| Session | ||
99 ERC SES 08 K: Sustainability in Education Research
Paper Session
| ||
| Presentations | ||
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper How Does Action Competence Explain Young People's Sustainability Action? Finnish Environment Institute (Syke), Finland Presenting Author:Societal change calls for thorough readjustment of human agency to align with sustainability visions. Individual and collective actions that promote sustainability are required at many levels, including in the private lives of people and in the public sphere. Actions are needed to lower the environmental footprint of individuals and, at the same time, to catalyze a system-level adoption of sustainability. In recent years, young people have been at the forefront of collective sustainability efforts. Since its inception, the Fridays For Future -events have mobilized hundreds of thousands of predominantly young participants worldwide each year (“Strike Statistics”, 2024). In addition to strikes and demonstrations young people express their agency and drive sustainability in diverse ways (Oinonen & Paloniemi, 2023; Trott, 2021; Tayne, 2022). To engage in action towards sustainability may require a variety of skills, knowledge, and attitudes. Frameworks that capture these sustainability competencies have been under intensive development during the last decade (e.g., Bianchi et al., 2022; UNESCO, 2017). Of particular interest has been action competence for sustainability, which has been defined as the overall will, confidence, and knowhow to bring about sustainability transformations (Sass et al., 2020). Action competence has been understood as an educational approach (Mogensen & Schnack, 2010) as well as an educational outcome, an underlying latent capacity of individuals and groups (Olsson et al., 2020). However, these is a lack of knowledge of how action competence and its subconstructs are related to different kinds of actions and behaviors that promote sustainability. Especially the role of knowledge of action possibilities in determining sustainability efforts is in a need for clarification. As complexity and uncertainty are fundamental parts of sustainability challenges (e.g., Lönngren & van Poeck, 2021), it is hard to know which efforts will produce the desired effects. Instead, actions emerge from a knowledge base that is always incomplete (Almers, 2013). The notion of pluralism in action-oriented knowledge emphasizes that multiple kinds of knowledge and different ways of knowing are involved in actions for sustainability (Caniglia et al., 2021; Wals, 2010). Therefore, reaching an end-goal of enough knowledge is not feasible when tackling wicked sustainability problems. This concerns particularly collective actions that are directed on system-level change, since tracing their legacies is a tedious task even for experts (Amenta et al., 2010). To investigate the relationship between action competence and sustainability actions, we conducted a national survey of 15 to 29-year-olds (N = 940) in Finland. We asked how action competence for sustainability is related to both private sphere behavior and collective action that drive change. Results of structural equation modeling show that the overall measure of self-perceived action competence for sustainability strongly predicts private sphere behavior, but the association is nonexistent with system-oriented sustainability action. Further analysis on the components of action competence reveals that high perceived knowledge and low outcome expectations predict low engagement in sustainability action. Knowledge and outcome expectations also affect behavior indirectly via willingness to act. Based on our results we argue that actions and behaviors have different antecedents, and that the ability to recognize outcome uncertainty affects how young people’s sustainability agency is manifested. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The survey measures were translated, adapted to the Finnish context, and tested with four groups of young people. We requested a sample of 1000 Finnish speaking young people aged 15–29 from an online panel maintained by Kantar Media Finland Oy. After screening the data, 940 participants were retained, of which 43% were male, 56% female, and 1% did not specify. 25% were aged between 15–19, 37% were aged between 20–24, and 38% were aged between 25–29 years old. Action competence was measured with the Self-Perceived Action Competence for Sustainability -scale (Olsson et al., 2020) which consists of 12 items covering three subconstructs: knowledge of action possibilities, confidence in one’s own influence and willingness to act. The scale has a 5-point response format (1 = strongly disagree … 5 = strongly agree). Sustainability action was measured with 16 items adapted from Alisat and Riemer’s (2015) Environmental Action Scale. These actions range from low-profile efforts, such as participating in events and raising awareness in social media, to highly devoted activism, such as organizing protests or public events. Sustainability behavior was measured with eight private sphere behavior items, such as preferring vegetarian meals, buying eco-labelled products, and educating oneself. Actions and behaviors were assessed on a 5-point scale (0 = never … 4 = very frequently) according to the rate at which the respondent had performed them in the last six months. We used the structural equation modeling framework to assess two competing models. In model A, we estimated how action competence for sustainability as a higher order factor predicts sustainability action and behavior. In model B, we disaggregated action competence in its sub-scales to see how they were associated with sustainability efforts. In addition, in model B we specified direct associations from knowledge of action possibilities and confidence in one’s own influence on willingness to act, in order to estimate their indirect effects on sustainability action and behavior. We evaluated local and global fit of the models by inspecting the correlation residual matrices and examining a set of fit statistics (model chi-square, RMSEA, CFI and SRMR). We refrained from hanging onto firm cutoff criteria and evaluated the fit indices in the context of the scales’ measurement quality (McNeish et al., 2018). The models were run using the ‘lavaan’ package in R with two estimators: maximum likelihood with Satorra-Bentler scaling and weighted least squares mean and variance adjusted. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Our results suggest that action competence as a higher order construct is positively related to personal practices, such as preferring a plant-based diet, but it doesn’t predict collective actions that are targeted at a system-level change, such as organizing sustainability-themed events and protests. This is unexpected, since the theory of action competence emphasizes action that aims to solve the problems or change the conditions that created the problems (Mogensen & Schnack, 2010). Furthermore, we found that scoring high on knowledge of action possibilities is associated with less sustainability action, and that the relationship is nonexistent with private-sphere behavior. We argue that respondents who score high on the knowledge subconstruct represent young people who have more confidence in their knowledge base and possibly disregard the uncertainties of sustainability challenges, thus having little motivation to take actions with unforeseeable outcomes. By contrast, respondents who score less on the knowledge subscale are not necessarily short of knowledge, but they may recognize their limits of knowing and deliberate more thoroughly on their agency. These young people acknowledge the uncertainties and risks that are an inevitable part of sustainability, which is precisely why they have a greater urge to make sustainability efforts targeted at the system level. Our findings are of key relevance for sustainability education and to understand youth engagement. Strong arguments have been made that sustainability education should support the development of thinking skills that help learners to embrace uncertainty, reflect on their values, appraise the adequacy of their knowledge base, and adjust their actions accordingly (Bianchi et al., 2022; Mogensen & Schnack, 2010; UNESCO, 2017). These skills and competencies are strongly linked to the ways in which young people’s sustainability agency might emerge. References Alisat, S., & Riemer, M. (2015). The environmental action scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 13–23. Almers, E. (2013). Pathways to action competence for sustainability—Six themes. The Journal of Environmental Education, 44(2), 116-127. Amenta, E., Caren, N., Chiarello, E., & Su, Y. (2010). The political consequences of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 287-307. Bianchi, G., Pisiotis, U., & Cabrera Giraldez, M. (2022). GreenComp The European sustainability competence framework. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Caniglia, G., Luederitz, C., von Wirth, T., Fazey, I., Martin-López, B., Hondrila, K., König, A., von Wehrden, H., Schäpke, N. A., Laubichler, M. D. & Lang, D. J. (2021). A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nature Sustainability, 4(2), 93-100. Lönngren, J., & Van Poeck, K. (2021). Wicked problems: A mapping review of the literature. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(6), 481-502. McNeish, D., An, J., & Hancock, G. R. (2018). The thorny relation between measurement quality and fit index cutoffs in latent variable models. Journal of personality assessment, 100(1), 43-52. Mogensen, F., & Schnack, K. (2010). The action competence approach and the ‘new’ discourses of education for sustainable development, competence and quality criteria. Environmental education research, 16(1), 59–74. Oinonen, I. & Paloniemi, R. (2023) Understanding and measuring young people’s sustainability actions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 91, 102124. Olsson, D., Gericke, N., Sass, W., & Boeve-de Pauw, J. (2020). Self-perceived action competence for sustainability: The theoretical grounding and empirical validation of a novel research instrument. Environmental Education Research, 26(5), 742–760. Sass, W., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Olsson, D., Gericke, N., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. (2020). Redefining action competence: The case of sustainable development. The Journal of Environmental Education, 51(4), 292-305. Strike Statistics. (2024, January 23.) In Fridaysforfuture. https://fridaysforfuture.org/what-we-do/strike-statistics Tayne, K. (2022). Buds of collectivity: student collaborative and system-oriented action towards greater socioenvironmental sustainability. Environmental Education Research, 28(2), 216-240. Trott, C. D. (2021). What difference does it make? Exploring the transformative potential of everyday climate crisis activism by children and youth. Children's Geographies, 19:3, 300-308. UNESCO (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. UNESCO publishing. Wals, A. E. (2010). Between knowing what is right and knowing that is it wrong to tell others what is right: On relativism, uncertainty and democracy in environmental and sustainability education. Environmental Education Research, 16(1), 143-151. 99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper Embracing Uncertainty: Holistic Education in Lithuania's Primary Schools for an Ever-Changing Future Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania Presenting Author:In the 21st century, it is surprising to witness that alongside climate change and technological advancements, a dearth of empathy and compassion has emerged. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the unrest in Israel, and the inhumane treatment of fellow global inhabitants serve as poignant reminders that the fundamental question of our humanity, "What constitutes the essence of being human?", remains unanswered. According to a report published by UNESCO (2023), the discourse on post-COVID education revolves around the incorporation of technologists and artificial intelligence to establish a personalized and inclusive learning environment for all. However, the report highlights that the integration of technology in education is often driven by the profit-oriented agendas of technology companies, rather than being aligned with the specific needs of both students and teachers. In the present era, marked by post-humanist and anthropocentric ideologies, and confronted with pressing challenges like climate change, inequality, and conflict, it becomes essential to redirect our focus towards holistic education. Additionally, it is important to reexamine the very notion of "being human" in this rapidly evolving, technology-driven world. Over twenty-five years ago, UNESCO-APNIEVE (1998) raised a thought-provoking inquiry about the essence of learning to coexist and thrive together: The significance of holistic education and its potential role in addressing worldwide challenges begs the question of its essence and its capacity to offer solutions. Essentially, the paradigm of holistic education is rooted in the notion that fully educating a child necessitates addressing their intellectual, social, emotional, physical, spiritual, and artistic needs in a balanced manner (Bhatta, 2009; Hare, 2010; Preston, 2012; Rudge, 2016; Miller, 2010, 2019; Pong, 2021; Miseliunaite et al., 2022). Considered a transformative educational approach, Hare (2010) asserts that holistic education equips students with lifelong learning skills, emphasizing life skills, attitudes, and personal awareness necessary for navigating an increasingly intricate world (p. 6). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used 1.1 Research Questions: This research aims to explore the features and manifestations of holistic education in the Lithuanian primary education system. The following research questions will guide the study: R1: What are the features of holistic education in the Lithuanian primary education system? R2: How are the features of holistic education manifested in Lithuanian primary education? 1.2 Data Collection Methods: To ensure the reliability and comprehensiveness of the collected data, a triangulation approach was employed, drawing on multiple data collection methods (Denscombe, 2014, p. 154-5): 1. Collection of Lithuania's updated primary curriculum documents (2022): The primary curriculum documents will provide valuable insights into the educational policies and frameworks encompassing holistic education. 2. Classroom Observations: Observations were conducted in primary schools, with a total of 30 lessons observed across various primary school teachers. These observations offer a firsthand understanding of how holistic education practices are implemented in real classroom settings. 3. Semi-structured In-depth Interviews: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with education policy makers. A total of five interviews were conducted to gain insights into their perspectives on holistic education and its integration within the primary education system. 1.3 Data Analysis Methods: A mixed methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative analysis, was employed to address the research questions and achieve a comprehensive understanding of the features and manifestations of holistic education in Lithuanian primary education (Leavy, 2017, p. 164). - Thematic Analysis: The qualitative data collected from the curriculum documents, observations, and interviews will be analyzed using the MAXQDA software. Thematic coding will be applied to identify recurring themes and patterns related to holistic education. - Quantitative Coding: The quantitative data obtained from the observations and curriculum documents will be coded using Microsoft Excel, allowing for numerical analysis to identify prevalent features of holistic education. 1.4 Data Interpretation and Synthesis: Data interpretation and synthesis will be guided by an interpretative paradigm (Leavy, 2017) and a combination of deductive and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning will be employed to analyze the curriculum documents and observations, while inductive reasoning will be utilized to explore insights gained from the interviews with education policy makers. By triangulating these different perspectives, a comprehensive interpretation and synthesis of the analyzed data will be achieved. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Findings: • The study findings emphasize the need to prioritize spirituality as an essential component of holistic education, which fosters coherence, self-awareness, and resilience amidst global challenges. • Observations in Lithuanian primary education indicates an imbalance favouring transmissive and transactional teaching methods over transformative education, leading to limited emphasis on spirituality as a key component of holistic education. • Lithuanian education policy makers recognize the importance of coherence, collaboration, teacher training, and a shift in assessment methods to successfully implement holistic education in the primary curriculum. • The potential impact of a holistic education paradigm in equipping the younger generation for an uncertain future lies in fostering well-rounded individuals with a holistic mindset and harmonious relationships, yet the practical implementation faces challenges due to resource and competence requirements, along with a lack of conscious integration of transformative education and spirituality in education policy and methods, as exemplified in Lithuania. References UNESCO (2023). Global Education Monitoring Report. Technology in education: A tool in whose terms? https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385723 United Nations (2023). Report on the 2022 Transforming Education Summit. Convened by the UN Secretary-General.https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/report_on_the_2022_transforming_education_summit.pdf UNESCO-APNIEVE (1998). Learning To Live Together in Peace and Harmony. Sourcebook No. 1. Bangkok: UNESCO-APNIEVE. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED440028.pdf UNESCO (2015). Rethinking Education Towards a Global Common Good? UNESCO: Paris, France, 2015; 10–86. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000232555 Bhatta, C. P. (2009). Holistic Personality Development through Education. Journal of Human Values, 15(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/097168580901500104 Hare, J. (2010). Holistic Education: An Interpretation for Teachers in the IB Programmes. International Baccalaureate Organization: Geneva, Switzerland. (pp. 3–8). https://balicurriculum.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/holistic-education-an-interpretation-for-teachers-in-the-ib-programmes.pdf Preston, J.P. (2012). Holistic Education: A Pioneer Narrative. Informal Learn. Flex. Contexts Divers. Dimens., 5, 251–267. https://doi.org/10.36510/learnland.v5i2.564 Rudge, L. T. (2016). Holistic Pedagogy in public Schools: A case study of three alternative schools. Other Education, 5(2), 169–195. https://www.othereducation.org/index.php/OE/article/download/152/172 Miller, J.P. (2010). Whole child education. https://www.amazon.com/Whole-Child-Education-John-Miller/dp/144261143X Miller, J.P. (2019). The Holistic Curriculum (3rd ed.). University of Toronto Press: Toronto, ON, Canada. Pong, H. (2021). The cultivation of university students’ spiritual wellbeing in holistic education: longitudinal mixed-methods study. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 26(3), 99–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364436x.2021.1898344 Miseliunaite, B., Kliziene, I., & Cibulskas, G. (2022). Can Holistic Education Solve the World’s Problems: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 14(15), 9737. MDPI AG. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14159737 Denscombe, M. (2014). The Good Research Guide (4th Edition). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Leavy, P. (2017). Introduction to Social Research. In Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative, Mixed Methods, Arts-Based, and Community-Based Participatory Research Approaches (1st ed). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. 99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper Sustainability on the University Campus: A Multiple-case Analysis University of Vechta (Germany), Rafael Landívar University (Guatemala) Presenting Author:This research brings an overview of the characteristics and impacts of “sustainability on campus” as living laboratories for sustainable development initiatives of Europe, in comparison to other geographical, cultural, social and environmental contexts (continents). Higher education for sustainable development has been a global trend on recent years. Among the most relevant addressed issues are the challenge to transfer sustainable development approaches to universities (Adomssent et.al., 2007), the integration of sustainability in education through changes in higher education (Barth, 2011), the student´s points of view on higher education as an innovative approach to provoke changes (Barth et. al., 2011) and the analysis of key competencies for sustainable development (Rieckmann, 2012). With regards to campus sustainability in higher education evaluation measures, Townsend and Barrett (2015) in Jain, S., et. al. (2017), states that limited information is available, highlighting the need to develop specific tools or frameworks that may be used for assessing the sustainability initiatives on university campuses. Starting on a theoretical basis, sustainability science has been defined as a discipline that addresses the understanding of the dynamics of human-environment systems and facilitates the design, implementation, and evaluation of practical interventions (Clark & Dickson (2003) in Zen, I. S. (2017)). On this regard, Zizka, L., et. al. (2021) emphasizes the potential and relevance that academic institutions have to promote change and therefore contribute directly in the implementation of sustainable development priorities. The same author continues to argue that besides the political willing at the international and national levels to address the role of higher education institutions on sustainable development, there is still the need of deepening and expanding studies related to concepts like “green university” or “sustainability on campus”. Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar (2008) in Martek, I. et. al. (2022), with reference to sustainability initiatives in universities, states that traditional practices and regulations related to environmental issues are mainly implemented in a reactive manner, with a high degree of inefficiency and low guarantee of being sustainable on a long term. Another topic that has recently emerged is the analysis of operating the university campus as a living laboratory for sustainability problem-solving institution. McMillin and Dyball (2009) in Cohen, B. (2018) refer to the connections that are made visible to students and campus community between theory and practice. Shawe, R., et. al., (2019) have also found evidence in the literature predominantly concentrating on campus actions and changes, without addressing university outreach activities. Following these findings, the current research aims to identify what are the common variables that characterizes the current trends of “sustainability on campus” initiatives as a living laboratory for sustainable development. A holistic multiple case study will be conducted on five selected universities. Therefore, the general objective is to identify common variables that characterize current trends in “sustainability on campus” initiatives as “living laboratories” for sustainable development. Three specific research objectives are formulated as follows: (1) define a theoretical and conceptual framework of the university campus as a living laboratory for sustainable development; (2) identify commonalities and differences among selected variables of current “sustainability on campus” practices on different environmental contexts; and, (3) design a systematic scheme of variables that represents a university campus as a living laboratory for sustainable development. The research questions related to the data to be collected are: How are the common variables of the “Sustainability on Campus” initiatives functioning as a living laboratory for sustainable development? and, how is the natural environment impacting on the built environment sustainability initiatives of each university campus? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Multiple-case analysis is a method for in-depth exploration of similarities and differences across cases in support of conceptual generalizability and theoretical predictions. This method facilitates the comparison of commonalities and differences in events, activities, and processes of the units of analyses (Yin, 1994). According to Dawson (1997), Snow & Thomas (1994) and Wolfgramm (1997) in Chaves and Weiler (2016), as an empirical investigation that studies a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, a multiple-case study searches to expand and analyze a theory (analytical generalization) rather than enumerate frequencies (statistical generalization). Through a replication logic analysis, the selected cases will be tested through two contradictory theories: (1) sustainability on campus initiatives as living laboratories for sustainable development are necessary for the implementation of an Education for Sustainable Development approach in higher education institutions; and, (2) There is no need of establishing and implementing sustainability on campus initiatives as living laboratories for sustainable development in order to promote an Education for Sustainable Development approach in higher education institutions. On this regard, the theoretical propositions to be analyzed in the multiple case study are: “sustainable development is implemented as an institutional initiative of the university”; “sustainability on campus” initiatives aim to link Education for Sustainable Development in higher education institutions to campus design and facility management; “sustainability on campus variables belongs to a social, economic, environmental and institutional systemic approach” and, “a university campus as a living laboratory involves its institutional framework and all daily activities derived or not from a specific initiative”. The units of analysis of the multiple–case study are five different university campuses. Two of them are campuses that have sustainability on campus and living laboratories initiatives under an ongoing implementation process and three of them are universities that do not have sustainability on campus and living laboratories initiatives currently undergoing. The collected data from each unit of analysis will be related to the above mentioned contradictory theories and theoretical propositions. This analysis will include a combination of data collection techniques, such as interviews, documents analysis, webpages revision and collaboration with experts. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Sustainability in higher education literature emphasizes the need to project a system´s approach (Lidstone L., et. al. 2015). This implies a whole holistic institutional effort to implement “sustainability on campus” initiatives. In this case, the same author refers to learning activities beyond the classroom that could include all facets of the university on campus daily life: education (curricula), research (student and faculty research for sustainability), operations (transforming building, procurement, maintenance practices, human resources, and student administration), and community outreach (including the broader community in these efforts). The initiatives to implement “sustainable campuses” or “green campuses” have grown in the last years across the world. However, according to Garrido-Yserte, R., & Gallo-Rivera, M.-T., 2020) there are different definitions of sustainable university campus and different interpretations or approaches to implement “sustainability on campus” initiatives. Therefore, although “sustainability on campus” has been included in the most recent debate on strategies to promote sustainability in universities, its implementation strategies lack of an international or regional consensus. The expected outcomes or findings of this research are to contrast the inclusion and exclusion theoretical framework (starting point) through the identification of the most relevant variables that coincide with the “implementation” and “put into practice” of the science of sustainability framework in higher education institutions. The geographical context of the current study reaches contemporary cases that are located in different environmental-geographical contexts (continents), in order to identify a link between diverse natural environments and their respective built environment sustainability management characteristics. The emphasis of the study will be focus on European higher education institutions that coincide with the above mentioned methodological criteria in order to have comparison parameters with other institutional strategies that are focused on the implementation of “sustainability on campus” initiatives as living laboratories for sustainable development. References Chaves and Weiler (2016) Los estudios de casos como enfoque metodológico. Cohen, B., Lawrence, K. T., Armstrong, A., Wilcha, M., & Gatti, A. (2018). Greening Lafayette: A model for building sustainable community. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(7), 1239-1258. Garrido-Yserte, R., & Gallo-Rivera, M.-T. (2020). The Potential Role of Stakeholders in the Energy Efficiency of Higher Education Institutions. Sustainability, 12(21), 8908. Jain, S., Agarwal, A., Jani, V., Singhal, S., Sharma, P., & Jalan, R. (2017). Assessment of carbon neutrality and sustainability in educational campuses (CaNSEC): A general framework. Ecological Indicators, 76, 131-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.01.012 Lidstone, L., Wright, T., & Sherren, K. (2015). An analysis of Canadian STARS-rated higher education sustainability policies. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 17(2), 259-278. Martek, I., Hosseini, M. R., Durdyev, S., Arashpour, M., & Edwards, D. J. (2022). Are university “living labs” able to deliver sustainable outcomes? A case-based appraisal of Deakin University, Australia. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 23(6), 1332-1348. Shawe, R., Horan, W., Moles, R., & O’Regan, B. (2019). Mapping of sustainability policies and initiatives in higher education institutes. Environmental Science & Policy, 99, 80-88. Yin, R. (1994): Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Zen, I. S. (2017). Exploring the living learning laboratory: An approach to strengthen campus sustainability initiatives by using sustainability science approach. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(6), 939-955. Zizka, L., McGunagle, D. M., & Clark, P. J. (2021). Sustainability in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) programs: Authentic engagement through a community-based approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123715. 99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper Expression of Sustainable Mindset Traits in Lithuanian Primary School Curriculum Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania Presenting Author:The pressing global challenges necessitate a paradigm shift in how humanity lives, prompting education systems to adapt and incorporate learning objectives aligned with sustainability principles (UNESCO, 2017). Acknowledging this imperative, acquiring new mindsets becomes crucial (Broo, 2022; Lees, 2021; Rimanoczy, 2020). This shift involves a profound transformation of individuals' inner worlds, encompassing radical changes in values, thoughts, and lifestyles (Jančius et al., 2022). Recognizing that primary education shapes the future, integrating sustainability values into curricula becomes essential, influencing children's lifelong perspectives (Chawla, 2007; Lloyd & Gray, 2014). While it is vital for curricula to reflect global issues, there is a risk of schools merely disseminating information without fostering critical engagement (Bourn et al., 2016). It becomes paramount to guide children in establishing harmonious relationships with the Earth and others, addressing issues like climate change, global poverty, and gender equality (Herbert, 2008). However, research indicates a scarcity of sustainability-related content in primary education, with existing studies indirectly linked to sustainability (Andersen, 2018). Despite holistic aspects of sustainability education in primary schools, the lack of effective didactic approaches hampers influencing students' attitudes and behaviors (Taylor et al., 2019; Nepraš et al., 2022). Moreover, teachers' discomfort in discussing uncomfortable or controversial topics with primary students adds a layer of complexity (Mundy & Manion, 2008; Oberman et al., 2012; Robinson & Sebba, 2010). This unease is exacerbated by the fact that sustainability competences have traditionally been studied in higher education, leaving a dearth of knowledge about their development in primary education (Brundiers et al., 2020; Redman & Wiek, 2021; Vesterinen & Ratinen, 2023). To address this gap and uncover the potential of developing a sustainable mindset in primary education, the research question posed is: How are the characteristics of a sustainable mindset reflected in the Lithuanian primary curriculum? The study's aim is to reveal the expression of sustainable mindsets in the primary curriculum. Research Objectives:
The theoretical conceptual frameworks guiding this study include:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used A qualitative research approach was used to uncover the expression of sustainability mindset in the primary curriculum. The study analysed Lithuanian Common Curriculum for pre-primary, primary, secondary and basic education (the Common Curriculum provisions and 12 curriculum annexes) and 12 textbooks on integrated primary content. The study only analysed the content of the curricula and the curriculum annexes that are included in primary education. In this study, in order to uncover the expression of sustainable mindset in the primary curriculum, individual sections of selected curriculum annexes were analysed in the following ways: general provisions; aim and objectives; development of competences; achievement domains and outcomes; content of the curriculum; students’ levels of achievement by area of achievement. For the analysis of the chapter on students’ levels of achievement by area of achievement, data are collected from the higher levels of achievement. In order to see the broader possibilities for the development of sustainable mindset in the primary curriculum, the integrated content textbooks for grades 1-4. " Vaivorykštė" were also analysed. The analysis is carried out in two stages. The first stage involves the development of a coding tool for the analysis. The analysis codes are based on the model of the expression of the traits of a sustainable mindset in primary education presented in the theoretical part. The traits of a sustainable mindset are divided into characteristics and these into criteria. In the second part, the data are analysed by reading the texts carefully and dividing the text segments into units of analysis, to which analysis codes are assigned. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The analysis of scientific literature revealed that sustainability is a multi-layered construct encompassing economic, ecological, social, and cultural aspects, whose interaction is directed towards preserving the planet and ensuring the well-being of present and future generations. The integration of sustainability into education can occur through external and internal perspectives. The external perspective emphasizes the development of competencies, skills, and attitudes necessary to address sustainability-related challenges. The internal perspective serves as the foundation for sustainability mindset and highlights the integration of sustainability principles into decision-making and operational processes. The adapted model of sustainability mindset revealed the possibilities of integrating sustainability mindset into the primary education curriculum. The document analysis, conducted using content analysis methodology and a coding instrument developed based on the model of sustainability mindset expression in primary education, showed that the expression of assumptions underlying the development of sustainability mindset in Lithuanian primary education programs is partial. The expression of sustainability mindset traits is most prominent in the content of ethics, natural sciences, and ethnic culture programs. These programs emphasize criteria associated with specific characteristics of sustainability mindset, such as collaboration, the creation and adherence to agreements, and the understanding of global human and cultural diversity. Characteristics of sustainability mindset that are directly related to sustainable development, nature conservation, and sustainability are mostly developed in optional education content. The programs prioritize an external perspective on sustainability education, with less emphasis on the development of an internal perspective. The analysis of primary education textbooks revealed that subject integration creates favourable conditions for the development of sustainability mindset traits at the primary education stage. The integrated format of textbooks facilitates the development of sustainability mindset across all subject lessons by integrating themes horizontally and expanding the content vertically throughout the educational year. References Broo, D. G. (2022). Transdisciplinarity and three mindsets for sustainability in the age of cyber-physical systems [Article]. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 27, 100290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2021.100290 Chawla, L. (2007). Childhood Experiences Associated with Care for the Natural World: A Theoretical Framework for Empirical Results. Children, Youth and Environments, 17(4), 144–170. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.17.4.0144 Hermes, J., & Rimanoczy, I. (2018). Deep learning for a sustainability mindset [Article]. The International Journal of Management Education, 16(3), 460–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2018.08.001 Kassel, K., Rimanoczy, I., & Mitchell, S. F. (2018). A sustainability mindset model for management education. In Developing a Sustainability Mindset in Management Education (pp. 3–37). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351063340-1 Lees, M. (2021). Sustainable Compassionate Education Leadership in a Global Society. In A. A. Ritz & I. Rimanoczy (Eds.), Sustainability Mindset and Transformative Leadership (pp. 225–240). Sustainable Development Goals Series. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76069-4_11 Nepraš, K., Strejčková, T., & Kroufek, R. (2022). Climate Change Education in Primary and Lower Secondary Education: Systematic Review Results. Sustainability, 14(22), 14913. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214913 Redman, A., & Wiek, A. (2021). Competencies for Advancing Transformations Towards Sustainability. Frontiers in Education, 6, 484. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.785163 Rimanoczy, I. (2020). The Sustainability Mindset Principles: A Guide to Developing a Mindset for a Better World. Routledge. https://books.google.lt/books?id=LZ-GzQEACAAJ Rimanoczy, I., & Klinberger, B. (2021). The Sustainability Mindset Indicator: A Personal Development Tool. Journal of Management for Global Sustainability, 9(1), 43–79. https://doi.org/10.13185/JM2021.09103 Ritz, A. A., & Rimanoczy, I. (2021). Sustainability Mindset and Transformative Leadership [Book]. Springer International Publishing AG. Sterling, S. (2001). Sustainable Education: Re-Visioning Learning and Change. Schumacher Briefings. Vesterinen, M., & Ratinen, I. (2023). Sustainability competences in primary school education – a systematic literature review. Environmental Education Research, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2023.2170984 | ||