Content uploaded by Threelocknath Sing Hinchoo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Threelocknath Sing Hinchoo on Jul 16, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024, Online: ISSN 2320-9186
www.globalscientificjournal.com
Teachers’ understanding and enhancement of learning for sustainability in
Mauritian primary schools.
T. Hinchoo, D.J. Hlalele and R. Bholah
Abstract
The purpose of the current action research study within a case study design was to explore
teachers’ understanding and enhancement of Learning for Sustainability (LFS) in the Mauritian
primary education context using a participant-designed action research. Theoretically, the
study drew from Burns Model of Sustainability Pedagogy and O’Donoghue’s Active Learning
Framework. LFS might be simply understood as a concept that describes all educational
activities concerned with developing an understanding of the related concepts in sustainability.
Teachers find it difficult to bridge their understanding and practice through enhancement in
their teaching. This study helped to address such a shortfall in schools and to address the
purpose, methods including observations and reflections to generate data from six participants
were used. Data generated was analysed using thematic analysis where data was categorized
and interpreted in terms of common themes which were synthesized and generalised to provide
an overall portrait of the case constructed. The findings indicated that there was different
understanding of LFS among primary school teachers and that their understanding greatly
influenced their enhancement in their teaching. The study further found that enhancement of
LFS improved teachers’ practices and experiences by bringing new knowledge in their
understanding of LFS. We recommend that this study allows other teachers, school leaders,
policy makers and curriculum writers to develop proper understanding of LFS and address the
lack of data and provide insights for future teachers’ enhancement by bringing positive change
and adaptation strategies in teacher learning and understanding practices.
Keywords: Learning for Sustainability, Primary, Schools Teachers.
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1076
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
1.0 Introduction
The National Curriculum Framework (NCF) of the Ministry of Education and Human
Resources (MoEHR, 2016) identified Learning for Sustainability (LFS) as an essential teaching
strategy that must be adopted to achieve a successful basic quality education. In 2010, the
MoEHR in Mauritius advocated LFS across all subjects as the framework for curriculum design
to be taught at all stages in primary and secondary institutions. UNESCO claimed that climate
change and sustainability issues are lacking in school curricula in more than half of its member
countries (UNESCO, 2021). Teachers need to ensure that these critical and developmental
outcomes are promoted as far as possible at school (NCF). It has been reported that early
education has a very positive effect on a country’s development when its society is concerned
(Painuly, Tyagi, Vishwakarma, Khare & Haghighi, 2020). The statements from UNESCO and
the NCF are urging teachers to develop and drive learners towards achieving a more sustainable
future. According to our observation and that of many fellow colleagues, teachers rarely
prepare learners towards a sustainable future when they themselves are uncertain about what
this means and requires. The new curriculum requires that teachers be no longer mere
implementers, but rather implementers and designers of curriculum which has a priority place
(Hill, Emery & Dyment, 2020).
Through this study, the concern was laid on the future generation and their ability to deal with
the real and adverse consequences of decades of environmentally, socially, and economically
‘unconscious’ decisions made earlier by their predecessors. As stated by Allen (2021) and
Gajparia, Strachan, Vare and Ferguson (2021), ignorance and inaction manifested by an
education of packaged programs, a focus on examination and centralized curriculum are not
preparing the future generation to be critical decision makers in terms of stewardship of our
society, economy, and environment. There is a need to move from basic understanding of
individual components of our biotic and abiotic environment to a transformed way of thinking
and doing things in a sustainable manner (Casinader, 2021; Filho, Pallant, Enete, Richter &
Brandli, 2018; Moyer & Sinclair, 2020). One of the main purposes of education is to create
informed, conscious citizens who possess a sense of responsibility. This sense of responsibility
is not limited to a concern for the environment, but also to issues of equity, citizenship, social
justice, and compassion.
2.0 Preview of Literature
LFS is the process of developing the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes and the critical
agent needed to move from where we are now to a state of sustainability (Mughal, Qaisrani,
Solangi & Faiz, 2011; Taylor, Quinn & Eames, 2015; Laurie, Nonoyama-Tarumi, Mc Keown
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1077
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
& Hopkins, 2016). LFS includes a balance between nature and the environment. There is a
synergy that exists between the natural or physical environment and the social and human
environment but according to Hlalele (2019) there has always been at least in the realm of
scientific discourse, an attempt to dissociate between the natural and the social/human
environment. Hlalale’s statement is in consistency with Dyball and Newell (2014) who also
states that there is tension with human ecology between those who favour an open-ended
approach and those who seek a more scientific way of proceeding. The Millenium
Development Goals emphasize that integrating environmental and social dimensions into the
pursuit of economic development aims (UNESCO, 2012; Taylor et al., 2015) acknowledging
that our future economic health critically depends on our planet’s ecological health (Almond,
Grooten & Peterson, 2020). LFS is more than a knowledge base related to environment,
economy, and society. It addresses learning skills, perspectives, and values that guide and
motivate people to seek sustainable livelihoods, participate in a democratic society and live in
a sustainable manner.
Even though, schools in so many countries are expected to teach for sustainability, pre- and in-
service teachers’ lack of confidence and preparedness to conceptualize and practice
sustainability is identified as one of the key barriers to its implementation (Green & Somerville,
2015; Dash & Mohan, 2017). According to a regional workshop in Johannesburg, South Africa,
in collaboration with UNESCO, the main challenge of working with sustainability in terms of
implementation into the national school system in Mauritius is the different and comparative
understanding of LFS for teachers as a concept and as a philosophy/principle for the new
education system (UNESCO-Regional office for Southern Africa-ROSA, 2018). According to
Taylor et al. (2015) and Ben-Eliyahu (2021), people around the world recognize that current
economic development trends are not sustainable, and that public awareness, education and
training are keys to moving society towards sustainability. With the launch of the United Nation
Sustainable Development Group in 2015, countries and stakeholders are encouraged to support
a vision for a sustainable future based on removal of poverty and the establishment of social
cohesion and peace. Global learning and sustainability are now as unavoidable in education,
especially in primary education, as learners now are tomorrow’s adults. In Mauritian schools
the learning about global and sustainability issues within the curriculum is stated in the NCF.
According to Kuzmina, Trimingham and Bhamra (2020), who argue that policies and
approaches that emphasize whole-school LFS engagement are scarce. Nkambwe and Essilfie
(2012) and Tsayang and Kabita (2013) elaborate and show that there is still a limited
understanding of what LFS means both in conceptual and practical terms for teachers and
teacher trainers in Botswana. Many teachers are keen to implement LFS in primary schools but
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1078
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
are lacking the confidence, skills, and knowledge to do so (Green & Somerville, 2015; Adawiah
& Esa, 2012; Dash & Mohan, 2017). Teachers report that they do not understand the concept
and cannot integrate LFS into an already overcrowded and centralized curriculum (Green &
Somerville, 2014; Suarez-Lopez & Eugenio-Gozalbo, 2021). Teachers are usually more
concerned with completion of the syllabus, at the expense of the overall development of the
learners, because of the exam-oriented system of education in Mauritius. Some teachers are
reluctant to implement new activities and projects at schools. Moreover, there is a lack of
mechanism in the education system to ensure and regulate the teaching and learning of
sustainability-related contents (Allen, 2021).
It is claimed in recent literature that there is lack of empirical and in-depth research
investigating pedagogical practices for teaching sustainability in higher education (Michel,
2020). According to sustainability scholars and researchers, there is lack of research regarding
sustainability issues on what teachers’ understanding of LFS are and how they are enhanced in
Mauritian primary schools and abroad. There is an urge to prepare school children for life. An
awareness of teachers’ understanding and enhancement of LFS might help them to align their
teaching strategies to the learners’ characteristics which might lead to achievement of specific
learning outcomes and better performance. This study explores how teachers understand and
how their understanding shapes their enhancement of LFS in their daily classes and sheds more
lights to the actual situation prevailing in our primary schools which can eventually contribute
to improve the dissemination of sustainability knowledge to our learners for them to become
ambassadors for sustainability. Hence, in one-way school teachers can be empowered to
develop appropriate behavioural changes and acquire sustainability competencies that will
enable them with sustainability challenges that current society is facing (Lasen, Skamp &
Simoncini, 2017; Burgener & Barth, 2018). As stated by Adawiah and Esa (2012), in so doing,
primary school teachers together with their learners can also become ambassadors for
sustainability for the future (Green & Somerville, 2015; Murphy, Mallon, Smith, Kelly, Pitsia,
& Martinez Sainz, 2021).
3.0 Theoretical Framework
The theoretical perspectives and lenses that informed this study include Burns Model of
Sustainability Pedagogy (Burns, 2013) and O’Donoghue’s Active Learning Framework
(O’Donoghue’s, 2001).
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1079
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
3.1 Burns Model of Sustainability Pedagogy
Figure 1. The Burns Model of Sustainability Pedagogy
Burns Model of Sustainability Pedagogy (Burns, 2013) was developed to address the need for
a practical way to effectively teach LFS in several contexts (Burns, 2009, 2011, 2013). It
addresses the growing need to focus on how teaching and learning can be re-oriented towards
sustainability and more specifically how teachers can effectively address and tract increasingly
well-known sociocultural, economical, and ecological problems in ways that metamorphose
learners and empower them to make change based on a sense of civic responsibility and
sustainability (Burns, 2013). Teachers generally agree that teaching LFS is to encourage
change agents who are responsible to cater for sustainability challenges (Redman, 2013). As
ecological and social crises accelerate, the need for sustainability education that prepares
learners to understand complex issues and to participate in social and ecological regeneration
is evident and paramount (Gamage, Ekanayake & Dehideniya, 2022).
3.2 O’Donoghue’s Active Learning Framework
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1080
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
Figure 2. O’Donoghue’s Active Learning Framework
Teachers implementing LFS are inspired to provide opportunities whereby learners are
involved in genuine decision-making that impacts on their local communities (UNESCO,
2005). Taylor, Quinn, Jenkins, Miller-Brown, Rizk, Prodromou, Serow and Taylor (2019) draw
on the growing phenomenon of not being able to translate the understanding of LFS into
practice. What is lacking in literature discourses is an explanation as to how teachers, especially
within Mauritian context, develop the knowledge and skills to engaging with the complex
issues of LFS. The way suggested in O’Donoghue’s (2001) Active Learning Framework is an
explanation of how teachers can engage learners in independent learning. The model provides
an action plan for learning about and responding to environmental issues (O’Donoghue et al.,
2018). It advocates those learners be engaged in action taking activities within the community
to develop their attitudes and skills towards the better interests of LFS.
4.0 Research Methodology
Action research was the main driver of this study as it offered an opportunity for reflective
practice with regards to teachers’ understanding and enhancement of LFS. Greenwood and
Levin (2007) define action research simply as research that is conducted by at least one expert
with individuals in an organisation or common field, to bring about a transformation of the
context in which the individuals exist or work whilst Altrichter, Kemmis, McTaggart and
Zuber-Skerritt (2021) define action research as an activity that mainly aims to develop process
skills and achieve emancipation. The transformation leads to a better and more functional
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1081
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
environment in which the individuals live or work (Greenwood & Levin, 2007; Hendricks,
2019; Kemmis, McTaggart & Nixon, 2019; McNiff, Edvardsen, Steinholt & Margit, 2018).
The action research cycle used in this study was adapted from Kurt Lewin’s (1946) and
Coghlan and Brannick’s (2003) model of action research methodology which begins by
exploring a concept or idea. This was achieved via the step of ‘planning’ whereby the teachers
recognised what they knew about the concept, idea, or context to be investigated and involved
designing a plan that resulted in a desired outcome. The second step of ‘action’ involved acting
the plan that was previously set. The third step of ‘observation’ involved observing how
teachers develop their understanding of LFS and how they enhanced them in their teachings.
Finally, ‘reflection’ on the action taken resulted in a new cycle which emerged in which re-
planning took place to improve the action. Hence, this cycle involved four steps of planning-
action-observation-reflection (Coghlan & Brannick, 2003). Figure 3 is an adapted version of
Kurt Lewin’s (1946) and Coghlan and Brannick’s (2003) model of action research which was
adopted for this research.
Figure 3. Action Research Cycle -Adapted from Lewin (1946) and Coghlan and
Brannick (2003)
5.0 Selection of participants
Convenience sampling also termed as judgement sampling (Bhardwaj, 2019; Lune & Berg,
2017) for qualitative research was adopted in this study (Wang & Cheng, 2020). As Cohen,
Manion and Morrison (2018) succinctly suggest, the prime purpose of a qualitative study is to
observe tiny representatives “nested in their context” and study these in depth. As Mauritius is
a small island where schools are easily accessible, we wanted to discover, understand, and gain
insights and therefore it was easily accessible for us to select our participants from which the
most could be learnt (Lune & Berg, 2017). Here, since we already knew something about the
specific people or events (Guetterman, 2015), we deliberately selected six participants who
were general-purpose teachers for this research.
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1082
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
6.0 Data Generation
After selecting names of the teachers, a request was made, through contact by phone and
personal meetings, inviting them to take part in the study. Different methods, techniques and
instruments were used in a targeted fashion within the action research cycle. In Table 1 a
summary of the data generation methods and instruments are provided to illustrate how they
were used in this study.
Table 1. Data Generation Methods and Instruments used
Cycle steps
Methods
Instruments
Objectives
Planning steps
Semi-structured
interview
Interview schedule
Explore teachers’
understandings and
enhancement of LFS.
Document analysis
Lesson plans
Identify LFS contents and
concepts for their lesson
implementation.
Action &
Observation steps
Classroom observation
Observation schedule
& reflective journals
Conscious reflections on
teachers’ understanding
of LFS and how they
shape their enhancement.
Reflection steps
Post-lesson meeting and
conversation
Questioning
Explore teachers’
understanding and how
they shape their
enhancement through
new knowledge
construction.
Document analysis
Reflective journals
Existing and new
understanding of LFS on
why they enhance LFS
the way they do.
Post-intervention final
interview
Interview schedule
New knowledge of
understanding and
enhancement of LFS
through their reflections.
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1083
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
7.0 Data Analysis
According to Tjora (2018), data analysis involves dismantling, segmenting, and reassembling
data to form meaningful findings to draw inferences. The process of data analysis enables the
researchers to make sense of the data that are generated (Tjora, 2018; Xu, & Zammit, 2020). A
constant comparison analysis was used to analyse the conversations after transcription to see
what themes needed further exploration. According to Dufour and Richard (2019) and Lindsay
(2019), this strategy involves taking the statements from the interviews, classifying them, and
comparing them with other interviews. Thematic analysis was adopted to identify the
‘recurring messages that pervaded the situation’ (Xu & Zammit, 2020). Data from the
interviews, observations, document analysis and reflective journals were used to respond to the
research objectives. The data obtained through individual interviews were indexed using pre-
defined themes and new themes added as required. The themes were then grouped into
common, salient, and significant themes and that could shed light to the research objectives
(Yin, 2018; Akinyode & Khan, 2018).
8.0 Findings, Interpretation and Discussion
8.1 The Themes and Sub-Themes: Cycle One
The following section describes and reveals the main findings of the data generation. The
responses are expressed in the form of words and sentences to the questions posed during the
interview, document analysis, meetings, and class observations, and are grouped according to
the themes that were produced (Table 2). Furthermore, it also identified areas of deficit in
teachers’ enhancement of LFS that could be addressed in the next cycle. The themes and sub-
themes that emerged from the data were:
Table 2: Thematic analysis of data- Cycle One
Thematic Analysis- Cycle One
Data generation
Coding (Sub-themes)
Theme
Implication for
next cycle
Semi-
structured
interview
Document
analysis
Teachers’ perceived
knowledge of LFS
Teachers’ attending to
LFS in the curriculum
Classroom activities
relating to LFS
Theme One:
Understanding of
LFS
What are teachers
understanding of
LFS and how they
use them to shape
their enhancement
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1084
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
Classroom
observation
Pre and Post
lesson
meetings
Reflective
journals
Participation in LFS
Surface Approach to
Learning
Teacher-Centered
Learning
Didactic Learning
Traditional/Conventional
Learning
Theme Two:
Limited
Approaches to
LFS
How are the
approaches to
learning affect
teachers
understanding and
enhancement of
LFS?
Situational/Institutional
Barriers
Educational System
Management Support
Inadequate Teacher
Training
Theme Three:
Constraining
Factors Affecting
LFS
How are these
constraining factors
impeding teachers’
enhancement of
LFS?
Initial Teacher
preparation of LFS
Teaching of LFS
Teacher Engagement
and Enhancement of
LFS
Theme Four:
Teachers’
Perception and
Engagement
towards LFS
How are teachers’
enhancement
shaped?
8.1.1 Theme One: Understanding of LFS
According to Green and Somerville (2015) many teachers are keen to implement sustainability
education in primary schools, but they lack the appropriate knowledge and skills to do so.
During data generation, it was observed that teachers did not have great knowledge of LFS and
as a result, they could not address LFS successfully in their lessons. Moreover, their classroom
activities were passive where pupils could not grasp great knowledge of LFS. It was also
concluded that teachers’ participation in their enhancement of LFS was very limited during
cycle one. They themselves declared in their post cycle one interview that they needed to update
their knowledge on LFS. Hence, these factors limited the teacher to embed sustainability
education more explicitly in their classrooms, just as pointed out by Dyment and Hill (2015).
As such, this explicates for our unsustainable actions and for that of our learners. Not having
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1085
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
the right knowledge of LFS from teachers, the learners are prone to perform unsustainable
actions continuously aiding in the degradation of society and the environment.
8.1.2 Theme Two: Limited Approaches to LFS.
Data which was generated through classroom observations during the cycle one helped us to
know about the different strategies and approaches that teachers used to conduct their first
lesson. Not having great knowledge of LFS and teaching strategies, most of them used
traditional and surface approaches to learning which contradicted themselves on what they
reported during their semi-structed interviews. Theme two dealt about the teachers’ limited
approaches to learning in the classrooms. Most of the teachers used surface approach to a great
extent where the concepts of LFS was not addressed sufficiently. In so doing, the utmost
priority was not given to LFS which was argued that it required innovative, place based, active
learning strategies as supported by the Burns Model of Sustainability Pedagogy and the
O'Donoghue’s Active Learning Framework. The classes were not interactive sufficiently for
the children to grasp the essence of concepts of LFS and implement them in their daily lives to
about the estimated change to sustainable living for the future. Seatter and Ceulemans (2017)
proposed transformative learning for the pupils to be able to understand LFS effectively and to
put it into practice. But, in contrast, the traditional way of teaching used by the participants was
not convenient for the 21st century pupils who get bored much easily.
8.1.3 Theme Three: Constraining Factors affecting LFS
Implementing an educational change is a complex process and it is crucial to understand the
factors affecting LFS to be able to find ways to address it. Miedijensky and Abramovich (2019)
enumerate various factors affecting LFS stating that these must be addressed for the efficient
implementation of LFS in schools. The findings in this theme indicated that there were many
factors that constraint the proper enhancement of LFS in primary schools. Firstly, there were
situational/institutional barriers that hinders the teaching of LFS. This was evidenced by the
barriers caused by parents, teachers, and the school in the proper teaching of LFS. Also,
participants stated some other barriers such as the education system, lack of management
support and inadequate teacher training on LFS in primary schools. It was also found that the
above barriers were key factors which hindered appropriate change in behaviours towards
sustainability living and futures. Pompeii, Chiu, Neil, Braun, Fiegel, Oulton, Ragsdale, and
Singh (2019) propose that all these barriers should be overcome so that effective LFS can be
conducted in schools where learners would be able to grasp the knowledge and be ready for
the required change.
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1086
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
8.1.4 Theme Four: Teachers’ Perception and Engagement towards LFS
Teachers’ perceptions on the importance of teaching LFS play a major role on their attitudes
towards LFS (Maidou, Plakitsi & Polatoglou, 2019). Gaining an insight of the perspectives and
engagement of the teachers on LFS can be very useful in this study. The interview questions
were based on how the teachers perceived teaching and their engagement towards LFS. It
consisted of data obtained on initial teacher preparation, their teaching of LFS and teacher
engagement and enhancement of their understanding of LFS. It was found that the experienced
teachers could engage themselves and enhance their understanding of LFS in their teachings to
some extent. Contrarily, novice teachers, lacking teaching experience, were not aware of LFS
could hardly engage fully in LFS. Basically, if a teacher is not engaged in teaching, it is very
bad for the pupils. Also, if the teacher thinks that the latter knows everything and that the way
the latter taught in the previous years still works, he is mistaken. As life keeps on evolving, a
teacher should be a lifelong learner and should keep on changing the ways of teaching to meet
the demands of the 21st century learners. Pompeii et al. (2019) too suggested that teachers
should identify their shortcomings and overcome them accordingly. Once teachers have
positive perceptions of the LFS, they would start engaging themselves willingly towards LFS.
8.2 The Themes and Sub-Themes: Cycle Two
At the end of cycle two all the six teachers were again interviewed individually. The basis of
the interview was two folds, firstly getting a view on their experiences and challenges they
faced during the action research study, and secondly how their understanding shaped their
enhancement of LFS in the way they did. Table 3 provides the following themes and sub-
themes that emerged from the data during Cycle Two of the action research cycle.
Table 3. Thematic analysis of data- Cycle Two
Thematic Analysis- Cycle Two
Data generation
Coding (Sub-themes)
Theme
Outcome after
Cycle Two
Semi-
structured
interview
Teachers’ perceived
knowledge of LFS.
Teachers’ attending to
LFS in the Curriculum.
Theme Five:
Understanding
LFS.
How Teachers’
constructed their
understanding of
LFS?
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1087
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
Document
analysis
Classroom
observation
Pre and Post
lesson
meetings
Reflective
journals
Classroom activities in
LFS.
Participation in LFS.
Deep Approach to
Learning
Holistic Learning
Approach
Experiential Learning
Problem-based Learning
Action/Transformational
Learning
Theme Six:
Innovative
Approaches to
LFS
How do teachers
brought about
change to shape
their understanding
of LFS in their
lessons?
Situational/Institutional
Assistance and Support
Enhanced Educational
System
Need for Management
Support
Mainstreaming LFS in
Teacher Training
Theme Seven:
Strategies to
address LFS
What are the ways
teachers shaped
their enhancement
of LFS?
Initial Teacher
preparation of LFS
Teaching of LFS
Teacher Engagement
and Enhancement of
LFS
Theme Eight:
Teachers’
Perception and
Engagement
towards LFS
Why do teachers
shaped their
enhancement the
way they do?
8.2.1 Theme Five: Understanding LFS
In the previous cycle, the findings revealed that teachers had limited understanding of LFS as
some never came across the term and some did not pay great attention to LFS before that. As
teachers’ understanding of the concepts of sustainability influences their way of handling and
enhancement in the classroom (Svenkerud, Madsen, Ballangrud, Strande & Stenshorne, 2020),
teachers needed to upgrade their knowledge of LFS to be able to make pupils take decisions to
the best of the future, based on their knowledge acquired. In cycle two, teachers made some
inquiries and explored ways to teach LFS, gained some content knowledge of the concepts and
conducted another class to demonstrate their new understanding and enhancement of LFS. Just
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1088
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
as Watson (2017) argued in his study, learners should be taught using active learning strategies
and for this teacher’s understanding of LFS is very crucial. Teachers’ engagement and
participation in class play a significant role in the education of the learners (Grove, 2019) and
this could happen when the teachers have appropriate and accurate understanding of LFS. As
there was no appropriate training given to teachers on LFS, it became difficult for them to
integrate sustainability in their lessons. Having accurate content knowledge would make
teachers confident in their teaching and then no one can challenge them in imparting the
knowledge. Svenkerud et al. (2020) affirm that LFS is not a new phenomenon, but it is new
thoughts that all teachers are supposed to implement in their daily teachings. Hence, teachers
could upgrade their knowledge by themselves, or training sessions could be provided to the
teachers to strengthen their knowledge on LFS so that in other schools too teachers could help
in achieving the goals of sustainability.
8.2.2 Theme Six: Innovative Approaches to LFS
Pahnke, O’Donnell & Bascope (2019) recommended teachers to promote inquiry based
learning and scientific thinking in pupils and favour interactive teaching that enables
exploratory, action oriented, reflective, and transformative learning to teach sustainability.
Literature found it the best way to inculcate LFS in the pupils. Teachers were able to find that
experts proposed a change in their teaching strategies to be able to address LFS in their
classrooms. Consequently, they made use of those innovative approaches in their lessons which
were very fruitful according to them. It has been observed there was distinctive enhancement
in the teachers’ approaches to learning. They had sufficient content knowledge of LFS and
were able to express themselves more clearly on their understanding of LFS and there was a
considerable upgrading in the teachers’ lessons which were interactive and where pupils were
excited to participate in the teaching and learning. As argued by Seatter and Ceulemans (2017)
LFS cannot be taught using the current traditional teaching. The latter stressed that
transformative and innovative activities should be designed by the teachers to be able to make
difference in the behaviour of the pupils in this 21st century. Natkin (2016) too confirmed that
LFS should be taught using a variety of teaching practices and assessment strategies. Teachers
must take pupils out of the classrooms and let them see the beauty of the nature (Watson 2017).
Learning actively, they should be able to discover by themselves and develop skills necessary
to achieve and maintain sustainability in future. And these innovative strategies should be
taught to the teachers through training and briefing sessions.
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1089
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
8.2.3 Theme Seven: Enablers for LFS
The enablers are the factors that aid in the sustained implementation of evidenced-based
practices in LFS and can assist school teachers and administrators in identifying strategies to
use when planning for implementation of LFS. Theme seven elaborated on the different
enablers of LFS mentioned by the participants in the semi structured interviews and their
reflective journals. They proposed some strategies and experienced them during their action
research to address LFS in primary schools. Knowing about the barriers and looking for some
ways to address them could assist in the proper implementation of LFS in classes and the
school. The participants proposed some enablers of LFS which could be used and modified
accordingly at schools for the effective teaching and learning of LFS. Teachers should use new
modes of teaching like innovative learning styles and transformational learning. Also, the
education system should be enhanced together with situational and institutional support to
enable the smooth running of LFS in schools. Addressing the barriers can result in better
understanding in teachers and learners. Watson (2017) finds it crucial to use innovative
strategies to be able to create in a change in the learners on LFS.
8.2.4 Theme Eight: Teachers’ Perception and Engagement towards LFS
This theme elaborated on the teachers’ new perceptions and enhancement towards LFS in cycle
two. The findings showed considerable change in the teachers’ perspectives and the
engagement towards LFS. They demonstrated significant improvement in the way they
conducted their lessons and how they enhanced their understanding of LFS to be able to meet
the needs of our sustainable future. Having a better knowledge and understanding of LFS
contents, the teachers were better equipped to conduct their classes which were interactive and
where teaching and learning took place efficiently. It was perceived that the teachers were able
to learn and upgrade their knowledge and understanding of LFS. Through research work and
help from peers, they used innovative strategies in their lessons to inculcate the values and
skills necessary for change towards LFS in the pupils. The teachers were more than convinced
finding their outcomes from their second cycle experience that they had an improved and
upgraded understanding of LFS and they had enhanced them in their teachings. This led to a
remarkable transformation of their lessons which benefited their pupils. As argued by Bholah
(2017), through experiential and problem-based learning, learners were able to experience and
reflect on scenarios and deduce by themselves how to start changing their attitudes towards
LFS. Teachers needed to change their perceptions so that they could engage themselves in LFS.
Maidou et al. (2019) concluded in their research that teachers who lack content knowledge and
ways to teach LFS, needed appropriate professional development training which could upgrade
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1090
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
their ability to teach their learners. They believed that teachers could influence learners to help
solve sustainability issues.
9.0 Discussion and Conclusion
9.1 Teachers’ Engagement in the Action Research Cycle.
The data generation process indicated that teachers were not able to prompt their pupils to
develop as critical thinkers and were more vested towards traditional approaches for teaching
and learning styles. From the observation it was clear that during the first cycle, pupils adopted
a traditional learning approach as defined by Tularam and Machisella (2018) which was
conducive to sitting and listening. This is corroborated with Giraldo-Garcia, Roy & Alotebi
(2015) where they say that traditional teaching approach does not develop pupils as critical
thinkers. Moreover, teachers were not able to incorporate new knowledge from outside the
curriculum into their teachings, thus relying exclusively on the prescribed textbook as a mean
to deliver the limited content knowledge. The above was also true for a participant who
declared that she never had to search for additional content knowledge regarding science topics
and LFS from outside what was already prescribed in the textbooks. This situation in class
created a lethargy where pupils were not motivated to actively participate in class discussions
and participation resulting in poor to nil for new knowledge development in the field of LFS.
As a result, pupils also showed disengagement in their learning process but could not be
generalised for subjects other than LFS.
9.2 Action Research as a driving force to support change
During this action research study, the participants were able to develop their knowledge
construction of their understanding of LFS within their lessons. They were also able to use
reflective practice from their understanding to enhance LFS during the action research cycles.
Furthermore, teachers were able to drive this understanding of LFS through their content
knowledge and experiences from their teaching practice. Teachers showed more confidence
during their second action research cycle as they reflected positively to new methodologies and
strategies to conduct their lessons. Finally, the participants were all certain about their
enhancement of LFS where they addressed LFS adequately in their second action research
cycle. They all expressed their feeling of rightly implementing LFS during the action research
study and were motivated fully to investigate problematic situations regarding LFS in primary
schools. All the participants were favourable to implement LFS in their future education
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1091
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
situations in schools while teaching as part of their new experience through the action research
study where they fully enhanced LFS. The above statement stands true as a driving force for
change for the betterment of one and all in their career path. However, change can only be
brought when teachers are willing to implementing new innovations, policies and adaptation
strategies in teacher learning and understanding practices. As informed in the NCF and the
findings, there are enablers which addresses LFS which includes the syllables, content,
textbooks, and SDGs components but a lack of capacity building can eventually pose a serious
drawback for teachers to address confidently the concepts of LFS in primary schools.
9.3 Reflection on Teachers’ Enhancement of LFS
It was no doubt that all the participants had developed their knowledge based on LFS and thus
contributed towards the knowledge around teachers’ understanding and their enhancement of
LFS. By no means, those teachers who participated in the action research study were sole
contributors to new knowledge construction in the field of LFS in primary schools but however
they had marked the first milestone towards becoming exemplary in LFS. The reflective journal
had no doubt offered an important tool for teachers to critically analyse the events and construct
their knowledge of LFS throughout the action research study. It also provided important
features on how and when to react to situation which prompted them to change or amend their
teaching techniques and strategies. There was no doubt that teachers who engaged in writing
reflections, spend more time in planning and action for their lessons and thus engaging fully in
reflective practice. Through reflection and pre and post lesson meetings a corelation was built
between the participants and the flow of the action research study especially during the
intervention phases that encouraged them to change their thoughts and understandings to
conceptualise LFS in their teachings. Teachers were more confident as they showed
considerable change in aspects of rapport in the classroom and in their interactions with their
pupils as regards to their enhancement of LFS during their lessons.
9.4 A LFS model for promoting change towards Sustainability
The lens through which we aimed to address the challenge of exploring teacher’s understanding
and enhancement of LFS in primary schools was that we regarded both Burn’s Model of
Sustainability Pedagogy and the O’Donoghue’s Active Learning Framework as closely related
to our aspirations for our phenomenon under observation. In fact, the various phases and the
steps during the action research study had proved that integrating both theories contributed to
address the research objectives which brought about the change expected to transform teachers
and pupils to address effectively the increasing socio-cultural, economic, and environmental
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1092
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
problems in our society. In one hand, Burn’s Model provided the necessary pedagogy that were
incorporated in class activities which focussed on how teaching and learning was happening
and how it was re-oriented towards sustainability as witnessed during the different phases. On
the other hand, O’Donoghue’s Active Learning Framework provided incentives for teachers to
engage themselves towards action taking to develop necessary attitudes, skills, and knowledge
for understanding LFS. O’Donoghue’s Model also acted as a guide on what needed to be done
to address and understand LFS through active learning teaching and learning. Developing from
both models, we have come to a refined model of LFS adapted to the learning situations in
schools after the six teachers constructed their understanding of LFS and enhanced them into
their teachings during the action research study. The model provides incentives to develop
proper understanding of LFS and addresses the lack of positive insights for the teacher’s
enhancement by bringing positive change and adaptation strategies in teacher learning and
understanding practices during their enhancement. Through the journey with the six
participants, we established the following model (Figure 4) which explains the processes that
exists between the aspects of LFS, as well as its understanding and enhancement and the
context in which it is being implemented.
According to our model of LFS, classroom interactions which represent a classroom
context/location/subject or topic dealing with sustainability issues are built up through the
impregnation of prior content knowledge and experiences of sustainability with appropriate
teaching methodologies and approaches. Further to the classroom interactions, the focus is
driven towards active and transformational learning. The focus is driven by the interaction
between environmental concern, socio-cultural concern, and economical concern in between
themselves and towards the focal point in the triangular structure. The focus thus drives the
LFS through the action taking process which enables the development of insights and
competences through teaching and learning activities. This model is adapted to bring about
necessary positive change and strategies in teaching and learning practices. It should be viewed
as an inevitable transdisciplinary and trans-perspectival since it is not meant to capture by a
single discipline or by any single perspective. LFS model that emerged from this action
research study should be considered as cross-boundary in nature that cannot be confined to the
dominant structures and spaces that have shaped education systems for centuries now. As such
LFS cannot be limited to only classrooms and schools. Learning in the context of sustainability
requires ‘hybridity’ and synergy between multiple actors in society and the blurring of formal,
non-formal and informal education.
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1093
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
Figure 4: A model of the LFS
10.0 Recommendations for Further Research
We strongly recommend that further research may be undertaken considering more than two
cycles approach in a similar study. This would no matter add more and greater insights and
perspectives for the teachers, policy makers, curriculum writers and authorities who embark
upon the LFS initiatives to develop proper understanding of LFS. We would also recommend
that this type of research must also complement with research on the broader school community
taking on board such as school management, parents, NGOs, civil society, and the local and
central authorities. Findings born from such research would contribute greatly the present
discourse that informs understanding of what is required to ensure proper address of LFS in
the education systems in Mauritius and abroad.
11.0 Conclusion
This study was an attempt at exploring teachers’ understanding and enhancement of LFS. It
aimed to present the main findings of the participant-designed action research study regarding
the research questions. The findings reported that teachers mainly view LFS as educating about
the environmental aspect rather than considering its socio-cultural and economic aspects and
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1094
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
their inter-relationship. An elaborated understanding of the inter-relationship between the three
aspects of sustainability was sadly lacking. Findings confirmed that there was a different and
comparable understanding of LFS among primary school teachers and that their understanding
greatly influenced their enhancement in their teaching practice. The study further found that
enhancement of LFS improved teachers’ practices and experiences by bringing new knowledge
in their understanding of LFS. We did have enablers like the NCF which really addresses LFS
but a lack of capacity building and mainstreaming of LFS were observed. Teachers by the end
of the study showed gargantuan motivation through their understanding and enhancement for
further implementation of LFS indicating that the action research process was an empowering
one. LFS needed to be considered as more than merely a knowledge base. It must be viewed
as inevitably transdisciplinary and even trans-perspectival in that it cannot be captured by a
single discipline or by any single perspective. LFS must be considered as cross-boundary in
nature that cannot be confined to the dominant structures and spaces that have shaped education
for centuries now. LFS cannot be limited to only classrooms and schools. Learning in the
context of sustainability requires hybridity and synergy between multiple actors in society and
the blurring of formal, non-formal, and informal education
12.0 References
Adawiah, R., & Esa, N. (2012). Teachers’ knowledge of education for sustainable
development. In UMT 11th International Annual Symposium on Sustainability Science and
Management, 09th – 11th July 2012, Terengganu, Malaysia.
Akinyode, B. F., & Khan, T. H. (2018). Step by step approach for qualitative data
analysis. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 5(3), 163-174.
https://doi.org/10.11113/ijbes.v5.n3.267
Allen, H. (2021). Learning for the Future: Exploring Effective Characteristics of Sustainability
Leadership Programs in Higher Education. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in
Education/Revue canadienne des jeunes chercheures et chercheurs en éducation, 12(2), 115-
125.
Almond, R. E. A., Grooten, M., & Petersen, T. (2021). Living planet report 2020-bending the
curve of biodiversity loss. Natural Resources & Environment, 35(3), 62-62.
Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2021). Defining, confining,
or refining action research? In Action research for change and development (pp. 3-9). New
York, Routledge.
Ben-Eliyahu, A. (2021). Sustainable learning in education. Sustainability, 13(8), Pages 4250.
Accession Number: doi:10.3390/su13084250. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4250.
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1095
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
Bhardwaj, P. (2019). Types of sampling in research. Journal of the Practice of Cardiovascular
Sciences, 5(3), 157.
Burgener, L., & Barth, M. (2018). Sustainability competencies in teacher education: Making
teacher education count in everyday school practice. Journal of cleaner production, 174, 821-
826.
Burns, H. (2009). Education as sustainability: An action research study of the Burns model of
sustainability pedagogy. Portland State University.
Burns, H. (2011). Teaching for transformation:(Re) Designing sustainability courses based on
ecological principles. Journal of Sustainability Education, 2.
Burns, H. (2013). Meaningful sustainability learning: A research study of sustainability
pedagogy in two university courses. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education, 25(2), 166-175.
Casinader, N. (2021). What makes environmental and sustainability education transformative:
A Re-Appraisal of the Conceptual Parameters. Sustainability, 13(9), 5100.
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2003). Kurt Lewin: The" practical theorist" for the 21st
century. Irish Journal of Management, 24(2), 31.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.).
London: Routledge.
Dash, G., & Mohan, A. K. (2017). Education for Sustainability: Perception of teachers and
practices in urban primary schools of Mysore. Gyanodaya: The Journal of Progressive
Education, 10(2) 9-17.
Dufour, I. F., & Richard, M. C. (2019). Theorizing from secondary qualitative data: A
comparison of two data analysis methods. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1690265.
Dyball, R., & Newell, B. (2014). Understanding human ecology: A systems approach to
sustainability. Routledge, London.
Filho, W., Pallant, E., Enete, A., Richter, B., & Brandli, L. L. (2018). Planning and
implementing sustainability in higher education institutions: an overview of the difficulties and
potentials. International journal of sustainable development & world ecology, 25(8), 713-721.
Gajparia, J., Strachan, G., Vare, P., & Ferguson, T. (2021). Identifying Assessment
Opportunities in Postgraduate Learning for Sustainability. Discourse and Communication for
Sustainable Education, 12(1), 151-175.
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1096
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
Gamage, K. A., Ekanayake, S. Y., & Dehideniya, S. C. (2022). Embedding Sustainability in
Learning and Teaching: Lessons Learned and Moving Forward—Approaches in STEM Higher
Education Programmes. Education Sciences, 12(3), 225.
Giraldo-Garcia, R., Roy, M., & Alotebi, H. (2015). The interplay of technology and critical
thinking skills in the 21st century blended classroom. International Journal of Advanced
Research in Education Technology, 2(3), 32-35.
Green, M., & Somerville, M. (2015). Sustainability education: Researching practice in primary
schools. Environmental Education Research, 21(6), 832-845.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research: Social research for
social change. SAGE publications, Thousand Oaks.
Grove, A. (2019). The Teacher's Role in Student Engagement. Gardner-Webb University.
Guetterman, T. (2015). Descriptions of sampling practices within five approaches to qualitative
research in education and the health sciences. University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Hill, A., Emery, S., & Dyment, J. (2020). Introduction to the Australian curriculum
sustainability cross-curriculum priority. Geographical Education (Online), 33, 8-10.
Hlalele, D. J. (2019). Indigenous knowledge systems and sustainable learning in rural South
Africa. Australian and international journal of rural education, 29(1), 88-100.
Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(10).
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2019). Critical participatory action research.
In Action learning and action research: Genres and approaches. Emerald Publishing
Limited,176-192.
Kuzmina, K., Trimingham, R., & Bhamra, T. (2020). Organisational Strategies for
Implementing Education for Sustainable Development in the UK Primary Schools: A Service
Innovation Perspective. Sustainability, 12(22), 9549.
Lasen, M., Skamp, K., & Simoncini, K. (2017). Teacher perceptions and self-reported practices
of education for sustainability in the early years of primary school: An Australian case
study. International Journal of Early Childhood, 49(3), 391-410.
Laurie, R., Nonoyama-Tarumi, Y., Mc Keown, R., & Hopkins, C. (2016). Contributions of
education for sustainable development (ESD) to quality education: A synthesis of
research. Journal of Education for Sustainable development, 10(2), 226-242.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of social issues, 2(4), 34-
46.
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1097
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
Lindsay, S. (2019). Five approaches to qualitative comparison groups in health research: a
scoping review. Qualitative health research, 29(3), 455-468.
Lune, H., & Berg, B. L. (2017). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson
Education, England.
Maidou, A., Plakitsi, K., & Polatoglou, H. (2019). Knowledge, Perceptions and Attitudes on
Education for Sustainable Development of Pre-Service Early Childhood Teachers in
Greece. World Journal of Education, 9(5), 1-15.
McNiff, J., Edvardsen, O. Steinholt, Margit. (2018). ‘Impact’, educational influence, and the
practice of shared expertise. Educational Action Research, 26 (5). pp. 803-819.
Michel, J. O. (2020). Mapping out students’ opportunity to learn about sustainability across the
higher education curriculum. Innovative Higher Education, 45(5), 355-371.
Miedijensky, S., & Abramovich, A. (2019). Implementation of" Education for Sustainability"
in Three Elementary Schools--What Can We Learn about a Change Process?. EURASIA
Pompeii, B., Chiu, Y. W., Neill, D., Braun, D., Fiegel, G., Oulton, R., ... & Singh, K. (2019).
Identifying and overcoming barriers to integrating sustainability across the curriculum at a
teaching-oriented university. Sustainability, 11(9), 2652.
MoEHR. (2016). National Curriculum Framework. Republic of Mauritius.
Moyer, J. M., & Sinclair, A. J. (2020). Learning for sustainability: Considering pathways to
transformation. Adult Education Quarterly, 70(4), 340-359.
Mughal, S. H., Qaisrani, N., Solangi, G., & Faiz, S. (2011). Promoting education for sustainable
development: Challenges and issues for higher education institutions in Pakistan. International
Journal of Learning & Development, 1(1), 159-165.
Murphy, C., Mallon, B., Smith, G., Kelly, O., Pitsia, V., & Martinez Sainz, G. (2021). The
influence of a teachers’ professional development programme on primary school pupils’
understanding of and attitudes towards sustainability. Environmental Education
Research, 27(7), 1011-1036.
Natkin, L. W. (2016). Education for sustainability: exploring teaching practices and
perceptions of learning associated with a general education requirement. The Journal of
General Education, 65(3-4), 216-240.
Nkambwe, M., & Essilfie, V. N. (2012). Misalignment between policy and practice:
Introducing environmental education in school curricula in Botswana. Educational Research
and Reviews, 7(1), 19-26.
O’Donoghue, R. (2001). Environment and active learning in OBE: NEEP guidelines for
facilitating and assessing active learning in OBE. Howick: ShareNet.
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1098
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
O’Donoghue, R., Taylor, J., & Venter, V. (2018). How are learning and training environments
transforming with ESD. Issues and trends in Education for Sustainable Development, 111-131.
Pahnke, J., O’Donnell, C., & Bascope, M. (2019). Using science to do social good: STEM
education for sustainable development. Proceedings of the Second International Dialogue on
STEM Education (IDoS), Berlin, Germany, 5-6.
Painuly, P. K., Tyagi, R., Vishwakarma, S., Khare, S. K., Haghighi, M. (2020). Energy Supply
Using Nexus Approach for Attaining Sustainable Development Goal 7. In: Leal Filho, W.,
Pandey, P., & Pandey, M. M. (2021). Research methodology tools and techniques. Bridge
Center.
Redman, E. (2013). Opportunities and challenges for integrating sustainability education into
k-12 schools: Case study phoenix, AZ.
Seatter, C. S., & Ceulemans, K. (2017). Teaching Sustainability in Higher Education:
Pedagogical Styles That Make a Difference. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 47(2),
47-70.
Suarez-Lopez, R., & Eugenio-Gozalbo, M. (2021). How is sustainability addressed in primary
and secondary education curricula? Assessing the cases of Spain and Portugal. International
Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 31(2), 106-122.
Svenkerud, S., Madsen, J., Ballangrud, B. B., Strande, A. L., & Stenshorne, M. E. (2020).
Sustainable use of ecological concepts in educational science.
Taylor, N., Quinn, F., & Eames, C. (Eds.). (2015). Educating for sustainability in primary
schools: teaching for the future. Senses publications, Rotterdam. The Netherlands.
Tjora, A. (2018). Qualitative research as stepwise-deductive induction. London: Routledge.
Tsayang, G. T, & Kabita, B. (2013). The status of education for sustainable development in the
faculty of education, views from faculty members: University of Botswana. Educational
Research and Reviews, 8(18), 1698–1708.
Tularam, G. A. & Machisella, P. (2018). Traditional vs non-traditional teaching and learning
strategies – The case of e-learning. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and
Learning, 19(1).
UNESCO. (2012). Education for Sustainable Development Sourcebook. Learning & Training
Tools No 4, 2012.
UNESCO. (2021). 2021 Global Education Meeting From recovery to accelerating SDG 4
progress. Paris, UNESCO. Available at http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-
en.
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1099
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
UNESCO-Regional office for Southern Africa-ROSA. (2018). Sustainability starts with
teachers- An ESD Action Learning Programme for Secondary Teacher Educators in Southern
Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Wang, X., & Cheng, Z. (2020). Cross-sectional studies: strengths, weaknesses, and
recommendations. Chest, 158(1), 65-71.
Watson, E. (2017). Unexpected questions: Reflecting on the teacher’s experience of responding
in class. High School Journal, 101(1), 49-61.
Xu, W., & Zammit, K. (2020). Applying thematic analysis to education: A hybrid approach to
interpreting data in practitioner research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19,
New South Wales, Australia.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
GSJ: Volume 12, Issue 6, June 2024
ISSN 2320-9186
1100
GSJ© 2024
www.globalscientificjournal.com
