Conference Agenda

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?