30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
Teaching through the whole-school-approach: The Austrian School Network ÖKOLOG - Case studies on Education for Sustainable Development in All-Day schools
Franz Rauch1, James Loparics2, Mira Dulle1, Markus Messerschmidt1
1University of Klagenfurt, Austria; 2Teacher University Vienna, Austria
Presenting Author: Rauch, Franz;
Loparics, James
Austria’s largest network for sustainable development education in schools is ÖKOLOG, which currently comprises 11% (over 700 schools) of the Austrian schools of all types as well as all university colleges for teacher education. ÖKOLOG was developed in 1996 by an Austrian team of teachers working on the international ENSI project (Affolder & Varga, 2018). ÖKOLOG is a national support system with the aim of promoting and integrating a sustainability approach into the development of individual schools and attempts are being made to embed the programme in Austria's federal states inter alia by regional networks and a webpage (www.ecolog.at).
ÖKOLOG is structured in three levels to support schools in the ÖKOLOG program: (1) the coordination by the Institute of Instructional and School Development at the University of Klagenfurt in partnership with the Austrian Federal Ministry for Education, (2) nine ÖKOLOG regional teams (one in each Austrian province) in collaboration with educational and environmental authorities, University Colleges of Teacher Education and various organizations of environmental and sustainability education, and (3) ÖKOLOG coordinators and teams in all ÖKOLOG schools (Rauch et al., 2023). Schools analyse the ecological, technical, and social conditions of their environment and, resultingly, define objectives, targets, concrete activities, and quality criteria to be implemented and evaluated. Students and other stakeholders of a school should be involved in a participatory way, and collaboration with authorities, businesses, and other interested parties is encouraged. The measures concern, among others, areas like saving resources (energy, water, etc.), reduction of emissions (i.e., waste, traffic), spatial arrangement (from the classroom to the campus), the culture of learning (communication, organisational structure), health promotion, social learning, as well as the opening of the school to the community (Rauch & Pfaffenwimmer, 2020).
Since the beginning of the ÖKOLOG-schools network's existence, a series of evaluations, inquiries, and studies have been produced and published both using qualitative and quantitative methods (Rauch et al., 2023). Evaluation studies are carried out on an ongoing basis to gain a better understanding of organizational and individual educational processes and to ensure the quality of educational governance. The current evaluation study is also specifically dedicated to so-called all-day schools. Traditionally, school lessons in Austria are mainly held in the morning. In recent years, all-day schools have gained in importance, not least for social reasons (e.g. parents working). In principle, all-day schools spread school life over the whole day (usually from 8:00 to 17:00) and offer lunch. The structuring of lessons and extracurricular activities at the schools is additive or integrative.
The main theoretical model used is currently those on ESD effective schools by Verhelst et al. (2022). In this model six central processes are identified which influence a "whole school approach": Pluralistic communication, shared vision, democratic decision making, adaptability, collective efficacy and supportive relations. It is assumed that all-day schools have specific potential for transformative educational processes due to the fact that they go beyond conventional teaching, but at the same time specific demands are placed on them. The aim of the studies described below was to explore these relationships and their potential.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used2022 - 2023, a total of four case studies were carried out in different contexts. When selecting the participating schools, in addition to membership in the ÖKOLOG network, care was taken to cover the diversity of the Austrian school landscape as far as possible: Thus, a rural elementary school (pupils aged 6-10) and an urban grammar school (pupils aged 10-18) both receive a lot of support as well as a middle school (age 10-14) in a socio-economically challenging location and a vocational school (age 15+, training takes place in a company in addition to school) in a metropolitan area. Two were case studies developed as part of the ERASMUS+ project SustainAll - Sustainability at all-day schools. The greatest possible heterogeneity was also taken into account when selecting the cases with regard to the conceptual integration of education for sustainable development into the educational offerings, as well as the economic side of the school (buildings, purchasing, waste disposal, etc.).
The data collection consisted of in-depth interviews, observations and the analysis of documents. The interviews were conducted with various stakeholders (teachers, pupils, parents, directors, social workers, leisure time educators) and focused on personal ideas of sustainability and transformative learning as well as implementation in the school. The observations consisted of participation in formal and informal activities, in non-specific and ESD-specific activities. The homepage, school concepts and the annual reports, which all ÖKOLOG member schools produce annually, were used as documents.
The data was evaluated using content analysis (Mayring 2022). Based on the research questions, the individual case studies were initially analyzed deductively using a coding scheme. In the next inductive step, it was important to include particularly central aspects that came from the actors in the school. Finally, the four individual case studies were evaluated by means of a contrastive case comparison. This shows common difficulties and development logics in terms of the integration of ESD, but also major specifics of the individual situation of the schools.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn line with Verhelst et al. (2022), the factors "shared vision" and "pluralistic communication" appear to play a particularly important role. The ÖKOLOG programme acts as a shared vision for the schools, providing a common focus. Pluralistic communication with regard to ESD means illuminating sustainability issues from different perspectives and the facilitation of a dialog. The schools are at very different stages of development in the anchoring of ESD in their day-to-day work; there appear to be internal system boundaries, some of which extend along professional groups (teachers and leisure educators), but also along personal lifestyles (e.g. own flying behavior). In addition, it is not surprising that those schools whose pupils have socio-economic starting advantages have a more comprehensive establishment of ESD.
For the further development of the ÖKOLOG network, these findings mean that further training and advisory services should be strongly related to organizational development in order to support schools in "shared vision" and "pluralistic communication" on the one hand, but also to be able to take into account the specifics of the individual school location with regard to the school types, the socio-economic and socio-cultural situation as well as the personal skills of the professionals on the other.
ReferencesAffolter, C. & Varga, A. (2018) (Eds.), Environment and School Initiatives. Lessons from the ENSI Network - Past, Present and Future. Environment and School Initiatives, Vienna and Eszterhazy Karoly University, Budapest.
Mayring, P. (2022). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. (13. Aufl.). Beltz.
Rauch, F. & Pfaffenwimmer, G. (2020). The Austrian ECOLOG-Schools Programme – Networking for Environmental and Sustainability Education. pp. 85-102. In: A. Gough, J. Chi Kin Lee and E. Po Keung Tsang (eds.). Green Schools Globally: Stories of Impact for Sustainable Development. Dortrecht, Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-46820-0_1
Rauch, F., Glettler, C., Steiner, R. & Dulle, M. (2023). Environmental and Sustainability Education in Austria, In R. Rieckmann, & R. Thomas (Eds.), World Review: Environmental and Sustainability Education in the Context of the Sustainable Development Goals. RiScience Publishers/CRC. (In Print)
SustainAll (2024). www.sustainall.eu/en
Verhelst, D., Vanhoof, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2022). Development and validation of the education for sustainable development school organisation questionnaire. Environmental Education Research, 28(2), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.2007219
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper
Navigating School-University Partnership: Evolving whole-institution engagement in sustainability-oriented education
Rosalie Mathie, Siv Paus Brovold, Aksel Hugo
Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), Department of Educational Sciences
Presenting Author: Mathie, Rosalie;
Brovold, Siv Paus
In Norway, as in other countries the world over, to ensure sustainability education is to move beyond an ‘add-on’ approach (Scott, 2013; Sterling, 2004), a shift in what, where, how, and with whom students learn is required. For sustainability education to move beyond the traditional classroom setting, and proactively engage learners with real-world issues and solutions, engagement with multi-stakeholders is also required (Leicht, Heiss & Byun, 2018; UNESCO, 2017).
In 2017, a multi-stakeholder school-university partnership was established consisting of four upper-secondary schools, the school district, and a teacher education department situated in the southeast of Norway. The aim set was to improve professional practice between campus-based and school-based understandings of sustainability-oriented education. The third-space concept (Lejonberg et. al., 2017), was employed, where researchers, teachers, leaders, students, and pupils collaborate and co-construct knowledge (Daza et, al., 2021). Originally set to end in 2022 the partnership agreement was then renewed until 2025. This paper is situated in this renewal process, a point of reflexive transition within the partnership, where understanding the following is essential; to reflect on the challenges, tensions, and opportunities experienced in establishing a partnership from a third-space perspective; to understand better why systemically embedding sustainability education is challenging; and to explore if, and or, how collective capacity building can support and provide structures to overcome these challenges in future practice.
To examine the collaborative frameworks and conditions for cross-institutional collective capacity building developed in this partnership the research questions this paper addresses are:
1. How does a School-University partnership structure and evolve collective capacity building for supporting sustainability-oriented transitions?
2. How can the partnership itself navigate and evolve to support each of the partner's own whole-institution process?
A Whole School/Institution Approach (UNESCO, 2017; Wals & Mathie, 2022) frames multiple stages of this research; the development of the school-university partnership over time; informing co-developed and reflexive professional-development content creation; and the field of research, that the PhD study this artilce is situated in, aims to contribute to theoretically. As part of this theoretical contribution, this paper's theoretical framework builds upon and is informed by two publications; 1. Mathie (in press), where a broad understanding of a Whole School Approach as a reflexive thinking tool for general quality educational change processes is proposed and in turn a composite Whole School Approach model detailing "Overarching principles, processes, and strands of a Whole School Approach to Support Educational Change Processes" (Mathie, in press, p.24) is presented; and 2. Hugo & Iversen's (in press) Whole School Alignment Model, where, in a school-university partnership context "[...] the liminal space of collaborative inquiry processes assumes the central role of navigating and attuning inherent tensions and aligning structures, programme design, space and pedagogies to co-create coherency" (Hugo & Iversen, in press, p.15).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedSituated within a larger PhD research design, Education Design Research (EDR) is chosen research method of enquiry. EDR is a participatory approach that combines scientific enquiry with systematic development to co-develop with stakeholders’ practical solutions to issues educators face in real-world learning contexts (McKenney & Reeves, 2018). EDR provides design processes whereby multiple stakeholders aims to; co-design innovative solutions to a specific challenge; ensure developing collective usable knowledge remains relevant and valuable to the stakeholders themselves; and contribute to theory building in a specific field (Barab & Kurt, 2004; Lagemann, 2002; McKenney & Reeves, 2018).
This paper focuses specifically on analysing qualitative data sources collected between 2021 and 2023 (video and audio-recordings from interviews, workshops, and meetings, alongside visual content, for example, visual timelines generated through these interactions). The data is critically examined to gain insight into how a ‘School-University partnership’ perspective can evolve, structure, and develop collective capacity building to support and stimulate whole-institution engagement in sustainability-oriented education and related transitions.
To systematically transcribe and process the multiple data sources, NVivo and the six phases of Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021), are employed for data analysis.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPreliminary findings:
To varying degrees all participants involved commit to moving from an ‘add-on’ to a ‘built-in’ (Scott, 2013; Sterling, 2004) approach to sustainability-oriented education. Specific conditions are identified as ways to support authentic integration of sustainability-oriented education, such as the need to; have a flexible structure to adapt to each specific institutional context; anchor commitment throughout the whole institution to avoid dependence on individuals; establish arenas for collaboration and reflection across all institutional levels; create multi-actor resource and development groups at each institute to mobilize distributed leadership and sync-up institutional and educational development; establish clear, tangible, short and mid-term goals that link to a `living´ long-term vision and overarching institutional plan; create a model for distributing continuous competency and capacity building involving all staff; to build up the culture of collaboration and sharing between all local education providers by developing an open-access resource/knowledge base platform.
Challenges encountered include, for example; shifts of project identity in relation to the institutions as the needs and direction of the partnerships evolve; shifts in roles and staff-turnover amongst all partners; and the need to be conscious of underlying power relations.
Preliminary conclusions:
The findings indicate that participatory methods that encourage ´learning from and with each other´ became a pivotal mechanism and overarching principle in the partnership development process for establishing mutually supportive, non-hierarchical capacity building for all stakeholders.
Establishing a ‘third room’, of shared ownership to shared questions, is seen to provide an applicable non-hierarchical space to navigate these challenges, where inquiry-based research and practice, alongside professional and institutional development, can simultaneously be developed.
ReferencesBarab, S. and K. Squire (2004). "Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground." The journal of the learning sciences 13 (1): 1-14.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Daza, V., Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Lund, A. (2021). Partnerships as third spaces for professional practice in initial teacher education: A scoping review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 102, 103338.
Hugo, A., & Iversen, E., (in press). The Whole School Alignment Model: Facilitating a teacher team in sustainable entrepreneurship education within a whole school context. Springer SDG 4.7 series – Whole School Approaches. Springer.
Lagemann, E. C. (2002). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research: University of Chicago Press.
Leicht, A., Heiss, J., & Byun, W. J. (2018). Issues and trends in education for sustainable development (Vol. 5): UNESCO Publishing.
Lejonberg, E., Elstad, E., & Hunskaar, T. S. (2017). Behov for å utvikle” det tredje rom” i relasjonen mellom universitet og praksisskoler. Uniped, 40(1), 68- 85.
Mathie, R, G., (in press). A Whole School Approach: A synthesis of interconnected Policy, Practice and Research Conceptualisations. Springer SDG 4.7 series – Whole School Approaches. Springer.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2018). Conducting Educational Design Research: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Scott, W. (2013). Developing the sustainable school: Thinking the issues through. Curriculum Journal, 24(2), 181-205.
Sterling, S. (2004). Higher education, sustainability, and the role of systemic learning. In P. B. Corcoran & a. E. J. Wals (Eds.), Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability: Problematics, Promise, and Practice (pp. 49–70). Dordrecht: Springer.
UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives, UNESCO Publishing.
Wals, A.E.J & Mathie, R.G. (2022). Whole school responses to climate urgency and related sustainability challenges: A perspective from northern Europe. In: M. Peters & R. Heraud (Eds.), Encyclopedia of educational innovation. Springer.
|
