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, 21:28:37 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
30 SES 10 C: Making a Whole Difference: From the Local, to the Institutional to the Global
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Towards a Policy Framework for Supporting Whole Institutional Approaches to Sustainability 1: Norwegian Life Science University; 2: Masaryk University; 3: Beit Berl Academic College; 4: Freie Universität Berlin; 5: Wageningen University; 6: Frederick University Presenting Author:Across education systems, there is growing recognition that advancing sustainability, global citizenship, inclusion, nature conservation, and related socio-ecological challenges requires more than curricular reform or isolated projects. Increasingly, attention has shifted towards Whole Institution Approaches (WIA), or Whole School Approaches (WSA). in school contexts which seek to consider institutional culture, governance, pedagogy and curriculum operations, and community engagement and relationships (e.g., Holst, 2023; Wals & Mathie, 2022). While the importance and effectiveness of WIA is widely acknowledged in research and practice (e.g., Holst et al., 2024), considerably less attention has been paid to the role of policy in enabling or constraining such approaches. This research focuses on the development of an international policy-framework for supporting WIAs within the UNECE region. The framework is particularly relevant in light of ongoing discussions on a post-2030 global sustainability agenda, where questions of systemic transformation become critical in a context of geopolitical instability, accelerating socio-ecological crises, and increasing polarization that challenges trust, cohesion, and democratic participation Developing a meaningful/effective international policy-framework involves various challenges. First, there is substantial diversity in governance traditions ranging from more prescriptive, top-down systems to more participatory and emancipatory ones, as well as many hybrid forms in between. Second, institutions are embedded in dense and often fragmented policy environments that extend well beyond education policy alone, encompassing domains such as sustainability, labor, health and safety, food, procurement, and infrastructure. Third, to extend to which there is a common understanding of what a WIA means and of how important a WIA is in the big scheme of thing, varies as well, both within countries and in between countries. In this paper presentation we will share the development of a flexible, non-prescriptive policy framework designed to support policy makers and system-level actors in enabling WIA across different levels of education (from early childhood to higher education to more informal lifelong learning) and across varied governance cultures. Rather than offering a model to be implemented, the framework is intended as a dialogue-oriented sense-making tool that helps policy actors recognize starting conditions, reflect on governance choices, and align policies in ways that respect institutional agency and contextual diversity. The central research question guiding the work is: What are the characteristics of a flexible, non-prescriptive policy framework for supporting Whole Institution Approaches within different policy and governance contexts and across different levels of education? The framework is built around two conceptual heuristics or ‘grids’ that emerged from phase one of the research (see the figure below). The first is a ‘Resonance–Policy Conditions’ grid (on the left), which helps policy actors explore how sustainability-related policy intentions resonate (or fail to resonate) with the lived realities of organizational contexts, and how policy and system conditions are experienced as constraining or enabling. The second is a ‘Modes of Governance’ grid (on the right), which supports reflection on how policy steers change under different conditions, particularly with respect to goal-setting, participation, learning, and institutional agency. FIGURE SHOWING THE TWO GRIDS Rather than positioning these heuristics as diagnostic or evaluative tools, the framework emphasizes reflective questions and structured dialogue as a means of supporting learning-oriented policy development. We argue that such an approach is particularly relevant in complex socio-ecological contexts, where alignment often fails if reduced to harmonization and where policy itself can become more effective when understood as a learning system. The contribution of the research lies in articulating a policy-relevant approach to WIA that is sensitive to governance diversity, avoids prescriptive “best practice” solutions, and foregrounds the relational and systemic nature of changes towards sustainability at the levels of policy and practice. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The policy framework presented in this paper is part of a multi-year, iterative, and design-oriented research process combining conceptual analysis, participatory inquiry, and reflective synthesis (cf. UNECE, 2024). Empirically, the framework draws on insights from: 1. A scan of academic and policy-related work on the support of the WSA/WIA 2. A three round Delphi study: Round 1 an international online survey (n= 172), Round 2 collaborative online ‘Delphinars’ with policy makers, institutional leaders, educators, and researchers across different education sectors (n=50), Round 3 online Delphinars specifically with policy-makers focusing the final architecture of the WIA Policy Framework with the hands-on experience of the policy makers themselves. Round 1 and 2 of the Delphi have been completed and analyzed and form the basis of the current framework that will be validated and adapted in round 3 (to be completed in the Spring of 2026). Methodologically, the development process can be characterized as iterative co-design and reflective abstraction. Rather than starting from predefined policy criteria or indicators, the framework will emerge through repeated cycles of: 1. documenting and analyzing both text and lived experiences of institutions and people seeking to embed sustainability systemically and holistically in their work. 2. identifying recurring tensions between policy intentions, governance arrangements, and institutional realities, 3. developing provisional conceptual tools (such as grids or models) to make these tensions discussable, 4. testing and refining these tools in dialogue with policy- and practice actors. Particular attention is paid to avoiding normative ranking, benchmarking, or maturity-model thinking. Instead, the emphasis is on creating heuristics that can support sense-making across different contexts without implying linear progressions or preferred end states. The two grids presented in the framework were developed as boundary objects: conceptual artefacts that are sufficiently structured to enable shared reflection, yet sufficiently open to allow multiple interpretations. The guiding questions associated with each grid will be more refined through facilitation practice and feedback from policy actors, focusing on whether they enable constructive dialogue rather than compliance-oriented responses. Finally, the framework is subjected to internal critical reflection by the research team, drawing on literature from sustainability education, governance studies, organizational learning, and policy analysis, in order to articulate its underlying assumptions, limitations, and intended use. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This paper responds to a growing need for policy approaches that can support Whole Institution Approaches to sustainability without undermining institutional agency or ignoring governance diversity. It argues that in complex socio-ecological contexts, policy frameworks are most effective when they function less as blueprints and more as orienting devices for dialogue, learning, and calibration. The proposed framework demonstrates how non-prescriptive policy support can be operationalized through the use of heuristics, reflective questions, and sensitivity to diverse starting conditions and contexts. By foregrounding resonance, policy conditions, and modes of governance, the framework helps policy makers recognize that governance choices are contextual and consequential, rather than neutral or universally transferable. A key implication is that supporting a WIA or WSA requires policy makers to move beyond education policy alone and to develop awareness of how multiple policy domains converge to form the conditions for effective practice. Rather than striving for full harmonization, the framework points towards alignment understood as negotiated coherence, transparency about trade-offs, and space for organizational collaborative decision-making. While the framework does not offer evaluative metrics or implementation guidelines, it provides a structured way of asking better questions and fostering cross-level and cross-sector dialogue. It is thereby relevant also in light of ongoing discussions on a post-2030 global sustainability agenda, where questions of systemic transformation become critical in a context of geopolitical instability, accelerating socio-ecological crises, and increasing polarization that challenges trust, cohesion, and democratic participation. Future work will focus on empirical application of the framework in specific national and regional contexts, and on exploring how it may support policy learning over time. References 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 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 UNECE. (2024). Strategic framework on whole institution approach and education for sustainable development – Final proposal for workplan activity on implementing the second priority strand on “Whole institution approach and education for sustainable development”. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Steering Committee on Education for Sustainable Development, Nineteenth meeting. Wals, A. E. J., & Mathie, R. G. (2022). Whole School Responses to Climate Urgency and Related Sustainability Challenges. In M. A. Peters & R. Heraud (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Educational Innovation (pp. 1–8). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2262-4_263-2 30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Translating Global Citizenship Education into Practice: Institutional Mediation across Global and Local Contexts National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan Presenting Author:This paper examines how Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is translated from global policy frameworks into workable educational practices through institutional mediation. While GCED has been widely discussed in relation to curriculum design, pedagogical strategies, and classroom implementation, less attention has been paid to the institutional actors and processes that operate between international organisations and national education systems. This study addresses this gap by focusing on the role of intermediary institutions in shaping how GCED is understood, adapted, and enacted across diverse contexts. The central research question guiding this study is: How is Global Citizenship Education made workable in practice through institutional mediation under conditions of cultural diversity, political sensitivity, and digital transformation? Rather than asking whether GCED is implemented “successfully” or “faithfully,” this paper shifts attention to the processes through which global educational ideas are interpreted, negotiated, and rendered actionable. The study uses the Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding (APCEIU), a UNESCO Category 2 Centre, as an empirical case to explore these processes. APCEIU operates at the intersection of international organisations, national governments, and local educational partners, making it a particularly relevant site for examining how GCED travels across borders and institutional settings. Conceptually, the paper adopts institutional mediation as its analytical framework. Institutional mediation refers to the ways organisations positioned between policy formulation and educational practice actively shape how global ideas are translated into context-sensitive forms. This perspective moves beyond linear models of policy transfer or implementation and instead emphasises interpretation, negotiation, and adjustment as central features of educational governance. GCED is thus approached not as a fixed model or universal template, but as a working concept whose meaning and application emerge through institutional practices. Within this framework, the analysis focuses on three interrelated dimensions of mediation. First, it examines how GCED is treated as a flexible working space that allows for multiple understandings of citizenship to coexist, rather than as a standardised definition imposed from above. Second, it explores how contemporary digital challenges, including misinformation, algorithmic influence, and media environments, reshape institutional priorities and expand the scope of GCED beyond awareness-raising toward critical engagement. Third, it considers how “softer” approaches are strategically employed in politically sensitive contexts to sustain cooperation and enable gradual critical reflection. The international and European relevance of this study lies in its contribution to understanding how global education agendas are enacted across regions characterised by political, cultural, and institutional diversity. Although the empirical case is located in the Asia-Pacific region, the analytical insights are directly applicable to European and international contexts where GCED, Education for Sustainable Development, and related global frameworks are mediated by transnational organisations, national agencies, and intermediary bodies. As European education systems increasingly engage with global policy agendas under conditions of uncertainty and constraint, examining institutional mediation offers a valuable lens for understanding how knowing is translated into acting in practice. By foregrounding institutional mediation, this paper contributes to ECER discussions on educational governance, globalisation, and the relationship between knowledge and action. It invites comparative dialogue on how intermediary institutions across regions enable, constrain, and reshape the practical enactment of global educational ideas. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study adopts a qualitative case study methodology to examine how Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is translated into practice through institutional mediation. A qualitative approach is appropriate given the study’s focus on processes, meanings, and organisational practices rather than on outcomes or measurement of effectiveness. The empirical case is the Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding (APCEIU), a UNESCO Category 2 Centre that operates across multiple national and cultural contexts. APCEIU was selected because of its intermediary position between international policy frameworks and national education systems, which makes it a suitable site for examining how global educational ideas are interpreted and enacted in practice. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with APCEIU staff members who are directly involved in the design, coordination, and implementation of GCED-related programmes and international partnerships. Participants were selected based on their institutional roles and sustained engagement with GCED initiatives, allowing the study to focus on organisational practices rather than individual attitudes alone. The interviews explored participants’ understandings of GCED, approaches to contextualisation, experiences of cooperation with partner countries, and perceived challenges related to political sensitivity and digital transformation. All interviews were conducted in English, recorded with informed consent, and transcribed verbatim. Interview data were supplemented by institutional documents, including programme descriptions and publicly available materials, to provide contextual background and support analytical interpretation. Data analysis followed a thematic analysis approach. Initial coding identified recurring patterns in how GCED was framed, negotiated, and enacted across interviews. Through iterative comparison and refinement, codes were organised into broader analytical themes that captured key dimensions of institutional mediation. These themes focused on: (1) the treatment of GCED as a flexible working concept rather than a fixed model; (2) the influence of digital challenges, such as misinformation and media environments, on GCED priorities; and (3) the strategic use of softer approaches in politically sensitive contexts. The analysis prioritised institutional logics and practices described across interviews, enabling the study to move beyond descriptive accounts of organisational activities toward analytical interpretation. While the study does not aim for statistical generalisation, it provides analytically transferable insights into how intermediary institutions mediate global education agendas across diverse contexts. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study is expected to demonstrate that Global Citizenship Education becomes actionable not through direct policy implementation or shared conceptual consensus, but through institutional practices that mediate between global frameworks and local realities. By examining APCEIU as an intermediary organisation, the paper is expected to shed light on how GCED is translated into workable educational practices under conditions of cultural diversity, political sensitivity, and digital transformation. The findings are anticipated to show that GCED operates less as a fixed educational model and more as a flexible working concept through which different understandings of citizenship can coexist and be negotiated. Rather than enforcing uniform definitions, institutional mediation enables global principles to be connected with locally meaningful ideas, such as community responsibility or social harmony. This highlights the central role of interpretation and negotiation in transforming policy knowledge into educational action. The study is also expected to reveal how contemporary digital challenges reshape GCED priorities. Media and information literacy is likely to emerge as a core component of GCED practice, supporting learners’ capacity to critically engage with misinformation, hate speech, and algorithmic systems that influence how global issues are produced, circulated, and understood. In this sense, GCED extends beyond awareness of global problems toward critical engagement with the conditions under which knowledge is formed and disseminated. Finally, the paper is expected to challenge the assumption that “soft” approaches to GCED necessarily lack critical value. In politically sensitive contexts, softer entry points may function strategically to sustain dialogue, cooperation, and trust. These conditions can enable more critical reflection to emerge over time, suggesting that institutional mediation involves political judgement alongside educational intent. Overall, the study contributes to debates on educational governance by illustrating how the relationship between knowing and acting is shaped through intermediary institutions operating under conditions of uncertainty and constraint. References Andreotti, V. (2006). Soft versus critical global citizenship education. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, 3, 40–51. Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2017). Global citizenship education redefined–A systematic review of empirical studies on global citizenship education. International journal of educational research, 82, 170-183. Parker, R., Chainey, J., Goundar, P., Richardson, S., Dabrowski, A., Berry, A., & Scoular, C. (2023). Being and becoming global citizens: Measuring progress toward SDG 4.7. Phase I: Monitoring teacher and school readiness to enact global citizenship in the Asia-Pacific region. Pashby, K., Da Costa, M., Stein, S., & Andreotti, V. (2020). A meta-review of typologies of global citizenship education. Comparative education, 56(2), 144-164. Marshall, H. (2009). Educating the European citizen in the global age: engaging with the post‐national and identifying a research agenda. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(2), 247-267. UNESCO. (2013). Outcome document of the Technical Consultation on Global Citizenship Education: Global citizenship education – An emerging perspective. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2015). Global citizenship education: Preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st century. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2015). Global citizenship education: Topics and learning objectives. Paris: UNESCO. 30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Climate Change Education on the Ground: Place-responsive Puzzling in the Glocality of the School Campus University of Stirling, Scotland, United Kingdom Presenting Author:Climate Change Education as Place-responsive Puzzling Climate change is a complex global-yet-local phenomenon: on the one hand positioned as global in character by international bodies, yet always locally experienced by humans and other species through processes such as drought, flooding, crop failure or habitat loss. In wider sustainability science, experts acknowledge the importance of place responsivity in solution formation (Devine-Wright 2013). Yet, internationally in climate change education many hold onto a global orientation in curriculum reform and in pedagogical framing (UNESCO 2022). Connecting learners’ local everyday experiences to this ‘global’ phenomenon has led to significant roadblocks especially when the approach is place-ambivalent either theoretically or in practice (Lynch and Mannion 2021, Mannion et al. 2025). Considerable place-ambivalence is apparent in climate change education through the over emphasis on content knowledge, scientific literacy, and decontextualised or depoliticised pedagogies (see Kuawk 2022, Dunlop and Rushton 2022). Ironically, the call to ‘scale up’ entire education systems to address global ecological issues can also discourage place-responsivity. Other roadblocks to progress include lack of vision, short-termism, and failure to value of local knowledge and culture (Kwauk 2022). In schools, teachers face a double imperative: they are called upon to enact top-down curricular imperatives on the one hand, whilst creating local, place- and culturally-sensitive curricular practice on the other. Expectedly, school communities experience tensions and ecoanxieties in the need to enact climate change education at scale (Ojala 2019). In the pressured neoliberal policy context of many school systems, we need a more grounded and supportive approach.
Puzzling Through in the Glocal This research focuses on efforts to develop school grounds for curricular-linked climate change education. Positioning places as porous, unfolding and distinctive through their connectedness to the world (Massey 2005), this project seeks to understand the complexities of practice in climate change education. Alongside ideas of place-responsivity (Mannion et al 2023, Mannion et al 2025), we harness the notion of school spaces as glocalities (Hauerwas 2021): a local campus, curriculum, culture and community is always also global and more than human. This socio-material approach allows us to “unpick the multi-layered and messy barriers which individuals experience, and which structures and systems create” (Rushton and Bird 2024).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used In the UK, schools are supported by the charity, Learning through Landscapes, through diverse projects to develop their school grounds for curricular-linked learning and play. In 2023 – 2026, their project, Climate School 180, has been working with approximately 150 primary and secondary schools across Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland to address climate change through school grounds adaptations, professional learning, and curricular developments. The research component provided a process-oriented evaluation to help shape ongoing opportunities, identify barriers and derive better understandings of and for practice. We gathered evidence through visits to schools to enable a familiarisation with place and to interview teachers on site. Evidence was also collected through written reflections and focus group discussions with Learning through Landscapes staff. On site visits, walk-along teacher interviews (Lynch and Mannion 2021) allowed us to understand the nature of the issues faced in the ongoing glocal curriculum making practices. In analysis, we have begun to explain and exemplify curriculum making as an emergent, uncertain, eco-social exploration of ‘puzzles’ (Allwright 2005). By this view, the agencies that conspire in curriculum making (as ‘puzzling through’) are more than social (see Cathcart et al. 2026). Rather, curriculum making occurs through our emergent and relational entanglement within places wherein meaning making inheres in relations in the dwelt-in world (Ross and Mannion 2012). School grounds development and curriculum making experiences are on-going processes, an improvisation within a context that creates meanings via the emergent relations among people, places, materials and activities (Ross and Mannion 2012). Puzzle foci included concerns around the time available in school, curriculum constraints, and the role of affect in climate change education. Our approach means the empirical analysis encompasses eco-social aspects of climate change curriculum making including the material, cultural, political and educational aspects. Locally distinctive (glocal) ‘puzzles’ do not have pre-determined outcomes; rather, puzzling together through the research creates new understandings. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Our analysis (ongoing) shows that there taking an exploratory practice approach to the puzzling through climate change in school can provide a space for emergent action. With system-wide awareness, openness to change, and place-responsivity, teachers can deliberatively begin to work with others, with nature, and communities to advance a climate change education in meaningful ways. We found that teachers benefit from support to create spaces of agency (Rushton and Bird 2024) enabling a navigation of wider policy agendas, community needs, pupils’ concerns and the affordances of place. Analysis suggests that teachers are often isolated in this kind of exploratory practice and need formative support and practice allies. Unilaterally changing an approach to a single subject such as science, enhancing outdoor or nature-based learning, or refining school gardening are unlikely on their own to improve whole-school climate change educational practice (Gienger et al 2024). In our analysis we see that professional learning is important. But we show that the support offered by school support agencies, curricular legitimation, and community linking need to come together to embed climate change education in a whole-school approach. By definition, glocal puzzling and their solutions are not predetermined. To more squarely address system-wide critiques (scaling up), we suggest ontological concerns, and awareness of context and empowerment of actors are needed (scaling down) in open ways. Hence, climate change education requires movement towards new relational ontological framings including eco-social and intergenerational justice, a decolonising of the curriculum, and support for a more “radical relationality” (Nxumalo and Berg 2000) based on reciprocity between species, people, and place. Findings here indicate that the glocality of school grounds provides an excellent context for this kind of place-responsive puzzling ‘on the ground’. References Allwright, D., 2005. From teaching points to learning opportunities and beyond. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), pp.9-31. Cathcart, S., Priestley, M., Priestley, A., & Rushton, E. A. C. (2026). Unravelling agency: A critical review of conceptualisations of agency for educational research, policy and practice. Review of Education, 14, e70131. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70131 Devine-Wright, P., 2013. Think global, act local? The relevance of place attachments and place identities in a climate changed world. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), pp.61-69. Dunlop, L. and Rushton, E.A., 2022. Putting climate change at the heart of education: Is England's strategy a placebo for policy?. British Educational Research Journal, 48(6), pp.1083-1101. Gienger, A., Nursey-Bray, M., Rodger, D., Szorenyi, A., Weinstein, P., Hanson-Easey, S., Fordham, D., Lemieux, D., Hill, C. and Yoneyama, S., 2024. Responsible environmental education in the Anthropocene: understanding and responding to young people’s experiences of nature disconnection, eco-anxiety and ontological insecurity. Environmental Education Research, 30(9), pp.1619-1649. Hauerwas, L.B., Kerkhoff, S.N. and Schneider, S.B., 2021. Glocality, reflexivity, interculturality, and worldmaking: A framework for critical global teaching. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 35(2), pp.185-199. Kwauk, C., 2020. Roadblocks to Quality Education in a Time of Climate Change. Brief. Center for Universal Education at The Brookings Institution. Lynch, J. and Mannion, G., 2021. Place-responsive Pedagogies in the Anthropocene: attuning with the more-than-human. Environmental Education Research, 27(6), pp.864-878. Mannion, G., Fenwick, A. and Lynch, J., 2013. Place-responsive pedagogy: Learning from teachers’ experiences of excursions in nature. Environmental Education Research, 19(6), pp.792-809. Mannion, G., Ramjan, C., McNicol, S., Sowerby, M. and Lambert, P., 2025. Outdoor environmental education: turning back to the environment at a time of climate and nature emergency. Environmental Education Research, 31(9), pp.1916-1938. Massey, D. (2005) For Space. London: Sage. Nxumalo, F., & Berg, L. 2020. Conversations on climate change pedagogies in a Central Texas kindergarten classroom. In J. Henderson & A. Drewes (Eds.), Teaching climate change in the United States. Routledge. Ojala, M. 2019. “Eco-Anxiety.” RSA Journal 146 (4): 10–15. https://doi.org/10.2307/26798430. Rushton, E.A. and Bird, A., 2024. Space as a lens for teacher agency: A case study of three beginning teachers in England, UK. The Curriculum Journal, 35(2), pp.254-270. UNESCO. 2022. Climate Change Education. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Accessed May 15, 2020. https://www.unesco.org/en/education/sustainable-development/climate-change(open in a new window) | ||