Conference Agenda

In this empirical paper, we examine how teachers navigate the tension between the existential dimension of ESE and the instrumentalisation of education. We do so by analysing qualitative interviews with upper-secondary school teachers in Sweden, their written instructions to students, and students’ responses to those instructions. Drawing on this material, we explore the teachers’ didactic reflections on the existential dimension of environmental and sustainability problems and how they navigate this dimension in relation to the instrumentalism of the school system.

The teaching content in ESE, such as climate change and biodiversity loss, addresses threats to human and non-human existence. For teachers, this means that teaching about climate change or biodiversity loss can raise profound questions for students about their own existence and that of the society they live in (Affifi & Christie, 2019; Vandenplas et al., 2023; Verlie, 2019). Thus, the content in ESE can have profound implications, which require teachers’ didactic reflection. Recently, Vandenplas (2025) pointed out that there is a need for more didactic research on how teachers create space for the existential in ESE, yet there are few empirical studies of teachers’ didactic practices, apart from her and her colleagues' work (see Vandenplas et al., 2023; Vandenplas, 2025). Our empirical study aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion initiated by Vandenplas and colleagues on how teachers can make room for the existential dimension in ESE.

At the same time, environmental and sustainability issues are taught within an educational system characterised by instrumentalism. Many European education systems have shifted towards greater teacher accountability and a stronger emphasis on test results and measurable outcomes (Grek, 2020; Lingard, 2022). Thus, on the one hand, teachers must address content that can raise profound questions about the existence of life and societies as we know them. On the other hand, they teach within an education system that emphasises the efficient process between input and output, where grading standards, accountability, and transparency are central (Tryggvason et al., forthcoming).

Given this, we deem it important to explore how teachers didactically reflect on the relationship between the existential and the instrumental in ESE and how they navigate the tension. In that sense, our paper aligns with Paul Vare’s (2020) argument that identifying contradictions within ESE enables us to address them, thereby making them “prerequisites of – rather than barriers to – learning” (Vare, 2020, p. 78).

The paper addresses the following research question: What didactic approaches for navigating between the existential and the instrumental in ESE do teachers express when reflecting on their teaching?

Our theoretical framework is twofold. First, to deepen our understanding of the existential dimension in ESE, we draw on the existential philosophy of Karl Jaspers (1971). Grounded in Jaspers’ work, we understand the existential dimension of the teaching content as a process in which the content becomes the students’ own existential question. Our understanding of the existential is also inspired by the work of Vandenplas et al. (2023), who have developed a typology of the existential tendency in climate change education. By drawing on previous theoretical work on the ethical tendency (Öhman & Östman, 2008) and the political tendency (Håkansson et al., 2018), Vandenplas et al. (2023) identify the existential as “an expression of a particular human tendency, which is observable in communication” (p. 1734).

Second, to deepen our understanding of teachers’ didactic approaches, we draw on the Nordic/German Didaktik tradition, which highlights the concept of Bildung and teachers’ autonomy and judgment (Klafki, 2000; Uljens, 2023). The Didaktik tradition offers rich and attentive conceptualisations of teachers’ actions and reflections, enabling us to theorise how teachers navigate this tension through didactic approaches.

Young people are often assumed to have a particular responsibility to advocate for and mobilise towards a sustainable future (Molder et al., 2021). However, this assumption is contested. Research points not only to resistance to sustainability issues (e.g. Ojala, 2015; Urberg, 2025; Urberg & Öhman, 2025) but, more commonly, to limited interest and engagement (Anciaux et al., 2023). Teaching about the environment and sustainability can be challenging, especially when resistance, denial, polarisation, and lack of engagement in sustainability issues and climate change are not only found among young people and in isolated contexts, but also globally and among world leaders (Bolsen & Shapiro, 2018; Hejny, 2018). Previous research has long emphasised that sustainability issues are inherently conflict-ridden, rooted in social, political, and moral controversies that cannot be overlooked in educational settings. Such conflicts are not merely obstacles but constitutive elements of sustainability education, as they confront students with perspectives that may challenge their everyday practices and established ways of living (cf. Carlsson & Lysgaard, 2025; Lundegård et al., 2022; Mogensen & Schnack, 2010). Against this background, a didactic response in education is required to address and understand resistance and denial. In educational practice, teachers are often confronted with student responses ranging from scepticism and disengagement to explicit resistance.

This study examines teachers’ experiences of students’ resistance in environmental and sustainability education (ESE) and how they have handled it in their teaching practice. The overarching research question guiding the study is: What are teachers’ didactic approaches to students’ resistance in ESE? We address this question by analysing qualitative interviews with nine secondary-school teachers about their experiences of students’ resistance to ESE and their didactic reflections on how they have handled it. By focusing on teachers’ perspectives, the study seeks to contribute to knowledge about how resistance is understood, interpreted, and pedagogically addressed in classroom practice.

The study draws on the Nordic/German didactic tradition, which emphasises understanding teachers’ actions in relation to both learners and the specific curricular content (Hopmann, 2007; Klafki, 2000; Öhman, 2014). Within this tradition, teaching is understood as a reflective and situated practice in which teachers continuously exercise professional judgement in response to concrete educational situations. This perspective enables an analysis of teaching that takes both the subject matter and students’ experiences, values, and preconditions.

In addition, the study is informed by John Dewey’s notion of experience. Following Dewey (1916/1985), experiences are understood as situations that concern individuals and carry suspense, meaning they involve uncertainty, tension, or disruption. The experiences that teachers raise and reflect on during the interviews are therefore regarded as meaningful encounters that shape their professional understanding. By reflecting on their actions, teachers articulate their professional judgement, which lays the groundwork for their future experiences and actions (cf. Dewey, 1938a). In this study, didactic approaches are understood as overarching dispositions for action. An approach is not a single pedagogical act but rather the direction of a collection of actions that guides how teachers respond to resistance over time and across situations.

In addressing the eco-crisis, climate change, and mounting social inequalities, transforming cultural structures supporting unsustainable lifestyles is crucial (Kashima 2020; Värri 2019). Researchers and policy-makers alike perceive teachers as key agents of cultural transformation for sustainability (Amsler & Facer 2017; Evans et al. 2017; UNESCO 2018, 2022); yet the purposes teachers see in work and the possibilities they perceive within the teaching profession are sometimes in stark contrast to the ideal of teachers as transformative agents (Kuusisto & Rissanen 2023). While aware of the relevance of global change for education, teachers may be hesitant to assume the role of change maker (Cochran-Smith et al. 2009; Timm et al. 2023). A better understanding of teachers’ learning processes through which the agency for change may occur, including the key factors helping or hindering these processes, is needed.

Furthermore, the magnitude of current ecological and social problems may cause feeling of helplessness, leading to demotivation and demoralization among those becoming aware of them (Salomon et al. 2017). However, core beliefs and perceptions that help to overcome apathy and motivate for collective action have been identified in psychological and social psychological research. In particular, belief in the malleability of human qualities and qualities of groups, i.e. growth mindsets, have been shown to significantly influence willingness to act for change (Goldenberg et al. 2017; Halperin 2011). The core of growth mindset theory lies in incremental beliefs, which form broader meaning systems encompassing goal orientations, attribution styles, beliefs about effort and challenge seeking (Dweck & Yeager 2019). Earlier research demonstrates a link between teachers growth mindsets and orientation to social justice, but more research is needed to understand how mindsets shape teachers’ transformative agency for sustainability.

In this study, we explore Finnish transformative teachers’ mindsets with the following research question: What elements of growth and fixed mindset meaning systems emerge in transformative teachers’ narratives of professional development?