30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
Making Connections: Authentic Learning in Teacher Education for Sustainability.
Chrysanthi Kadji
Frederick University, Cyprus
Presenting Author: Kadji, Chrysanthi
In the pursuit to better prepare the new generation of teachers to address sustainability education in their professional practice, Higher Education turns to outcome-oriented competence-based education (CBE) (Rieckmann, 2012). At the same time, education needs to be transformative and profoundly change our perspectives, beliefs, and behaviours through reflecting and questioning the interpretation of our surroundings (Bianchi 2020, p.25). Both CBE and Transformative education (TE) in the context of sustainability, are great challenges but at the same time, highly prioritized amongst Higher Education Institutions (HEI) in Europe. An emerging question is: How can HE best convey and learn sustainability competence in a way that will be transformative?
Living labs are spaces that can offer authentic learning. Apart from the interpretation of living labs as physical spaces - “sites where experiential learning takes place” (Favaloro, Ball and Lipschutz, 2019), living labs can also be viewed as non-physical spaces or frameworks that enable learning. These spaces demand real-life settings with multi-stakeholder participation, co-creation, active involvement of the users, and may follow a multi-method approach. Such contexts provide authentic learning experiences with real practical outcomes. Authentic learning is intrinsic to living labs, being a learning approach through which learners explore, discuss, and construct concepts and relationships meaningfully, in contexts and/or projects connected to real-world problems. It is student-centered and encourages students to take an active role in their learning, develop learner autonomy, and self-reflection in learning, and enable flexible learning pathways (Klemencic M., Pupinis M., Kyrdulyte G., 2020, p.29). Authentic learning is experiential learning that holds important attributes that facilitate the development of competences and create conditions for transformative learning.
The present work reports the outcomes of an empirical study concerning the collaboration of a university course on sustainability issues for undergraduate pre-school teachers (1st and 2nd year of studies), with a primary school and an environmental organization in a Living Lab framework that provided the context for authentic learning. The objective was to explore, how such experiences help build future educators’ self-efficacy and readiness to undertake their professional role and more specifically deliver sustainability education. The step-by-step methodology followed provided the university students with opportunities for reflection, collaboration, competences’ development, and meaningful learning and assessment.
Briefly, university students were trained to deliver a set of gamified activities on the sea turtle protection, to 6-year-old pupils. The process aimed at meeting the organisation’s need for delivering the activities to young children and obtaining feedback about the activities’ effectiveness and appropriateness; the schools’ need for enriching pupils’ learning experiences with non-formal education activities; and the university’s need for exposing future educators in out-of-the-box activities for sustainability and experiences that would enhance their self-efficacy and competences to deliver sustainability education. To allow for all the children to go through all the activities’ stations, the activities were offered twice (the first time to thirty children divided into five groups and the second time to twenty-six children divided into five groups).
The data were collected through self-reporting by the students in structured reflection handouts, a group interview, and a questionnaire. The outcomes, are not to be generalized as they concern a small group of students, but will help improve the living lab project experience in the future.
Outcomes highlight a strong engagement of the university students in the project and the development of a high sense of purpose and responsibility. Students reported a more effective collaboration amongst the group members, compared to other conventional university projects due to the shared responsibility despite the distribution of the work and commented that their experience enabled the development of specific sustainability competences.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe current study is an empirical study as it is based on observation and reporting of phenomena as directly experienced by the researcher. Primary data were collected by the students who participated in the living lab experience, through self-report in a structured reflection template before and after the experience, a group interview with the completion of the semester during the wrap up and closure of the course, and a questionnaire of close-ended questions.
The research question intended to be answered was: How does the living lab methodology, as an authentic, experiential, student-centered approach, support pre-school teacher students boost their self-efficacy and confidence in delivering sustainability education and developing sustainability competences.
The Living Lab methodology followed, consisted of the following steps:
(a) The process began with the university and organization communication, where the needs of the organization were identified and explored how they could be aligned with the objectives of the course and the students’ needs.
(b) The first contact of students with the organization followed, during which, the organisations’ needs were presented and the students’ potential contribution was analysed. The organization required volunteers to offer a series of gamified activities to school children aiming to raise young children’s awareness on the dangers that sea turtles encounter in our island and how we can protect them. Respectively, students can benefit from engaging in non-formal gamified teaching activities and gain unique professional experiences in real school settings with real children. During the meeting with the organization, students also received training about how to deliver the activities.
(c) The third step encouraged students to work in groups, carefully study the activities, reflect and analyse their expectations from the activities: e.g. what they expected the young pupils to learn, how they might react etc. The reflection prior to the implementation had to be submitted as part of the project.
(d) The school visit and delivery of the activities followed. Here each group of students was assigned with a group of children and was responsible for the delivery of the activities.
(e) Each student had to reflect and report on their experience with the children, analyse their ideas about the appropriateness of the activities, and consider any changes they deemed necessary for the activities’ improvement.
(f) Finally, the groups of students presented their feedback and analysed and explained their suggestions for changes in the activities to the collaborating organization.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsSeveral researchers report a gap between academic learning and professional praxis (Favaloro, Ball, Lipschutz 2019), the lack of the latter limiting the opportunities for skills and competences development or connecting academic knowledge with professional practice. In the case of sustainability, universities must identify ways to effectively integrate sustainability education into mainstream teaching practices and their learning priorities (Mula, Tilbury, Ryan, Maden, Dlouha, Mader, Benayas, Dlouhi, Alba, 2017) to better prepare future professionals to address sustainability challenges in their professional contexts.
This study explores the effectiveness of a Living Lab framework to develop sustainability competences and enhance the self-efficacy and professional readiness of undergraduate pre-school teacher-students in the early stages of their academic studies, in delivering sustainability education. It reflects a significant emphasis on experiential learning, allowing students to engage in real-world applications of their theoretical knowledge, thereby enhancing their professional skills and self-confidence.
We have to acknowledge that being small-scale, the study has important limitations and outcomes cannot be generalized. Nevertheless, it has served as a pilot for future research concerning the implementation of living labs methodology in our institution and has allowed us to derive valuable insights about the benefits emerging from experiential authentic learning approaches.
The context of an authentic learning experience, such as the living lab, is highly valuable in developing sustainability and general professional competences. Outcomes highlight that the living lab context created a strong active engagement of the university students in the project (Compagnucci, Spigarelli, Coelho, Duarte 2021), and developed a high sense of purpose and responsibility. Driven by this sense, students exercised genuine collaboration, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills and developed empathy and awareness concerning sea turtles and the dangers they face. A safe and supportive learning environment was also observed that allowed students to perform well despite their limited academic or teaching experience.
ReferencesBianchi G., (2020). Sustainability Competences. A systematic literature review. Publications office of the European Union, Joint Research Centre, European Commission. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9c1f897c-4598-11eb-b59f-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
Compagnucci L., Spigarelli F., Coelho J., Duarte C. (2021) Living Labs and user engagement for innovation and sustainability, Journal of Cleaner Production, V. 289, ISSN 0959-6526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125721., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262035767X)
European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Pupinis, M., Kirdulytė, G., Klemenčič, M. (2020). Mapping and analysis of student centred learning and teaching practices : usable knowledge to support more inclusive, high-quality higher education : analytical report, Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/67668
Favaloro T., Ball T., Lipschutz R. (2019). Mind the Gap! Developing the campus as a living lab for student experiential learning for sustainability. In Filho L. and Bardi U. (Eds), Sustainability on university campuses: Learning, skills building and best practices. World sustainability series, Springer, Switzerland.
Mulà, I., Tilbury, D., Ryan, A., Mader, M., Dlouhá, J., Mader, C., Benayas, J., Dlouhý, J. and Alba, D. (2017), "Catalysing Change in Higher Education for Sustainable Development: A review of professional development initiatives for university educators", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 798-820. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-03-2017-0043.
Rieckmann M. (2012). Future-oriented higher education: Which key competences should be fostered through university teaching and learning? Futures 44(2): 127-135.
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
Validating the Q-C3PST Questionnaire: A Tool for Evaluating Climate Change Competence in Preservice Teacher
Enzo Ferrari1,2, Elisabeth Barrat2, Andres Sandoval-Hernandez2, Camilo Ruiz1
1Salamanca University, Spain; 2Bath University
Presenting Author: Ferrari, Enzo
Abstract
Climate change threatens all Earth's species. Future educators must understand the significance of this issue and acquire the necessary skills to formulate efficient strategies. To achieve decarbonization in a short time, incorporating Climate Change Competence (C3) has been suggested. This competency aims to prepare individuals in formal education to address the global crisis effectively. This study assesses C3 using a modified questionnaire. Data was collected from 659 preservice teachers in Honduras and Spain. The analysis clearly identifies the three dimensions of competence and their subdimensions. We validated the Questionnaire of Climate Change Competence to Preservice Teachers (Q-C3PST) questionnaire for future teachers using a third-order model. This framework is essential for objectively assessing and improving this vital competence for addressing the global crisis through education.
INTRODUCTION
The IPCC (2019) declares climate change as the utmost significant global crisis, having profound implications for society, the economy, and the environment. Education plays a crucial role in enhancing the capacity of students, teachers, school communities, and organisations to comprehend and tackle these issues within the limited timeframe. Climate Change Education (ECC) assumes a vital role in facilitating this transformation(United Nations, 2016) as its core aim is to enhance individuals' awareness of the multifaceted origins, repercussions, and measures for mitigation and adaptation. Likewise, Education for Sustainable Development (EDS) seeks to integrate these subjects into the formal education system to promote the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). One of the key objectives of the ESD approach, as discussed by Buckler & Creech (2014), is to empower individuals to make informed and responsible decisions that have positive implications for themselves and others, both in the present and in the long term. The proposed holistic and interdisciplinary approach to problem-solving and decision-making by the ESD is essential for the promotion of active citizenship and civic engagement.
On the contrary, numerous studies in the literature establish that misconceptions surrounding actionable steps to combat Climate Change diminish the effectiveness of such efforts(Ikonomidis et al., 2012). Within this context, the introduction of Climate Change Competence (C3) by Fuertes et al. (2020) aims to enhance knowledge, skills, and attitudes within the formal education system. This initiative seeks to incorporate practical aspects of ECC, ESD, and scientific knowledge into school curricula. The introduction of this concept preceded that of Europe Green Competences (https://green-comp.eu/) by a small margin, and demonstrated numerous similarities. The C3 has the capability to facilitate the design of educational programs and courses, as well as the incorporation of this crucial element into existing curricula. In recognition of the crucial role played by C3, it is necessary to have assessment tools that can yield information regarding its development and facilitate targeted educational interventions. Considering the significant impact that future educators will have on climate change education, the development of an assessment tool to evaluate their C3 is imperative.
Objectives
This study aims to examine how the assessment tool C3 can be adapted for use with pre-service teachers (PSTs) and explore the self-perception of PSTs regarding a specific set of actions that are important for mitigating climate change within component C3.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMETHODOLOGY
To evaluate C3 in future teachers, a study design that incorporates cross-sectional and quantitative approaches was employed.
Participants
659 PSTs participated voluntarily and anonymously in the study. The sampling technique used is non-probabilistic for convenience. Males comprised 23.84% and females 67.83%. 46% were from Honduras, 54% were Spanish. 72% of PST types were elementary, with 28% being secondary. Age range of participants: 18-45, mean: 24.45.
The instrument
We modified the original Q-C3 for teachers to adapt it to PSTs. The instrument used was called Q-C3PST. It is a closed-ended Likert-scale questionnaire with 61 items in C3 elements. The knowledge dimension measuring interactions between the scientific veracity of climate change (CC)(Ferrari et al., 2022) and its 19 items was assessed with the response categories were: “False,” “Somewhat false,” “No sure”, “Somewhat true,” and “True”. Skills include 16 items and measure participants' engagement in CC mitigation activities like material consumption, food and diet, transport, and energy saving (Ferrari et al., 2022; Shi et al., 2016). The items were evaluated with five categories being 1 “Never” and 5 “Always”. Finally, the Attitude dimensions consisted of 29 items that determined the willingness to teach CC (Vukelić et al., 2022), actions collective on schools(Molthan-Hill et al., 2019), national policy support (Shi et al., 2016) and personal efficacy (Y. Liu et al., 2022) to action against CC and the concern (Shi et al., 2015) and hope (Y. Liu et al., 2022). The items used five categories being 1 "Totally disagree" and 5 "Totally agree".
Data collection and data analysis
We collected data for this research through an online questionnaire. Initially, descriptive data exploration was conducted for each item (mean, standard deviation, and item-factor correlation). We validate each element of C3 through CFA. Model fit of C3 was assessed based on a nonsignificant Chi-square and fit indices meeting the following predefined criteria: a comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) over .90, and a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of .08 or less. Cronbach's α estimated reliability. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) assessed convergent validity. We assess discriminant validity through of the Fornell & Larcker criterion. Lastly, we evaluate nomological validity. Additionally, it can be supported by analyzing C3 and an external construct (Motivation to teach CC). This last, was coded as 0 for "Without motivation" and 1 for "Motivation to teach CC".
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsMost items had r values between 0.43 and 0.94. Reliability was adequate with Cronbach's alpha > .7 for all C3 items. The items successfully determined all elements of C3. Additionally, all estimated loadings were significant and > .7. AVE was satisfactory (> .5). Model fit of C3 was assessed based on a nonsignificant Chi-square (χ2/df = 1.99) and fit indices(CFI, TLI and GFI) were over .90, and a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of .08 or less. The mean values were 4.13 (knowledge), 3.54 (skills), and 4.01 (attitude).
Discriminant validity was evaluated with Fornell & Larcker's criterion. The square roots of the AVEs exceeded the intercorrelation values.
With respect to nomological validity, previous research suggests positive relationships between knowledge, abilities, and attitudes toward CC (Higde et al., 2017; P. Liu et al., 2020; Tamar et al., 2021). Our results confirm a positive relationship between the sub-dimensions and dimensions of C3. In addition, we test the model’s external variable “motivation to teach CC” with the C3 elements. All elements of C3 had significant positive correlations with motivation to teach. The results are consistent with the literature (Vukelić et al., 2022). Therefore, the analyses of the correlations between the elements of our model and the analysis between these elements and the variable concern support the nomological validation of our model.
In summary, our findings provide empirical support for the reliability, validity, and utility of the Q-C3PST questionnaire in assessing Climate Change Competence among preservice teachers, emphasizing its potential as a valuable tool for evaluating and enhancing educators' preparedness to address the global crisis through education.
References•Buckler, C., & Creech, H. (2014). Shaping the Future We Want UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014) FINAL REPORT. http://www.unesco.org/open-access/
•Ferrari, E., Abad, F. M., & Ruiz, C. (2022). Examining the Relationship between the Dimensions of the Climate ‐ Change Competence (C3): Testing for Mediation and Moderation. Sustainability, 14(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031895
•Fuertes, M.-Á., Santiago, A., Corrochano, D., Delgado, L., Herrero-Teijón, P., Ballegeer, A. M., Ferrari-Lagos, E., Fernández, R., & Ruiz, C. (2020). Climate Change Education: A proposal of a Category-Based Tool for Curriculum Analysis to Achieve the Climate Competence. Education in the Knowledge Society, 21, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.14201/eks.21516
•Ikonomidis, S., Papanastasiou, D., Melas, D., & Avgoloupis, S. (2012). The Anthropogenic “Greenhouse Effect”: Greek Prospective Primary Teachers’ Ideas About Causes, Consequences and Cures. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 768–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9365-0
•IPCC. (2019). Framing and Context of the Report. In Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC).
•Liu, P., Teng, M., & Han, C. (2020). How does environmental knowledge translate into pro-environmental behaviors?: The mediating role of environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Science of the Total Environment, 728, 138126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138126
•Liu, Y., Song, Y., & Wang, X. (2022). Increasing Preservice Science Teachers’ Climate Change Knowledge, Hope, and Self-Efficacy in an Online Chemistry Course. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(7), 2465–2473. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00074
•Molthan-Hill, P., Worsfold, N., Nagy, G. J., Leal Filho, W., & Mifsud, M. (2019). Climate change education for universities: A conceptual framework from an international study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226, 1092–1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.053
•Shi, J., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2015). Public Perception of Climate Change: The Importance of Knowledge and Cultural Worldviews. Risk Analysis, 35(12), 2183–2201. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12406
•Shi, J., Visschers, V. H. M., Siegrist, M., & Arvai, J. (2016). Knowledge as a driver of public perceptions about climate change reassessed. Nature Climate Change, 6(8), 759–762. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2997
•Tamar, M., Wirawan, H., Arfah, T., & Putri, R. P. S. (2021). Predicting pro-environmental behaviours: the role of environmental values, attitudes and knowledge. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 32(2), 328–343. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-12-2019-0264
•United Nations. (2016, November). Education is key to addressing climate change | United Nations. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/climate-solutions/education-key-addressing-climate-change
•Vukelić, N., Rončević, N., & Toljan, S. (2022). Student Teachers’ Willingness to Act in the Climate Change Context. Social Sciences, 11(47), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11020047
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
“Sustainability is more than Saving Water” Engaging Situated Perspectives and Practices through a Whole Institution Process in University Teacher Education
Rachel Bowden, Maria Kondratjuk
TU Dresden, Germany
Presenting Author: Bowden, Rachel;
Kondratjuk, Maria
„Rethinking the purpose of education and the organization of learning has never been more urgent” (UNESCO 2015, p.10).
Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is fundamental to achieving all 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN, 2015 and UNESCO 2021) and the goals of the European Green Deal (CoE, 2022). In Germany, demands to include ESD in initial teacher education come ‘top-down’, through international, national and federal resolutions and ‘bottom-up’ from student teachers and serving teachers (Grund et al., 2019). As a result, ESD is being increasingly included in German universities at policy level (Holst et. al., 2022). However, beyond embedding ESD in university policies and curricula, much more work is needed to realize ESD in teaching and research, and in management, campus and transfer activities (ibid.). Indeed, systemic changes are needed to embed ESD as an integral part of institutional and pedagogical practices (Evans et al., 2017).
This paper describes the scientific process monitoring of the institutional sustainability process of the Centre of Teacher Education and Education Research (ZLSB) at TU Dresden University of Technology. A whole institution approach is a systemic approach to sustainability that engages diverse actors and their situated priorities, needs and resources and embed sustainable practices across an institution's operations, policies, and cultures (SMK, 2019). Whole institution processes are a vital part of implementing ESD in initial teacher education and across education systems because understandings and practices cannot solely be dictated from outside, but must also be re-contextualised by people and communities within and between particular contexts of practice (Kohl et al., 2022). Further, in order to foster socio-ecological transformation education must itself be transformed (UNESCO, 2021), including recognising and addressing the close correlation between formal education and socio-ecological injustices (Pirbahi-Illich et al., 2023; Orr, 2004). Sterling (2001) critiques sustainability education within a ‘mechanistic’ paradigm of education and society, where the focus is technical solutions to complicated problems. He argues for an ‘ecological’ approach, which includes ‘transformative learning’, or learning as sustainability, to enable emergent ways of seeing, thinking and acting in the world. This necessitates moving beyond established roles and discipline boundaries to engage questions of social and ecological justice and the imagination of alternative futures in relation to particular positionalities and contexts of practice (CRWR, 2023).
The study investigated sustainability and ESD from the perspectives of different individuals and teams at the ZLSB. In particular, we focused on identifying the priorities, resources and challenges towards implementing sustainability and ESD for individuals, teams and the a whole institution. The study aims to foster understanding and action within and between teams at the ZLSB, and further research-based understandings of whole institution approaches to sustainability and ESD.
This process is important, because the ZLSB is a potential ‘lever’ in the university, and within federal, national and European teacher education systems. With around 4,300 student teachers, TU Dresden is the largest provider of initial teacher education in Saxony, Germany. The ZLSB coordinates teacher education across the University, including managing timetables, practicum placements, examinations and side-entry into teaching programs; offering in-service training for teachers and teacher educators; conducting research; and coordinating projects around cross-cutting themes, such as internationalization, inclusion, digitality and ESD. As a result, the ZLSB has strong links with students and staff across the University, with the education Ministry, and with schools and other teacher education providers in Saxony, and internationally. The broad and diverse remit of the ZLSB, enables comparisons to be drawn between this particular case and that of other teacher education institutions in Germany and Europe.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedAs the main survey instrument, focus groups (Morgan, 1997) were used with different departmental groups of the ZLSB, such as the Student Office, the digitisation department, and seconded teachers. Focus groups are used for the evaluation and further development of products and services, for the evaluation of certain measures and their improvement, for the analysis of diversity of opinion and for acceptance analyses. The focus group method originated in market research in the 1920s. Later, the focus group interview (Merton, 1987) and group discussions were developed in cultural studies, which marked a development from market research to empirical social research. Today, there are various types of focus groups, which can be located somewhere between a conversation, workshop and group interview and can be defined as a form of survey in which communication processes are initiated by others in a group, which at least in some phases approximate a normal conversation in terms of their process and structure (cf. Loos et. al., 2012). What all forms have in common is that researchers see themselves "as agents of change in the field they are researching" (Schäffer, 2012: 349) and, in their role, provide moderating support, observe with restraint and steer focused and targeted interventions. „Any group discussion may be called a focus group as long as the researcher is actively encouraging of, and attentive to, the group interaction” (Barbour, 2007: 2).
Focus groups can therefore be categorized as responsive approaches to evaluation research, in which the "impact" (Barbour, 2007: 93) of participation in a focus group and the "debriefing" (ibid.: 95f) are part of the research process. These characteristics of focus groups distinguish the highly structured survey method, in which a developed guideline with questions is dealt with, from the equally established method of group discussion. Focus groups remain at the first level of meaning (cf. Freeman, 2013) and are well suited for educational research, resp. Teacher education research (Flores et. al., 1995) and to the analysis of organizational processes or structural analyses. In our case study, we also used vignettes as case descriptions that thematize dilemmatically exaggerated situations, such as current headlines from education policy as discussion starters.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn this paper, we present the whole institution sustainability process of the ZLSB in general and the results of the focus groups in detail with a critical reflection of our roles and the normative requirements of such an organizational development process. We highlight the importance of engaging with diverse actors, and their situated perspectives and priorities in relation to sustainability, as part of meaningful processes of implementation and change.
This qualitative study of situated perspectives and practices of sustainability and ESD at the ZLSB, illuminates convergences and particularities between different actors and contexts of practice, and the need to accompany 'top-down' sustainability strategies with opportunities for local level reflection, dialogue and action planning. Further, the focus groups reported on in this presentation provided a framework for reflection and dialogue around sustainability and ESD within departments of the ZLSB at Dresden University. Analysis of focus group data allowed for the identification of particular and cross-cutting priorities, needs and resources and supports individual, departmental and institutional action-planning towards the institutional implementation of sustainability and ESD.
In addition, focus group data and data gathered through other research activities allow for the documentation and analysis of the process as a whole. Ultimately, the research will generate a case study of the whole institution process at the ZLSB. This will be shared within TU Dresden, and across teacher education institutions in Germany and Europe through a series of publications, including a practitioner brochure on integrating ESD in initial teacher education to be published in 2024, conference papers and academic publications.
ReferencesBarbour, R. (2007). Doing Focus Groups
Brock, A. et. al. (2019). Quantitative Study in the National Monitoring – Survey of Teaching Staff. Executive Summary. Weltaktionsprogramme BNE.
Common Worlds Research Collective (CWRC) (2023). Learning to Become with the World: Education for Future Survival. In Hutchinson, Y. et. al. (eds) (2023), Decolonizing Education for Sustainable Futures. Bristol Studies in Comparative and International Education. Pp. 49-66
Council of the European Union (CoE) (2022) Council Recommendation on learning for the green transition and sustainable development 2022/C 243/01
Evans, N. et. al. (2017). Approaches to embedding sustainability in teacher education: A synthesis of the literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 405–417.
Flores, J. G. et. al. (1995). Using focus groups in educational research: Exploring teachers’ perspectives on educational change. Evaluation Review, 19, 84–101.
Freemann, M. (2013). Meaning Making and Understanding. in Focus Groups: Affirming Social and Hermeneutic Dialogue. Counterpoints, 354, 131–148.
Holst, J. et. al. (2022). Nachhaltigkeit und BNE im Hochschulsystem: Stärkung in Gesetzen und Zielvereinbarungen, ungenutzte Potentiale bei Curricula und der Selbstverwaltung. Kurzbericht des Nationalen Monitorings zur Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung (BNE).
Klein, J. T. (2017). Typologies of interdisciplinarity: The boundary work of definition. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (2nd ed.) (pp. 21–34).
Kohl, K. et. al. (2022). "A whole-institution approach towards sustainability: a crucial aspect of higher education’s individual and collective engagement with the SDGs and beyond", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 218-236.
Loos, P. et. al. (2012). Das Gruppendiskussionsverfahren in der Forschungspraxis. 2nd edition.
Merton, R. K. (1987). The focussed interview and focus group: Continuities and discontinuities. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 550–556.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (Second edition).
Pirbhai-Illich, F. et al. (2023). Decolonizing Educational Relationships: Practical Approaches for Higher and Teacher Education.
Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Kultus (SMK) (2019) Anregungen für Bildungsanbietende zum Umgang mit BNE-Qualitätsstandards. Umsetzung „Sächsische Landesstrategie Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung (BNE)“, Kapitel 9 „Qualitätssicherung“
Schäffer, B. (2012). Gruppendiskussionsverfahren und Focus Groups. In B. Schäffer & O. Dörner (Eds.), Handbuch Qualitative Erwachsenen- und Weiterbildungsforschung. (pp. 347–362)
Sterling, S. (2001). Sustainable Education: Re-Visioning Learning and Change (Schumacher Briefing, 6, Band 6)
United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. UN General Assembly Resolution 70/1.
UNESCO (2021). Reimagining our futures together: a new social contract for education. International Commission on the Futures of Education 188 pages
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
Bridging Sustainability Education Research and Practice. Exploring the Potential of Lesson Design Workshops
Leif Östman1, Katrien Van Poeck2, Melena Lidar3, Eva Lundqvist4
1Uppsala University; 2Gent University; 3Uppsala University; 4Uppsala University
Presenting Author: Van Poeck, Katrien
Many environmental and sustainability education (ESE) researchers have a strong commitment to improving ESE practice. Building capacities of educators to shape and implement high quality ESE is also an important policy objective. It has been put forward as a ‘priority action area’ in UNESCO’s Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in 2014 as well as its follow-up framework, the ESDfor2030 Roadmap (UNESCO 2020) that is currently informing international efforts to promote and improve teaching and learning about sustainability issues. This paper explores varied ways in which transdisciplinary collaboration between ESE researchers and teachers can contribute to this ambition. We discuss the potential and possible pitfalls of diverse existing approaches to bridging research and practice and propose a novel methodology, Lesson Design Workshops (LDW). This is an approach for cooperation between researchers and teachers that is focused on co-creating educational products (lesson plans and teaching materials) and holds potential to improve ESE practice by, simultaneously, designing high-quality lessons and building educators’ sustainability teaching capacities as well as improving the didactical models used in the co-creation. Through a case study of a LDW on fostering capabilities for argumentation about sustainability issues, we empirically explore these potentials.
Collaborative settings that aim to bridge educational theory and practice have taken shape in varied ways. In this paper, we discuss ‘Lesson studies’ (Duez 2018, Gordon 2019), ‘Learning studies’ (Marton and Booth 1997, Kullberg et al. 2019), ‘Design-based research’ (Anderson & Shattuck 2012), and ‘Didactical dialogue’ (Olin et al 2023). What these practices share, is that, in contrast to traditional in-service training, they are designed for collaboration and participation, considering teachers and their knowledge and experiences as valuable resources. Thus, they acknowledge crucial differences between research-based knowledge and professional knowledge (McIntyre 2005). According to Bates (Schön 2019) practitioners want solutions to their teaching problems, while researchers seek new knowledge. Thus, scientific knowledge is seen as not directly useful for teachers unless it is transformed and/or contextualised to the specific teaching practice.
The methodology of LDW shares these assumptions. Like the other abovementioned methodologies, LDW takes departure in a specific teaching challenge that needs further attention in order to improve students’ learning. It shares with Lesson studies its focus on lessons. Similar to Lesson studies and Didactic dialogue, the methodology does not see a collaboration on doing research as a means for theory-practice bridging. While LDW shares a focus on the transdisciplinary process with Didactic dialogue, the difference is that in LDW this dialogue is mainly used for co-creating educational products. Like Design-based research LDW are not connected to one theory but are theory neutral. What is unique about LDW, is its focus on transdisciplinary co-creation of educational products, i.e. lesson plans, as a mean for theory-practice bridging. These can be said to be one of teachers knowledge products (Runesson & Gustafsson, 2012). Sharing and refining them over time makes accumulation possible. Since lesson plans developed in LDW are a product of a hybridisation between scientific and professional knowledge, the theory-practice bridging becomes materialised in a product that is central in the profession of teaching and therefore is directly useful.
In this paper we explore how the specific characteristics of LDWs can contribute to bridging research and practice. We do not only address how it can improve lesson design and foster capacity building, but also pay attention to how also research models can benefit from such transdisciplinary collaboration. The focus of our investigation is on how didactic modelling (Hamza, Palm & Wickman, 2018) contributes to the hybridisation of scientific and practical knowledge.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWe present a case study on a LDW in engineering education focused on improving the quality of students’ argumentation about sustainability issues. Data are gathered through interviews, participatory observation, and document analysis. We conducted and analysed a series of 5 LDW meetings with a group of lecturers in electromechanical engineering in a Belgian University. These were organised on demand, as the teachers expressed challenges regarding how to (re)design their teaching practices in view of fostering students’ capabilities to develop high-quality argumentation on sustainability topics and how to evaluate their performance. In the LDW, we work with a didactic model inspired by Stephen Toulmin’s (1958) work on quality arguments and how it has been applied in didactic research (Rudsberg et al. 2013). Starting from a customisable evaluation rubric for assessing oral and written student work, a back-casting exercise results in the (re)design of lesson plans and teaching materials tailored to the participants’ teaching context.
Using transactional didactic theory (Östman et al. 2019a,b) as analytical models, we analyse whether and how the participants in the LDW were able to redesign their educational practices in a way that helped them to overcome the teaching challenges they were facing. That is, we investigate if and how the design of the LDWs (the tools and models used, the tasks performed, the facilitator’s interventions, etc.) helped them to overcome problematic situations. The analytical work is guided by the question how the ‘dramaturgy’ of the LDW setting (its ‘scripting’, ‘staging’, and ‘performance’ – Van Poeck and Östman 2022) affects the participants’ experimentation and reflection, as well as the educational products that result from that.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOur results show how the LDW methodology as a way of bridging research and practice can contribute to, both, improving lesson design and building capacity for sustainability teaching. We also shed light on vital conditions for that and possible pitfalls. Our analysis shows in a detailed way how the research-inspired didactical models (on argumentation) and didactical tools (e.g. assessment rubric) used in the LDW are vital for aiding participants ‘reflection-in-action’ (Schön 1991) and experimentation. The latter, resulting in a re-design of educational practice, can be understood as a form of ‘professional modelling’ (Schön 1991). We observed the re-design of student assignments and the content of lectures in a specific course, but also curriculum reform in the bachelor programme of which the course was part. We did also analyse the change of the didactical models used in the co-creation as part of professional modelling.
Building on the results of the exploratory case study, we discuss the potential of the LDW methodology for bridging theory and practice in comparison to ‘Lesson studies’ (Duez 2018, Gordon 2019), ‘Learning studies’ (Marton and Booth 1997, Kullberg et al. 2019), ‘Design-based research’ (Anderson & Shattuck 2012), and ‘Didactical dialogue’ (Olin et al 2019).
ReferencesAnderson. T. & Shattuck. J. (2012). Design-Based Research: A Decade of Progress in Education Research? Educational Researcher, 41, (1), 16–25.
UNESCO (2014). Roadmap for Implementing the Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1674unescoroadmap.pdf
UNESCO (2020). Education for sustainable development: a roadmap. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374802.locale=en
Duez, E. (2018). Global Applications of the Japanese ‟Lesson Study”. Teacher Education and Training Model. International Dialogues on Education, 5(1), 65-73
Gordon Győri J. (2019). Lesson and learning studies—An edifying story. Eur J Educ., 54, 167–174.
Hamza, K., Palm, O. & Wíckman, P-O (2018). Hybridization of practices in teacher–researcher collaboration European Educational Research Journal, Vol. 17(1), 170–18.
Kullberg, A., Vikström, A. & Runesson, U. (2019). Mechanisms enabling knowledge production in learning study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 2046-8253 DOI 10.1108/IJLLS-11-2018-0084
McIntyre, D. (2005). Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education 35(3), 357–382.
Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and Awareness. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.
Olin, A., Almqvist, J. & Hamza, K. (2023). To recognize oneself and others in teacher-researcher collaboration. Educational Action Research, 31(2), 248–264.
Östman, L., Van Poeck, K. & Öhman, J. (2019a). A transactional theory on sustainability learning. In: Van Poeck, K., Östman, L. & Öhman, J. Sustainable Development Teaching: Ethical and Political Challenges. New York: Routledge, 127-139.
Östman, L., Van Poeck, K. & Öhman, J. (2019b). A transactional theory on sustainability teaching: Teacher moves. In: Van Poeck, K., Östman, L. & Öhman, J. Sustainable Development Teaching: Ethical and Political Challenges. New York: Routledge, 140-152.
Rudsberg, K., Öhman, J. & Östman, L. 2013. Analyzing Students’ Learning in Classroom Discussions about Socioscientific Issues. Science Education, 97(4), 594-620.
Runesson, U, & Gustafsson, G. (2012). Sharing and developing knowledge products from Learning Study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 1(3), 245-260.
Schön, D. A. (1991). The reflective practitioner. London: Routledge.
Toulmin, S.E. 1958. The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Van Poeck, K. & Östman, L. (2022). The Dramaturgy of Facilitating Learning Processes: A Transactional Theory and Analytical Approach. In: Garrison, J., Öhman, J, Östman, L. (Eds.) Deweyan Transactionalism in Education: Beyond Self-action and Inter-action. Bloomsburry Academic, 123-136.
|
