3.3 Dominant characteristics of learning and teaching for sustainability advocated in the literature
Teaching approaches
Learning outcomes advocated in the literature Learning and teaching activities
3.4 Summary of important characteristics of learning and teaching in EfS
3.1 Introduction
In order to set the context for this research, this chapter firstly explores what is unique about education for sustainability (EfS) that requires specific investigation and outlines the
important characteristics of EfS according to the literature including pedagogical needs and learning and teaching (L&T) approaches, learning outcomes and L&T activities. The chapter then concludes with a summary of these dominant approaches and methods advocated for EfS.
3.2 The context for investigating learning and teaching in EfS
Empirical research specifically on L&T experiences in EfS is needed because of a number of distinguishing characteristics of EfS in higher education (HE). EfS/education for sustainable development (ESD)2 has been described ‘as a unique educational concept’ (Barth and Michelsen 2013:106), that ‘challenge[s] conventional modes of education and require[s] new methods for integrative learning’ (Fortuin and Bush 2010:20). Christie et al. (2012:3) argue
2
As defined in Chapter One, EfS includes the study of sustainability, and the development of capabilities to help people contribute to the evolving process of sustainable development. The latter element is why some choose to use the term ESD as opposed to sustainability, as this frames learning as a process. The terms used by the authors presented in this literature review have been repeated in this dissertation, as they have similar meanings for the purpose of this research.
that ‘sustainability as a concept is epistemologically, ideologically and methodologically unique’ because it is interdisciplinary, controversial, subjective and ‘requires values
judgments’3. There also remains controversy over sustainability as a subject and ‘confusion over terminology’ (Cotton et al. 2007:580), so part of teaching sustainability involves also proving its relevance and legitimacy as a subject in a course of study. EfS is not owned by a particular discipline (UNESCO 2012) and according to Barth and Michelsen (2013:105), this indicates a change in educational paradigm because EfS can be integrated into curriculum ‘rather than yet another ‘adjectival’ education’. ‘ESD is an overarching paradigm that guides and transforms the core disciplines, second tier disciplines, and adjectival educations so that they can all contribute to a more sustainable future’ (UNESCO 2012:no page). Implementing EfS in HE challenges many common practices in HE. For example, according to Cortese (1999), EfS challenges current mindsets within educational systems which commonly reinforce a disconnect between humans and the natural environment, and supports notions of infinite growth and consumption through the ways in which subject matter is taught. Cook et
al. (2010) argue that sustainability is a difficult path to take because the actions and effects of
sustainability practice are unknown as sustainable development diverges from business as usual. According to Wals and Blewitt (2010:56) the ‘the emergence of ‘environment’ in HE’ in the 1970s and 1980s by sustainability education’s forerunner Environmental Education, ‘hardly resulted in the rethinking of teaching and learning’. However, due to the unique characteristics of sustainability education, it has the opportunity to bring about pedagogical change through a focus specifically on rethinking L&T practice (Wals and Blewitt 2010).
Teaching EfS is accompanied by a number of challenges including a focus on learning processes for sustainability rather than learning about sustainability, interdisciplinary collaboration and use of multidisciplinary frameworks, and making values explicit in L&T.
What makes something sustainable is context specific (Christie et al. 2012, Sterling 2003) and therefore there are no sets of rules or codes of practice that are ‘sustainable’. This ‘requires teachers to also see themselves as learners, and work with uncertainty and open
outcomes’(Martin and Jucker 2003:7). The issues that EfS aims to address, including climate change, social inequality and the ‘food-energy-environment trilemma’ (Harvey and Pilgrim 2010) are complex and their exact nature and ways to address them are uncertain, therefore sustainable development is very much a ‘learning process’ rather than ‘about ‘rolling out’ a
3
I do not agree that making value judgments and subjective interpretation are unique to the study of sustainability. Based on a social constructivist epistemology, all reality can only be understood through subjective interpretation and therefore part of any course of study.
set of pre-determined behaviours’ (Vare and Scott 2007:192). This means that capabilities for sustainability such as critically reflective practice and problem solving become key to this learning process, rather than merely learning about sustainability. Likewise, educators must also become reflective and open practitioners in order to teach sustainability, as highlighted by UNECE (2012):
Transformation of what it means to be an educator is necessary because education systems are composed of the people who work within them and a key to changing these systems will be educators who are able to change their own practice as critical reflective practitioners. The building of positive relationships between educators and learners is essential. This will require educators to present themselves as fallible human beings rather than people with all the answers. It also requires the ability to empathize with the views and situations of those they educate.
(UNECE 2012:17)
EfS challenges the ‘purpose, content… method’ of teaching practice ‘and the role of teachers in the institution’ (Martin and Jucker 2003:7). According to Barth and Michelsen (2013) pedagogy needs to be transformed to social constructivist models in order to meet the capabilities based learning goals such as reflective practice. The challenge, however, of implementing new pedagogies for sustainability is documented by Bawden, who argues that:
As educators begin to explore the challenge (of curriculum development for sustainability), they quickly come to appreciate that the design of innovative pedagogies for sustainability… raises a host of complex cognitive and normative issues that extend beyond the conventional foci of curriculum content and pedagogical practice.
(Bawden 2007:300)
Sustainability’s defining characteristic is its systems or holistic framework to understand the world as a whole system. Systems thinking underpins other key elements of sustainability such as interdisciplinarity (Barth and Michelsen 2013, Sterling et al. 2010) and this ‘requires a change in mindset for academics, who are generally accustomed to working within clearly defined disciplinary boundaries’ (Cotton and Winter 2010:41). According to Sibbel
(2009:79), EfS:
requires teaching by academics from many disciplines who collaborate to share ideas and make new connections within a flexible and dynamic theoretical base. It also requires them
to work beyond their own areas of specialisation to supervise students’ work across disciplines.
There is a growing consensus that values have a key role to play in EfS, beyond just understanding sustainability (Cook et al. 2010). Interpreting and applying sustainability requires values judgments because choosing what actions best reflect sustainability is context specific. Barth and Michelsen (2013:107) argue that ‘ESD has to consider the underlying values and support the learner’s critical reflection on them’. In order for people to embark on an alternate, difficult and uncertain path we need to reflect on our values and why we need to change our current practices.
Explicitly stating values and focusing on building reasoning skills to evidence learners’ and teachers’ positions is a more suitable approach for the needs of ESD than attempting to remain values neutral (Cotton and Winter 2010). Therefore EfS/ESD also challenges a perceived value neutral or unbiased position towards teaching subject matter. However, ‘sustainable development has… been criticized as overly value-based’ (Dale and Newman 2005:353) and labelled by some as ‘indoctrination’ (Christie et al. 2012:3). Teachers in EfS face the challenge of deciding if and how to ‘explicitly state values’ given this context.
In summary, EfS in HE requires pedagogical transformation in order to support L&T that fully embraces the transformative potential of EfS. EfS challenges current mindsets and takes a systemic approach to understanding the world. EfS makes explicit the roles values play in shaping worldviews and practice requires L&T based on interdisciplinary collaboration and use of multidisciplinary frameworks. These characteristics are what define EfS as a new educational endeavour that requires specific empirical investigation to validate or challenge L&T for EfS theories advocated in the literature.