ArticlePDF Available

Emancipatory and transformative Global Citizenship Education in formal and informal settings: Empowering learners to change structures

Authors:

Abstract

This paper examines the vignettes from the perspective of Global Citizenship Education (GCE), with a particular focus on emancipatory and transformative learning in formal and informal settings. Taking reflection on the learning experiences and processes described in the vignettes as a basis, it develops and discusses five theses. This discussion helps to clarify what GCE is, where it is successful, where it fails, and how it should develop. While this paper acknowledges the relevance of incidental learning for GCE - and thus the bottom-up, emic approach that is the focus of this special issue, analysis of the experiences presented in the vignettes shows that incidental learning is not a simple matter where GCE is concerned. It can also lead to outcomes that are not in the spirit of GCE, and may even run counter to it. Learning environments should be structured in such a way as to facilitate the development of global citizenship competencies, create a sense of belonging and solidarity, and enable students to reflect critically on power structures and contribute to the transformation of those structures. Teachers can contribute to this by deploying emancipatory, transformative pedagogies in the classroom but also by creating opportunities for incidental learning in line with GCE or by addressing the outcomes of incidental learning in the classroom and making it amenable to reflection. Teachers need appropriate (GCE) competencies to enable them both to deploy emancipatory, transformative pedagogies and to support incidental learning.
174 Rieckmann: Global Citizenship Education in formal and informal settings
Tertium Comparationis
Journal für International und Interkulturell
Vergleichende Erziehungswissenschaft
Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 174–186, 2020
Waxmann Verlag GmbH
Emancipatory and transformative Global Citizenship Education
in formal and informal settings:
Empowering learners to change structures
Marco Rieckmann
University of Vechta, Germany
Abstract
This paper examines the vignettes from the perspective of Global Citizenship Education (GCE),
with a particular focus on emancipatory and transformative learning in formal and informal settings.
Taking reflection on the learning experiences and processes described in the vignettes as a basis, it
develops and discusses five theses. This discussion helps to clarify what GCE is, where it is suc-
cessful, where it fails, and how it should develop. While this paper acknowledges the relevance of
incidental learning for GCE – and thus the bottom-up, emic approach that is the focus of this special
issue, analysis of the experiences presented in the vignettes shows that incidental learning is not a
simple matter where GCE is concerned. It can also lead to outcomes that are not in the spirit of
GCE, and may even run counter to it. Learning environments should be structured in such a way as
to facilitate the development of global citizenship competencies, create a sense of belonging and
solidarity, and enable students to reflect critically on power structures and contribute to the trans-
formation of those structures. Teachers can contribute to this by deploying emancipatory, trans-
formative pedagogies in the classroom but also by creating opportunities for incidental learning in
line with GCE or by addressing the outcomes of incidental learning in the classroom and making it
amenable to reflection. Teachers need appropriate (GCE) competencies to enable them both to de-
ploy emancipatory, transformative pedagogies and to support incidental learning.
Introduction
This paper examines the vignettes and the stories they tell from the perspective of
Global Citizenship Education (GCE) and Education for Sustainable Development
(ESD),1 with a particular focus on emancipatory and transformative learning in for-
mal and informal settings.
TC, 2020, 26 (2) 175
My starting point for this essay is an understanding of education that assumes
that, against the background of global environmental crisis, poverty and injustice,
education should enable individuals to understand global interrelationships and to
actively participate in the sustainable transformation of society, which includes em-
powering learners to change social structures. The educational concept of Global
Citizenship Education aims to meet this requirement (KMK & BMZ, 2016;
UNESCO, 2015; Bourn, 2014; Wegimont, 2013; Scheunpflug, 2008; Scheunpflug
& Asbrand, 2006). This pedagogical approach is based on the idea that the develop-
ment of a global society results in requirements that relate to learning in a factual
dimension (dealing with the simultaneity of knowledge and non-knowledge), a tem-
poral dimension (acceleration and lack of time), a spatial dimension (dissolution of
boundaries and interconnection), and a social dimension (familiarity and strange-
ness) (Lang-Wojtasik, 2019).
In this context, GCE aims to empower learners to participate in the social learning
and communication processes required for sustainable development; in the imple-
mentation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); and thus, in the promotion
of a ‘great transformation’ (WBGU, 2011), equipping them with the necessary global
citizenship competencies. In this respect, different competence frameworks are dis-
cussed for GCE (Rieckmann, 2018; OECD, 2018; KMK & BMZ, 2016; UNESCO,
2015).
An international Delphi study (Rieckmann, 2012) identified twelve key compe-
tencies as particularly important to an understanding of the key problems faced by
global society and for shaping it through sustainable development, including sys-
temic thinking, dealing with complexity, anticipation, and critical thinking. Simi-
larly, current international discourse on ESD considers the following sustainability
competencies to be particularly relevant: systems thinking competency, anticipatory
competency, normative competency, strategic competency, collaboration compe-
tency, critical thinking competency, intrapersonal competency, implementation com-
petency, and integrated problem-solving competency (Brundiers et al., 2021;
Rieckmann, 2018; UNESCO, 2017).
However, GCE is not limited to the development of competencies; as transform-
ative education, it is also concerned with the “transformation of the relationship be-
tween the individual and the world in a global perspective” (translated from German)
(Scheunpflug, 2019, p. 66) and thus with changing attitudes, values, paradigms, and
worldviews (Balsiger et al., 2017; Sterling, 2011). GCE is thus also expected to con-
tribute to critical discourse on values. It can and should provide suggestions to en-
courage learners to reflect on their own values and take a position in the debate on
values en route to sustainable development (Schank & Rieckmann, 2019; Balsiger
et al., 2017).
176 Rieckmann: Global Citizenship Education in formal and informal settings
Competencies (and related values) cannot simply be taught but must be developed
by learners themselves (Weinert, 2001). GCE therefore requires an action-oriented,
transformative pedagogy (Rieckmann, 2018; UNESCO, 2017), characterized by
pedagogical principles such as a learner-centered approach, action-oriented learning,
reflection, participation, systemic learning, future orientation, and transformative
learning (Rieckmann, 2018; UNESCO, 2017). Here, it is important to emphasize that
GCE is not only concerned with enabling learners to consume more sustainably in
everyday life, but also with empowering them to contribute as citizens to the trans-
formation of unsustainable social and economic structures (Schank & Rieckmann,
2019).
However, GCE is not only about integrating sustainable development and the
global dimension into teaching or adding new content to school subjects or study
programs, for example. In relation to sustainable development, schools, universities
and other educational institutions should see themselves as places of learning and
experience and therefore align all their processes with sustainability principles. For
GCE to be more effective, educational institutions as a whole must be changed. Such
a whole-institution approach aims to integrate sustainability into all aspects of edu-
cational institutions (curriculum, operation, organizational culture, etc.). In this way,
institutions themselves act as role models for learners (UNESCO, 2017).
Yet GCE is not delivered solely through formal education but also through non-
formal education and in informal learning environments. For example, universities
not only integrate GCE into their curricula but “also offer settings for informal learn-
ing, such as discussions with fellow students or volunteering in student groups on
campus where students learn outside the organized academic learning processes”
(Barth, Godemann, Rieckmann & Stoltenberg, 2007, p. 420).
On the basis of reflection on the learning experiences and processes described in
the vignettes, I have developed five theses, which are discussed below:
1. Informal learning through student engagement plays a crucial role in GCE.
2. A whole-institution approach is needed to overcome exclusionary structures in
educational institutions.
3. Transformative ways of dealing with heterogeneity and diversity and the asso-
ciated power relations are needed to promote a sense of belonging and prevent
othering.
4. GCE needs to be designed in such a way as to promote learner emancipation and
not overwhelm learners.
5. For GCE to be transformative, it must not only aim to achieve changes in indi-
vidual (consumer) behavior but must also take account of the need for structural
change.
TC, 2020, 26 (2) 177
The discussion of these theses below clarifies what GCE is, where it is successful,
where it fails, and how it should develop, by analyzing the descriptions, events, par-
ticipants, voices, etc. presented in the vignettes. It discusses how these practices can
inform, challenge, and change our conceptions of GCE. While this paper acknowl-
edges the relevance of incidental learning for GCE – and thus the bottom-up, emic
approach that is the focus of this special issue, it aims to show that incidental learning
can also lead to outcomes that are not in the spirit of GCE, and may even run counter
to it, and that teachers play an important role in creating opportunities for incidental
learning in line with GCE and in addressing the outcomes of incidental learning in
the classroom and making it amenable to reflection.
Perspectives on Global Citizenship Education
Thesis 1: Informal learning through student engagement plays a crucial role in GCE.
Informal learning is “any activity involving the pursuit of understanding, knowledge
or skill which occurs without the presence of externally imposed curricular criteria”
(Livingstone, 2001, p. 4). Drawing on Schugurensky (2000), three forms of informal
learning can be differentiated: self-directed learning (both intentional and conscious),
incidental/experiential learning (unintentional but conscious), and socialization (tacit
learning, unintentional and unconscious). Informal learning in all its forms, but par-
ticularly experiential learning, contributes to the development of competencies be-
cause it is related to action.
Informal learning can play a crucial role in GCE. This is clearly illustrated in the
example provided by Meg P. Gardinier (Vignette 4). Protesting Albanian students
took an active stand to defend their and others’ rights, developed a sense of solidarity,
and were enabled to act on a sense of “empathy and/or shared identity with others in
the collective concerns of protecting rights to education and sustainability” (Gar-
dinier, Vignette 4).
This shows how youth civic engagement can contribute to the development of
global citizenship competencies. Experiential learning in particular facilitates the de-
velopment of competencies relating to action (Dohmen, 2001, p. 33). According to
Lipski (2004), informal learning is particularly important for the development of
‘life competency,’ namely the capacity to plan and implement projects that serve to
realize individual and/or shared life goals; the capacity for self-organization plays a
key role here.
In this respect, as the bottom-up, emic approach claims, there are indeed many
contexts where we can learn incidentally about global connections and develop our
global citizenship competencies. Student protests are a good example: The ‘Back
Lives Matter’ movement and the ‘Fridays for Future’ movement connect students
178 Rieckmann: Global Citizenship Education in formal and informal settings
worldwide. But educational institutions can also create spaces where informal learn-
ing can take place and that can support informal learning processes (Barth et al.,
2007) – for example as part of a whole-institution approach.
Thesis 2: A whole-institution approach is needed to overcome exclusionary struc-
tures in educational institutions.
The whole-institution approach contends that educational institutions should be role
models for learners and should create structures and a culture that reflects and pro-
motes sustainability and equality (Mogren, Gericke & Scherp, 2019; UNESCO,
2017).
When the learning processes sought by GCE are not in harmony with society’s
structures and culture, tensions inevitably arise, as illustrated in particular by the sto-
ries of Natasha Robinson (Vignette 1) and Heather Kertyzia (Vignette 5). The con-
versation about South Africa’s structural inequality and the role of an architect of
apartheid in a school “that is structurally exclusive” (Robinson, Vignette 1) results
in “a racial divide” (ibid.) in the classroom. It becomes apparent that underlying
power relations make it impossible to discuss the issue on equal terms or to work on
the basis of shared perspectives. And the case of GCE in an international university
and an LA university with a student population from marginalized neighborhoods
shows that learning processes relating to power structures and violence occur in both
institutions, but due to the lack of a real-world connection to global issues, the LA
students cannot experience the global dimension (Kertyzia, Vignette 5). The question
arises as to how the institution itself can provide this access.
In the context of a whole-institution approach, GCE should form the basis for
comprehensive change in the educational institution (Mogren et al., 2019). This can
refer, among other things, to the sustainable design of the school grounds or univer-
sity campus and buildings, or sustainable and diverse provision in the canteen that is
collectively planned and is fair to all. All students are involved in a diverse and ho-
listic approach to issues of sustainability and (global) justice (UNESCO, 2017). But
in terms of inclusion, GCE is also concerned with educational institutions’ demo-
cratic structures, cultures of participation, and reflection on their power structures,
creating a safe and empowering environment for dealing with structural inequality.
However, it must also be acknowledged that structural inequalities cannot simply be
overcome. Nonetheless, the whole-institution approach can contribute to making in-
equalities visible and amenable to reflection, thus laying the foundations for joint
work to overcome them.
The participation of educational institutions in local and regional sustainable de-
velopment processes is also crucial (UNESCO, 2017). This can also lead to projects
that connect the local to the global and make global issues visible to students from
TC, 2020, 26 (2) 179
marginalized neighborhoods. Networks and cooperation structures, e.g. between the
LA university and the international university, would also be very valuable here,
creating a space where the two realities meet and power structures can be jointly
reflected upon.
In line with the bottom-up, emic approach, educational institutions should not be
“a location of destructive social reproduction” (Gardinier, Vignette 4), where stu-
dents learn incidentally that exclusion is normal, but of transformative change,
providing students with a setting in which they can learn incidentally how structures
of exclusion and inequality can be reflected upon, considered and even overcome.
This also requires teachers who not only actively integrate GCE into the curriculum
but also contribute to the transformation of the whole institution (Corres, Rieckmann,
Espasa & Ruiz-Mallén, 2020; Vare et al., 2019).
Thesis 3: Transformative ways of dealing with heterogeneity and diversity and the
associated power relations are needed to promote a sense of belonging and prevent
othering.
GCE aims to provide “experience in global and intercultural contexts” (Barth &
Rieckmann, 2009, p. 26) because being aware of “different perspectives and inter-
pretations” (ibid., p. 27) and possessing the associated “worldmindedness” (Selby,
2000, p. 3) enables learners to find their way in the networked global society and to
deal with global diversity. However, bringing global diversity into the classroom is
very challenging, and there is a risk of “uncritical reinforcement of notions of the
supremacy and universality of ‘our’ (Western) ways of seeing and knowing, which
can undervalue other knowledge systems and reinforce unequal relations of dialogue
and power” (Andreotti & de Souza, 2008, p. 23).
What this can look like in educational practice is shown by the bringing together
in the classroom of refugee students and German students, as described by Annett
Gräfe-Geusch (Vignette 2). Her observations illustrate how, instead of engaging pos-
itively with diversity and creating a sense of belonging, negative stereotypes were
reinforced by emphasizing differences between the two groups of students and mark-
ing the refugee students as not yet knowing how to behave properly in the German
context and thus still being “in need of reform” (Gräfe-Geusch, Vignette 2).
Thus, the students’ encounter leads to othering, by defining the German students
as superior and their values as universal and the refugee students as an inferior out-
group. Othering is expressed by differentiating an in-group from an out-group,
creating the other, and, based on stereotypes, separating oneself from the other to
self-affirm and protect oneself (Dervin, 2014).
To prevent othering and to allow for truly emancipatory and transformative GCE,
it is necessary to challenge prejudices, stereotypes and biases (Derman-Sparks,
180 Rieckmann: Global Citizenship Education in formal and informal settings
1989). This is where the ‘Through Other Eyes’ framework, which is about “learning
to unlearn, learning to listen, learning to learn and learning to reach out” (Andreotti
& de Souza, 2008, p. 29), can be useful. It has links to transformative education,
which focuses on the transformation of frames of reference (Scheunpflug, 2019;
Balsiger et al., 2017; Cranton, 2002; Mezirow, 1997) that “are deeply embedded
in our childhood, community, and culture” (Cranton, 2002, p. 67). These frames of
reference (attitudes, values, paradigms, and worldviews) are developed through ex-
perience and are mostly uncritically assimilated (Cranton & King, 2003).
To facilitate a bottom-up, emic approach that promotes incidental learning in the
spirit of GCE, learning environments are needed in which learners become “aware
and critical of their own and other’s assumptions” (Mezirow, 1997, p. 10), and are
encouraged to reflect on these frames of reference in a critical, de-constructing, and
transgressive way, so as to stimulate truly transformative learning processes that re-
sult in conceptual change (Rodríguez Aboytes & Barth 2020; Lotz-Sisitka, Wals,
Kronlid & McGarry, 2015; Sterling, 2011).
As Annett Gräfe-Geusch’s example also makes very clear, this requires teachers
who themselves are willing “to include differences” and see “diversity as an oppor-
tunity” (Gräfe-Geusch, Vignette 2), but also have the corresponding reflective and
pedagogical competencies to design such transformative learning environments
(Corres et al., 2020; Vare et al., 2019; Balsiger et al., 2017).
Thesis 4: GCE needs to be designed in such a way as to promote learner emancipa-
tion and not overwhelm learners.
Education should foster in learners the capacity for self-determination, co-determi-
nation, and solidarity (Klafki, 1998). In this sense, emancipatory GCE also aims not
to prescribe certain ways of thinking or behaving, but to stimulate learning for inde-
pendent and self-determined reflection (Scheunpflug, 2019). Or in other words:
“Transformative learning must not be used to instrumentalize learners but to em-
power them for autonomous critical action” (Balsiger et al., 2017, p. 359).
Jennifer Riggan’s example (Vignette 3), on Citizenship Education in Ethiopia,
shows that this kind of emancipatory pedagogical approach is by no means self-evi-
dent. In this case, all students are taught a certain understanding of citizenship and
personhood and “particular habits, beliefs and dispositions” (Riggan, Vignette 3),
with especial emphasis on the relevance of saving in ‘modern’ society; this is a com-
pulsory subject and is more or less imposed on them. Moreover, it becomes clear that
the view imposed on the students does not fit with the reality of their lives. Education
can be understood here as an instrument of indoctrination to safeguard the prevailing
ideology (of the ruling party).
TC, 2020, 26 (2) 181
GCE that sees itself as emancipatory and transformative should not manipulate
learners, force them to think or behave in a particular way or to adopt specific values;
instead, learners should be encouraged to think for themselves about socially relevant
issues and find their own answers (Scheunpflug, 2019; Shephard, Rieckmann &
Barth, 2019; Vare & Scott, 2007). The aim should be to develop global citizenship
competencies that enable students to make decisions that fit with their reality and
equally that take a morally responsible approach to the realities of global society
(Rieckmann, 2018; UNESCO, 2017). Learners’ maturity and independent judgment
must be kept in mind to enable them to form a view on socially controversial topics.
And in the spirit of the bottom-up, emic approach, this refers not only to the design
of formal learning environments but also to how teachers create spaces in which
learners can engage incidentally with specific societal issues and develop their own
ideas about them.
As Heather Kertyzia (Vignette 5) points out, Freirean pedagogy can be a helpful
and effective method for introducing a “teaching practice based on critical self-re-
flection” as a “starting point for creating pedagogies for positive change.” However,
this also presupposes that the teachers themselves are in a position to shape GCE in
this emancipatory way (Corres et al., 2020; Vare et al., 2019).
Thesis 5: For GCE to be transformative, it must not only aim to achieve changes in
individual (consumer) behavior but must also take account of the need for structural
change.
GCE starts with individuals and their acquisition of knowledge and competencies as
well as their attitudes, values, paradigms, and worldviews. Thus, “the responsibility
for sustainable development shifts to the private sphere” (translated from German)
(Grunwald, 2010, p. 178). Individual responsibility is emphasized, while the public
responsibility of political bodies and the role of (multinational) companies tends to
be marginalized. This is problematic in several respects: Firstly, the complexity and
uncertainty associated with sustainability-related decisions can overwhelm individ-
uals – they often lack the necessary knowledge. Secondly, tradeoffs can occur even
where supposedly sustainable behavior is concerned. Thirdly, the separation between
the public and the private sphere becomes blurred (Grunwald, 2010).
Focusing solely on individual responsibility is also problematic because it under-
estimates the dominance and permanence of social structures and cultural patterns.
“Individuals … are often ‘atomized’ by the practices and procedures of institutions
and the ideology of ‘democratic’ and ‘consumer choice,’ while their behaviour is
heavily circumscribed by structures, institutions and practices over which they have
little influence or control” (Wals, 2015, p. 13). For example, consumption is not
simply shaped by individuals, but is culturally embedded (Assadourian, 2010). And
182 Rieckmann: Global Citizenship Education in formal and informal settings
the market economy and its inherent ‘growth spiral’ (Binswanger, 2012) also limit
the potential for changes in individuals’ behavior.
When GCE is put into practice, however, there is often a predominant focus
on the role and responsibility of individuals. For example, Mr. Cilliers, the South
African teacher, completely ignores the role of structures and tries to convince his
students that there would be less violence in the world if everyone were only nicer
to one other (Robinson, Vignette 1). Even when his actions lead to open conflict in
class, he does not use this opportunity to address power relations and inequality. It is
very important to deal with the role played by emotions in the context of GCE
(Robina-Ramírez, Medina Merodio & McCallum, 2020; Ojala, 2012). However, this
should not lead to students being led to believe that social structures can be changed
through an emotional approach alone.
Heather Kertyzia (Vignette 5) succeeds in getting students at the LA university to
address issues of violence and injustice – but they were only “motivated to seek so-
lutions to the violence and injustice they saw around them on a daily basis and did
not see the global issues as their concern.” This omits an examination of structures
that have a significant influence on the lives of these students.
Sustainable development is also concerned with structural issues in many fields.
However, if a “fixation on learners as private consumers” is in the foreground, this
hinders “structural transformation of the conditions criticized [by GCE]” (translated
from German) (Danielzik, 2013, p. 31). Thus, it is of central importance in GCE not
only to focus on the individual but also to raise the question of structures, of the
‘great transformation’ (WBGU, 2011). Sustainable transformation of society is not a
private matter, but a public task (Grunwald, 2010).
It … requires the capacity to disrupt and to transgress prevailing, dominant and unquestioned
frameworks and systems that predetermine and structure social and economic behavior, and
that, somewhat ironically, have proven to be highly resilient themselves. This capacity is
little emphasized in the current discourse around sustainability governance and in circles
connected to education and learning in the context of sustainable development. By stressing
disruptive capacity building and transgressive learning the focus shifts away from learning
to cope with the negative and disempowering effects of the current hegemonic ways of ‘pro-
ducing,’ ‘consuming’ and ‘living’ to addressing the root causes thereof and to the quest for
morally defensible, ethical and meaningful lives. (Wals, 2015, p. 30)
This idea does not contradict the focus on transformative learning (and related com-
petence development and reflection on values) attributed to GCE in the foregoing
sections. However, it is important that transformative learning is not considered pri-
marily in relation to sustainable consumption behaviors, and that there is also an ex-
amination of how transformative learning – through formal education but also inci-
dentally – can enable students to contribute to structural change (through the
TC, 2020, 26 (2) 183
development of appropriate competencies) (Schank & Rieckmann, 2019; Balsiger et
al., 2017).
Conclusions
GCE can take place in both formal and informal settings – and also incidentally, as
the example of the student protests in Albania shows, confirming the relevance of
the bottom-up, emic approach. This does not mean, however, that it takes place of its
own accord. As the stories in the vignettes show, it is not enough for something to
be well-intentioned. Then accidents can easily occur that lead to the opposite of the
intended outcome.
Thus, the examples from the vignettes show that GCE is not a simple matter.
Learning environments should be structured in such a way as to facilitate the devel-
opment of global citizenship competencies, create a sense of belonging and solidar-
ity, and enable students to reflect critically on power structures and contribute to the
transformation of those structures. On the one hand, this can be enabled by formal
education through emancipatory, transformative pedagogies. On the other, teachers
can also contribute to the creation of opportunities for incidental learning that are in
line with the bottom-up, emic approach characteristic of GCE. This can be achieved,
for example, by taking a whole-institution approach, but also by teachers being more
aware of incidental learning and giving learners opportunities to reflect together on
insights gained from incidental learning. Teachers need appropriate (GCE) compe-
tencies to enable them both to deploy emancipatory, transformative pedagogies and
to support incidental learning.
Here, the following questions arise: How can whole-institution-based change in
educational institutions take place at a broader level? How can more teachers be en-
couraged to take an interest in GCE than has so far been the case and, above all, how
can they be enabled to work with the concept? How can the positive experiences of
informal, incidental GCE learning (e.g. in student protests) be better integrated into
formal learning processes?
Note
1. In this paper, Global Citizenship Education and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)
are considered as complementary educational concepts that differ only in subtle respects. It
therefore also refers to literature that uses the term ESD.
References
Andreotti, V. & de Souza, L.M.T.M. (2008). Translating theory into practice and walking mine-
fields: Lessons from the project ‘Through Other Eyes’. International Journal of Development
Education and Global Learning, 1(1) 23–36. https://doi.org/10.18546/IJDEGL.01.1.03
184 Rieckmann: Global Citizenship Education in formal and informal settings
Assadourian, E. (2010). The rise and fall of consumer cultures. In Worldwatch Institute (Ed.), State
of the world 2010: Transforming cultures: From consumerism to sustainability (pp. 3–20).
Washington: Worldwatch Institute.
Balsiger, J., Förster, R., Mader, C., Nagel, U., Sironi, H., Wilhelm, S. & Zimmermann, A.B. (2017).
Transformative learning and education for sustainable development. GAIA – Ecological Per-
spectives for Science and Society, 26(4), 357–359. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.26.4.15
Barth, M., Godemann, J., Rieckmann, M. & Stoltenberg, U. (2007). Developing key competencies
for sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 8(4), 416–430. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370710823582
Barth, M. & Rieckmann, M. (2009). Experiencing the global dimension of sustainability: Student
dialogue in a European-Latin American virtual seminar. International Journal of Development
Education and Global Learning, 1(3), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.18546/IJDEGL.01.2.03
Binswanger, H.C. (2012). The growth spiral: Money, energy, and imagination in the dynamics of
the market process. Marburg: Metropolis.
Bourn, D. (2014). The theory and practice of global learning (Research Paper No.11 for the Global
Learning Programme). London: Development Education Research Centre.
Brundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebrián, G., Cohen, M., Diaz, L., Doucette-Remington, S. … & Zint, M.
(2021). Key competencies in sustainability in higher education – Toward an agreed-upon
reference framework. Sustainability Science, 16(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-
020-00838-2
Corres, A., Rieckmann, M., Espasa, A. & Ruiz-Mallén, I. (2020). Educator competences in sustain-
ability education: A systematic review of frameworks. Sustainability, 12(23), 9858. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su12239858
Cranton, P. (2002). Teaching for transformation. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Educa-
tion, 93, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.50
Cranton, P. & King, K.P. (2003). Transformative learning as a professional development goal. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 98, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.97
Danielzik, C.-M. (2013). Überlegenheitsdenken fällt nicht vom Himmel. Postkoloniale Perspek-
tiven auf Globales Lernen und Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Zeitschrift für Internatio-
nale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik, 36(1), 26–33.
Derman-Sparks, L. (1989). Anti-bias curriculum. Tools for empowering young children. Washing-
ton, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Dervin, F. (2014). Cultural identity, representation and othering. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge
handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 181–194). London: Routledge.
Dohmen, G. (2001). Das informelle Lernen. Die internationale Erschließung einer bisher ver-
nachlässigten Grundform menschlichen Lernens für das lebenslange Lernen aller. Bonn:
BMBF.
Grunwald, A. (2010). Wider die Privatisierung der Nachhaltigkeit: Warum ökologisch korrekter
Konsum die Umwelt nicht retten kann. GAIA, 19(3), 178–182. https://doi.org/
10.14512/gaia.19.3.6
Klafki, W. (1998). Characteristics of critical-constructive Didaktik. In B.B. Gundem & S. Hopmann
(Eds.), Didaktik and/or curriculum. An international dialogue (pp. 307–330). New York: Lang.
KMK (Standing Conference of the German Ministers of Education and Culture) & BMZ (The Ger-
man Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development). (2016). Curriculum frame-
work education for sustainable development (2nd updated and extended ed.). Bonn: KMK.
TC, 2020, 26 (2) 185
Lang-Wojtasik, G. (Ed.). (2019). Bildung für eine Welt in Transformation: Global Citizenship
Education als Chance für die Weltgesellschaft. Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich. https://
doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvpbnpz8
Lipski, J. (2004). Für das Leben lernen: Was, wie und wo? Umrisse einer neuen Lernkultur. In
B. Hungerland & B. Overwien (Eds.), Kompetenzentwicklung im Wandel. Auf dem Weg zu
einer informellen Lernkultur? (pp. 257–273). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90162-6_14
Livingstone, D.W. (2001). Adults’ informal learning: Definitions, findings, gaps and future re-
search (NALL Working Paper, No. 21). Toronto: Centre for the Study of Education and Work.
Lotz-Sisitka, H., Wals, A.E.J., Kronlid, D. & McGarry, D. (2015). Transformative, transgressive
social learning: Rethinking higher education pedagogy in times of systemic global dysfunction.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 16, 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.
2015.07.018
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 74, 5–12, https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.7401
Mogren, A., Gericke, N. & Scherp, H.-Å. (2019). Whole school approaches to education for sus-
tainable development: A model that links to school improvement. Environmental Education
Research, 25(4), 508–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1455074
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development). (2018). Preparing our youth
for an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD PISA global competence framework. Paris:
OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/Handbook-PISA-2018-Global-Compe-
tence.pdf
Ojala, M. (2012). Hope and climate change: The importance of hope for environmental engagement
among young people. Environmental Education Research, 18(5), 625–642. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13504622.2011.637157
Rieckmann, M. (2012). Future-oriented higher education: Which key competencies should be fos-
tered through university teaching and learning? Futures, 44(2), 127–135. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.futures.2011.09.005
Rieckmann, M. (2018). Chapter 2 – Learning to transform the world: Key competencies in ESD. In
A. Leicht, J. Heiss & W.J. Byun (Eds.), Education on the move. Issues and trends in education
for sustainable development (pp. 39–59). Paris: UNESCO.
Robina-Ramírez, R., Medina Merodio, J.A. & McCallum, S. (2020). What role do emotions play
in transforming students’ environmental behaviour at school? Journal of Cleaner Production,
258, 120638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120638
Rodríguez Aboytes, J.G. & Barth, M. (2020). Transformative learning in the field of sustainability:
A systematic literature review (1999–2019). International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, 21(5), 993–1013. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-05-2019-0168
Schank, C. & Rieckmann, M. (2019). Socio-economically substantiated education for sustainable
development: Development of competencies and value orientations between individual respon-
sibility and structural transformation. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development,
13(1), 67–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408219844849
Scheunpflug, A. (2008). Why global learning and global education? An educational approach in-
fluenced by the perspectives of Immanuel Kant. In D. Bourn (Ed.), Development education:
Debates and dialogue (pp. 18–27). London: University of Londond, Institute of Education.
Scheunpflug, A. (2019). Transformatives Globales Lernen – eine Grundlegung in didaktischer Ab-
sicht. In G. Lang-Wojtasik (Ed.), Bildung für eine Welt in Transformation: Global Citizenship
186 Rieckmann: Global Citizenship Education in formal and informal settings
Education als Chance für die Weltgesellschaft (pp. 63–74). Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvpbnpz8.7
Scheunpflug, A. & Asbrand, B. (2006). Global education and education for sustainability. Environ-
mental Education Research, 12(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620500526446
Schugurensky, D. (2000). The forms of informal learning: Towards a conceptualization of the field.
Retrieved from http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/sese/csew/nall/res/19formsofinformal.htm
Selby, D. (2000). Global education as transformative education. Zeitschrift für internationale Bil-
dungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik, 23(3), 2–10.
Shephard, K., Rieckmann, M. & Barth, M. (2019). Seeking sustainability competence and capabil-
ity in the ESD and HESD literature: An international philosophical hermeneutic analysis. En-
vironmental Education Research, 25(4), 532–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.
1490947
Sterling, S. (2011). Transformative learning and sustainability: Sketching the conceptual ground.
Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 5, 17–33.
UNESCO. (2015). Global citizenship education: Topics and learning objectives. Paris: UNESCO.
Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000232993
UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals. Learning objectives. Paris:
UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002474/247444e.pdf
Vare, P., Arro, G., Hamer, A. de, Del Gobbo, G., Vries, G. de, Farioli, F. … & Zachariou, A. (2019).
Devising a competence-based training program for educators of sustainable development: Les-
sons learned. Sustainability, 11(7), 1890. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071890
Vare, P. & Scott, W. (2007). Learning for a change: Exploring the relationship between education
and sustainable development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 1(2),
191–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/097340820700100209
Wals, A.E.J. (2015). Beyond unreasonable doubt. Education and learning for socio-ecological sus-
tainability in the anthropocene. Wageningen: Wageningen University. Retrieved from https://
arjenwals.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/8412100972_rvb_inauguratie-wals_oratieboekje_v02.pdf
WBGU German Advisory Council on Global Change. (2011). World in transition – A social
contract for sustainability. Berlin: WBGU. Retrieved from https://www.wbgu.de/en/publica-
tions/publication/world-in-transition-a-social-contract-for-sustainability
Wegimont, L. (2013). Global education: Paradigm shifts, policy contexts and conceptual chal-
lenges. In N. Forghani, H. Hartmeyer, E. O’Loughlin & L. Wegimont (Eds.), Global education
in Europe policy, practice and theoretical challenges (pp. 195–207). Münster: Waxmann.
Weinert, F.E. (2001). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D.S. Rychen & L.H.
Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45–65). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe
& Huber.
... Transformative education / value orientation Rieckmann 2020Rieckmann , 2018Rodríguez Aboytes / Barth 2020;Sterling 2011 • "The aim of ESD must be to empower citizens in their critical political agency, to elevate them from their role as mere consumers, and to motivate them to participate in shaping their surroundings." (Fedorchenko 2021, p. 35) • ESD should be political; contentious issues should be presented as controversial, but the teacher can take a stance (cf. ...
... (Fedorchenko 2021, p. 35) • ESD should be political; contentious issues should be presented as controversial, but the teacher can take a stance (cf. Weselek & Wohnig 2021) • Not only addressing individual (consumption-related) issues, but also structural issues (Rieckmann/Schank 2016;Rieckmann 2020) • Enhancing the agency of citizens ("sustainability citizens") (Rieckmann/Schank 2016) ESD as citizenship education 24/10/2024 Rieckmann 9 ...
... However, collective activity to bring about structural change is already included in the concept of Global Citizenship Education (GCE). ESD and GCE are complementary concepts that differ mainly in their focus (Rieckmann 2020). One of the foundations of GCE is that citizenship raises political issues. ...
... Beyond the competencies of the UNESCO framework, we would contend that more attention should be given to political engagement and participation, which could complement the goals for competence development in the context of ESD at schools. The discourse on Global Citizenship Education provides potentially fruitful insights for ESD in this respect since it explicitly includes the competency to participate in order to bring about structural change, and discusses the implications of such change (De Oliveira Andreotti 2006; Mannion et al. 2011;Rieckmann 2020). Learning democracy and dealing with values and normativity in this context play an important role in ESD. ...
Article
Full-text available
A range of stakeholder groups are involved with fostering Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). It is crucial that their views on the aims of ESD are aligned. This is a prerequisite for coordinated integration of ESD into the formal education system. However, research has not explored whether stakeholder groups have similar ideas about the aims and learning outcomes of ESD. This study investigates the differences and similarities in stakeholders' opinions on the sustainability key com-petencies students should develop. We conducted 15 interviews with German experts in ESD practice, policy, and science, analyzing the results deductively using Qualitative Content Analysis within the UNESCO framework of Key Competencies for Sustainability. An inductive approach was used to identify aspects and concepts of competence that went beyond this framework. Most of the competencies mentioned could be assigned to the UNESCO framework, but we identified the additional competency of participating at the political level as being important for ESD. The experts also identified several other concepts. The three stakeholder groups emphasized different competencies and concepts, probably due to their differing professional backgrounds. However, similarities predominated , and the experts largely agreed on which competencies should be developed. Structural difficulties with integrating ESD into the education system are therefore not likely to be the result of fundamental differences in perspective between the three stakeholder groups on the aims of ESD. However, their different frames of reference might lead to miscommunication and misunderstanding, which could impede integration. This aspect needs thorough examination in the future.
... Since hope is also linked with agency and action (Snyder et al., 2002), one way to do so is through the usage of student-centred pedagogies such as active and participatory, multiple-stakeholder collaborative and transformative learning approaches (Tilbury, 2011). By promoting these pedagogies, ESD also contributes to the active participation of students and a transformation of society and unjust structures (Rieckmann, 2020) and breaking with the dominant adult-centred view in education (Chang and Henriquez, 2013). Indeed, a specific way to do so is by developing sustainability competencies among students. ...
Article
Full-text available
Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) particularly emphasises developing future-thinking competencies. Nevertheless, this line of thinking still represents a challenge for younger students, who tend to be left behind when deciding and visualising the future within educational spaces. Through a qualitative approach, our research attempts to explore early adolescents’ views concerning probable and preferable futures and how they are related to sustainable development dimensions. For this purpose, we asked 352 students in the fifth and sixth grades of primary schools in the province of Tarragona (Spain) to explain their visions regarding the probable and preferable futures of their city or town. We analysed the data through an inductive-deductive approach. Our findings indicate that the students’ pessimistic visions of the future require a special effort from an ESD viewpoint to educate them towards hopeful futures. Different degrees of complexity in their views of the futures were identified in relation to sustainability, denoting the need to design diagnostic tools that properly guide pedagogical approaches and interventions towards developing sustainability competencies.
... The findings of this study and their implications should be discussed in the context of sustainability in that they encourage individuals to critically reflect on their attitudes, values, and worldviews, establishing a transformative learning environment (Friedman 2022;Rieckmann 2020;Varela-Losada et al. 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
Education and culture are seen as key components of the learning process. In this context, discussions about the quality of education and approaches to strengthening educational values, as well as the importance of culture in the transmission of these values, are becoming increasingly relevant. However, in Latvia, studies regarding people who attend various cultural events do not focus on strengthening educational values or linking them to the cultural context. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to explore how educational values are linked to current trends in cultural offerings and how they are reflected in teacher education. The research methodology followed a qualitative and quantitative research paradigm and the specifics of interdisciplinary research. The data were obtained using surveys and focus group discussions. The overall strategy of the study is based on a holistic, multidisciplinary approach that takes the regional discourse in Latvia into account. The research results prove that cultural experiences have contributed to the development of most respondents’ personalities and emphasize the role of teachers in the transmission of educational values. The qualitative and educational content of cultural offerings promotes a culture of discussion, strengthens community consciousness, and shapes cultural taste.
... Climate Change Education (CCE) serves as a valuable approach in addressing climate change by imparting knowledge about its causes, effects, and challenges. Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) further complements this by aiming to enhance learners' sustainability competencies, transforming them into global citizens (Rieckmann, 2021). The incorporation of CCE into educational systems has been advocated at global conferences and meetings, with many nation worldwide making efforts to include it in their curricula (Mavuso et al., 2022). ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Global concerns surrounding climate change, exacerbated by its detrimental impact on ecosystems and societies, underscore the urgency of climate education. This study emphasizes the differing short-term needs for tackling air and water pollution and mitigating climate change across diverse countries. While developed nations integrate climate education seamlessly, challenges faced by developing and underdeveloped countries include limited resources, technology constraints, and a lack of interest. This chapter advocates for collaborative efforts among stakeholders, policymakers, and educators to ensure universal access to effective climate education, fostering a sense of global citizenship. This collective approach is crucial in addressing shared challenges and empowering individuals to contribute meaningfully to climate change solutions.
... Transformative and disruptive environmental and sustainability education (ESE) does more than view traditional learning spaces as unique, seeing the world as a complex and dynamic system, creating spaces for reflection and negotiation, questioning reality to unearth alternatives, and providing students with tools that allow them to bring their knowledge, competences, and values into play (cf. Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2015, Rieckmann 2020, Rodríguez Aboytes and Barth 2020, Sterling 2011. Education must be transformative and disruptive if it is to develop change agents who are capable of imagining and building different, sustainable futures. ...
Chapter
This concluding chapter highlights the multidimensional and complex nature of the crisis facing our planet, which threatens the survival of all living beings. It highlights the need for a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach to understanding and addressing sustainability challenges. It proposes transformative and disruptive environmental and sustainability education (ESE) as a means of breaking down paradigms and fostering responsible action. The chapter emphasizes the importance of addressing local needs while engaging with international discourses and frameworks. It explores the diverse perspectives and influences shaping ESE in different countries, including critical voices and indigenous perspectives. It also stresses the importance of cultural identity, complexity, and governance for sustainability agendas. The chapter closes by highlighting the need for stronger political support, integration of ESE into education structures, and an urgent response to climate change; finally, it emphasizes the importance of shared governance for long-term sustainability.
Chapter
Die Forderung nach einer schulischen Bildung, in der Fragen von Nachhaltigkeit und sozial-ökologischer Transformation thematisch werden, findet zunehmende Beachtung und ihr kommt mit Blick auf die sozialen wie ökologischen Krisen erhebliche Dringlichkeit zu. Entsprechend wird eine globale BNE-Dekade ausgerufen, ein nationaler Aktionsplan verabschiedet und in den Bundesländer entsprechende Initiativen auf den Weg gebracht. Wenngleich Zeiten streikender Schüler*innen gegenwärtig vorbei zu sein scheinen ist damit die Frage nach der Verantwortung von Schule noch nicht geklärt. In diesem Kontext aufgerufen ist ebenso und wiederholt die Relationierung von Gesellschaft und Schule. Dahinter steht die Annahme, dass Schulen gesellschaftliche Bedingungen reflektieren und innovieren können, oder es zumindest können sollten. Insofern scheint es bei der Diskussion um und der Analyse von Bildung im Kontext sozialökologischer Transformation geboten, in den Blick zu nehmen, in welcher gesellschaftlichen Verfasstheit Schule sich vollzieht, um nicht in ver-kürzten pädagogischen Aktionismus zu verfallen. In aller Kürze lassen sich gegenwärtige gesellschaftliche Bedingungen und Praktiken in kapitalistischen Ländern des globalen Nordens beschreiben durch Prozesse wie zunehmende Individualisierung, neoliberale Beschleunigung; Normierung, autoritäre Formierung und ökologische, ökonomische und sozialen Nicht-Nachhaltigkeit. Auf der Seite des Subjektes wird dieses orchestriert durch das Leitbild eines autonomen (d.h. weiß, männlich, befähigt, bürgerlich, kompetent) Subjektes. Die soziale Differenzierung und Dynamisierung führt in der Summe zu Parzellierung, in der sich die ›Sphäre des Sozialen‹ ihrer ursprünglichen Haltekräfte entledigt und dadurch eine Singulärstellung des Subjektes privilegiert wird. Und trotz der gesellschaftlichen Errungenschaften – wie etwa die bürgerlichen Freiheits- und Menschenrechte oder die Gleichstellung im Bereich sexueller und geschlechtlicher Vielfalt – zeigen sich mit Blick auf die Übernutzung planetarer Grenzen sowie globaler Ungleich-heits- und Ausbeutungsverhältnisse zunehmend deutlicher die ‚Kosten‘ dieser Form der Subjektivierung für Menschen, Gesellschaften und Umwelten. Als Institution, die gesellschaftliche Bedingungen reflektiert und mitgestaltet, ist sodann zu fragen, inwieweit, bzw. in welcher Form sich diese stark verkürzten Beschreibungen von Gesellschaft in Schule zeigen. So wird schulische Praxis etwa zunehmend durch Dezentrierung und Individualisierung des Fachunterrichts aufgrund von Heterogenitätsorientierung und Inklusion geprägt, wobei zugleich die Illusion des meritokratischen Leistungsprinzips aufrechterhalten wird. Schulische Subjektivierungen widerspiegelt insofern in gewisser Hinsicht gesellschaftliche Entwicklungslinien. Pädagogik ist sie nicht losgelöst von gesellschaftlichen Prozessen oder deren Gegenpart, sondern Teil und reflektiert diese wie ein Zerrspiegel im Modus des Pädagogischen. Sie ist zugleich ein (vielleicht sogar der) institutionalisierte Ort, an dem Vorstellungen von Gesellschaft durch Bildung und Erziehung geformt werden (Budde 2020). Insofern scheint es geboten, einen analytischen und reflexiven Blick auf schulische Praktiken im Kontext transformativer Nachhaltigkeitsbildung zu richten, denn Aufgabe einer er-ziehungswissenschaftlichen Forschung zwischen gesellschaftlicher und pädagogischer Praktiken ist zuallererst die Aufklärung und nicht die unmittelbare Verbesserung der Praxis. Diese Perspektive steht durchaus spannungsreich zum weithin bekannten Konzept Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung (BNE). Durch eine solche Perspektive werden Hemmnisse sichtbar, die einer erfolgreichen Implementierung transformativer Nachhaltigkeitsbildung im Wege stehen.
Article
Purpose This study aims to explore various conceptions of global citizenship education (GCE) and pedagogies among frontline Chinese Hong Kong secondary school teachers under the onset of a new political climate of conservative nationalism. Design/methodology/approach It utilised interview findings with a purposive sample of about 22 experienced secondary school teachers in 2019, which was shortly before the city was caught in huge waves of protests. Interviewees come from different demographics, such as subsidy types of schools and school sponsoring bodies and admit students of different socio-economic status and academic capabilities. Findings The findings reveal both liberal and nationalistic orientations on knowledge and values of GCE, including sustainability, in recent school education, and the use of discussion and experiential learning for teaching GCE. Research limitations/implications A conceptual framework is developed for further research on teaching GCE in different cultural contexts. Developing pedagogies to instil in learners the values, attitudes and behaviours that support responsible global citizenship should become an international research agenda. Originality/value The analysis offers insightful views on what, why and how these teachers teach GCE. The authors also construct a framework of teachers' values and teaching beliefs that cultivate global citizens based on the research findings. This framework can inform school leaders, curriculum planners and teacher trainers in developing a more substantial pedagogical framework for GCE.
Chapter
Full-text available
In the previous edition of the Digest, a need to to carry out more specific searches in Latin American databases published in Spanish was identified to access a greater number of specialised literature. Thus, for the 2022 edition of the Global Education Digest, a team of four researchers has been formed, two from Spain, Adelina Calvo Salvador and Carlos Rodríguez-Hoyos, University of Cantabria, and two from Latin America, Silvia Espinal Meza, a Peruvian PhD candidate in Education based at the University of Bristol and Diego Posada, a Uruguayan PhD candidate at the University of Padova. Although the searches carried out in both contexts have elements in common, there is also a degree of diversity. Therefore, in this introduction we will describe the applied methodology and the results obtained in each context.
Chapter
This chapter will explore how training and development programs contribute to increased motivation to engage in prosocial organizational behaviors or organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). OCB refers to behaviors outside of an employee's core role that he or she performs for the benefit of an organization or other organizational members. While organizations have a considerable interest in increasing the motivation of employees to exhibit OCB, OCB may not be recognized by an organization's performance measurement system. Research has attempted to define predictors of OCB, such as personality traits, employee attitudes, and leadership behaviors. Potential motivations behind OCB will be explored, as well as adult learning theories that are most likely to promote OCB. In addition, this chapter will provide recommendations for the design of training and development with the goal of encouraging OCB and reducing counterproductive work behaviors (CWB).
Article
Full-text available
The design and use of competence frameworks and models for educators in Sustainability Education is a growing field of study that seeks to guide their professional development while identifying, examining, and assessing the competences they need. In this article we conduct a systematic review of the frameworks and models of sustainability competences addressed to teachers and other educators to shed light on (a) the backgrounds of the analyzed frameworks, (b) the conceptual and pedagogical approaches towards sustainability and competences behind them, (c) the different types of educators’ competences included and particularly those addressed to promote transformational perspectives, and (d) the pedagogical strategies applied to develop them. We analyzed 14 papers out of an initial sample of 437. Findings show that all are developed in Europe. Most of them rely on the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) framework and its guiding approach of Education for Sustainable Development. A few others critically approach sustainability and recognize its contradictions even though they subscribe within this broad sustainability approach. The most common competences are Critical Thinking, Participation in Community, and Connections, which have been identified as those that educators need to face current sustainability challenges from a critical and transformative perspective. However, other competences significantly associated with transformational education such as Emotions Management, Futures and Achieving Transformation are less addressed and receive less attention in terms of the pedagogical strategies needed to promote them. We discuss how the different ways of understanding and operationalizing sustainability and competences behind these frameworks can shape educators’ transformational capacities in Sustainability Education. Further research should address the identified challenges and provide educators with practical and suitable tools for transformative education.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Sustainability is becoming an increasingly important social, economic and environmental issue. People are becoming more aware of fossil fuel depletion, which will lead to many difficulties in the future, both in developed and underdeveloped countries. Sustainable development involves a continuous process of learning and research to reengineer and apply innovation. Academic education should be seen as a reflection of social and historical processes, which are set as the basis for analyzing and improving the development and shaping of society. Society generally expects the education system to prepare young people for future professional life or further development. The education system has the task of socializing students, and the main goal is to prepare young people for taking responsibility in such complex social learning process. The main goal of this process is for students to understand what the order of things really look like in the present so that they can change it in the future. Students who embrace the principles of sustainable development have the capacity to shape society in an informed, reflective and responsible way with a vision of sustainability for the future. In order to meet the goals of education for sustainable development, it is necessary to adapt the education system to the current needs of society. The paper will be divided into two main parts. The first part will show the importance of the concept of education for sustainable development, and the second part will analyze the responsibility of science and the need for multidisciplinarity in biotechnical research.
Article
Full-text available
Hundreds of sustainability programs have emerged at universities and colleges around the world over the past 2 decades. A prime question for employers, students, educators, and program administrators is what competencies these programs develop in students. This study explores convergence on competencies for sustainability programs. We conducted a Delphi study with 14 international experts in sustainability education on the framework of key competencies in sustainability by Wiek et al. (Sustain Sci 6: 203–218, 2011), the most frequently cited framework to date. While experts generally agreed with the framework, they propose two additional competencies, suggest a hierarchy of competencies, and specify learning objectives for students interested in a career as sustainability researcher. The refined framework can inform program development, implementation, and evaluation to enhance employability of graduates and facilitate comparison of sustainability programs worldwide.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose This study aims to investigate how transformative learning has been conceptualised and operationalised in education for sustainable development (ESD) and sustainability learning and to collect evidence on how to support transformative learning in formal and non-formal environments. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted a systematic literature review to provide a structured and replicable search and analysis of the relevant literature to produce a bibliometric overview that combines a quantitative description of the body of literature and qualitative analysis of the learning processes, outcomes and conditions. Findings The convergence between transformative learning and sustainability has become an emerging field of inquiry, despite the superficial use of transformative learning theory in many studies. By examining the learning process, outcomes and conditions in the core sample of studies, this study demonstrates that transformative learning theory – if carefully studied – can contribute to the design and implementation of educational interventions and assessments of learning towards sustainability. Furthermore, the sustainability context provides an empirical grounding that highlights the fact that social learning, the role of experience and the development of sustainability competencies are inherently part of transformative learning. Originality/value To date, few attempts have been made to better understand how transformative learning theory has been used in sustainability learning and ESD research. This systematic review allows for a better comprehension of how concepts and mechanisms elucidated in transformative learning theory are operationalised in sustainability learning and ESD research and serves as a source of inspiration for those researchers and practitioners who aims to make sustainability education, teaching and learning more transformative.
Article
Full-text available
In this article, the concept of education for sustainable development is substantiated and expanded upon from a socio-economic perspective. Incorporating the concept of the economic citizen, we present the liberal republican civic ethos, moral judgement, decision-making capabilities and key competencies relevant for sustainability together with an informed understanding of economic context as constitutive elements of the educational concept. Against the backdrop of the limited reach of individual behavioural changes and the necessary reflections on structural questions, a heuristic of shared responsibility for sustainable development will be devised.
Article
Full-text available
Over recent decades, education policy has been preoccupied with economic growth while paying insufficient heed to global sustainability challenges. International initiatives to promote education for sustainable development (ESD) have been hampered by a lack of clarity on how to implement this form of education. To address this concern, a Rounder Sense of Purpose (RSP) began as a three-year EU-funded project that set out to develop a practical accreditation model for educators working on ESD. Expert and user opinion was sought through several rounds of structured consultation with over 500 people, chiefly using a Delphi approach, to develop and validate the model. The resulting framework comprises 12 competences, each with three learning outcomes and several underpinning components. This is supported by a range of activities largely reflecting a constructivist pedagogy. A range of assessment techniques have also been piloted within the project although this remains an area for further enquiry. Ultimately, it was decided not to design a single qualification template because defining the award to such a level of detail would make it more difficult to apply across multiple jurisdictions. Partners also felt that such an approach would atomize learning in a way that runs counter to the holistic principles of sustainability. RSP provided a rich learning experience for those involved and has already demonstrated its potential to extend its impact well beyond the original participants.
Article
Full-text available
Education for sustainable development (ESD) and higher education for sustainable development (HESD) are complex, multidisciplinary fields of enquiry, drawing on concepts and terms from different disciplines and languages. Although the fields are advancing in their acceptability within educational systems worldwide, they are currently struggling to achieve sought-after graduate and societal outcomes such as environmentally-responsible or sustainability-focussed-citizenship. The research described in this article explores the possibility that miscommunication or misunderstanding of basic concepts within these fields is contributing to slow progress towards their objectives. We used a philosophical hermeneutic analysis to explore how the terms ‘competence’ and ‘capability’ are used within selected ESD/HESD papers. We identify substantial internal contradictions and inconsistencies with respect to differences between learners’ abilities and their willingness to perform these abilities, and to the educational context in which these outcomes are sought. We emphasise the importance of linking educational objectives with pedagogical approaches to teaching and assessment.
Article
Full-text available
This study applies a model of school organisation developed by one of the authors to investigate school improvement processes leading to a whole school approach in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) literature. The model is operationalized to a survey instrument and distributed to Swedish upper secondary teachers. The instrument provides empirical indications of teachers’ perceptions of their schools in terms of four major dimensions of an ESD whole school approach, the importance assigned to a holistic vision, routines and structures, professional knowledge creation, and practical pedagogical work. The aims of the study are to compare the teachers’ perception of their school organisation. We compare perceptions of teachers working in schools actively implementing ESD and teachers in comparable reference schools. Comparisons are also made between teachers from schools applying different strategies and quality approaches in implementing ESD. The results indicate that, relative to teachers in ordinary schools, those in ESD schools perceive their school organisations to have higher quality and coherence, with greater potential to support teaching and pedagogical work in practice. However, there is substantial variation in perceptions of teachers from different ESD schools. The model’s robustness is validated by coherence of earlier results in the same schools.