Conference Agenda

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].