (2020). A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations. Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 304–325.
|
