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, 21:29:40 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
30 SES 12 B: Teachers Talking about Inequality and Employability
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Environmental Education for Sustainable Development in a Time of Poly-Crisis: Exploring Teachers’ Perspectives on Socioeconomic Inequality in Hungarian Schools 1: Eotvos Lorand University, Hungary; 2: University of Calcutta Presenting Author:In the context of intensifying poly-crisis—characterised by climate breakdown, widening socioeconomic inequalities, and increasing pressures on education systems—Environmental and Sustainability Education (ESE) is increasingly positioned as a key educational response (Van Poeck et al., 2018; Walshe & Sund, 2022). However, research indicates that the implementation of ESE is not always equitable, as educational approaches are often differentiated according to students’ socio-economic contexts. Such differentiation can unintentionally reinforce existing inequalities by framing learners as needing different forms of intervention. Critically examining ESE is therefore important to ensure it advances both sustainability and social justice in diverse educational settings (Bylund, 2023). This proposed paper will explore how teachers in Hungarian schools perceive and interpret Environmental and Sustainability Education (ESE) under conditions of socioeconomic inequality. Rather than aiming to evaluate EESD outcomes, the paper will focus on teachers’ perspectives as situated, practice-based forms of knowledge production. Hungary provides a relevant context for this exploration, as sustainability education is embedded within national curriculum frameworks while schools operate within unequal material, institutional, and policy environments. As such, the Hungarian case will be used to examine how ESE is shaped by broader social and economic conditions in a time of poly-crisis. The paper will be guided by the following exploratory research questions:
Conceptually, the proposed research will draw on critical and equity-oriented perspectives (Amin & Nath, 2023; Larkins, 2024; Sprowls, 2022) within ESE research that conceptualise education as a socially situated practice shaped by power relations, access to resources, and institutional contexts. By centring teachers’ voices, the paper aims to contribute to ongoing discussions about equity, justice, and the public role of sustainability education. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The proposed paper draws on qualitative interview material generated through semi-structured interviews. These interviews were conducted with teachers working in Hungarian schools that serve students from diverse social and economic backgrounds. A qualitative approach is appropriate for the exploratory objectives of the present research, as it will study in-depth the teacher experiences, interpretations, and contextual understandings of sustainability education. Teachers will be selected using purposive sampling to capture variation across different school contexts and socioeconomic conditions. Semi-structured interviews will be used to explore participants’ experiences of teaching environmental and sustainability-related topics, perceptions of educational quality, and observations of how students’ social and economic circumstances shape engagement with EESD. The interview format will allow flexibility while ensuring that key themes relevant to the research questions are addressed. Interviews will be conducted with informed consent, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Ethical procedures will be followed in accordance with institutional guidelines, including anonymisation and secure data handling. The analysis will follow a thematic approach, involving coding and the development of themes that capture relationships between socioeconomic conditions, institutional contexts, and teachers’ approaches to EESD. The result will be reported as emerging themes and hypotheses rather than finalised findings. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The paper is expected to generate contextually grounded insights into how Environmental Education for Sustainable Development is perceived and enacted by teachers working in socioeconomically differentiated school contexts. It is anticipated that accounts from teachers will highlight how unequal access to resources, curriculum demands, and institutional pressures shape possibilities for engaging with sustainability education. Pulls between sustainability-oriented educational aims and performative expectations related to assessment and accountability may also emerge. By foregrounding teachers’ perspectives, the research to be reported aims to contribute to discussions on environmental and sustainability education in a time of poly-crisis, particularly debates concerning equity, knowledge production, and the role of education research in addressing intersecting ecological and social challenges. While situated within the Hungarian context, the paper seeks to offer reflections that are analytically transferable to other educational settings facing similar conditions of inequality and constraint. References Amin, R., & Nath, H. (2023). Environmental Justice and Education: Bridging the Gap between Ecology, Equity, and Access. Journal of Advanced Zoology, 44. https://doi.org/10.17762/jaz.v44is-3.1061 Bylund, L. (2023). Differentiation, didactics and inequality: How rich and poor populations are educated for sustainability. https://hdl.handle.net/2077/78203 Larkins, M. Introduction: practicing diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice in environmental studies and sciences. J Environ Stud Sci 14, 443–451 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-024-00968-4 Sprowls, E. D. (2022). Bridging Boundaries Between ESE and Science Education Research and Practice through Collaborative Learning for Climate Justice. In Challenges for environmental and sustainability education research in times of climate crisis (pp. 133–136). Universiteit Gent. https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8768733/file/8768735.pdf Van Poeck, K., Lysgaard, J. A., & Reid, A. (Eds.) (2018). Environmental and Sustainability Education Policy: International Trends, Priorities and Challenges. (1st ed.) Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203732359 Walshe, N., & Sund, L. (2022). Developing (Transformative) Environmental and Sustainability Education in Classroom Practice. Sustainability, 14(1), 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010110 30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Science Education for Sustainable Development: Teacher educators’ views and practices Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands, The Presenting Author:Theoretical Background and Research Questions Teacher education for sustainable development Teacher education for sustainable development (TESD) aims to equip teachers with competences to address sustainability issues in their teaching (Fischer et al., 2022). Embedding education for sustainable development (ESD) in teacher training can create a multiplier effect because teacher educators model ESD practices that future teachers may adopt (Goller & Rieckmann, 2022). Recognizing this need, UNESCO introduced the Global Action Programme to strengthen efforts that support teachers in becoming ESD-competent. Among its five priority areas, building the capacities of educators and trainers is central, as educators are considered “the most important levers to foster educational change and to facilitate learning for sustainable development” (UNESCO, 2014a, p.35). Despite these policy efforts, ESD remains underrealized globally in teacher education programs (Beasy et al., 2024). Science teacher education for sustainable development While ESD is a cross-curricular concern, science education is a key arena for TESD because sustainability issues are inherently socioscientific (Evagorou & Dillon, 2020). Moreover, tailoring science education to sustainability is essential to leverage its unique strengths in the interdisciplinary collaborations needed to address sustainability issues (Mork et al., 2021). However, research shows that science teachers face barriers when integrating societal issues (Harskamp et al., 2021; Karaarslan & Teksoz, 2016). Science teacher educators themselves are often hesitant to engage with moral or ethical discussions (Rivera Maulucci, 2023). Previous research highlights the need to explore teacher educators’ perspective on sustainability and ESD integration (Pegalajar-Palomino et al., 2021), noting that teacher educators voices are often overlooked in policy development (Flores, 2023). Understanding their perceptions is essential to bring about a systematic change in teacher education programs (Goller & Rieckmann, 2022). Without identifying their needs and providing adequate support, empowering future teachers to address sustainability issues remains as a challenge (Beasy et al., 2024). Clarity on how ESD aligns with subject traditions is vital, as these traditions influence teachers’ uptake (Uitto & Saloranta, 2017). Given that sustainability issues are largely socioscientific, science teacher educators play a critical role in preparing future teachers to engage with these issues. Therefore, it is crucial to examine science teacher educators’ views and practices regarding ESD, including how and why they address sustainability and their underlying rationale (Rivera Maulucci, 2023). To contribute to this gap, our study explores how TESD is positioned in science teacher education programs in the Netherlands. Our research questions are:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employs Q methodology combined with focus group discussions to explore science teacher educators’ views on teacher competences for ESD. Q methodology enables the researchers to study a person’s viewpoints, beliefs, attitude, and the like (Brown, 1996). While the methodology combines both qualitative and quantitative research techniques, it focuses on identifying the standpoints participants hold instead of reaching a statistical representation for the target group (Watts & Stenner, 2012). Participants The participants consisted of 23 science teacher educators at Dutch universities. To ensure a comprehensive exploration of science teacher educators’ views, we invited educators from various teacher training programs in the Netherlands. This inclusive approach allowed us to capture a broader range of views and attitudes. Data Collection and Analysis: Q methodology and focus groups The data collection instrument in Q methodology consists of a set of statements, called Q-set. Our Q-set consisted of 36 statements which were grounded by the GreenComp framework (Bianchi et al., 2022). Q-sort was followed by semi-structured interview where participants were asked to justify their reasoning for their sorting, especially for the most agreed/disagreed statements. At this point, we did a preliminary data analysis to inform the preparation of focus group discussions. In this way, we aimed to discuss our preliminary findings during the focus group meetings. Therefore, our preparation for the focus group discussions was informed by our preliminary findings. A dedicated software for Q methodology, Ken-Q Analysis (KADE) (Banasick, 2019) was used for preliminary data analysis. As a result of our preliminary data analysis, we identified four viewpoints, which we presented in focus group meetings as four personas. Each persona’s viewpoints were further supported by our factor interpretations during the focus group meetings. This approach offered teacher educators the opportunity for making meaning from personal experiences through reflection with one another. In this way, they unearthed their thinking and values which underlie their approach to ESD during focus group meetings. We had two focus group meetings, each lasting 1.5 hours, with identical settings and discussion questions to allow participants choice. In total 17 teacher educators participated in focus groups out of 23 participants who participated in data collection via Q methodology. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Our data revealed four factors, which we present as personas to illustrate distinct viewpoints captured in each factor array. Factor 1 (Persona I) had six teacher educators loading significantly. Factor 2 (Persona II) had four, Factor 3 (Persona III) had five and Factor 4 (Persona IV) had eight. For preliminary analysis. Persona I: The value critic This persona is uncertain about the integrating values into science teacher education. While they strongly prioritize critical thinking and system thinking, they worry that emphasizing values could undermine independent thinking and risk indoctrination. At the same time, they appreciate empathy and emotional awareness when addressing ESD. Persona II: The impact splitter This persona questions the extent of educators’ influence on ESD. They see educators as role model whose actions and personal values matter, yet they believe effective sustainability teaching does not require educators to change personal habits. Their influence lies primarily in their professional role. Persona III: The interdisciplinary guide This persona values interdisciplinarity as essential for addressing ESD in science teacher education. They stress the importance of reflecting on social impact of science and tackling issues of justice and equity. However, they acknowledge that most science teacher educators lack training to address political aspects, which they see as beyond their expertise. Persona IV: The complexity navigator This persona highlights the complexity of sustainability issues. They prioritize critical thinking and system thinking as key competences for science teacher education. Promoting specific values is not seen as their role. Instead, they view value shifts as by-products of their teaching. References Banasick, S. (2019). KADE: A desktop application for Q methodology. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(36). https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01360 Beasy, K., Richey, S., Brandsema, J., & To, V. (2024). Embedding Sustainability across a Teacher Education Course: Teacher Educator Experiences. Australian Journal of Environmental Education. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2024.36 Bianchi, G., Pisiotis, U., & Cabrera, M. (2022). GreenComp - The European sustainability competence framework (Y. Punie & M. Bacigalupo, Eds.). https://doi.org/10.2760/13286 Evagorou, M., & Dillon, J. (2020). Introduction: Socio-scientific issues as promoting responsible citizenship and the relevance of science. In M. Evagorou, J. A. Nielsen, & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science Teacher Education for Responsible Citizenship (Vol. 52, pp. 1–11). Springer. http://www.springer.com/series/6512 Fischer, D., King, J., Rieckmann, M., Barth, M., Büssing, A., Hemmer, I., & Lindau-Bank, D. (2022). Teacher education for sustainable development: A review of an emerging research field. Journal of Teacher Education, 73(5), 509–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871221105784 Flores, M. A. (2023). Why teacher education matters even more. In European Journal of Teacher Education (Vol. 46, Issue 5, pp. 747–751). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2023.2298631 Goller, A., & Rieckmann, M. (2022). What do We Know About Teacher Educatorsí Perceptions of Education for Sustainable Development? A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 24(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2022-0003 Harskamp, M., Knippels, M. C. P. J., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2021). Secondary Science Teachers’ Views on Environmental Citizenship in the Netherlands. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147963 Karaarslan, G., & Teksoz, G. (2016). Integrating Sustainable Development Concept into Science Education Program is not enough; We Need Competent Science Teachers for Education for Sustainable Development –Turkish Experience. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(15), 8403–8424. https://hdl.handle.net/11511/81999 Mork, S. M., Henriksen, E. K., Haug, B. S., Jorde, D., & Frøyland, M. (2021). Defining knowledge domains for science teacher educators. International Journal of Science Education, 43(18), 3018–3034. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.2006819 Pegalajar-Palomino, C., Burgos-García, A., & Martinez-Valdivia, E. (2021). What Does Education for Sustainable Development Offer in Initial Teacher Training? A Systematic Review. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 23(1), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2021-0008 Rivera Maulucci, M. S. (2023). Pathways to Sustainability: Examples from science teacher education. In M. S. Rivera Maulucci, S. Pfirman, & H. S. Callahan (Eds.), Transforming Education for Sustainability (pp. 91–115). Springer. Uitto, A., & Saloranta, S. (2017). Subject teachers as educators for sustainability: A survey study. Education Sciences, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7010008 UNESCO. (2014). Roadmap for Implementing the Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000230514?posInSet=15&queryId=461b2f67-0730-42ea-a33d-afad0bdfce18 Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research. Sage Publications. 30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Education for Sustainable Development and Employability: A Literature Review on Sustainability Competences in Higher Education Ghent University, Belgium Presenting Author:Introduction Background Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is globally recognised as a transformative approach that equips learners with the knowledge, skills, and values necessary to promote sustainability and participate effectively in the labour market (Barth & Rieckmann, 2016). The importance of ESD is underscored by the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which positions education as a cornerstone for achieving sustainability goals. Specifically, Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4: Quality Education establishes a direct link between education, sustainability competences, and employability. Target 4.4 calls for a substantial increase in the number of youth and adults with relevant skills for employment, decent work, and entrepreneurship, while Target 4.7 emphasises ensuring that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to advance sustainable development and global citizenship (UN, 2015). Similarly, SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all, with Target 8.6 aiming to reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education, or training. From this perspective, employability and sustainability competences (SCs) are deeply interconnected and critical for graduates and society. Theoretical framework The concept of sustainability competence is anchored in the sustainability competence framework, which is conceptualised as a multifaceted construct of knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes (Wiek et al., 2011; Wiek et al., 2016; Brundiers et al., 2021; Michel et al., 2022). These competences align with SDG 4 and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), underscoring the pivotal roles of education and multi-stakeholder collaboration in achieving sustainable development. Problem Statement and Research Gap Higher education institutions worldwide are under increasing pressure to align their curricula with sustainability imperatives and evolving labour‑market expectations, particularly as societies confront complex social, economic, and environmental disruptions. Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is positioned as a key response, intended to equip graduates with sustainability competencies (SCs) that enhance employability and empower them to act as change agents in professional and civic domains. Although existing scholarship highlights the relevance of SCs for addressing real-world sustainability challenges and supporting graduate employability (Wiek et al., 2011; Brundiers et al., 2021), current research remains fragmented. There is no consolidated body of knowledge that comprehensively examines how SCs are conceptualised, which stakeholders shape their development, what pedagogical approaches support their acquisition, and how these competencies function as pathways to employability. This study addresses this gap by critically investigating the conceptual foundations, stakeholder roles, pedagogical practices, and underlying rationales for embedding SCs within higher education. In doing so, it advances both scholarly understanding and practical guidance for integrating sustainability competencies as drivers of employability and societal transformation. Aims and Objectives The objective of this research is to critically review and synthesise the extant literature on the relationship between SCs and graduate employability. This research aims to clarify how SCs are defined, developed, and positioned as employability assets within higher education. The objective of the present study is threefold: first, to clarify definitions and conceptualisations; second, to identify key stakeholders; third, to analyse pedagogical and institutional practices; and fourth, to explore the underlying rationales that underpin the emphasis on sustainability competences as essential components of employability. Research Questions The following research questions guide the focus group: 1) What key definitions/descriptions are found to map the sustainability competence in view of the employability of students? 2) Who are the key players/stakeholders involved in the discussions about education towards students aiming at mastering sustainability competence in view of employability? 3) How do educators and institutions foster the development of sustainability competence in view of employability? 4) Why is the mastery of sustainability competences emphasised as key in view of employability? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used 2.1. Procedure of the Scoping Review Due to the exploratory nature of our research, we conducted a scoping review in the existing academic literature focusing on sustainability competences and employability framing. This Scoping review systematically provides insights into the existing literature, situating the current state of knowledge in the field within the broader framework and identifying knowledge gaps. 2.2. Eligibility criteria To identify the relevant literature for the review, we conducted a literature search with an end date of July 31, 2024. We limited the search to articles in English, as agreed upon by the research team. We conducted our search in the Web of Science using the search queries with the following keywords: (‘higher education’ OR ‘universit*’ OR ‘college*’) AND ‘sustainab*’ AND ‘competenc*’ AND ‘employability’, and ERIC using the keywords ‘sustainability competen and employ’ respectively. The initial query generated 131 articles from Web of Science and the Eric databases. Next, we reviewed abstracts for all 131 articles generated, of which 92 articles were excluded as they did not directly address the topics of Sustainability competences and employability in relation to sustainable development in ESD. A total of 30 articles were identified during the preliminary search, and an additional 9 articles were obtained through reference screening/snowballing by examining their reference lists and reviewing the abstracts. The 39 articles were fully read and found to have a significant focus on sustainability competencies and employability. Data Coding and Analysis We analysed data using the processes proposed by Braun and Clarke to facilitate thematic analysis in qualitative research (Byrne, 2022). First, we familiarised ourselves with the data by reading and re-reading the 39 articles to identify relevant information related to our research question. During this process, we manually entered textual data into an Excel sheet, capturing the following details: 1. Background information. 2. Notes on impressions and stand-out ideas related to sustainability competences and employability, and direct quotations supporting the perspectives. Next, we coded key elements in the content of journal articles focusing on the intersection of sustainability competences and employability. From the coded key elements, we then grouped similar codes into potential themes we defined: 1. Conceptualisations, 2. stakeholders, 3. pedagogical approaches, and 4. rationale for emphasising SCs in relation to employability. Finally, we synthesised and supplemented the categorised themes in short paragraphs, including explanations and examples. The data analysis involved collaborative brainstorming sessions through an interpretative process with the supervisory team. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Findings Conceptualisations A comprehensive review of 39 articles published between 2010 and 2024 was conducted, and the results indicated a series of recurring conceptualizations of SCs related to employability. These conceptualisations, which are further illustrated in this section, include Key Competencies Frameworks (Wiek/Brundiers/Michel), Gestaltungskompetenz (de Haan), ESD/SDG-oriented framings, capability/employability lenses, sector-specific operationalisations, 21st-century/transversal skills, and intellectual capital/innovation views. Key stakeholders This review has identified higher education institutions, students, local and international policy organisations (UNESCO, OECD), governments, communities, employers, educators, and international and local accreditation bodies as the key stakeholders propelling the discourse of SCs in relation to employability. Pedagogies The review advances the notion that educators foster SCs through various means, including integrated curriculum, active learning, capability-oriented assessments, partnerships with industry and community actors, and the use of digital tools to address the knowledge-action gap. Rationalisations We find in the literature that mastery of SCs related to employability is advocated for the labour market outcomes, Societal and ethical imperatives, Policy and accreditation compliance and Capability for complex problem-solving for “wicked” problems Conclusion This scoping review demonstrates that SCs are not only central to contemporary higher education but are also closely linked to graduate employability. Across 39 included studies, Conceptual heterogeneity exists as definitions and operationalisations of SCs vary across studies, complicating direct comparison. Descriptive mapping in the dataset indicates strong attention to industry partnerships and employability, competency frameworks (e.g., Wiek/Brundiers/Michel), curriculum integration, and SDG/policy alignment (the top four themes in the frequency chart). Pedagogically, the field privileges experiential and work-integrated learning and curriculum mainstreaming, supported by assessment practices that attempt to capture capability rather than content recall. When such designs are enacted with external partners, they are consistently associated with better job-skills match, improved employment odds, salary advantages, and graduates’ capacity to act as change agents. References Bautista-Cerro (2014). (Re) construction of the concept of employability from universities Curriculum greening as a key element. Conference Proceedings Paper in the Journal Higher Education: The Challenge of Employability Published By Elsevier Science BV. Matthias Barth and Marco Rieckmann (2016): State of the Art in Research on Higher Education for Sustainable Development. In: Matthias Barth, Gerd Michelsen, Marco Rieckmann und Ian Thomas (Eds.): Routledge Handbook of Higher Education for Sustainable Development. London: Routledge, pp. 100-113. Blašková, V. and Staňková, M. (2023) ’Graduate Employability as a Key to the Efficiency of Tertiary Education’, Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 262–274. https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2023.160401 Byrne, D. A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Quant 56, 1391–1412 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y Dawn Lees & Anka Djordjevic (2024) Curiosity, collaboration and co-creation: using Grand Challenges to develop employability and tackle 21st Century problems, British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 52:1, 119-132, DOI: 10.1080/03069885.2024.2304716 de Haan, G. (2010). The Development of ESD-Related Competencies in Supportive Institutional Frameworks. International Review of Education, 56. (UNESCO, 2022) Gora, A. A., Ștefan, S. C., Popa, Ș. C., & Albu, C. F. (2019). Students' Perspective on Quality Assurance in Higher Education in the Context of Sustainability: A PLS-SEM Approach. Sustainability, 11(17), 4793. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174793 Michel, J.O. et al. (2022). Sustainability Competencies in Higher Education. In: The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Futures. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51812-7_342-1 Rieckmann, M. (2012). The global perspective of education for sustainable development: a European-Latin American study about key competencies for thinking and acting in the world society. Environmental Education Research, 19(2), 257–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.697547 Weinert, F. (2001). "Concept of Competence: A Conceptual Clarification", in Rychen, D. and Wals, A.E.J. (2010), "Mirroring, gestaltswitching and transformative social learning: stepping stones for developing sustainability competence", International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 380–90. Wiek, A., Withycombe, L. & Redman, C.L. Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6, 203–218 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6 UNESCO (2022). Berlin Declaration on Education for Sustainable Development; Learn for our planet: act for sustainability: Learn for our planet: Act for sustainability. Paris: UNESCO. | ||