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, 21:29:39 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
30 SES 12 D: Peace, Love and Digital Learning
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Peace, Love, and Appropriate Technology as Catalysts for Sustainability Transformation KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden Presenting Author:We are living in times of multiple, interconnected crises, such as climate change, ecological breakdown and widening social inequalities, that demand fundamental societal transformation. Within this context of poly-crisis, higher education, and engineering education in particular, faces profound questions about its purposes, values, and responsibilities. Dominant technocratic and instrumental approaches risk reproducing unsustainable and unjust futures, while alternative imaginaries of education remain marginalised. Against this backdrop, this research explores the generative potential of a radical yet grounded idea: the creation of a Centre for Peace, Love and Appropriate Technology within a university setting. This idea emerged through a long-term collaborative process of reflexive inquiry into our roles as educational developers (Peters & Rosén, 2025) and was initially explored in a workshop at the Engineering, Social Justice and Peace Conference 2024. Our ambition in this study is to explore the potentials and possibilities of peace, love, and appropriate technology at our university. Our overarching research question is: What is the potential of peace, love, and appropriate technology in processes of sustainability transformation in and through higher education, especially in the context of engineering education? This question unfolds into four interrelated sub-questions:
The context of engineering education is emphasised here because we are conducting this work at a technical university. Engineering education is also an interesting case to post these questions to since it is a site of construction of extractivist, technocratic and neoliberal educational paradigms that our work seeks to counter. Our conceptual and theoretical framework weaves together four strands: love, peace, appropriate technology, and transformative education. First, we take seriously the proposition that love, although often treated as taboo or unscientific in academic discourse (Fernandes et al., 2022), is a crucial political, ethical and pedagogical force for radical transformation. Building on Lanas and Zembylas’ (2015) political concept of love, Bazzul and Tolbert’s (2019) work on love, politics and science education on a damaged planet, and Catalano and Baillie’s (2009) work on engineering grounded in love and solidarity, we conceptualise love as relational, collective and justice-oriented rather than sentimental or individualised. Second, peace is theorised not merely as the absence of enacted violence but as a dynamic, structural and relational condition, drawing on peace engineering scholarship (Nieusma, 2011; Kleba & Reina-Rozo, 2021; Hinds et al., 2020) and critical engagements with engineered violence and neutrality in engineering (Banks & Lachney, 2017). This perspective situates peace in engineering education within broader socio-political struggles and aligns with international debates on peacebuilding, justice and sustainability. Third, appropriate technology challenges dominant techno-solutionist imaginaries (e.g. Wajcman 1991; Knutsson 2018; Stoddard et al. 2022). Rooted in Schumacher’s work (Schumacher 1993) and reframed through sustainability and social justice, it emphasises context sensitivity, participation, ecological limits, and social needs, aligning with European and Global South debates on development, decolonisation, and technological sovereignty (Bishop 2021; Bon et al. 2021). Finally, we seek to relate these strands to frameworks of transformative education (West, 2017; Lawless, 2018; Riley, 2008), attentive to emotional labour, recognition, Bildung, and the psychosocial dimensions of learning. These frameworks support an understanding of education as a site of ethical-political struggle, where new imaginaries, identities and practices can emerge. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used We use the methodological approach developed in Peters and Rosén (2025), combining collaborative autoethnography, diffraction and bricolage as a way of engaging with complexity, uncertainty and relationality in times of poly-crisis. The idea is to explore and develop practices of love, peace and appropriate technology in continuous engagement with and reflections on the learning environment we are a part of. First, collaborative autoethnography (e.g. Hernandez et al. 2017, Cooper and Lilyea 2022) provides an approach for researching our own and collective experiences and actions. Second, diffractive analysis, inspired by posthuman and feminist new materialist scholarship, foregrounds entanglements and relationships through which objects and subjects are continuously in interaction and in the making (Bozalek and Zembylas 2018). The object and subject could here be us, existing educational practices, or emerging practices of love, peace and appropriate technology. Third, bricolage enables us to assemble diverse sources, methods and theoretical perspectives in a context-sensitive and emergent manner (Rogers 2015). Research then becomes a creative and continuously emerging process. More concretely, we anticipate organising activities (workshops) to learn about peace, love, and appropriate technology education together with others. Further, we plan to hold weekly meetings of approximately one hour between the two of us, in which we share experiences and reflect on the questions posed above.Both those forums will generate rich narrative, dialogical and reflective data, which are documented through field notes and reflective journals. As a part of this work and organising the activities, we also conduct a light but systematic international literature survey across education, engineering education, peace studies and sustainability research. The literature is not treated as a stable backdrop but as an active participant in shaping our thinking and practice. With respect to the workshops, we are currently considering three groups of participants: 1. People known to have experience with, or interest in, the topics raised here 2. Members of the university community, particularly teachers, at our university, to bring diverse institutional perspectives into dialogue. 3. Students: We will reach out to the student union to explore these ideas together with students. The first workshop also serves as a co-design space for shaping the second workshop, thereby enacting our commitment to participatory and relational knowledge production. Data from meetings and workshops (notes, audio recordings, artefacts) are analysed thematically, guided by our research questions and theoretical framework. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study is expected to generate both conceptual insights and practical outcomes relevant to environmental and sustainability education research. We develop a nuanced conceptualisation of the interconnection between peace, love and appropriate technology in university and engineering education contexts. By bringing together international scholarship, we expect to show how these three dimensions mutually reinforce one another as ethical-political orientations, pedagogical practices and organisational imaginaries, while also highlighting tensions, cultural dynamics, and structural constraints. These findings contribute to ongoing European and global debates on reorienting higher education towards justice, sustainability and care. In terms of practical outcomes, this work is oriented towards supporting actual change. Such outcomes may include the development or adaptation of educational practices or learning activities conducted by teachers, as well as new or evolving student-led initiatives. The work may also contribute to initial efforts towards establishing a Centre for Peace, Love and Appropriate Technology. A possibility could be to produce a draft of constitutive principles articulating values, pedagogical commitments, organisational forms and strategies to guide institutional experimentation. While grounded in a specific European university context, these developments may also inspire work in other contexts. Initial insights suggest that there are people who share our interest and already work with the concepts discussed here, as well as related ones (e.g., sensuous knowledge, friendship, touch). They are also connected to initiatives elsewhere (e.g., a course on love at another university). At the same time, we observe how proposing these kinds of ideas and activities can be dismissed or even ridiculed. Suggesting a workshop on these topics, inviting all employees at KTH, felt awkward, indicating that these ideas challenge prevailing norms. References Banks & Lachney (2017). Engineered violence: Confronting the neutrality problem and violence in engineering. International Journal of Engineering, Social Justice, and Peace, 5(1–2), 1–12. Bazzul & Tolbert (2019). Love, politics and science education on a damaged planet. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14(2), 303–308. Bishop (2021). Sustainability lessons from appropriate technology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 318. Bon, Dittoh, Lô & Baart (2021). Decolonizing technology and society: Perspectives from the Global South. Global South Research Network. Bozalek & Zembylas (2018). Practicing Reflection or Diffraction? Implications for Research Methodologies in Education. In Braidotti, Bozalek, Shefer, & Zembylas (Eds.), Socially Just Pedagogies: Posthumanist, Feminist and Materialist Perspectives in Higher Education. Bloomsbury Academic. Catalano & Baillie (2009). Engineering based on love. In 2009 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Cooper & Lilyea (2022). I’m Interested in Autoethnography, but How Do I Do It? The Qualitative Report. Fernandez Kumar & Alkattan (2022). Solidarity Engineering using a Pedagogy of Love. In ASEE Annual Conference. Hernandez, Chang, & Ngunjiri (2017). Collaborative Autoethnography as Multivocal, Relational, and Democratic Research: Opportunities, Challenges, and Aspirations. Auto/Biography Studies, 32(2), 251–254. Hinds, Buch, Delgado & Morgan (2020). Development of a peace engineering initiative within a first-year engineering program. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 33, 112–117. Kleba, & Reina-Rozo (2021). Fostering peace engineering and rethinking development: A Latin American view. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Knutsson (2018). Green machines? Destabilizing discourse in technology education for sustainable development. Critical Education, 9(3). Lanas & Zembylas (2015). Towards a Transformational Political Concept of Love in Critical Education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 34(1), 31–44. Lawless (2018). Documenting a labor of love: Emotional labor as academic labor. Review of Communication, 18(2), 85–97. Peters & Rosén (2025). Pain and Pleasure in working with sustainability and transformation at a technical university: An exploration of the role of educational developers through collaborative autoethnography. European Journal of Engineering Education, 1–30. Riley (2008). Engineering and Social Justice. Springer. Rogers (2015). Contextualizing Theories and Practices of Bricolage Research. The Qualitative Report. Schumacher (1993). Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. Vintage Publishing. Stoddard, Anderson, Capstick, … Williams, M. (2021). Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven’t We Bent the Global Emissions Curve? Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46(12). Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism Confronts Technology. Polity. West (2017). Love actually: Transformative learning meets Bildung, and the psychosocial concept of recognition. In Transformative learning meets bildung: An international exchange. Sense Publishers. 30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Scaling Education for Sustainable Development: The Design-based Research Development for Large Scale Implementation of the Digital Learning Space GET Green 1: Aalborg University, Denmark; 2: Aalborg University, Denmark; 3: Aalborg University, Denmark; 4: University College Copenhagen; 5: University College Copenhagen; 6: University College Copenhagen Presenting Author:This paper presents findings from the development of the digital learning space GET Green, designed for the large-scale implementation of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) across schools in Denmark. Although sustainability competencies have been defined internationally, research indicates that ESD is often not well embedded in existing school systems especially at the secondary level [1, 2]. This paper reports results from the Danish project GreenEdTech: Green Transition of Education and Educational Technology which addresses the three overarching focus areas for the sustainable transformation of education defined in UNESCO’s ESD for 2030 agenda: transformative action, structural change, and technological futures [3].
Over a four-year period, the project developed an educational model and digital learning space aimed at enabling large-scale, cross-disciplinary implementation of ESD across science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) subjects in Danish lower secondary education. The project employed a citizen science (CS) approach in which students aged 13–16 collaborated with private and public partners outside school to address authentic, systemic sustainability challenges [13, 14]. The GreenEdTech project investigated how ESD can be integrated into secondary education by engaging students in CS projects connected to real and ongoing sustainability initiatives with green stakeholders, and which competencies students develop in these environments. The project had four objectives:
1. To define an educational model that support the integration of cross-disciplinary ESD in Danish schools. 2. To develop a digital learning space that facilitates ESD across STEAM subjects. 3. To define approaches for authentic CS collaboration between students and partners outside school. 4. To design assessment tools for evaluating ESD competencies.
These four objectives were addressed through a design-based research (DBR) process involving the development and testing of the GET Green digital learning space, which integrates the objectives above. The current paper presents results from the DBR process in the GreenEdTech project which led to the development of the GET Green digital learning space.
The digital learning space was developed with a focus on supporting students in building four key competencies in sustainability: systems thinking, futures thinking, values thinking, and strategic thinking [4]. In addition, students worked with interpersonal (collaborative) competence and integrated problem-solving competence in the collaborations with private and public partners outside of school. The GET Green platform hosts structural sustainability challenges provided by partners from industry, NGOs, and the public sector. To address these real-life challenges, students work through phases corresponding to the four key competencies: - Systems thinking phase: students map and analyse the groups of citizens and systems of laws, politics, technologies, and artefacts that influence sustainable development in their case. - Values thinking phase: students both discuss the values of the mapped actors and reflect on their own values in relation to the challenge. - Futures thinking phase: students develop digital or physical models of their proposed solutions. - Strategic thinking phase: they align their ideas with the values and systems previously identified and construct arguments for how their solution addresses the sustainability challenge before presenting it to partners or teachers.
The digital learning platform has been designed as a hybrid learning space. The platform host models and tools for supporting work in the different ESD phases, but the tools can be used for digital as well as analogue learning activities in the physical space of the classroom. During the four year research project the GET Green platform has been tested in 15 schools across Denmark. The goal has been to conduct the tests of the platform in diverse socioeconomically and geographical contexts to understand what challenges and opportunities there were in integrating ESD learning designs the different contexts. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study applied a design-based research (DBR) approach [5, 6, 7]. This methodology aims “to improve educational practices through iterative analysis, design, development, and implementation, based on collaboration among researchers and practitioners in real-world settings, and leading to contextually sensitive design principles and theories” [8] pp. 6–7). Both the collaborative practices and the underlying design principles must be understood in order to transform them [9]. DBR consists of iterative cycles of design, intervention, analysis, and redesign. These cycles typically involve several phases, including context and domain analysis, the formulation of design hypotheses, the development of theory-informed prototypes, and analytical work with a dual focus on advancing both practical innovations and theoretical insights [9, 10]. In this study, the design of the GET Green platform was developed through three iterative DBR cycles, each including processes of design, intervention, analysis, and redesign. Interventions in schools during each iteration involved data collection at 4–5 schools (in total 15 schools) such as observations with video and audio recordings of students, interviews with students and teachers, and student surveys. The research focus in each iteration was defined based on the results of the previous one. The first iteration was a pen and paper implementation of the conceptual design. The overall focus was to test the initial prototype of the educational design in order to understand how the student–professional collaborative process could be integrated across STEAM subjects. This was reflected in the design and intervention phases through the development and facilitation of phases and activities that enabled professionals and students to interact while addressing real world problems. The second iteration was specifically focused on developing and testing learning designs and tools for the different ESD competences. This was done by using four problem-solving-phases corresponding to the ESD competences of systems, values, futures, and strategic thinking. In this iteration a first functioning version of the GET Green platform was deployed, with focus on including and testing the ESD learning tools. The third iteration focused primarily on understanding teachers’ approaches to using the platform and their teaching methods, as well as the challenges they experienced. In the first two iterations, teachers had been introduced to the GreenEdTech approach and learning design through in person workshops. The third iteration included trails which sought to understand how teachers perceived and integrated the learning material when they were introduced to it solely through the resources available on the platform. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings In the first iteration, it became clear that work with ESD competences was overshadowed by the emphasis on citizen science collaboration with partners outside the school. In the initial pen and paper prototype, the phase model resembled that which is found in design thinking [11, 12]. The underlying hypothesis for this choice was that design thinking is a strong methodology for supporting students’ work with authentic problem solving and that teachers in Denmark are familiar with integrating design thinking into their teaching. However, results from the interventions in the first DBR iteration showed that the topic of sustainability and the work with the four ESD competences were not fully supported by this design thinking approach. Working with the four ESD competences was new to both students and teachers, and the learning design therefore needed to support the ESD process more explicitly. Based on insights from the first iteration, it was decided to redesign the educational model on the platform to more directly reflect the four ESD competences. As a result, the phase model and all platform materials were revised to refer not to design thinking phases but to the four phases corresponding to the ESD competences. Teachers reported that the phase model and learning tools supported their efforts to work with systemic sustainability, which they otherwise found difficult to integrate into everyday teaching. In most schools, the platform and phase model were used as supportive tools around which teachers organised their teaching, rather than as strict, stand-alone instructional tools. The majority of the work took place in the physical classroom rather than within the digital learning space. Students described the GET Green materials as a new approach compared to other sustainability education, emphasising its focus on action and participation in development processes rather than the passive reception of information. References [1] S. Breiting & P. Wickenberg. The progressive development of environmental education in Sweden and Denmark. Environmental Education Research. 16(1), 9–37. 2010. [2] W. Scott & S. Gough. Sustainable Development and Learning: Framing The Issues; London, UK and New York, NY, USA. Routledge. 2003. [3] E. A. Teo & E. Triantafyllou (Ed.) State-of-the-art analysis of the pedagogical underpinnings of open science, citizen science and open innovation activities. INOS Consortium. 2020. [4] Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability science, 6, 203-218. [5] Brown, A. L. (1992). Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141 - 178. [6] Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design Experiments in Educational Research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13. [7] Kali, Y., & Hoadley, C. (2021). Design-based research methods in CSCL: Calibrating our epistemologies and ontologies. International Handbook of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 479-496. [8] Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 5–23. [9] Cobb, P., & Gravemeijer, K. (2008). Experimenting to support and understand learning processes. In:A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek. (Eds.). Handbook of Design Research Methods in Education—Innovations in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Learning and Teaching (pp. 68–95.). Routledge. [10] Ejersbo, L., Engelhardt, R., Frølunde, L., Hanghøj, T., Magnussen, R., & Misfeldt, M. (2008). Balancing product design and theoretical insight. In A. Kelly, R. Lesh, & J. Baek (Eds.), The Handbook of Design Research Methods in Education (pp. 149–163). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [11] Rusmann, A., & Ejsing-Duun, S. (2021). When design thinking goes to school: A literature review of design competences for the K–12 level. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. [12] Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation IDEO. Development Outreach, 12(1), 29–31. [13] Ballard, H. L., Dixon, C. G. H., & Harris, E. M. (2017). Youth-focused citizen science: Examining the role of environmental science learning and agency for conservation. Biological Conservation, 208, 65–75. 30. Environmental and Sustainability Education Research (ESER)
Paper Understanding and Acting in the Complexity Between the Real and the Virtual: The Riparian Zone as a Paradigm of Educational Space University of Turin, Italy Presenting Author:In the context of the current polycrisis and environmental, social, technological and epistemic transitions (Ceruti, 1999), educational research is increasingly called upon to question the conditions of knowing and acting and its role in connecting knowledge production, public responsibility and sustainability (Morin, 2022; Rosa, 2015; Vendra, 2024). In line with the theme of the call, we intend to raise the question of the conditions that characterise the contemporary experience of knowledge and action, in the face of the problematic coexistence of the real and the virtual. This contribution proposes a theoretical model of experiential space to promote modes of understanding and action appropriate to complex, interconnected contexts that are deeply mediated by digital technology (Jonas, 1984; Vendra, 2024 ). In this direction, the idea of a riparian zone (Hermon, 2014) is proposed as a configuration of the new existential space created by the coexistence of the real and the virtual (Floridi, 2014). Traditionally known as an ecotonal area, it is a dynamic transition zone between aquatic and terrestrial environments, characterised by high biodiversity and ecological functions for the functioning and resilience of river systems. This idea can in fact be proposed as a paradigm for those educational places where the real and the virtual intertwine and where the natural, social and technological dimensions co-determine each other (Hermon, 2014). In this perspective, the riparian zone is taken not as a simple descriptive metaphor, but as a theoretical device capable of guiding educational research in understanding the contemporary conditions of knowing and acting. It allows us to think of educational space as a relational and generative space, in which individuals and society, knowledge, technologies and environments co-evolve, making visible the possibilities that emerge in contexts of polycrisis and transition (Floridi, 2014; Harari, 2017). This proposal is inspired by Edgar Morin's theories of complexity (2022), in particular the concept of polycrisis, which argues that contemporary societies do not face isolated crises but interconnected systems of crises – environmental, social, economic and technological – amplified by growing digital mediation. This type of educational space configuration could provide a possible solution to the question of the relationship between the real and virtual dimensions, considering the role of digital technologies as mediators of cognitive processes and as factors that redefine the boundaries between observation, simulation and intervention (Floridi, 2014; Salerno, Rigoni, 2022). Digital technology, therefore, would no longer be a tool, but would constitute an element that, when integrated into the educational space in terms of shelters, would influence the modes of knowledge production and the possibilities for educational action (Beghetto, 2023; Malara, 2022). In this perspective, knowing and acting cannot be conceived as linear or separate processes. Consequently, specific skills are needed to inhabit these border zones, where scientific knowledge, local practices, media narratives and social perceptions intertwine and influence each other (Hermon, 2014). The riparian zone paradigm is proposed as an experiential laboratory, in which educational action is called upon to develop the skills necessary for knowing and acting that are not linear processes. In this perspective, education is not only the transmission of knowledge, but also reflective practice oriented towards responsible action (Duoblienė, Kairė, Vaitekaitis, 2023; Nosari, Guarcello, 2025; Salerno, Rigoni, 2022). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The contribution, aiming to construct a theoretical model that allows us to understand the conditions of current experience and to design appropriate educational interventions (Hermon, 2014), adopts a theoretical-hermeneutic methodology based on analysis, comparison and interdisciplinary integration. The approach therefore falls within the scope of theoretical research in environmental education and sustainability and is structured along three main analytical lines. The first line concerns the epistemology of complexity (Ceruti, 1999; Morin, 2022; Rosa, 2015). This complexity, together with the use of interdisciplinary comparison, aims to identify, in the ideas and especially in the configurations of other disciplines, interpretative models useful for understanding educational experiences. This epistemology of complexity is accompanied by interdisciplinary research aimed at recognising, in the phenomena studied by other disciplines, dynamic relational structures that allow for the interpretation of new educational experiences. Therefore, starting from the theories of Edgar Morin (2022) and other authors on complexity, the contribution analyses the interconnection between ecological, social and technological systems, focusing on concepts such as emergence, non-linearity, feedback and interdependence (Floridi, 2014; Hermon, 2014). The second guideline focuses on defining riparian skills (Hermon, 2014). These skills are hypothesised based on a systematic analysis of non-cognitive skills: life skills, soft skills, character skills (Duoblienė, Kairė, Vaitekaitis, 2023; Nosari, Guarcello, 2025). The specific skills required for this new experience are developed by applying the method of differences, comparing the riparian experience with previous experiential models (Floridi, 2014; Salerno, Rigoni, 2022). The result is a critically-reflective competence profile, for which the promotion of these skills through reflective educational practices has already been hypothesised (Cappa, Palma, 2018; Duoblienė, Kairė, Vaitekaitis, 2023; Fabbri, Scaratti, Striano, 2006). The third guideline analyses the relationship between the real and the virtual (Floridi; 2014; Harari, 2017), exploring the role of digital technologies as mediators of cognitive processes and amplifiers of complexity. Through conceptual analysis, the contribution critically questions how the virtual redefines the boundaries between observation, simulation and action, and what implications this has for educational processes oriented towards responsible action (Beghetto, 2023). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings In response to the increasing need to integrate real and virtual spaces in contemporary education, this work proposes a theoretical paradigm with a design-oriented function (Floridi, 2014; Hermon, 2014). The riparian zone paradigm offers a theoretical framework that overcomes the separation between the two spheres by conceiving them as co-present and mutually constitutive within a single experiential space. By viewing the real and virtual not as separate or overlapping contexts but as interconnected components of a unified educational environment – where knowing and acting are continuously intertwined (Beghetto, 2023; Jonas, 1984) – the riparian zone concept enables the creation of educational spaces that embrace instability, interdependence, and technological mediation, while also fostering innovative spaces that expand opportunities for a transition toward a new humanism. The riparian zone paradigm functions as a generative framework for designing educational interventions that consciously engage with the hybrid spaces of the present (Hermon, 2014). Assuming the co-presence of the real and the virtual as a structural condition of experience requires rethinking intentionality, contexts, and educational practices in light of the concrete ways contemporary generations know, act, and construct meaning (Floridi, 2014; Harari, 2017). Environments like video games (Seelow, 2023), digital platforms, and immersive media can be understood not as marginal or instrumental, but as complex experiential spaces for designing learning, participation, and responsibility. From this perspective, the riparian zone is seen as both a design space and a model that meets the urgent need – highlighted in European educational policies – for approaches combining technology, embodied experience, and human agency (Jonas, 1984; Salerno, Rigoni, 2022; Seelow, 2023; Vendra, 2024). References Beghetto, R. A. (2023). Broadening horizons of the possible in education. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(4), 414–426. Cappa, F., & Palma, M. (2018). Formative transitions: Experience, adult education, and reflective practices. Educational Reflective Practices, 108–125. https://boa.unimib.it/handle/10281/192944 Ceruti, M. (1999). Complexity and the unfinished nature of human evolution. In C. Rossi & E. Tiezzi (Eds.), Tempos in science and nature: Structures, relations and complexity (pp. 63–74). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. https://hdl.handle.net/10808/10579 Duoblienė, L., Kairė, S., & Vaitekaitis, J. (2023). Education for a future: Applying concepts from the new materialist discourse to UNESCO and OECD publications. The Journal of Environmental Education, 54(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2023.2188576 Fabbri, L., Scaratti, G., & Striano, M. (2006). Building a community of reflective practices. In L. Formenti (Ed.), Giving voice to change: Research questioning adult life (pp. 129–142). Milan, Italy: Unicopli. https://hdl.handle.net/10807/16803 Floridi, L. (2014). The onlife manifesto. Springer. Harari, Y. N. (2017). Homo Deus: A brief history of tomorrow. Harper. Hermon, E. (2014). Environmental concepts and integrated management of riverbanks (riparia) in the Roman Empire: A lesson from the past? In E. Hermon (Ed.), Riparia, a cultural heritage: Integrated management of riverbanks. Sudbury Workshop, April 12–14, 2012 (p. 9). BAR Publishing. Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. University of Chicago Press. Malara, S. (2022). Digital oceans: Technological competences and didactic strategies for active citizenship. Formazione & Insegnamento, 20(1), 818–826. https://doi.org/10.7346/fei-XX-01-22_72 Morin, E. (2022). The challenge of complexity. Liverpool University Press. Nosari, S., & Guarcello, E. (2025). The question of non-cognitive skills and the cheetah’s coat perspective. In Teacher education research in Europe: Trends, challenges, practices and perspectives (pp. 262–270). University of Bergamo. https://aisberg.unibg.it/handle/10446/309207 Rosa, H. (2015). Social acceleration: A new theory of modernity. Columbia University Press. Salerno, V., & Rigoni, L. (2022). Uncertainty as an epistemic and pedagogical value of educational and formative ecosystems in the pedagogical anthropology of E. Morin: Field experience and a new paradigm in education. Formazione & Insegnamento, 20(2), 288–297. Seelow, D. (2023). Games as transformative experiences for critical thinking, cultural awareness, and deep learning: Strategies and resources. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. Vendra, M. C. C. (2024). Phenomenological foundations of ecological responsibility: From embodiment to environmental resilience with Paul Ricœur. Ostium, 20(1). https://ostium.sk/language/en/phenomenological-foundations-of-ecological-responsibility-from-embodiment-to-environmental-resilience-with-paul-ricoeur/ | ||