Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:30:12 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
30 SES 03 C: ESE in Higher Education: cultures of collaboration and transformation
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Cultures of Sustainability at Higher Education Institutions: from Scale Development towards Self-evaluation Approaches University of Regensburg, Germany Presenting Author:Higher education institutions (HEIs) are key actors in advancing sustainability across research, teaching, third mission activities and campus management. In recent years, debates on sustainability and education for sustainable development (ESD) in higher education have shifted from a focus on visible initiatives—such as curriculum reforms or sustainable canteens—towards less visible but highly influential sustainability-related norms, values and assumptions within HEIs. In this context, the concept of Cultures of Sustainability (CoS) has gained increasing attention (Tilbury 2013; German Rectors’ Conference 2025). Research in organizational theory highlights the pivotal role of organizational culture in change processes (Alvesson 2013; Linnenluecke & Griffiths 2010), as it shapes how new goals are interpreted, legitimised and translated into everyday practices within organizations. A widely used analytical framework is Schein’s (2010) distinction between visible organizational artefacts and the more implicit, yet powerful, norms and underlying assumptions shaping organizational behaviour. Building on this framework, the present study applies a multi-level perspective on organizational culture to sustainability in higher education. CoS are understood as the “coalescence of norms, attitudes, values and assumptions with sustainability as a normative orientation, which also refers to structures, routines and behaviours at HEIs” (Holst et al. 2025, p. 489). To date, research on CoS at HEIs has predominantly relied on qualitative approaches (e.g. Adams et al. 2018; Niedlich et al. 2020) and single or comparative case studies (e.g. Avissar et al. 2018; Levy & Marans 2012), which provide rich insights but are limited in terms of generalisability and longitudinal monitoring. What is largely missing is an instrument that allows for systematic assessment, comparison and monitoring of CoS across different HEIs. This gap also constrains the ability of university leadership to integrate knowledge about organizational culture into own strategic sustainability governance. Against this background, the present study aims to develop a quantitative, yet reflective, self-evaluation tool that enables HEIs to assess their own Cultures of Sustainability. The tool builds on previous conceptual and empirical work and is designed to support organizational learning rather than external ranking or benchmarking. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study draws on results from several interrelated research phases within the same overarching project. These include conceptual work on researching CoS (Fritz et al. 2022), a systematic literature review of international research about CoS (Holst et al. 2025), and an interview study exploring tensions and contradictions in sustainability-oriented organizational cultures (Weynand et al., in review). Based on these foundations, the research team developed a quantitative survey instrument—the eCoS scale—to assess CoS at HEIs across the three analytical levels inspired by Schein: artefacts, norms and assumptions. Where possible, existing validated items and scales were integrated, such as the Whole Institution Approach Scale for the artefact level (Holst et al. 2024). Scale development followed established procedures, including cognitive interviews (Collins 2003), a pretest with members from different status groups, and a full survey sent to all members of five HEIs. The first survey yielded robust psychometric results for the final scale and enabled the generation of overall findings across institutions (Holst et al., in preparation). However, the analysis of institution-specific data has so far been limited. This is partly due to ethical considerations, as direct comparisons between HEIs may generate unintended political dynamics, particularly in a higher education context increasingly shaped by rankings and performance metrics. At the same time, institution-specific insights are crucial for HEI leadership, as they provide a basis for context-sensitive sustainability strategies. Therefore, the present contribution focuses on analysing and discussing the case-specific results of the five participating HEIs and on exploring pathways for mobilising this knowledge for institutional development. The paper will present selected overall findings, followed by a comparative discussion of similarities and differences in CoS across the five HEIs. In addition, the paper outlines plans for repeating the survey at four HEIs to enable longitudinal analysis and for extending the survey to six additional HEIs. Based on these future data, the eCoS scale will be further developed into a practical self-evaluation tool for HEI leadership, including options for time-efficient data analysis supported by AI-based methods. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The first survey resulted in a total sample of 3,317 respondents across five HEIs, with students being underrepresented. Overall findings indicate that sustainability is experienced more strongly at the level of values and assumptions than at the level of concrete artefacts and practices. Another cross-cutting insight suggests that system-level factors within higher education exert a stronger influence on organizational cultures of sustainability than initially assumed. At ECER 2026 in Tampere, we will present selected overall findings as well as results from the case-specific analyses of the five HEIs involved in the first survey round. Differences between the cases will be discussed and interpreted using additional data from the overall project. While data from the second survey wave will not yet be available for analysis, the paper will discuss implications of the existing findings for the further development of the self-evaluation tool. The contribution focuses in particular on the capacity of university leadership to generate, interpret and use data on Cultures of Sustainability in ways that support strategic change. The self-evaluation tool is intended to help HEIs align sustainability governance with their specific organizational cultures, avoid resistance and unintended reactance, and foster culturally sensitive change processes. References Adams, R., Martin, S., & Boom, K. (2018). University culture and sustainability: Designing and implementing an enabling framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.032 Alvesson, M. (2013). Understanding organizational culture (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd. Avissar, I., Alkaher, I., & Gan, D. (2018). The role of distributed leadership in mainstreaming environmental sustainability into campus life in an Israeli teaching college. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(3), 518–546. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2017-0105 Collins, D. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods. Quality of Life Research, 12, 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023254226592 German Rectors’ Conference. (2025). Kulturen der Nachhaltigkeit – Hochschulen als Zukunftswerkstätten der nachhaltigen Entwicklung stärken: Empfehlung der 41. Mitgliederversammlung der HRK am 4.11.2025 in Osnabrück. Holst, J., Fritz, H., Nölting, B., Potthast, T., Betz, C., Lang, D. J., Ober, S., Parodi, O., Scheiding, C., Weynand, M., & Singer-Brodowski, M. (2025). Exploring Culture(s) of Sustainability at Higher Education Institutions: A Systematic Review of Concepts and Pathways. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 26(9), 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-08-2024-0550 Holst, J., Grund, J., & Brock, A. (2024). Whole Institution Approach: Measurable and highly effective in empowering learners and educators for sustainability. Sustainability Science, 19, 1359–1376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01506-5 Levy, B. L., & Marans, R. W. (2012). Towards a campus culture of environmental sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(4), 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371211262317 Linnenluecke, M. K., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. Journal of World Business, 45(4), 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.08.006 Niedlich, S., Kummer, B., Bauer, M., Rieckmann, M., & Bormann, I. (2020). Cultures of sustainability governance in higher education institutions: A multi‐case study of dimensions and implications. Higher Education Quarterly, 74, 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12237 Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4. ed.). The Jossey-Bass Business & Management Series. Jossey-Bass. Tilbury, D. (2013). Another world is desirable: A global rebooting of higher education for sustainable development. In S. Sterling, L. Maxey, & H. Luna (Eds.), The Sustainable University (pp. 71–86). Routledge Weynand, M., Holst, J., Singer-Brodowski, M., Betz, C., Irion, M., & Potthast, T. (in review). Aerostats and tankers – areas of tension and conflicting goals in the context of cultures of sustainability at German universities. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society. 30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper How Can We Make Our Higher Education Vocational Programs in the Social Domain (More) ‘Ecological’? 1: Hogeschool Utrecht, Netherlands, The; 2: University College Lillebelt, Denmark Presenting Author:This paper presents the work‑in‑progress of a research project carried out by a group of teachers and researchers from two higher education programs in the social domain: the professional bachelor Pædagog (UCL, Denmark) and master Pedagogiek (HU, The Netherlands). We started out with the plan to do a literature review aiming to understand the vastly expanding literature on (what we refer to as) ‘ecological education’, which included literature from Environmental and Sustainability Education (ESE) as well as ecopedagogy and ecophilosophy, but this quickly evolved into a broad inquiry shaped by a performative stance. Our project is guided by the question: how can we make our higher vocational education programs (more) ‘ecological’. We began by first exploring our own perspectives. Each of us introduced ourselves with a written reflection on the perspectives we bring to the academic texts we read, emphasizing the importance of being transparent about the ‘situatedness’ of our knowledge (Haraway, 2013). This resulted in a way of working in which we continuously bring our different perspectives, the texts we read and our practices into a dialogue, i.e. we are constantly braiding person, theory, and practice. We hereby draw on Haraway’s (2016) ideas of SF - speculative fabulation, science fiction, and string figures - as a way of thinking‑with and staying with the trouble of our research practices. Grappling with these ideas enables us to trace how knowledge emerges through the ongoing, situated and more‑than‑human entanglements that shape our engagements. They foreground how our different positionalities, histories, and disciplinary orientations shape the threads we each pick up, the concepts that catch our attention, and the texts we are drawn to read. In following these diverse yet interconnected strands, our inquiry becomes a collaborative making‑with, where differences generate new patterns rather than needing to be resolved. Next, we turned to reading. So far, we have read 25 papers and are still expanding. We decided to include both peer‑reviewed and non‑peer‑reviewed papers, in recognition of the fact that knowledge is created by multiple contributors. While diving into these papers, we found ourselves in a large web of threads. Schinkel states that ecological education is “an education that acknowledges and reflects the networks of interdependence of all that lives, including ourselves - inspired by an ecological ethic” (2025, p.1). Hung’s definition enriches this idea because she highlights that ecological pedagogy is pedagogy grounded in an ecological worldview: “ecopedagogy is not an education about ecology but an education through ecology, meaning that it is an education based on an ecological worldview” (2021, p. 1). Secondly, it is about more than ‘all that lives’ (Schinkel, 2025), it is also about the connection to abiotic factors, place and surroundings: “Education with the goal of connecting human beings with their surroundings, and cultivation of the human affinity with all lifelike processes and abiotic factors, is ‘ecopedagogy” (Hung, 2017, p.45). In addition, we argue Kahns definition is beneficial because it addresses social justice: “Ecopedagogy seeks to interpolate quintessentially Freirean aims of humanization and social justice with a future-oriented ecological politics that radically opposes the globalization of neoliberalism and imperialism, on the one hand, and which attempts to foment collective ecoliteracy and realize culturally relevant forms of knowledge grounded in normative concepts such as sustainability, planetarity, and biophilia, on the other” (2008, p.8). Ecological education for us is education that puts understanding of ‘how we are entangled in our being’ at its center, so that we do not only learn about it but also deeply understand and feel it. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Our analytical approach is Karen Barad’s concept of the agential cut, which serves as the central methodological and performative philosophical anchor for our inquiry. For Barad, cuts are not simple separations but productive differentiations through which phenomena, researchers, and knowledge emerge. An agential cut is an intervention that enacts boundaries, relations, and possibilities; it participates in the world’s becoming rather than merely describing it. This understanding fundamentally shapes how we approach the study of ecological education (Barad, 2007). Our research process unfolds as a movement back and forth, in which agential cuts and diffractive readings continually reconfigure what becomes possible to notice and think. We understand the research process itself as an apparatus in Barad’s sense: a dynamic configuration of material-discursive practices through which specific phenomena come into being. The intra-actions within this apparatus - between researcher and co-researchers, theory and practice, texts and experiences - are more than voices or viewpoints. They function as methods, as generative forces that enact cuts, making a difference in how the phenomenon of eco-education-becoming can be explored. Even the emergence of a manifesto, and the positioning work it entails, operates as an agential cut that shapes the contours of our inquiry. Because agential cuts are productive rather than representational, our literature study does not aim to uncover a pre-existing field. Instead, the field comes into being through the cuts we perform: what we select, what we exclude, and what we diffractively read through one another. Diffractive reading, following Barad and Haraway, is not about comparison but about tracing interference patterns - patterns that create stories and reveal how differences matter. These readings are enacted through iterative back-and-forth movements that generate resonances, frictions, and unexpected connections. Internal divergences within our group also operate as agential cuts. Søren’s phenomenological orientation opens different trajectories than the performative commitments held by Lynne and Stine. We do not resolve these differences; instead, we treat them as productive diffractive moments that broaden the apparatus and generate new understandings. Likewise, the practice‑oriented questions raised by Morten and Yvonne cut into the apparatus, reorienting attention toward the practical implications of our theoretical work. In this sense, our corpus is not a fixed dataset but an emergent assemblage, continually reconfigured through the agential cuts produced in our ongoing intra-actions. Our methodology is therefore not representational but inventive, allowing ecological education to emerge through the very practices of inquiry. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Our inquiry reveals that eco‑education is not a pre‑existing domain but an emergent phenomenon shaped through the agential cuts enacted in our process. In this project, as well as in this abstract, we try to show how we not only inquire about eco-education, but embody our practices through it. This submission therefore has two levels: the first is our preliminary findings (summarized here) the second is our attempt to embody ecological education in the way we approached this research project. Agential Cut 1: Structural Inequities and Social Justice Our first significant narrative trajectory concerns a critique of existing educational systems and their embedded injustices, including the limited space afforded to marginalized groups. Resonating with Ejsing’s (2024), this cut foregrounds the ways eco‑education must grapple with power, exclusion, and the socio‑political conditions that shape who gets to participate, thrive, or be heard. Reading through this cut obliges us to ask: How does eco‑education address structural inequities and issues of social justice within current educational systems? This question highlights that making education ecological must involve reorienting educational practices away from extractive, competitive, and capitalist logics and toward reciprocity, repair, sufficiency, and commoning. Agential Cut 2: Human-Nature Separation The second narrative concerns the pervasive separation between humans and nature and the longing for renewed more‑than‑human connectedness. This cut underscores the need to challenge ontological boundaries and cultivate practices that attune learners to the more‑than‑human world. This leads us to ask: How does eco‑education challenge the human–nature divide and cultivate forms of more‑than‑human connectedness? Here, eco‑education becomes an intra‑active assemblage, not a pedagogical method: a space where place, materiality, and relational becoming matter. Across both cuts, our findings point toward a forward‑looking commitment: resisting separation logics -whether social or ecological -and fostering educational cultures grounded in entanglement, situated response‑ability, and more‑than‑human flourishing. References Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham London: Duke University Press. Ejsing, M. (2024). Verden er ikke længere den samme: økologiske krisefortællinger i det antropocæne (1. udgave). Kbh.: Hans Reitzel. Haraway, D. J. (2013). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. I: M. Wyer, M. Barbercheck, D. Cookmeyer, H. Ozturk & M. Wayne (Red.), Women, Science, and Technology (p. 455–472). doi:10.4324/9780203427415 Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. doi:10.2307/j.ctv11cw25q Hung, R. (2017). Towards Ecopedagogy: An Education Embracing Ecophilia. Educational Studies in Japan, 11 (0), p. 43–56. doi:10.7571/esjkyoiku.11.43 Hung, R. (2021). Ecopedagogy and Education. I: R. Hung, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1502 Kahn, R. (2008). From Education for Sustainable Development to Ecopedagogy: Sustaining Capitalism or Sustaining Life? Green Theory & Praxis: The Journal of Ecopedagogy, 4 (1), s. 1–14. doi:10.3903/gtp.2008.1.2 Schinkel, A. (2025). Beyond human flourishing: an argument for ecological education. Journal of Philosophy of Education 59 (3-4), 651-667. 30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Higher Education for Sustainability in the Age of Climate Change. A Cross-Institutional Perspective on Transformation from Germany University of Vechta, Germany Presenting Author:Under the framework of the Whole Institution Approach (Holst, 2023), higher education institutions are called to comprehensively fulfil their societal responsibilities across all sectors. In addressing the needs of diverse staff groups within society in an era marked by anthropogenic climate change, teaching emerges as a critical leverage point for institutional climate transformation (Rieckmann, 2018; UNESCO, 2017). Universities bear the responsibility to adequately prepare students for climate-related challenges by not only imparting relevant professional knowledge (Filho and Vargas, 2021) but also fostering a fundamental understanding of climate impacts and developing sustainability competencies. The overarching goal is to equip graduates with awareness, systemic understanding, skills, values, and motivation (Wamsler, 2020) to contribute actively to a sustainable and resilient transition toward climate friendliness (Higher Ed Climate Action, 2024) and extend their access to sustainable employment opportunities. Successful change processes do not depend solely on the commitment of university teaching staff but largely require the identification, development, and implementation of conscious strategies and measures (Thomas, 2016). Furthermore, combating climate change through higher education requires us to embrace a paradigm shift which tackles root causes and promotes global justice, acknowledging the ethical imperatives inherent in educational responses to environmental crises (Reid, 2019). Moving towards transformative learning (Taylor, 2009) means finding answers to a wide range of questions, such as how existing teaching and learning spaces can be used differently, while also modifying existing courses or creating new ones. When the goals and impact of teaching are redefined, this also results in changed requirements for teaching evaluation. Another dimension is the collegial cooperation of university teachers, their networking and peer learning, and their professional development (Bellina et al., 2020). This study analyses institutional data from thirteen universities that have previously engaged in structured data collection to monitor and guide their transformation efforts. These institutions aimed to understand and reduce their carbon footprint and develop frameworks for becoming climate-friendly universities. From their unique baseline perspectives, the universities assessed their current situations, identified barriers and opportunities, and began developing targeted measures. Focusing on teaching and learning, this research investigates how small and medium-sized German universities conceptualize and operationalize the integration of climate-related education within broader institutional change processes. Anonymized and aggregated data from the participating institutions is analysed to identify enabling and constraining conditions for implementing climate-focused education for sustainability strategies. The study systematically identifies needs, potential approaches, and success factors to support the ongoing transformation of teaching at small and medium-sized universities towards climate-friendly institutions. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The analysis is based on both quantitative and qualitative data derived from institutional transformation processes at thirteen German universities, including standardized surveys administered to university members and students, internal catalogues of measures, and climate protection concepts complemented by monitoring strategies. These data is systematically analysed through a cross-institutional secondary data analysis. The study employs a mixed-methods research design that integrates quantitative and qualitative approaches, adapted to the nature of the available data. Quantitative data from standardized surveys are subjected to statistical analysis, while qualitative data—including textual documents—are coded and interpreted using thematic analysis as outlined by Kuckartz and Rädiker (2024), employing MaxQDA. The integration of both methodological approaches, along with an iterative process of interaction between them, allows for contextualization of quantitative trends and facilitates in-depth, context-sensitive analysis within the framework of institutional change. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The results highlight the perceived need for action among universities. A comparison of university staff and students’ responses, based on aggregated survey data, reveals notable divergences in their respective perceptions of the implementation of climate-friendly and sustainable teaching practices. The identified recurring strategic patterns, particularly those emphasizing climate justice-oriented pedagogy and competence development, are driven by recognized needs and opportunities at both structural and individual levels—especially among faculty. The results also demonstrate that strengthening sustainability competencies is not solely a matter for students but is equally imperative for university educators. Furthermore, those initially engaged in transformation processes often exhibit high intrinsic motivation; however, reports of extrinsic incentives are limited. Voluntariness, while fostering motivation, also introduces certain limitations, notably a tension between individual engagement and the absence of formal institutional embedding—an issue requiring deliberate attention and strategic intervention. Limitations: Causal relationships can only be minimally inferred due to the study's design. The reliance on existing, heterogeneous secondary data sources constrains both generalizability and causal inference. Moreover, with rare exceptions, the sample predominantly comprises small and medium-sized German universities, which may limit the transferability of the findings to other European contexts and diverse types of higher education institutions. Future research should examine the transferability of these strategies across different European settings, incorporate longitudinal designs to track change over time, and empirically evaluate the effectiveness of specific interventions to support evidence-based practices in higher education transformation toward climate sustainability. References Bellina, L; Tegeler, M K; Müller-Christ, G; Potthast, T (2020): Bildung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung (BNE) in der Hochschullehre. BMBF-Projekt „Nachhaltigkeit an Hochschulen: entwickeln – vernetzen – berichten (HOCHN)“, Bremen und Tübingen. 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. Kuckartz, U; Rädiker, S (2024). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Umsetzung mit Software und künstlicher Intelligenz. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Leal Filho, W; Vargas, V (2021). The role and impact of the university. In: T McCowan, W Leal Filho, L Brandli (2021). Universities facing Climate Change and Sustainability. Hamburg. 38-52. Reid, A (2019): Climate change education and research: possibilities and potentials versus problems and perils? In: Environmental Education Research 25 (6), S. 767–790. DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2019.1664075. Rieckmann, M. (2018) Learning to transform the world: key competencies in ESD. In: A. Leicht, J. Heiss und W. J. Byun: Issues and trends in Education for Sustainable Development. Paris: UNESCO. 39–59. Taylor, E W (2009): Fostering Transformative Learning. In: J Mezirow; E W Taylor: Transformative learning in practice. Insights from community, workplace, and higher education. San Francisco, Calif., Chichester: Jossey-Bass; John Wiley, 3–17. Thomas, I (2016): Challenges for Implementation of Education for Sustainable Development in Higher Education Institutions. In: M Barth, G Michelsen, M Rieckmann und I Thomas (Hg.): Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development. London: Routledge, 56–71. UNESCO (2017): Education for Sustainable Development Goals. Learning Objectives. Paris: UNESCO. Wamsler, C (2020): Education for sustainability. In: IJSHE 21 (1), S. 112–130. DOI: 10.1108/IJSHE-04-2019-0152. 30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Cooperation between Swiss Universities for a Future-oriented Teacher Training. Developing Education for Sustainable Development, Linking Subjects, Strenghening the Coherence of Education 1: HEP Vaud, Switzerland; 2: PH FHNW, Switzerland; 3: PH Luzern, Switzerland Presenting Author:In times of uncertainty, contemporary sustainability challenges inevitably raise complex pedagogical demands that teachers must be prepared to address in their professional practice (Künzli, Bertschy & Buchs, 2010 ; Madalińska-Michalak & Flores, 2025). In response to what Morin and Kern (1993) conceptualise as a “poly-crisis”, teacher education institutions in Switzerland have begun, at different paces and with varying approaches, to adapt teacher training in terms of tools, competencies and knowledge domains (Baumann, Lausselet & Pache, 2019). However, the mainstreaming of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) has been accompanied by processes of conceptual dilution and, in some cases, forms of “pedagogical greenwashing” (Germain, 2023), which raises questions about the coherence and depth of the training programmes offered. This proposal consists of initially presenting the broad outlines of a research project funded by swissuniversities as part of the programme ‘Strengthening the culture of sustainability in Swiss higher education institutions’. It aims to bring together Swiss higher education institutions that train teachers, with the goal of improving the integration of education for sustainable development (ESD) by offering coherent, innovative training programmes characterised by transformative learning (Mezirow, 2002; Grund & Singer-Brodowski, 2020) and complex thinking (Pache, Hertig & Curnier, 2017). This research project consists of five interconnected sub-projects being worked on by eighteen higher education institutions that train teachers in Switzerland[1]. The first sub-project (1a) develops a curriculum progression for ESD training in all training programmes (primary, secondary, specialised education), examining the links between ESD and the different areas of training from a lifelong learning perspective (Thwe & Kalman, 2024). The second sub-project (1b) identifies innovative approaches (Cros, 2013) within the framework of transformative ESD. The third sub-project (2a) focuses more specifically on the institutional anchoring of ESD and on strengthening the ESD skills of trainers through the establishment of networks for the exchange of experiences. The fourth sub-project (2b) aims to provide tools for monitoring projects related to sustainable development and ESD in higher education institutions that train teachers (Holst and al., 2024). Finally, the fifth sub-project (3) proposes to develop educational landscapes, in other words collaborations between higher education institutions and the many actors interested in sustainability and its educational aspects. Focused on ESD training, the overall project also aims to stimulate reflection on teaching methods that may be of interest to all higher education institutions, even those that do not train teachers.. Finally, it also aims to encourage the next generation by involving young researchers in the various sub-projects. [1] The list of participating institutions can be found here (in German or French): https://www.swissuniversities.ch/themen/nachhaltigkeit/nachhaltigkeitskultur-2025-2028/unterstuetzte-projekte-2025 Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The second part of the presentation will focus more specifically on sub-project 1a, which addresses the need for a long-term re-foundation of teacher education curricula in order to respond to the unprecedented conditions of poly-crisis (Curnier, 2021). This sub-project is guided by two research questions : What is the current status of ESD in the Swiss universities participating in this sub-project ? What developments can be envisaged in order to implement innovative ESD training curricula ? The methodology of this sub-project is based on eleven case studies (Mialaret, 2009) and combines quantitative and qualitative analyses (De Singly, 2005; Bardin, 2013; Mayring, 2020; Schneijderberg et al. 2022). An initial written questionnaire was completed by participating universities in autumn 2025 in order to analyse the formal ESD curriculum (Forquin, 2008). This questionnaire was structured in five parts : knowledge, epistemological positioning and subjects studied, articulation of disciplines, models of skills implemented and learning theories used, teaching methods and learning contexts, and elements of curricular progression. Focus group interviews (Markova, 2003) were then conducted with teacher trainers and programme managers (between autumn 2025 and early 2026). Finally, focus group interviews will be conducted with students in autumn 2026. The aim of this sub-project is to produce a guide presenting the obstacles and levers for implementing an innovative ESD training curriculum (Cros, 2013), incorporating a co-creation phase involving both teachers and students who participate in the interviews. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Preliminary findings highlight five key tensions that will inform the development of the innovative curriculum model. First, a multitude of knowledge and theoretical frameworks to be taught in training, thus making it necessary to provide ESD-specific training for trainers and lifelong training for teachers. This diversity of references can be explained by different epistemological, disciplinary and cultural traditions in Switzerland, but also by the interdisciplinary or even transdisciplinary nature of ESD. Second, ESD is predominantly embedded within subject-specific didactics, with limited integration of educational science perspectives (e.g. research methodology, learning regulation or classroom management). Third, the transformative learning model is present in institutional discourse and isolated modules but it remains unevenly developed, poorly systematised and often implicit. Fourth, student engagement initiatives are emerging but sustainability is not yet structurally recognised within academic evaluation systems. Fifth, curricular progression in ESD remains fragmented, with few coherent longitudinal pathways, despite promising examples distinguishing professional posture, pedagogical methods and classroom complexity. Based on the empirical findings of these five interconnected sub-projects, this project seeks to capture the multiple institutional and local complexities involved in addressing the global challenges central to ESD, particularly through the reinforcement of networks among higher education institutions. In doing so, this proposal contributes to ESER by providing a national-scale example of efforts to embed ESD across teacher education, including the development of an innovative curriculum model grounded in empirical analysis and informed by both interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary perspectives. References Bibliography Bardin, L. (2013). L’analyse de contenu. Presses Universitaires de France. Baumann, S., Lausselet, N. & Pache A. (2019). L’EDD dans la formation des enseignant.e.s, État des lieux-juillet 2019, Swissuniversities. Cros, F. (2013). « L’innovation en formation ». Dans le Dictionnaire des concepts de la professionnalisation (pp. 169-175). De Boeck Supérieur. Curnier, D. (2021). Vers une école éco-logique. Le Bord de l’eau. De Singly, F. (2005). L’enquête et ses méthodes. Le questionnaire. Armand Colin. Forquin, J.-C. (2008). Sociologie du curriculum. PUR. Germain, S. (2023). Chapitre 2. Compétences essentielles. Pratique pédagogique, 67-119. Grund, J., Singer-Brodowski, M. (2020). Transformatives Lernen und Emotionen - Ihre Bedeutung für die außerschulische Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Außerschulische Bildung 3(20), 28-26. Holst, J., Singer‐Brodowski, M., Brock, A., & De Haan, G. (2024). Monitoring SDG 4.7: Assessing Education for Sustainable Development in policies, curricula, training of educators and student assessment (input‐indicator). Sustainable Development, 32(4), 3908-3923. Künzli, C., Bertschy, F., & Buchs, C. (2010). Réflexions spécifiques sur l’EDD dans la formation des enseignant-es. Bases didactiques pour l’éducation en vue d’un développement durable dans la formation des enseignant-es, 61. Madalińska-Michalak, J. & Flores, M.A. (2025). Teacher and school resilience: Lessons learned and future directions. In Madalińska-Michalak, J., Assuncao Flores, M. (Eds). Teacher and school resilience in an era of uncertainty. Palgrave Studies on Leadership and Learning in Teacher Education. Palgrave Macmillan. Markova, I. (2003). Les focus groups. In S. Moscovici & F. Buschini (Eds.), Les méthodes des sciences humaines (pp. 221-242). PUF. Mayring, P. (2020). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In G. Mey & K. Mruck (Eds.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie (pp. 495–511). Springer. Mezirow, J. (2002) (Ed.). Learning as Transformation : Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. Jossey-Bass. Morin, E., & Kern, A. B. (1993). Terre-Patrie. Seuil. Pache, A., Hertig, Ph. & Curnier, D. (2017). Approaching complexity in the context of education for sustainable development : research and perspectives. In P.B. Corcoran, J.P. Weakland & A. Wals (Eds.), Envisionning futures for environmental and sustainabilty education (pp. 375-383). Wageningen Academic Publishers. Schneijderberg, C., Wieczorek, O., & Steinhardt, I. (2022). Qualitative und quantitative Inhaltsanalyse: digital und automatisiert. Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung mit empirischen Beispielen und Softwareanwendungen. Beltz Juventa. Thwe, W. P., & Kálmán, A. (2024). Lifelong learning in the educational setting : A systematic literature review. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 33(2), 407–417. | ||