Time: Wednesday, 28/Aug/2024: 15:45 - 17:15 Session Chair: Marco Rieckmann |
Location: OFFSITE VENUE, details tbc |
Paper
“Embedding Sustainability”? A Case Study on How the Sustainable University Takes Shape in a Change Practice on Engineering Education
1Ghent University, Belgium; 2Uppsala University, Sweden
Presenting Author: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.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
The use of the sustainable university discourses framework as analytical model implies that the discourses are not used for a new discourse analysis that attempts to verify these discourses’ existence in another empirical context. Instead they are used as an analytical model that functions as an external resource for empirical analyses of (change towards) a sustainable university practice in-the-making. This means that the analytical model is part of a wider methodological approach.
This wider methodological approach first of all builds further on the original discourse analysis. These discourses can best be understood as three specific constellations of connected elements (words, phrases, concepts) around a limited set of nodal points (important elements which have an important structuring role within the discourse) (Deleye, 2023). Applying these nodal points and connections in the analytical procedure allows to go beyond merely using the analytical model as a flat list of elements to be used as an initial coding scheme.
The above fits into a wider approach that enables us to analyze if and how those involved in the change practice relate to (aspects of) these three discourses. For this, we mainly draw on pragmatist transactional theory (Dewey & Bentley, 1949) and the concept of privileging (Wertsch, 1998). Central in pragmatist transactional theory (Dewey & Bentley, 1949) is the focus on the interplay (or transaction) between persons and their environment (Östman et al., 2019) in which both are continuously, simultaneously and reciprocally transformed. In the present study, a transactional approach allows us to understand the change in the making (i.e. the conceptualizing and taking shape of a sustainable university practice) as an interplay between the actions of educators developing education in the change practice and what they draw on from their environment. This brings us to the concept of privileging (Wertsch (1998). Privileging refers to the dynamic process of inclusion and exclusion, a process in which some things are taken into account as meaningful and relevant, while other things are ignored or disregarded. Using privileging as analytical lens implies that the focus lies on which aspects of the environing conditions (i.c. discourses on the sustainable university) the actors draw on. Thus, the sustainable university discourses framework offers an external point of reference that allows to analyze what is privileged and what is not.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
The analysis of the data shows that those involved in the change practice to a large extent draw on aspects of discourse 1 (“the sustainable higher education institution”), to a lesser extent on aspects of discourse 2 (“the engaged community”), and only minimally on discourse 3 (“the green-tech campus”). At first sight, especially the similarity with discourse 1 is striking: The working group embeds sustainability in a strategic and structural way within the confines of a pre-existing educational structure (program and existing courses). In this process, education is approached in terms of gathering knowledge and competences and often related to the notion of employability. All of this fits within how discourse 1 is described by Deleye (2023). However, a closer analysis of the data by juxtaposing discourses 1 and 2 allows to nuance this and shows a different image. We identify specific novel interpretations of important aspects of the second discourse, for example “social change”, “engagement”, “community”, “behavior change”, and “people”. On the other hand, some elements of discourse 1 are used in another way than might be expected based on the sustainable university discourses framework. Employability, for example, is used in relation to societal change, giving it an alternative meaning.
Our results shows that the use of the sustainable university discourses framework as analytical model allows to study what happens in a sustainable higher education change practice in a novel and nuanced way. Juxtaposing the discourses highlighted some interesting aspects of how, in the case, a particular idea of the sustainable university is conceptualized and given shape. In addition to this, contrasting the framework with empirical material also allowed us to advance our knowledge on aspects and characteristics of the sustainable university discourses framework and on how the sustainable university can take shape in practice.
References
Deleye. (2023). Which "sustainable university" are we actually talking about? A topic-modelling driven discourse analysis of academic literature. Environmental Education Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2023.2167940
Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. (1949). Knowing and the Known. Beacon Press.
Hallinger, P., & Chatpinyakoop, C. (2019). A Bibliometric Review of Research on Higher Education for Sustainable Development, 1998-2018. Sustainability, 11(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082401
Östman, L., Van Poeck, K., & Öhman, J. (2019). A transactional theory on sustainability learning. In K. Van Poeck, L. Östman, & J. Öhman (Eds.), Sustainable Development teaching (pp. 127-139). Routledge.
Wertsch, J. V. (1993). Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard University Press
Paper
Pedagogy of the heart: Empowering Higher Education Students to Cope with Socio-Ecological Challenges
Wageningen University, Netherlands, The
Presenting Author: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.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
In order to explore and interpret the lived emotional experiences of the participants, this study takes a phenomenological approach and apply an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis methodology (IPA) (Smith and Osborn, 2003). The study participants are international Master of Science students, joining a course focusing on empowerment for sustainability in a university in the Netherlands. A total of 27 students, agreeing to participate to the study, signed a statement of informed consent prior to its start. Furthermore the Research Ethics Committee of the university in question, positively assessed the study.
Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted individually with each of the participants. Those interviews, with an average duration of 40 minutes, were conducted online via MSteams. The procedural steps undertaken were the following:
The students were asked to choose a sustainability challenge they cared about. Then, they were guided into a short contemplative inquiry exercise. In this exercise, the students were asked to become aware of possible emotions that their chosen sustainability challenge did trigger in them.
The interview focused on the exploration of two interrelated aspects. One aspect, concerning RQ1, focused on exploring students’ emotional experiences and felt sense of (dis-)empowerment, in relation to the chosen sustainability challenge. This was investigated by asking: Is there an emotion or are there emotions that you experience in relation to you sustainability challenge? Is there any sense of (dis)empowerment arising, when you experience those emotions in relation to your sustainability challenge? Could you elaborate on that? The other aspect, concerning RQ2, focused on exploring factors that enhance the felt sense of empowerment experienced by the students. This was investigated by asking: What helps you or could help you to cultivate a sense of empowerment? Could you elaborate on that?
At the end of the interview, the experiences of the students were validated. The interviewer summarized what was heard and checked with the student if the summary was accurate. The feedback received by the student helped to establish the accuracy of the researchers’ understanding and of the data set.
All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, with repeated words and fillers removed. Currently, the transcriptions are analyzed qualitatively, through an on-going iterative co-engagement of the author and a co-coder based on thematic analysis, following the IPA methodology.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
While the analysis of the data is on-going and the final results will be presented during the conference, we anticipate here preliminary results.
Students brought forward a variety of sustainability challenges they feel deeply concerned about. Examples are climate change (e.g. climate migration), environmental and social (un-)justice (e.g. gender issues), environmental degradation (e.g. marine degradation), etc. With regard to students’ experiences of emotional (dis)empowerment (RQ1), the majority of students experience negative emotions associated with a felt sense of disempowerment towards sustainability challenges: e.g. students experience anxiety about the uncertain climate future. Students also experience positive emotions associated with a felt sense of empowerment: e.g. students experience passion as they feel eager to address challenges that matters to them. In some cases students experience ambivalent emotions (e.g. anger, hope), associated to either empowerment or disempowerment depending on the situation.
With regard to pedagogical endeavors that can support students’ emotional empowerment (RQ2), enable students to navigate negative emotions and cultivating positive ones, this study proposes a pedagogy of the heart. Such a pedagogy, inviting the emotional world of the students into education, has multiple points of focus. For example, it provides the space for cultivating a sense of belonging by humanizing the classroom. Students feel emotionally empowered when they can meet each other as human beings and listen to each other aspirations, when they discover they are not alone in their struggle as others share similar or other hopes and concerns. Or for example, it provides the space for cultivating reflexivity. Students feel emotionally empowered when they can connect to their sense of purpose and concerns, and consider affirmative ways to navigate them. A full description of the proposed pedagogy of heart, based on findings will be provided during the conference.
References
Hickman, C., Marks, E., Pihkala, P., Clayton, S., Lewandowski, R. E., Mayall, E. E., Wray, B., & Mellor, C. (2021). Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: a global survey. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(12), e863–e873.
Hiser, K. K., & Lynch, M. K. (2021). Worry and Hope: What College Students Know, Think, Feel, and Do about Climate Change. 13(3).
Hodgson, N., Vlieghe, J., & Zamojski, P. (2018). Manifesto for a post-critical pedagogy. Punctum books.
Ives, C. D., Freeth, R., & Fischer, J. (2020). Inside-out sustainability: The neglect of inner worlds. Ambio, 49, 208-217.
Jones, C. A., & Davison, A. (2021). Disempowering emotions: The role of educational experiences in social responses to climate change. Geoforum, 118(November 2020), 190–200.
Landmann, H., & Rohmann, A. (2020). Being moved by protest : Collective efficacy beliefs and injustice appraisals enhance collective action intentions for forest protection via positive and negative emotions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101491.
Ogunbode, C., Doran, R., Hanss, D., Ojala, M., Salmela-Aro, K., van den Broek, K. L., ... & Karasu, M. (2022). Climate anxiety, wellbeing and pro-environmental action: Correlates of negative emotional responses to climate change in 32 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 101887.
Ojala, M., Cunsolo, A., Ogunbode, C. A., & Middleton, J. (2021). Anxiety, worry, and grief in a time of environmental and climate crisis: A narrative review. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46(1), 35–58.
Ojala M, Lakew Y. 2017. Young people and climate change communication. In Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication. Oxford, UK: Univ. Oxford Press.
Ojala, M. (2007). Hope and worry: Exploring young people's values, emotions, and behavior regarding global environmental problems. Doctoral dissertation, Örebro universitetsbibliotek).
Pihkala, P. (2022). Toward a Taxonomy of Climate Emotions. Frontiers in Climate, 3(January), 1–22.
Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 51–80). Sage Publications, Inc..
Tassone V.C., (2022). Essay ‘Fostering Deep Learning by Uncovering Emotions in Empowerment for Sustainability Processes’, pp 59-61. In: Deutzekens, N. Van Poeck, K, et al. Challenges for environmental and sustainability education research in times of climate crisis. Online book, SEDwise.
Verlie, B., Clark, E., Jarrett, T., & Supriyono, E. (2020). Educators ’ experiences and strategies for responding to ecological distress. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 37, 132–146.
Paper
Service Learning and Sustainable Transformation at Universities – A Multiple Case Study in Germany
1University of Vechta, Germany; 2Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany; 3Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, German; 4Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Germany; 5University of Bremen, Germany
Presenting Author: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.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
To address this research gap, we are conducting a multiple transdisciplinary case study (Kyburz-Graber, 2016) that explores and scientifically evaluates various SL formats at HEIs. In alignment with the WIA, SL projects are implemented on university campuses as part of courses, supporting their sustainable transformation across all university activities. This approach turns the HEIs themselves into real-world laboratories for sustainable development, while SL projects with external partners aim to facilitate knowledge transfer to the regions.
The project unfolds in four phases: Phase 1 (development), Phase 2 (application), Phase 3 (evaluation/finalization), and Phase 4 (consolidation/transfer). Following the development phase, SL formats are trialled and evaluated sequentially at each university before undergoing additional testing at other partner universities. This sequential approach provides insights into their effectiveness, transferability, and success conditions. Data collection during SL seminars involves pre- and post-design surveys of students, post-project group discussions, expert interviews with practice partners, students, and teachers, as well as practical teaching research through teaching diaries and document analyses.
The pre- and post-survey is particularly pivotal, utilizing a quantitative questionnaire study developed at the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt and the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg to analyze the effectiveness of SL on students' reported competence development in ESD. Situational variables are incorporated to analyse context-specific differences in the courses and their impact on student outcomes. An a priori model, grounded in existing research on ESD and SL, informs the survey instrument, which includes adapted existing scales and newly developed scales based on theoretical findings. Pre-testing and refinement of the survey instrument precede its application in the quantitative pre-post test during the SL seminars at participating universities in the winter semester of 2023/2024. Data analysis serves to validate the survey instrument and the model, employing dimension-reducing methods to manage the extensive questionnaire. Additionally, inferential statistical methods applied to the pre-post survey data describe the impact of SL on skills development in terms of ESD within the sample (Lindau et al., 2024).
While prior research on ESD in higher education often relies on descriptive case studies from individual universities, the generalizability of which may be questioned (Barth & Rieckmann, 2016), our project emphasizes the importance of multiple case studies in the field (Cebrián, 2021). The mixed methods design, coupled with a cross-case examination of results, aims for a more profound understanding and generalizable findings on the pertinent research questions.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
To date, five project seminars involving a total of 90 students have been conducted at three universities. Among these seminars, three were organised in collaboration with regional partners, including associations, municipal institutions, or schools, while the remaining two involved campus partners such as the university sustainability office or student initiatives. Data collection using the pre-post questionnaire occurred for the first time in three service learning (SL) seminars during the current winter semester of 2023/24 (pre-survey: October 2023, post-survey: January and February 2024).
The pre-survey engaged 60 students, revealing that students already perceived their sustainability knowledge as relatively well-developed before the commencement of the seminar. Positive attitudes towards sustainability and a commitment to it were also evident, although values for students' self-efficacy were notably lower.
As the post-survey was recently completed, ongoing evaluation is underway. The results, to be presented at the conference, will provide insights into the validity of the survey instrument. The aim is to make a German and English version of the validated instrument available to the scientific community as soon as possible.
The survey findings will address the effects of SL on students, and interviews with partners will offer information on the impact of SL projects on partners and in the region. The diverse empirical data collected in this multiple case study will significantly contribute to the European and global discourse on the significance of SL within the framework of ESD and the WIA. It is poised to stimulate additional academic interest in SL within the context of ESD in higher education on an international scale.
References
Barth, M., Rieckmann, M. (2016). State of the Art in Research on Higher Education for Sustainable Development. In M. Barth, G. Michelsen, M. Rieckmann & I. Thomas (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Higher Education for Sustainable Development (pp. 100-113). Routledge.
Bringle, R. G. & Hatcher, J. A. (2000). Institutionalization of Service Learning in Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 273–290.
Cebrián, G. et al. (2021). Multiple case-study analysis of service-learning as a means to foster sustainability competencies amongst pre-service educators. Teachers and Teaching, 27(6), 488–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2021.1977269.
Holst, J. (2023): Towards coherence on sustainability in education: a systematic review of Whole Institution Approaches. Sustainability Science, 18(2), 1015–1030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01226-8.
Johannisson, J. & Hiete, M. (2021). Environmental service-learning approach in higher education – a descriptive case study on student-led life cycle assessments of university cafeteria meals. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 22(7), 1728–1752. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-12-2020-0494.
Kyburz-Graber, R. (2016). Case study research on higher education for sustainable development: epistemological foundation and quality challenges. In M. Barth, G. Michelsen, I. Thomas & M. Rieckmann (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Higher Education for Sustainable Development (pp. 126–141). Routledge.
Leal Filho, W. et al. (2019). Sustainable Development Goals and sustainability teaching at universities: Falling behind or getting ahead of the pack? Journal of Cleaner Production, 232(1), 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.309.
Lindau, A.-K. et al. (2024). Entwicklung eines Instrumentes zur Erfassung der Wirksamkeit von Service Learning in Kontexten von Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung (in preparation).
Niedlich, S. et al. (2020). Cultures of sustainability governance in higher education institutions: A multi‐case study of dimensions and implications. Higher Education Quarterly, 74(4), 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12237.
Schank, C. et al. (2020). Service Learning als kompetenzorientierte Lehr- und Lernform. In C. Fridrich, R. Hedtke & W. O. Ötsch (eds.), Grenzen überschreiten, Pluralismus wagen – Perspektiven sozioökonomischer Hochschullehre (pp. 217–239). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29642-1_12.
Stöhr, J. & Herzig, C. (2021). Verantwortungsbewusste Unternehmensführung am Beispiel der Gemeinwohl-Ökonomie mithilfe von Service Learning und Transdisziplinarität lehren. In A. Boos, M. van den Eeden & T. Viere (eds.), CSR und Hochschullehre (pp. 141–183). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62679-5_8.
Tejedor, G. et al. (2019). Didactic Strategies to Promote Competencies in Sustainability. Sustainability, 11(7), 2086. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072086.
Wals, A. E. J. et al. (2016). Learning for walking the change: eco-social innovation through sustainability-oriented higher education. In M. Barth, G. Michelsen, I. Thomas & M. Rieckmann (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Higher Education for Sustainable Development (pp. 25–39). Routledge.
Paper
‘Fine-Tuning’ Motivation Types: a Qualitative Approach to the Motivation Classification of the Self-Determination Theory
University of Cyprus, Cyprus
Presenting Author: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.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
Thirteen students from an urban elementary school, aged 6-12 years old, participated in the kitchengarden project. Students were characterized by medium educational level, low environmental motivation, limited interaction with nature, low socio-economic background, and high level of obesity.
Project activities were based on students’ thoughts and decisions during the implementation of the project. Students worked in mixed capacity groups of three to four members. The project was designed with aim to enhance participating children satisfaction of their basic psychological needs, according to SDT: their sense of autonomy by making their own choices about maintaining their garden and managing their crops; their sense of competence by collecting good quality and fresh vegetables; and their sense of relatedness by discussing problem-solving activities and making group decisions (Korfiatis & Petrou, 2021).
Data collection
Data were collected by pre and post-test semi-structured interviews, aiming in understanding participants environmental motivation. The interview protocol was based on ten main questions inspired by MTES.
Data analysis
Content Analysis used to analyse the data gathered with the above-mentioned methodological tools. The categories of analysis derived deductively (i.e the five types of motivation (External Regulation, Introjected Regulation, Identified Regulation, Integrated Regulation, Intrinsic Regulation, plus Amotivation), but also inductively, based on the answers of the participating students. At the end of analysis, 21 sub-categories of motivation were recorded.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
One notable difference between Self-Determination theory and other theories that seek to explain motivation is that Self-Determination theory emphasizes the types/categories of motivation that individuals have and how these types are transformed from one type to another (Deci & Ryan, 2008), rather than the degree to which motivation exists as a measurable type (e.g., the more motivation, the more individuals act towards a behavior). In fact, Self-Determination theory argues that types or categories of motivation are more important than the degree of motivation existence.
The results of the present study come to add another feature to children's motivation as it confirms the different types of motivation that characterize students/participants but at the same time identifies a gradient that characterizes each type of motivation for each child. Specifically, from the analysis process of the initial and final semi-structured interviews/discussions, we found that the participants statements could not be placed in a type/category of motivation that they represented to an absolute degree.
As a result, we decided statements to create graded subcategories under each motivation category. Thus, under the Internal Regulation category, instead of dividing the students' statements into those marked "Internal Regulation" and those not marked "Internal Regulation" we placed their statements into four subcategories: Absence of Internal Regulation, Moderate to Low Internal Regulation, Moderate to High Internal Regulation, High Internal Regulation.
The same procedure was followed for all motivations categories.
Results showed large changes between the different sub-categories of our analysis concerning participants motivation, which would not have been depicted if we had followed a quantitative approach based on the six types of motivation only.
References
Christodoulou, A., & Korfiatis, K. (2019). Children's interest in school garden projects, environmental motivation, and intention to act: A case study from a primary school of Cyprus. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 1-11.
Cooke, A. N., Fielding, K. S., & Louis, W. R. (2016). Environmentally active people: the role of autonomy, relatedness, competence and self-determined motivation. Environmental Education Research, 22(5), 631-657.
Darner, R. (2012). An empirical test of self-determination theory as a guide to fostering environmental motivation. Environmental Education Research, 18(4), 463-472.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(3), 182.
Dutta, D., & Chandrasekharan, S. (2018). Doing to being: farming actions in a community coalesce into pro-environment motivations and values. Environmental Education Research, 24(8), 1192-1210.
Karaarslan, G. Sungur, S. & Ertepinar, H. (2014). Developing preservice science teachers’ self-determined motivation toward environment through environmental activities. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 9, 1-19.
Korfiatis, K., & Petrou, S. (2021). Participation and why it matters: children’s perspectives and expressions of ownership, motivation, collective efficacy and self-efficacy and locus of control. Environmental Education Research, 27(12), 1700-1722.
Murakami, C. D., Su-Russell, C., & Manfra, L. (2018). Analyzing teacher narratives in early childhood garden-based education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 49(1), 18-29.
Pelletier, L. G., Tuson, K. M., Green-Demers, I., Noels K., & Beaton, A. M. (1998). Why are you doing things for the environment? The motivation toward the environment scale (MTES). Journal of Applied Psychology, 28(5), 437-468.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 61, 101860.