Conference Agenda

The XXI century waked up with the acknowledgment that University institutions needed a major change both for loosing the monopoly on knowledge and the ability to guarantee of employability (Carnoy & Castells, 2001). It has been argued that this requires a review of meaning of University as an institution of creation and transmission of knowledge in our concrete socio-historical moment (Manzano-Arrondo, 2011).

The stress of the third decade of the XXI century falls into the ecosocial crisis. If we analyze the role that University has Historically played as an institution of science and specialist training, we can see a twofold part, which we should analyze to glimpse our following path.

From one side, it is obvious that our understanding of climate change, loss of biodiversity and other phenomena of ecosocial crisis is dependent of science. Aside, the technological, political and cultural strategies to deal with these problems are also reliant on science and the science-informed professionals.

Nevertheless, it has also been argued that science has generally agreed with a scope of progress that identifies it with continuous unlimited growth of wealth and material comfort, which is consensually identified as the root of ecological progress (Taibo, 2020). The historical framework in the ethics of productivity has entailed that western science has contributed to exceeding the natural limits of the planet, both by helping the effectiveness of technology that allows predator and (neo)colonial projects, and by releasing to the job market specialized workers with no reflection on sustainability (García-Romero and Salido-Herba 2022).

This has been amplified by the fact that University has contributed to de-legitimize any other epistemological paradigm different from positivist western science. Southern epistemologies, that usually focus more on sustainability in community-territory relation, have been silenced. Also, erasing the possibility of using the historically transmitted knowledge about the managing of territories of peripheral societies (Acciardi, 2020). Finally, the de-legitimization of knowledge of peripheral populations contribute to their de-humanization, allowing processes of colonization with the entailed damage to territory (Paraskeva, 2020).

In this scenario, it is urgent that University, with the responsibility that carries, tries to “make piece with territory” and enters in dialogue (avoiding idealization) with other epistemologies, from which might learn sustainability both in the way of thinking in the human-territory relation and concrete management of land (Herrero, 2014). These ways of relation are being put into practice through use of local and ancestral knowledge specially in the global south, but also in rural communities around the world.

If we are facing systemic changes, we need to create processes of expansive learning (Engeström & Sanino 2001), and therefore promote the hybridization between University and these rural communities practicing social innovation (Bisquert & Meira, 2020; Quiroga et al, 2018).

We therefore constitute the structure of a Community of Practice (Wenger, 1998) named Community of Actions and Knowledge About Rural Environments (ComAK from now on) where we try to articulate and research about this epistemological dialogue and the systemic changes it entails. The ComAK shares the educational practices of Service-Learning and Community Founds of Knowledge and Identity as dual spaces (McMillan et al, 2016) where professors, students and activist can dialogue. Following them several loops of action-research are articulated in a flexible way as the objectives emerge in the community.

Here we share the main work of the three first loops, that addressed the research objectives of:

• Exploring the motives, opportunities and limitations that the collaboration between rural civil society and University.

• Identifying the hegemonic social representation of rural environments in the educational system.

• Analyzing the impact of the participation in hybrid educational practices in students´ identity path.

The study of sustainability transitions (STs) has been a flourishing field for some years now in the wider realm of sustainability research. Here, 'learning' has been identified and posited as an important factor for a successful transitions (van Mierlo et al., 2020). However, this attention has also been critiqued for lacking conceptual clarity on what is meant with 'learning' and a lack of empirical studies to evidence "that, what and how people are learning in practices striving for STs" (Van Poeck et al., 2020, p.303). To open up this black-box of learning, methodologies based upon Dewey (1934)'s transactional pragmatist philosophy (Van Poeck & Östman, 2022) have been elaborated. In particular these transactional approaches allow for the in action study of how people create educational settings and learn in concrete sustainability practices (Plummer & Van Poeck, 2021; Van Poeck & Östman, 2021). Particularly, the transactional model of learning (Östman et al., 2019) describes how the disturbance of a habit may trigger an inquiry to re-establish, i.e. ‘learn’, a functional habit. In so doing, the model enables us not only to investigate what (habits) get learned, but also scrutinise how the process of disturbance and inquiry led to this particular outcome.

The most recent research agenda for transition studies (Köhler et al., 2019), mentions so-called 'place-specific factors' as another important aspect in the unfolding of STs. However, simply identifying that there exist place-specific differences doesn't tell us why and how places and their specificity come to matter in transitions (Hansen & Coenen, 2015). Furthermore, Köhler et al. suggest future research to explore urban transitions and transitions in developing countries. This has been criticised by Binz et al. (2020) who fear that this agenda reduces the geography of transitions into diversifying the locations of empirical settings without delving into the intricacies of how place-specificity is made to matter. To go beyond such a static conception of place, geographers have proposed to work with theories of 'place-making' (Murphy, 2015; Håkansson, 2018; Lai, 2023). Herein places are thought to be continually and relationally reproduced through 'place-frames', which are partial representations of what a place is, ought to or can be (ibid.). Most commonly, these place-frames are thought to be constructed around the place aspects found in Agnew's (1987) widely accepted definition of place as consisting of a location (i), a locale (ii) and a sense of place (iii). Places need to be located, in either an absolute (i.e. coordinates) or relative sense (e.g. near the border) (i). They are constituted by materially, bounded objects (e.g. trees, houses, a highway) (ii). And they are sensorily available through the meanings we have attached, either personally or mediately to them (iii) (Murphy, 2015).

Similarly as in the case of learning, many of these place-framing processes remain black-boxed and require further inquiry into "how place-frames initially come into being, how processes of place-making unfold over time, and how, for example, the changing materiality of places matter" (Håkansson, 2018, p.36). A transactional approach serves a purpose here as it enables the study of place-framing in action. By reconstructing and repurposing transactional methods and the model of learning (Östman et al., 2019), this paper investigates how place-frames get disturbed and how collective inquiries may lead to their reconstruction. In other words, a transactional methodology allows us to observe learning and change in action. We use it to address the following questions:

• what types of place-frames exist in transitions?
• how do these place-frames co-evolve with a transition’s unfolding?
• how do collective learning patterns and place-framing mutually influence each other?

University is considered as a social institution, highlighting its role in promoting sustainable development, improving quality of life, and advancing human rights while reducing inequality. The full engagement of students, faculty, staff, local communities, and external partners is necessary to meet the expectations associated with university social responsibility (Vasilescua et al., 2010). Through collective efforts, universities can contribute effectively to building a sustainable future and ensuring the well-being and dignity of individuals. The concept of social responsibility has gained increasing significance globally, including within the United Nations, as it relates to discussions on competitiveness, sustainability, and the impact of globalisation.

In 2015, the United Nations Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), divided into three categories: social, environmental and economic sustainability. These goals encompass various aspects of sustainability, focusing on people well-being quality education, gender equality, work and economic growth, ecosystems, healthcare and others. This categorisation helps to address a wide range of challenges and promotes a holistic approach to sustainable development (Suryanto et al., 2021). Achieving the SDGs requires collaboration among governments, civil society, businesses, and academia to bring about meaningful and long-lasting change (Filho, 2023).

In achieving the SDGs, universities, being a part of the education sector, plays a crucial role. They partake in advancing the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by serving as hubs for knowledge creation, innovation, and critical thinking. Through integrating the SDGs into their teaching, research, and campus operations, universities inspire and equip students to be agents of change. They also contribute through partnerships and engagement with local communities and industries to drive sustainable development practices. Universities equip the next generation with skills and knowledge to address sustainability challenges and lead by example. Some researchers stick to the fact that, for effective contribution, universities should fully commit to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Junior et al., 2019) to maximize their impact on the SDGs. This means integrating the SDGs into their curriculum and research, as well as aligning their campus operations and policies with sustainable practices.

University’s charters of social responsibility are essential guidelines that shape the conduct and activities of educational institutions. These charters serve as a compass, directing universities to manage their operations sensitively and responsibly while considering the impact on the environment and society. They aim to strike a balance between growth and sustainability, ensuring that universities contribute positively to their communities and the broader world.

This study focuses on the significance of university charters of social responsibility and their implementation. By examining it, the research aims to understand how universities integrate and uphold the principles to promote ethical behaviour, support students and employees, engage with the community, protect the environment, and prioritise health and safety.

City universities emphasize social responsibility to a greater extent and implement the third mission through the interaction with local communities that is aimed at improving all spheres of life, solving current local and global challenges, and increasing the well-being of the region (Milyaeva et al., 2023).

Economic growth in most areas of the world has resulted in increased food availability. Our dietary patterns have changed toward increased intake of animal proteins and processed food bought in supermarkets, rich in sugars and saturated fat. Current food consumption patterns negatively affect people’s health and the environment.

Concerning health, studies found a correlation between eating home-cooked meals and better dietary quality(Tiwari et al., 2017). Per capita meat consumption is rising, and most meat is already processed before it reaches our shopping baskets (FAO, 2018). High meat consumption can increase the risk of certain chronic diseases (GBD, 2013). In Hungary, 25% of children are overweight or obese, and it is the highest rate in Europe 60% of adolescents reported not eating either fruits or vegetables every day (Inchley et al., 2020).

Concerning environmental issues, studies showed that greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are two times bigger than from plant-based foods (Xu et al., 2021), so meat production is one of the most significant ways humanity damages the environment (Ramankutty & Foley, 1999).

Dietary habits formed and fixed in childhood are challenging to change later on (Ábrahám & Csatordai, 2006). Education could play a crucial role in addressing these issues. Knowledge itself is rarely enough to change behaviour (Christiano & Neimand, 2017). Many studies investigate the effectiveness of different interventions (Kwasny, Dobernig, & Riefler, 2022) to reduce meat consumption. Evidence shows that increasing the visibility of vegetarian alternatives can nudge people to choose them more likely than meat options (Kurz, 2018; Wansink & Love, 2014; Garnett et al., 2019). However, our previous research (Varga et al., 2024) revealed that reducing meat consumption is the least favourable choice for Hungarians from several green lifestyle options. That is why we assumed that an indirect attempt to make plant-based meals more attractive rather than meat consumption less attractive could effectively change people’s attitudes and behaviours concerning meat consumption, a culturally deeply rooted element of the Hungarian diet.

Our main assumption is that skill interventions focusing on plant-based foods delivered at an appropriate age could tackle more than one face of this complex problem. The presented research aimed to assess whether an experiment for children aged 10-12 and their parents based on the participants’ experiences gained during two online cooking workshops with plant-based foods without a direct argument for meat reduction could change attitudes and behaviours towards a plant-based diet and meat consumption.

With the rapid digitalization of society, emotions are increasingly commodified, symbolized, and shared through digital practices. Furthermore, global climate change has led to the emergence of new psychological disorders and exacerbated pre-existing vulnerabilities in youth. Climate anxiety has been featured in a mental health crisis. The youth of today, especially those living in the global North, must grapple with the paradox of the societal demand for constant digital consumption and innovation, propelled by the market economy's unabated pursuit of growth, versus the moral imperative to foster planetary well-being, which requires transformative changes in energy and technology use. This paradox can exert a potent, sometimes paralyzing force. The affective toll is often obscured in the talks of cognitive load/dissonance and the popular well-being discourses in learning science such as grit and mindset. The disharmonies we may encounter when trying to integrate what we know and feel, what we think we should do, what we do, what we would want to do if we didn't have to worry about money, and what we would want to tell our kids or our future selves: how am I supposed to make sense of how to be in the world?

Against the backdrop of medicalizing or psychologizing climate emotions which can be understood as both an appropriate response to climate injustice and valuable for moral functioning, we argue for a greater educational emphasis on contemplative practices that nurture holistic human development, such as dialogue, improvisation, and deep listening. To this end, and informed by critical pedagogy and phenomenology, we repurposed an educational game designed for teaching critical thinking based on philosophy for children (P4C) pedagogy, incorporating role-play and adapting it to the needs and queries of adolescents and young adults. The broader goal of this learning activity is to foster a critical stance towards digital sustainability, and the intermediary goal is to let learners exercise their perspective-taking in an engaging and stimulating peer talk setting.

The design work is conducted as part of my doctoral thesis within the interdisciplinary learning sciences, with co-supervision in philosophy and affective science. The affective experiences that I investigate as part of my thesis are situated in the larger context of ecological, social, digital economic, and sustainable transitions across institutions in western Europe. By utilizing conceptual frameworks from disciplines that are relatively underrepresented in affective science, I propose to join two well-debated, non-essentialist theories of emotions — the constructed theory of emotions (Barrett, 2017) and the enactive, agency-based accounts (Varela et al, 1992, Colombetti, 2014) — in a framework of emotional capabilities development. We tentatively define having emotional capabilities as “being able and willing to maintain or improve relevant practices for one’s inner development in relationship with others and the world”.

During the design, I have either implicitly or explicitly borrowed from several frameworks, namely from Nussbaum’s capabilities approach for human development, critical pedagogy, contemplative practices, and recent attempts to integrate the goal of human flourishing in education and science (Nussbaum, 2009; Jordan et al., 2021; De Ruyter et al., 2020; Schumann et al., 2022). The practice framework is deliberately interventionist. It is derived from the design, observations, and reflections on a learning activity that embeds diverse values and reflective inquiry practices within an intricate mesh of character narratives that describe character actions, goals, and positions on (environmental, social, and economic) sustainability. In this presentation, I will report on the design, data analysis, and lessons learned from our first cycle of DBR, which raises questions regarding the content features and configurations that support the potential mediating processes involved in acquiring some of the transformative capacities, as described in Wamsler (2021)’s work.

In the rapidly growing literature on the university – sustainability nexus (Hallinger & Chatpinyakoop, 2019), a very diverse image of what a university should do or could do in relation to sustainability appears (Deleye, 2023). Based on a discourse analysis, Deleye states that the sustainable university, to be understood as “any notions of an existing or desirable future university that engages with sustainability”, is not unequivocally defined and addressed in the academic literature. Deleye identifies three dominant discourses on the sustainable university, implying that the idea of the sustainable university is presented and discussed in that literature in three overarching ways: (1) a sustainable university as higher education institution in which sustainability is embedded in an institutional way; (2) a sustainable university as a community that is engaged with sustainability issues; and (3) a sustainable university that is primarily sustainable through its green tech campus, the development of green technological innovations, and its relations with markets and industries.

In this explorative case study, we use this sustainable university discourses framework as a starting point. We operationalize it as an analytical model to study how the sustainable university is conceptualized and given shape in a concrete change practice on sustainability in higher education. In addressing this research question, we do two things. On the one hand, we create knowledge on what happens in a concrete change practice by approaching it as a setting in which the sustainable university is conceptualized and takes shape. On the other hand, by using the framework for an empirical study of a practice, we create knowledge on the framework’s methodological potential and develop new insights into what a sustainable university (practice) can be.

The case we study is a change practice in a Belgian university in which a working group consisting mainly of lecturers meets regularly to embed sustainability in the electromechanical engineering bachelor program. More specifically, those involved in the change practice redesign the curriculum through developing a sustainability teaching and learning track (a coherent thematic thread throughout the three years) and redesigning a cross-curricular project course. This means that we have data of change ‘in the making’ – i.e., as it is made through participants’ actions in a specific context. The dataset spans a period of eight years and includes observations, meeting notes, presentations, internal documents (e.g. vision texts), funding applications, and interviews, but also data on the actual redesigned course: student presentations, discussions between lecturers and students, and student papers.

The study builds on the discourse analysis on the sustainable university by Deleye (2023). Besides showing how the sustainable university is commonly conceptualized in the academic literature, taken together, these three discourses form a framework that can also function as an analytical model for empirically studying how the sustainable university is conceptualized and takes shape in concrete practices (Deleye, 2023). This use is explored in this study. This analytical model is used within a pragmatist transactional approach (Dewey & Bentley, 1949) in which the concept of privileging (Wertsch, 1993) serves as analytical lens. The explicit aim is to use the sustainable university discourses framework in a non-deductive way. This implies not forcing an external framework upon the data, thereby reducing the analysis to pigeonholing cases within predetermined frames, but developing a methodological approach that allows to trace in a nuanced and precise way how the sustainable university is conceptualized and takes shape in a way that opens up for empirical surprises.

Empowering the young generation to constructively cope with on-going socio-ecological sustainability challenges through education, is a focal point of attention in this time of crisis. This is however a complex task given that sustainability challenges, like for example climate change, are emotionally charged. Researchers acknowledge that many of us are emotionally affected by such challenges (e.g. Ojala, 2021; Ogunbode, 2022). This encompasses the experience of a range of emotions (e.g. anxiety, anger, and hope) which in turn affect people capacity to constructively cope with those threats.

The young generation, inheriting the escalating socio-ecological crisis, is emotionally affected too by such challenges. The interaction with the close environment and society at large, including also the participation in environmental and sustainability courses, are an example of factors that bring socio-ecological challenges very close to the heart of the younger generation (e.g. Hiser and Lynch, 2021; Ojala and Lakew, 2017; Ojala, 2007). Findings report that young adults experience an increasing emotional distress (Hickman, et al. 2021) and sense of disempowerment in their life also in connection to their educational encounters with sustainability challenges and climate change (e.g. Jones & Davison, 2021). This suggests the relevance of considering the emotional dimension in educational processes of empowerment, as also highlighted elsewhere (Tassone, 2022).

However, in spite of those acknowledgments and reported insights, emotion-inclusive pedagogies that empower students to cope constructively with the on-going crisis in the face of emotional distress, are under-researched. Furthermore, educators are left with question marks about what are the emotional experiences of their students, and whether and how to channel them in a constructive and empowering way (e.g. Verlie et al., 2020). This challenge is exacerbated by the contemporary higher education teaching and learning system which is geared towards enhancing development of cognitive learning, while ignoring more subjective and (inter-)personal experiences (Ives et al., 2019), devaluing the emotional dimension or tending to dismiss it to philosophical matters.

In the attempt to take a first step towards illuminating those aspects, and with a focus on sustainability challenges related experiences of young adults studying in higher education, this exploratory study addresses two Research Questions (RQs):

(RQ1) what are experiences of emotional (dis) empowerment in relation to sustainability challenges?; and (RQ2) what pedagogical endeavors can help to cultivate a sense of emotional empowerment?

This study addresses those two questions by exploring the lived emotional experiences of 27 students, in a life science university in the Netherlands. The objective of this study is to inform, based on the insights generated through the exploration, the pedagogical endeavors of educators attempting to empower young adults studying in higher education in times of emotional distress.

Two conceptual lenses are guiding this study. Firstly, this study conceptualizes emotions as broad phenomena including feelings, affects, moods, and related mental states (e.g. Pihkala, 2022). Empowerment (and disempowerment) are regarded too as an emotion. Empowerment is thus approached in this study as a personal feeling or perception that one can (or cannot in case of disempowerment) constructively cope with sustainability challenges. Understanding emotion as a broad term encompassing such multiple phenomena is not new in environmental and climate research (e.g. Jones and Davison, 2021; Landmann, 2020). Secondly, this study takes a post-critical pedagogical approach (Hodgson et al. 2018). In line with post-critical pedagogy, this study considers and moves beyond a critique on the current (pedagogical) system, by exploring pedagogical ways to relate affirmatively and attentionally to the word as it stands through the cultivation of emotional empowerment.

Higher education institutions (HEIs) play a crucial role in advancing sustainable development within the knowledge society by training future leaders, experts, and educators, and conducting research on achieving a more sustainable world (e.g., Wals et al., 2016). The whole-institution approach (WIA) is recognized as vital for successful governance in sustainable development at HEIs (e.g., Holst, 2023). Developing a comprehensive concept for implementing sustainable development that integrates research, teaching, transfer, and operations is a complex yet rewarding challenge, capable of transforming entire institutions (Niedlich et al., 2020). In this context, the involvement, dialogue, and collaboration among stakeholders from various areas and sectors of the HEI are crucial (e.g., Leal Filho et al., 2019). Innovative approaches are required to promote WIA, and we see service learning (SL) as a promising yet underutilized format in this regard.

Service learning engages students in active, relevant, and collaborative learning processes, emphasizing both service and the associated learning (Bringle & Hatcher, 2000). In sustainability-oriented SL projects, students take responsibility for developing concepts or implementing projects for practice partners, instigating organizational changes toward sustainability and gaining knowledge and action skills through experiential learning processes (e.g., Schank et al., 2020).

While SL is increasingly recognized as a method of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) (e.g., Tejedor et al., 2019), it is often underexplored in the sustainable design of universities themselves (e.g., Johannisson & Hiete, 2021). Existing studies primarily focus on student learning outcomes, overlooking the concrete benefits and effects of SL for other stakeholders, such as community partners or society at large (Stöhr & Herzig, 2021). Consequently, the extent to which SL can be instrumental in realizing WIA at universities and fostering sustainable local/regional transformation remains a research gap.

In the "Service Learning and Sustainable Transformation at Universities" (Senatra) project, the University of Vechta, the University of Bremen, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, and the student organisation netzwerk n collaborate to address the overarching research question: "To what extent can the incorporation of service learning in university teaching contribute to an overall institutional sustainable transformation of universities?"

The project aims to: analyse the impact of SL on students' competence development in the ESD context, describe the success conditions of SL in the context of ESD, investigate the integration processes between science and practice, evaluate the contribution of SL projects to the sustainable transformation of higher education institutions, and research the role of SL projects in the transfer of sustainability practices and their contribution to regional sustainable transformation.

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 & Korfiatis, 2019; Darner, 2012). According to the Self Determination Theory (SDT) of motivation, people are rarely driven by only one type of motivation. Different goals, desires, and ideas inform us what we want and need. Thus, it is useful to think of motivation on a continuum ranging from “non-self-determined to self-determined.” (Ryan and Deci, 2020). At the left end of the spectrum, we have amotivation, in which an individual is completely non-autonomous, has no drive to speak of, and is struggling to have any of their needs met. In the middle, we have several levels of extrinsic motivation. One step to the right of amotivation is external regulation, in which motivation is exclusively external and regulated by compliance, conformity, and external rewards and punishments. The next level of extrinsic motivation is termed introjected regulation, in which the motivation is somewhat external and is driven by self-control, efforts to protect the ego, and internal rewards and punishments. In identified regulation, the motivation is somewhat internal and based on conscious values and that which is personally important to the individual. The final step of extrinsic motivation is integrated regulation, in which intrinsic sources and the desire to be self-aware are guiding an individual’s behavior. The right end of the continuum shows an individual entirely motivated by intrinsic sources. In intrinsic regulation, the individual is self-motivated and self-determined, and driven by interest, enjoyment, and the satisfaction inherent in the behavior or activity he or she is engaging in.

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).

Research on environmental motivation usually follows a quantitative approach (e.g. Darner 2009; Karaaslan et al. 2014; Cooke et al. 2016). One of the most well-known instruments is the MTES (motivation towards the environment scale) introduced by Pelletier et al. (1998). The MTES is a 24-item questionnaire that measures an individual’s motivation toward proenvironmental behaviours. Four items correspond to each of the six types of motivation, according to the seld-determination theory.

In the present research we studied changes in environmental motivation of a group of elementary school children participating in a schoolgarden project. We follewed a qualitative approach, which allowed us to depict finer differences in environmental motives than those predicted by the basic model of the Self-Determination Theory.

In the face of serious challenges such as the planetary and environmental crises, policymakers tend to identify schools and universities as key institutions. A typical response from institutions of higher education and schools has been to educate social or green “entrepreneurs” and “change agents” – individuals with “action competence” who can deliberate and hopefully solve complex problems related to sustainability. Although this approach seems suitable for certain topics and certain (academically inclined) groups of students, I argue that it cannot be a universal recipe for education in a rapidly changing world where all kinds of people need to live meaningful and arguably quite ordinary lives.

Similarly, current ambitions in Western educational theory and policy to “see” individual students and their needs is not always as liberating as one might expect. For while education is becoming more inclusive, more adapted to individual learning strategies, open to students’ active participation, personalised learning programmes etc., many students report a massive amount of stress related to schooling. Contemporary individualism is, in short, ambiguous, and its concept of freedom is abstract in the Hegelian sense (Honneth, 1996). On this background, framing questions related to the planetary crises in terms of individual actions, action competence, attitudes etc. could be a recipe for hopelessness, self-doubt and apathy.

Over the recent years a number of theorists have pointed out how meaningful connections to nature may ease the ailments of the overburdened subject (Fisher, 2013). Likewise, attention to and care for what we have in common, i.e., institutions and the social imaginaries they embody may provide meaning to social life. I am not referring here to common values, traditions, etc., but rather to practices and ways of being that primarily make sense as being-collective, including notions of society as a whole and institutions (Laval & Vergne, 2021). Attention to commonality, the paper argues, may be beneficial for individuals’ well-being and provide opportunities for political freedom. A trivial example is singing together as opposed to performing. Traditionally, not least in schools, singing together has foster community and identity, not as an instrument for something else (e.g., learning other skills), but enjoyable and valuable in and of itself.

In contemporary, non-sustainable societies collective arrangements and imaginaries arguably need to be elucidated theoretically and reorganized in practice. However, theorising commonality, institutions and social imaginaries may be difficult in contemporary educational theory. One example is how the individualist-psychological concept of learning has replaced terms such as study, knowledge, understanding, etc. Another example is theory that starkly opposes individuals and collectives, notably Gert Biesta’s opposition between socialisation (seen as rigid structures) and subjectification (breaking with or opposing those structures). ‘Subjectification’ as a non- or anti-social concept is unhelpful if we want to theorise different kinds of socialisation, including institutions and commonality.

Against individualist ontology, then, commonality does not mean that everyone should somehow be the same, i.e. elimination or disrespect for difference or individual freedom. Indeed, commonality can also be a form of instituted diversity, as when people are gathered around a table which at the same time unites and separates them, to use Arendt’s metaphor. What we have in common, as different individuals partaking in common practices, are institutions and the social meanings they embody. Elucidating these practices and institutions can open up more opportunities for common (political) action for young people. Indeed, commonality as discussed here is a potential resource for agency, reflexivity and freedom that is individual and collective at the same time (Author, 2023). This is a resource that will be much needed in the future (see, e.g., Orr, Stone & Barlow, 2005).

In order to delve into effective ways of imparting climate action education with an economic perspective, this paper employs a dual lens. Theoretical underpinnings are rooted in a radical political economy approach, aligning climate change with profit pursuit within the capitalist system (Bellamy Foster 2000; Marx, 2011). Pedagogically, the UNESCO Education 2030 Framework for Action guides the exploration, aspiring that by 2030, learners globally will possess the knowledge and skills to champion sustainable development (UNESCO, 2020). While laudable, these aspirations, emphasizing individual actions, risk neglecting deeper systemic roots of climate change. A radical political economy perspective becomes crucial, shifting the discourse from personal responsibility to the profit-driven dynamics of capitalism, wherein growth and accumulation are imperative for survival (Marx, 2011).

The present emphasis on personal responsibility often obscures major corporations' culpability for the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions, a concern echoed by climate activists and the Climate Justice Movement (Belamy Foster, 2010; Angus, 2016). This viewpoint extends beyond individual actions, challenging the system itself. The younger generation, exemplified by movements like Fridays for Future and the iconic Greta Thunberg, acknowledges this need for systemic change. Thunberg's call for global leaders to take responsibility rather than placing the burden on individual behavior reflects a growing sentiment among students, revealing a shared understanding that personal responsibility is an important start but an insufficient endpoint in environmental stewardship (Thunberg, 2019; Thunberg, 2022). The collaborative spirit between educators and these young activists is crucial in shaping effective climate education.

However, a UNESCO report reveals a stark reality – insufficient global commitment to climate education. Almost half of the reviewed countries lack climate change in their national curriculum frameworks. Despite the acknowledgment of its importance by 95% of surveyed teachers, only 23% feel equipped to comprehensively explain climate action (UNESCO, 2022). The consequences of this educational gap are reflected in the increasing eco-anxiety among the youth, as noted in the report.

Moreover, the report questions the quality of current climate change education, with 70% of surveyed youth unable to explain or having only a basic understanding of climate change. These findings underscore the urgency of reevaluating and enhancing the pedagogical approaches to climate education in schools (UNESCO, 2022).

The significance of teaching methodologies is evident, especially in disciplines like business studies and economics, where concepts risk inadvertently normalizing behaviors contributing to climate change. This paper argues, using a critical interpretation of common areas in the second-level curriculum across OECD countries, that climate action education should transcend personal responsibility.

The three key areas outlined in the curriculum involve students observing, evaluating, discussing, and analyzing real-life events to draw valid deductions and conclusions. They must also demonstrate an understanding of the origins and impacts of social, economic, and environmental phenomena, including the influence of organizations on human behavior and its subsequent impact on the environment. Additionally, students should develop the awareness, knowledge, skills, values, and motivation necessary to live sustainably (adapted from NCCA, 2016; OECD 2018; OECD, 2022).

In conclusion, this paper advocates for a comprehensive approach to climate action education, intertwining radical political economy perspectives with pedagogical frameworks like the UNESCO Education 2030 Framework for Action. By addressing the root causes of climate change within the capitalist system and enhancing the quality and focus of climate education in schools, we can foster a generation equipped to tackle the global challenge of climate change with both understanding and action.

Educating future citizens and equipping them to make informed decisions regarding contemporary social issues interconnected to science and technology has been a major focus in science education policies in Europe for over a decade (Hazelkorn, 2015). Moreover, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the United Nations, adopted by United Nations Member States in 2015, ensures that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development through education. Hence, this includes an Education for sustainable development (ESD) that “gives learners of all ages the knowledge, skills, values and agency to address interconnected global challenges including climate change, loss of biodiversity, unsustainable use of resources, and inequality. It empowers learners of all ages to make informed decisions and take individual and collective action to change society and care for the planet.” (UNESCO, 2023).

In addition, engaging learners with Environmental Socioscientific Issues (ESSI) (e.g. Social issues with conceptual or technological ties to science), associated to sustainability, has become a major focus for recent research in science education from various perspectives (Morin et al., 2017; Zeidler et al., 2019). Reasoning on Environmental Socioscientific issues encompass dealing with ill-structured open-ended environmental complex problems, embedded in uncertainties.

Moreover, studies that are focusing on promoting the argumentation discourse in the science classroom, including on socioscientific issues, have emanated from the perspectives of argumentation as a way to learn science and about science, but also from an interest in the students’ citizen education in a democratic society, which requires the participation in debates (Jiménez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2007).

However, encouraging classroom students’ dialogic argumentation practices and assessing it, during a decision-making in authentic SSI and in different cultural contexts, as students consider multiple perspectives from different sources, are still current topics in socioscientific issues science education research (Zeidler et al., 2019).

This research contributes to what is mentioned previously. It encourages both classroom students’ decision-making regarding an ESSI, which takes into account values, global and local dimensions and social, scientific and technical content-knowledge related to the issue, and argumentation practices. In particular, we focus in this paper on examining classroom high school students’ argumentation quality when making a decision regarding an environmental socioscientific authentic issue while considering multiple perspectives from different sources (Rached, 2018).

Our research question is: What is the students’ dialogic argumentation quality during a classroom decision-making on a socioscientific issue?

In this paper, we examine the product of the students’ dialogic argumentation, i.e. arguments. We take into account in our analyses the arguments core and to some extent, the argumentation dialogic features in which two or more speakers discourse with one another (Nielsen, 2013).

We designed and conducted the research in two specific contexts in France and Lebanon, with an experimental design-based research approach committed to the SSI and argumentation currents (Rached, 2015). In this paper, we present the data analyses from the French sample.

The need to develop student sustainability competencies has long been addressed internationally with the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [1]. Three overall focus points for the sustainable transition of education have been defined in the UNESCO’s new agenda ‘ESD for 2030’: transformative action, structural change, and technological futures [2]. The UNESCO definition of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) combines two complementary approaches ESD 1 and 2 [3]. ESD 1 addresses sustainability issues in the short term. ESD 2 is a more open educational approach that addresses less defined long-term societal future scenarios where goals and needs are less clearly defined and can be changing. ESD 2 is defined as education where students build the capacity to think critically about knowledge, test ideas, and explore dilemmas and contradictions in sustainable living [3]. The defined competencies and pedagogical approaches include action competencies [4], systemic thinking (thinking across disciplines and sectors), social awareness [5], collaboration, critical thinking, and integrated problem solving [3]. Despite sustainability competencies being defined internationally, research stresses that ESD is often not well rooted in the existing school system [6, 7]. It is therefore stressed as crucial to take teachers’ perspective and their everyday teaching practice into consideration when aiming at improving sustainability education in schools [8].

The current paper is part of a larger national research project titled ‘GreenEdTech: Green Transition of Education and educational TECHnology’. Over a period of four years the project will construct educational models and a digital learning space with the goal of implementing ESD into STEAM subjects in upper secondary school education in Denmark. Addressing the described challenge of rooting ESD in school practice is therefore central in the project. The current paper is a systematic review with focus on mapping literature on ESD and Environmental and Sustainability Education (ESE) integration in upper secondary education from 2018-2022. The study seeks to answer the following research question: How has ESD and ESE been implemented in upper secondary school? Through search and selection strategies, described in the method section, 70 eligible papers was identified and categorised in five categories (numbers in parenthesis indicates number of studies identified in each category): 1. Integration of ESE/ESD in a single formal school subjects (19/70), 2. Cross-disciplinary integration of ESD/ESE cross formal school subjects (18/70), 3. Development of new formal ESD/ESE educations, schools or approaches (14/70), 4. New informal OR cross formal and informal settings ESD/ESE education (8/70), 5. Technology-based spaces for ESD education (11/70).

We found several dominant themes across the different categories. Most frequent was themes with focus on students’ competences, curriculum development, and new types of assessments of ESD/ESE competences. The perspectives on these themes were however dependent on the focus of the category e.g. if the study focused on implementation of ESD/ESE in single subjects or across subjects, or on development of new subjects and schools. As an example, category 1. which included studies with focus on integrating ESD and ESE into single formal school subjects, focus was on development of new didactic models, syllabuses, and curricula for integration of ESD/ESE in a single formal school subject such as chemistry and geography. This both included studies with analysis of curriculum to understand potentials for integration of elements of ESD/ESE [see 9], and redesign of subjects to experiment with approaches to changing content or curricula of traditional subjects. One example of this was design and craft education where potentials for focusing on sustainable materials and design was pointed out [10].