Content uploaded by Lida Klaver
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lida Klaver on Mar 26, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Designing a course programme
empowering in- and pre-service teachers
in teaching European Green Deal Issues
Teaching the Green DealTeaching the Green Deal
Peter Bom, Lida Klaver, Tamara van Heel,
Symen van der Zee, Patrick Sins, and Jasmijn Maseland
Prof. dr. Charles Hopkins’* and dr. Katrin Kohl’s** response to the EASE project:
“It is a great initiative and best-practice
of how to make sense of a global education
concept in a regional setting!”
“It has long been suggested that Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) was a key enabler of “It has long been suggested that Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) was a key enabler of
all 17 SDGs and should be engaged in local, national, and even international sustainable development all 17 SDGs and should be engaged in local, national, and even international sustainable development
implementation schemes. We see EASE as a novel attempt at using an ESD adaptation to implement implementation schemes. We see EASE as a novel attempt at using an ESD adaptation to implement
the EU initiative, and as such, is an important innovative undertaking.”the EU initiative, and as such, is an important innovative undertaking.”
* Charles Hopkins is UNESCO Chair in Reorienting Education towards Sustainability at
York University, Toronto, Canada.
** Katrin Kohl is Executive Coordinator UNESCO Chair in Reorienting Education towards
Sustainability at York University, Toronto, Canada.
The Education Assembly for a Sustainable Europe (EASE) project aims to encourage and support
primary school teachers in designing and implementing education concerning European Green Deal
issues. The project was carried out by Saxion and Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences and made
possible by Jean Monnet funding part of the Erasmus+ programme.
COLOPHON
Saxion Progressive Education University Press
Authors: Peter Bom, Lida Klaver, Tamara van Heel, Symen van der Zee,
Patrick Sins, and Jasmijn Maseland
Correspondence address: p.l.bom@saxion.nl
Graphic design: Leonon Media Publishers
Lay-out: Dagelyks Communicatie, Rebekka Mlinar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15045652
This release allows users to use and build upon the material, as long as the source credit is given to the creator.
No derivative works or adaptations of the work are permitted. The license does not allow commercial use.
For specification CC check: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
BY: credit must be given to the creator.
Deventer, 2025
Contents
Foreword 6Foreword 6
Introduction EASE 7 Introduction EASE 7
References 8References 8
Part 1 – Teaching the Green Deal 9Part 1 – Teaching the Green Deal 9
1.1 From vision to teaching model 9
1.2 Didactic principles of Scientific Citizenship 10
Principle 1 - Thinking Together 10
Principle 2 - Arguing 11
Principle 3 - Network Thinking 12
Principle 4 - Decision Making 13
References 14
Part 2 – Design of the EASE course 15Part 2 – Design of the EASE course 15
2.1 Design principles 15
2.2 Goals of the EASE course 16
A. Knowledge about EESD 16
B. Skills regarding EESD 17
C. Attitudes towards EESD 17
2.3 Feedback in the process of designing the course 18
Teacher experience 18
Pedagogical climate 18
Goals 18
Subject knowledge 19
2.4 The final EASE course 19
Structure of the sessions 19
Description of the sessions 20
References 21
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course 23Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course 23
3.1 Implementation of the EASE course 23
Overview 23
Brief recap of the first implementation in Rotterdam, November 2023 23
Recruiting in-service teachers 24
3.2 Qualitative evaluation of the EASE course 24
Method 24
Results 26
3.3 Quantitative evaluation of the EASE course 34
Methods 34
Results 37
Conclusion 40
3.4 Impressions of pre- and in-service teachers’ praxis 41
Lesson activities of pre-service teachers 41
Lesson activities of in-service teachers 42
References 44
Foreword | 6
Foreword
Education is one important venue to shape a sustainable and democratic future. In an era defined
by complex challenges such as climate change, resource scarcity, and shifting global dynamics, it is
essential that young people develop the knowledge and skills necessary to navigate and contribute to
these pressing issues. Citizenship education plays a critical role in this process, as it exercises students
to think critically, engage in informed discussion, and take shared responsibility as citizens of the
world.
This book presents the results of the EASE project, a carefully designed initiative that builds upon
the foundations of Scientific Citizenship—an approach that gives a central place to socio-scientific
issue in citizenship education, developed with the financial support of TechYourFuture (TYF). As the
initiator of the original project, I am proud to see how this work has evolved, deepening the conceptual
underpinnings and refining the methodology to support educators in tackling sustainability topics in
the classroom.
The strength of this approach lies in its sound design. The EASE project was not just about developing
a course; it was also about assessing its effectiveness. The research findings presented in this book
show that many teachers, both pre-service and in-service, struggle with integrating sustainability
education into their teaching. They often lack both the subject matter knowledge and the pedagogical
tools to engage students in meaningful discussions about the European Green Deal and other
sustainability challenges. By systematically addressing these barriers, the EASE course provides
teachers with a structured, research-informed approach that enhances their ability to facilitate
complex discussions and decision-making processes in the classroom.
At the heart of this educational approach is group problem-solving, an approach rooted in deliberative
democracy that encourages students to collaboratively explore socio-scientific issues. The four didactic
principles—thinking together, arguing, network thinking, and decision-making (developed in my PhD
thesis)—are not just theoretical constructs; they have been tested in educational practice and shown to
improve students’ ability to engage with real-world problems. The authors have developed and refined
these principles with depth. The book not only outlines the theoretical foundations but also provides
concrete examples of how they can be implemented in diverse classroom settings.
What makes this project particularly valuable is its practical impact. Teachers who participated in
the EASE course reported feeling more confident in addressing sustainability issues, facilitating
discussions, and guiding students in making well-reasoned decisions. Moreover, students exposed
to this approach demonstrated greater engagement, critical thinking, and a deeper understanding
of the complexities surrounding sustainability and citizenship.
I hope this book serves as an inspiration for educators, policymakers, and researchers alike. The
challenges we face require informed, engaged, and responsible citizens—this book provides the tools
to help educators nurture precisely those qualities in their students.
Dr. Laurence Guérin
Dean School of Education and Society
Professor Citizenship
Academia University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam
Introduction EASE | 7
Introduction EASE
Climate change and environmental degradation pose existential threats to Europe and the wider world.
To address these challenges, Europe is implementing a growth strategy aimed at transforming the
European Union (EU) into a modern, competitive, and sustainable economy. The European Green Deal
(EGD) serves as the overarching framework to make the EU’s economy sustainable for future generations,
with a target of achieving climate neutrality by 2050. To shape this vision, Europe’s next generation
needs to acquire knowledge, develop critical thinking skills, and adopt values and behaviours that foster
active engagement with the EGD (European Commission, n.d.). This mission is in line with the commit-
ments made by 18 EU member states at the UNESCO World Conference on Education for Sustainable
Development (ESD), which aims to strengthen and accelerate ESD worldwide in support of achieving
the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 (UNESCO, 2020; 2022). In the further elaboration of these
commitments, it is recommended to train teachers in teaching sustainable development and advocate
for more and better opportunities for teacher development and self-assessment of their teaching
approaches (UNESCO, 2024). The Education Assembly for a Sustainable Europe (EASE) project
addresses these goals by designing and evaluating pre-service and in-service teacher training courses
(EASE courses). These courses equip primary school teachers and pre-service teachers with the
knowledge and skills required to teach lessons addressing Education for European Sustainable
Development (EESD; the European equivalent of ESD). The EASE courses intend to support teachers
to gain the necessary general science knowledge about climate change and biodiversity, teaching skills to
foster students’ arguing and ability to take in different perspectives and collaboratively search for solutions.
Teacher training courses are highly needed since research indicates that many primary school teachers
lack the subject matter expertise, including knowledge about the European Union and EGD-related
topics, necessary to teach broad and complex themes effectively (Guérin et al., 2013; Inspectie van
het Onderwijs, 2022). They also often lack the pedagogical strategies needed to handle such
complexities (Chen & Xiao, 2021; Guerin et al., 2013). Additionally, teachers report that preparing
for and implementing active teaching strategies is a time-intensive process. Consequently, teachers
within the EU may be in adequately prepared to teach complex EGD topics and to apply active teaching
methodologies that systematically foster European citizenship competencies, such as critical thinking,
connected learning, and argumentation.
The EASE project builds on the principles of deliberative democracy, an epistemic theory that
emphasizes citizen autonomy and acknowledges the complexities of issues tied to the EGD (Guérin,
2018). This approach recognizes the contentious nature of such issues while identifying viable
solutions. Deliberative democracy advocates for collective decision-making, with careful deliberation
being the most effective way to achieve sound decisions.
To translate this theory into practical pedagogy, Guérin (2018) developed the “group problem solving”
approach, which is grounded in four educational principles: (1) argumentation, (2) connected learning,
(3) decision-making, and (4) collaborative thinking. EASE employs this approach to design teacher
training courses centred on EESD. In this context, group problem solving enables teachers to guide
students through structured deliberation processes, fostering collaborative reasoning and the exchange
of knowledge about policies and societal, economic, and environmental considerations related to the EGD.
The overarching goal of EASE is to enhance teachers’ and students’ participation in democratic
processes while strengthening their understanding of EGD-related issues. This is vital for the EU’s
future, to support educators and young people to face challenges and actively engage with their
communities and in the social and political life of the Union. EASE serves as a tangible realization
of the UNESCO commitments on ESD (UNESCO, 2020; 2024).
Introduction EASE | 8
This e-book reports on examining opportunities to educate and empower teachers to implement ESD
goals in the context of EGD issues. Chapter 1 delves into the educational principles underpinning
the group problem solving approach. Chapters 2 and 3 detail the development, implementation,
evaluation, and improvement of courses focused on ESD goals in the context of EGD for pre-service
and in-service teachers. The final chapter offers concluding insights into how teachers can be better
equipped to deliver high-quality education about the EGD.
REFERENCES
Chen, L., & Xiao, S. (2021). Perceptions, challenges and coping strategies of science teachers in
teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32, Article
100377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377
Eur opean Commission (n.d.). Green education. Retrieved from https://education.ec.europa.eu/fo-
cus-topics/green-education
Guérin, L. J. F., van der Ploeg, P. A., & Sins, P. H. M. (2013). Citizenship education: The feasibility of a
participative approach. Educational Research, 55(4), 427–440. https://doi.
org/10.1080/0013181.2013.844945
Guérin, L.J.F. (2018). Group problem solving as citizenship education. Saxion Progressive Education
University Press.
Inspectie van het Onderwijs. (2022). Peil.Burgerschap einde basisonderwijs 2019-2020.
https://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/documenten/themarapporten/2022/03/09/peil.burger-
schap-einde-basisonderwijs-2019-2020
UNESCO. (2022). Berlin Declaration on Education for Sustainable Development; Learn for our planet:
Act for sustainability. UNESCO World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development
2021, online. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381228
UNESCO. (2020). Education for sustainable development: A roadmap. UNESCO.
https://doi.org/10.54675/YFRE1448
UNESCO (2024). Recommendation on education for peace, human rights and sustainable development.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000388330
Part 1 - Teaching the Green Deal | 9
PART 1
Teaching the Green Deal
1.1 FROM VISION TO TEACHING MODEL
In EASE, we build on the principles and goals of an approach based on the idea of deliberative
democracy (Guérin, 2018). This view assumes a society in which citizens make informed decisions
together and have a say. The deliberative democracy view aims to encourage citizens’ autonomy, takes
into account the complexity of issues relevant to the EGD, and recognizes the controversy of such
issues. Deliberative democracy allows learners to build and articulate individual perspectives and
develop their collective problem-solving ability. This aligns with the UNESCO ESDs for 2030 Roadmap
(UNESCO, 2020) and mirrors UNs’ sustainable development goals of empowering individuals to
address interconnected social, environmental, and economic challenges (United Nations, n.d.).
For educational practice, this means teaching students to collaboratively think about and deliberate on
solutions to social problems. For example, you can get students to work on the following issues: if we
want to heat all houses in the Netherlands without gas, would it be better to solve this by solar boilers
or by switching to heat pumps; what is a good solution to remove particulate matter from the air; what
is the best way to prevent the plastic soup from growing; and how do we deal with nanotechnology?
This vision of deliberative democracy was translated into a practical didactic approach for teachers
called Scientific Citizenship (Tolkamp et al, 2019). This approach is similar to socioscientific issues
approaches that in which issues with social and scientific dimensions are central; students are
introduced to the science knowledge needed to better understand the citizenship issues (Klaver, 2025).
Since the issues concerning the EGD have both natural science and social aspects, the Scientific
Citizenship approach is well suited to addressing these issues in the classroom. Scientific Citizenship
uses the educational design model group problem solving (GPS).
GPS involves students working in groups on learning activities, discussing and making decisions
together about social issues. In the process, students learn to think critically and ultimately come
to a solution together. The GPS lesson model consists of the following four steps:
1. Students explore the issue by investigating what they already know about the topic and what they
still need to find out.
2. In this step the issue is analysed. Students immerse themselves in the topic and start collecting
information from different sources. Therefore, they collect information not only from books but can
also question experts or organize a visit to a company or institution.
3. Students work toward a decision that they make collectively based on good arguments.
4. The groups present their solutions to each other. And there is reflection on how the process of
group problem solving went.
Figure 1 shows the central questions involved in each of these steps.
Part 1 - Teaching the Green Deal | 10
Figure 1
Educational design model Group Problem Solving (GPS model).
Note: Adapted with permission from “Bèta en technologie in burgerschapsonderwijs”, Tolkamp, J., Guérin, L.,
& Klaver, L. (2019). TechYourFuture.
For the teacher to support students’ group problem solving competencies, the following four didactic
principles are important (Guérin, 2018; Tolkamp et al., 2019): (1) thinking together, (2) arguing, (3) net-
work thinking and (4) decision making. These four didactic principles are elaborated in the next section.
1.2 DIDACTIC PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFIC CITIZENSHIP
In this paragraph the four didactic principles of Scientific Citizenship are outlined.
Principle 1 - Thinking TogetherPrinciple 1 - Thinking Together
The essence of the principle of thinking together is in the
exchange students have with each other. This ensures that
all students are involved and should avoid one student being
dominant from the start. Thinking together is also referred to
as ‘Exploratory Talk’. In these ‘thinking together’ conversations,
students exchange relevant information for joint consideration.
Their devised solutions, arguments and opinions are discussed,
and alternatives may be offered. Students look for similarities to
move forward (this can be done, for instance, with the placemat
method). Without fulfilling this principle, opinions and arguments
remain with the individual and it is impossible to take another
person’s interests into account. By thinking together, the EGD
issue can be more precisely understood, and solutions and
decisions are more strongly substantiated. Note: Adapted with permission from
“Bèta en technologie in burgerschaps-
onderwijs”, Tolkamp, J., Guérin, L., &
Klaver, L. (2019). TechYourFuture.
Part 1 - Teaching the Green Deal | 11
Thinking (learning) together is a group process. To be effective, the thinking process must be carried out
collaboratively. In this way, students can fully benefit from the knowledge and insights gained in the group.
Thinking together in class means that students build on each other’s contributions and ideas by asking
each other questions, critically responding to the shared information and answers, and that all students
actively try to contribute to the shared understanding within the group. Thinking together in a group is sti-
mulated when learners have different types of information on the same topic. Students will need to engage
with each other to explain ideas, listen to each other and ask questions of each other to consider different
perspectives. By aggregating, sharing and disseminating knowledge, their individual as well as common
knowledge is increased and improved. While thinking together, students also learn to formulate arguments
to support or contradict a perspective or solution and to (re)consider jointly thought-out solutions.
The essence of the collaborative thinking principle is that students acquire new knowledge or concepts
by benefiting from each other’s content by relating and integrating it.
Activities for thinking together Activities for thinking together
One activity that is very suitable for practicing ‘thinking together’ with students in class is Socratic conver-
sation. A kind of explorative talk, yet in a Socratic conversation students’ opinions are explicitly included. A
Socratic conversation is a structured dialogue in which students think more deeply about important ques-
tions, such as the EGD issues and sustainability in the classroom. The conversation starts by asking for
students’ opinions on a question or statement that is meaningful to the students. You can do this by having
the students think about a concrete experience of their own that ties in with the question. As a teacher, it is
important to ask in-depth questions. Often this is the why- or how-to question or by applying other questi-
oning strategies. Make sure that not only you as a teacher ask the questions, but that the students question
each other. In this way, they practice groupwise exploring each other’s opinions.
An important feature of a Socratic conversation is that students respect each other’s ideas. The Socra-
tic conversation ends by jointly establishing a conclusion, core assertion or principle.
Principle 2 - ArguingPrinciple 2 - Arguing
In the learning activities of the GPS model, students will often
argue with each other. These arguments are formulated based
on evidence and are used to support positions, solutions,
and decisions. In discussions, learners engage with each
other’s arguments.
The didactic principle of arguing therefore revolves around
collective argumentation skills, the argumentation skills of a
group. These argumentation skills are reflected in interactions as
learners ask for explanations when exchanging evidence, as they
respond substantively and adequately to another’s argument, as
to how an argument is countered, but also how a student deals
with students’ counterarguments. Within this principle, arguing
does not aim to win the discussion, but the arguments (for and
against) are used to reach a deepening of the problem or solution.
The aim of the principle of arguing is that if students are able to
argue well (as a group) the group can come to a better formulation,
a better analysis of the social issue, and ultimately provide a
rationale for the best-fit solution. The quality of the arguments
used in discussion depends, among other things, on the extent
to which students respond to each other’s arguments and on the
knowledge used.
Note: Adapted with permission from
“Bèta en technologie in burgerschaps-
onderwijs”, Tolkamp, J., Guérin, L., &
Klaver, L. (2019). TechYourFuture.
Part 1 - Teaching the Green Deal | 12
Within this principle, it is important that every learner has space to contribute an argument. It is also
important that students listen to each other respectfully. To avoid only the dominant students making
themselves heard, various working methods can be used. Students can be explicitly asked to give their
argument or view on the subject, based on the information they have gathered earlier. When learners
have good argumentation skills, it increases learners’ autonomy. This is because learners learn how
to defend, confirm, or revise their own position or viewpoint. By hearing and using good arguments in
which facts are used to support a position, more knowledge about the issue is automatically gained.
Thus, arguing (together) leads to an enrichment of thinking together.
Activities for arguingActivities for arguing
Using an argumentation bingo card, students can practice identifying different types of arguments, as
well as whether an argument is an opinion and not based on evidence. Some students are assigned to
keep track of the argumentation bingo card during a class discussion and to feed back at the end what
types of arguments they heard.
Principle 3 - Network ThinkingPrinciple 3 - Network Thinking
An important step in the GPS model is to explore the different
perspectives, parties involved and decision levels (such as local
versus global). When learners start network thinking, the
interconnections between these different perspectives and
different levels are established. Learners start actively looking
for the similarities and differences in the perspectives and levels.
Network thinking reveals the network and interconnections
of a social problem, this is also called multiperspectivity.
The aim of the principle of network thinking is for students to
understand different perspectives. Thus, different people are
involved (actors) who each view the problem, but also the solution,
in their own way. The aim of network thinking is not to arrive at
a solution that meets all needs. That is impossible, because every
change has consequences, which can be positive and negative
and have a different impact per actor and level.
Starting from the principle of network thinking, learners learn
to understand the complexity of the issue by getting to know
different actors, the diverse interests of the actors and looking
at the issue from different contexts. Through various learning activities, interconnections of different
perspectives that were not immediately visible at first glance are made visible.
Activities for network thinkingActivities for network thinking
For students to practice network thinking, there are various learning activities. These provide students
with new insights and make connections between different insights. For example, role-plays give
students the opportunity to learn about the different perspectives and interests of actors involved. For
Multiperspectivity - Sustainable clothing
For example, a cotton farmer might have a different view than an environmentalist on how to save
water when producing clothes.
A solution that works fine at the local level is not always a meaningful solution at the global level.
Note: Adapted with permission from
“Bèta en technologie in burgerschaps-
onderwijs”, Tolkamp, J., Guérin, L., &
Klaver, L. (2019). TechYourFuture.
Part 1 - Teaching the Green Deal | 13
role-playing, several passports can be made available for each actor, but students can also work with a
blank passport and an assignment to fill it in for different actors.
Other activities include showing films, telling narratives or introducing students to different actors
through their own research, such as a company that makes toys from wood and a company that
manufactures toys from plastic or the living conditions of an agricultural worker in the Netherlands
and in Romania.
The role of visual supportThe role of visual support
To support learners in “seeing” the connections in a network, visual supports are very useful. Visual
support, such as a network map or a mind map, unburdens working memory. Using these visual
supports, relationships and connections are visualized.
Principle 4 - Decision Making Principle 4 - Decision Making
The decision-making principle brings together all the skills and
acquired knowledge of the other principles. Students can make
decisions group-wise, when they formulate a solution on a societal
issue where they use the knowledge gained during ‘thinking
together’ and ‘network thinking’ to form arguments (principle
‘arguing’) and then evaluate the solutions and decide together.
In a Green Deal issue (or socioscientific issue), making decisions
is a complex process. This is due to the number of different
actors involved, the knowledge required and the level at which
the issue is situated (local, regional, national or global). In
addition, every solution has both positive and negative
consequences. By applying the principles of ‘thinking together’
and ‘network thinking’, the complexity of the issue can be better
understood and addressed.
When no attention is paid to making an informed decision, the
issue is simplified, and the most logical and easiest solution is
often chosen: a ‘short-cut’. This short-cut is then made because
it is difficult to view different perspectives, knowledge, and
aspects when making decisions. However, the most obvious solution is not immediately the best
solution. When the group makes a decision on which solution is the most appropriate option based on
the knowledge and insights gained, learners are supported to make moral and informed trade-offs. To
prevent students from making a short-cut, there are various forms of work that can support students
in the process of making a decision, such as the expert method elaborated below.
Making informed decisions promotes learners’ autonomy. They are given a voice. It is not the teacher
who decides what is right, but the students themselves who learn to weigh arguments and make a
decision together.
Activities for Decision MakingActivities for Decision Making
The Expert Method (also known as jigsaw, see Figure 2 for a visual representation of the activity) is an
effective activity in which skills such as cooperation, communication and critical thinking are practiced.
In a structured approach, groups of students delve into a topic, these groups are the so-called ‘expert
groups’. In the expert group, students delve into a particular piece of information or an actor. You can
give the students sources or hints where they can gather information about their specific topic.
Note: Adapted with permission from
“Bèta en technologie in burgerschaps-
onderwijs”, Tolkamp, J., Guérin, L., &
Klaver, L. (2019). TechYourFuture.
Part 1 - Teaching the Green Deal | 14
New groups are then formed, the ‘jigsaw’ groups in which decisions will be made. Each jigsaw group
includes one student from an expertise group. In the jigsaw groups, students share their findings and
knowledge from their expertise. After all the information has been shared within the jigsaw group, the
students start asking each other questions and discussing the topic. Based on the information within
the jigsaw group, a solution can be chosen. Arriving at a solution or decision can occur within the
jigsaw groups, as well as with the whole class.
Figure 2
Visual representation of the Expert or Jigsaw Method
REFERENCES
Guérin, L. J. F. (2018). Group problem solving as citizenship education: Mainstream idea of participation
revisited. Saxion Progressive Education University Press. https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/
group-problem-solving-as-citizenship-education-mainstream-idea-of
Klaver, L. T. (2025). Do your students engage with socioscientific issues? Socioscientific capital
in civic science education. Saxion Progressive Education University Press. https://doi.
org/10.3990/1.9789036563499
Tolkamp, J., Guérin, L., & Klaver, L. (2019). Bèta en technologie in burgerschapsonderwijs.
TechYourFuture. https://www.techyourfuture.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Praktijkboek-Be-
ta-Burgerschap.pdf
UNESCO (2020). Education for sustainable development: A roadmap. UNESCO. https://doi.
org/10.54675/YFRE1448
United Nations (n.d.). The 17 goals of sustainable development. https://sdgs.un.org/goals
Part 2 - Design of the EASE course | 15
PA RT 2
Design of the EASE course
2.1 DESIGN PRINCIPLES
To develop the professional development (PD) programme, the literature on effective teacher
professionalization was reviewed and compared. General review studies on teacher professionalization
and more specific studies focusing on professionalization with respect to the teaching of socio-scientific
issues (SSI) were examined. Based hereon, seven effective principles were established, which form the
basis for the design of the teacher professionalization. Table 1 depicts the found design principles and
the sources that mention them.
Table 1
Design principles teacher professionalization
Principle Sources Session
1. PD systematically integrates SSI theory
and practice.
Timperley et al. (2007)
Van den Bergh et al. (2014)
Van Driel et al. (2012)
All sessions
2. PD provides opportunities to take part in
active learning related to teachers’ daily
work (developing tasks, assessments,
observation, reflection, analysing student
learning, presenting theory).
Firestone et al. (2020)
Timperley et al. (2007)
Van Driel et al. (2012)
Session 1, part 1 and 2
Session 2, part 2
Session 3, part 2
Session 4, part 2 and 3
Session 5, part 2 and 3
Session 6, part 2
3. PD is collaborative in nature. Teachers
develop their understanding and skills of
SSI subject matter and student learning
through interaction, argument-driven
discourse and collaborative reflection.
Kinskey & Zeidler (2020)
Lee & Yang (2019)
Mukagihana et al. (2021)
Van Driel et al. (2012)
Session 1, part 2
Session 2, part 2 and 3
Session 3, part 3
Session 4, part 2 and 3
Session 5, part 2 and 3
Session 6, part 2
4. PD is coherent in terms of its goals and
design, and based on a theory of
improvement that specifies how features
of the intervention(s) relate to each other
and the goals of the PD.
Timperley et al. (2007)
Van Driel et al. (2012)
All sessions
5. PD provides detailed SSI content related
to the instructional programme.
Mukagihana et al. (2021)
Timperley et al. (2007)
Van Driel et al. (2012)
Session 1, part 2
Session 2, part 1, 2 and 3
Session 3, part 1
Session 4, part 1
Session 5, part 1
6. PD systematically includes modelling of
SSI classroom practices by a teacher
educator or experienced teacher
(opportunities to see approaches
implemented in real or simulated
classroom situations) and engages
teachers as SSI learners (make implicit
knowledge explicit, examine own and
others' beliefs, consideration of the
nature of science, appreciation of
complexity).
Evagorou & Mauriz (2017)
Gray & Bryce (2006)
Leung (2021)
Struyven et al. (2010)
Timperley et al. (2007)
Van Velzen (2013)
Session 1, part 1 and 2
Session 2, part 2 and 3
Session 6, part 2 if guest speakers
are invited and they present
something
7. PD includes redesigning SSI lesson
plans based on reflection on data of
one's own classroom (being observed,
observing students, questioning
students) and providing theory informed
feedback to each other.
Foulk et al. (2020)
Kinskey & Zeidler (2020)
Lee & Yang (2019)
Leung (2021)
Schnellert et al. (2008)
Timperley et al. (2007)
Van Driel et al. (2012)
Session 2, part 2
Session 3, part 2 and 3
Session 4, part 2
Session 5, part 2 and 3
Session 6, part 1
Part 2 - Design of the EASE course | 16
The above-mentioned design principles were used to design the teacher training course. The final
course programme will be shown in paragraph 2.4. The column ‘Session’ in Table 1 shows in advance
in which part of the programme the different design principles recur.
2.2 GOALS OF THE EASE COURSE
The goals of the EASE course are based on literature on teaching about SSI and the EGD, European
Education for Sustainable Development (EESD), teacher professionalization for it, and the challenges
teachers face when it comes to teaching SSI/EGD/EESD. In general, the EESD goals align with the
recommendations in the report on the project Teacher Education for ESD in the Asia-Pacific (UNESCO,
2019) and the UNECE document Competencies for ESD teachers (UNECE, 2008).
Below the more specific goals concerning the participants’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes are presented.
A. Knowledge about EESD A. Knowledge about EESD
1. Knowledge of the connection between curriculum standards, citizenship education, SSI education,
EESD, and the EGD.
2. Knowledge of the essence of SSI (Evagorou [2015] and Evagorou et al. [2014] in Evagorou & Puig
Mauriz, 2017)
a. Knowledge of and about the science involved in SSI (Chen & Xiao, 2021; Garrecht et al., 2022;
Kilinç et al., 2013; Kinskey & Zeidler, 2020; Kokolaki & Stavrou, 2022; Özden, 2015; Sadler,
2011)
b. Knowledge of the moral/ethical considerations regarding SSI (Garrecht et al., 2022; Kinskey &
Zeidler, 2020; Kokolaki & Stavrou, 2022)
c. Knowledge of the social considerations associated with SSI (Kokolaki & Stavrou, 2022;
Sadler, 2011)
3. Knowledge about the educational principles for group problem solving.
a. Knowledge of argumentation and the evaluation of arguments (Kinskey & Zeidler, 2020)
4. Knowledge about the resources students bring into EESD (Klaver et al., 2023).
Principle Sources Session
1. PD systematically integrates SSI theory
and practice.
Timperley et al. (2007)
Van den Bergh et al. (2014)
Van Driel et al. (2012)
All sessions
2. PD provides opportunities to take part in
active learning related to teachers’ daily
work (developing tasks, assessments,
observation, reflection, analysing student
learning, presenting theory).
Firestone et al. (2020)
Timperley et al. (2007)
Van Driel et al. (2012)
Session 1, part 1 and 2
Session 2, part 2
Session 3, part 2
Session 4, part 2 and 3
Session 5, part 2 and 3
Session 6, part 2
3. PD is collaborative in nature. Teachers
develop their understanding and skills of
SSI subject matter and student learning
through interaction, argument-driven
discourse and collaborative reflection.
Kinskey & Zeidler (2020)
Lee & Yang (2019)
Mukagihana et al. (2021)
Van Driel et al. (2012)
Session 1, part 2
Session 2, part 2 and 3
Session 3, part 3
Session 4, part 2 and 3
Session 5, part 2 and 3
Session 6, part 2
4. PD is coherent in terms of its goals and
design, and based on a theory of
improvement that specifies how features
of the intervention(s) relate to each other
and the goals of the PD.
Timperley et al. (2007)
Van Driel et al. (2012)
All sessions
5. PD provides detailed SSI content related
to the instructional programme.
Mukagihana et al. (2021)
Timperley et al. (2007)
Van Driel et al. (2012)
Session 1, part 2
Session 2, part 1, 2 and 3
Session 3, part 1
Session 4, part 1
Session 5, part 1
6. PD systematically includes modelling of
SSI classroom practices by a teacher
educator or experienced teacher
(opportunities to see approaches
implemented in real or simulated
classroom situations) and engages
teachers as SSI learners (make implicit
knowledge explicit, examine own and
others' beliefs, consideration of the
nature of science, appreciation of
complexity).
Evagorou & Mauriz (2017)
Gray & Bryce (2006)
Leung (2021)
Struyven et al. (2010)
Timperley et al. (2007)
Van Velzen (2013)
Session 1, part 1 and 2
Session 2, part 2 and 3
Session 6, part 2 if guest speakers
are invited and they present
something
7. PD includes redesigning SSI lesson
plans based on reflection on data of
one's own classroom (being observed,
observing students, questioning
students) and providing theory informed
feedback to each other.
Foulk et al. (2020)
Kinskey & Zeidler (2020)
Lee & Yang (2019)
Leung (2021)
Schnellert et al. (2008)
Timperley et al. (2007)
Van Driel et al. (2012)
Session 2, part 2
Session 3, part 2 and 3
Session 4, part 2
Session 5, part 2 and 3
Session 6, part 1
Principle Sources Session
1. PD systematically integrates SSI theory
and practice.
Timperley et al. (2007)
Van den Bergh et al. (2014)
Van Driel et al. (2012)
All sessions
2. PD provides opportunities to take part in
active learning related to teachers’ daily
work (developing tasks, assessments,
observation, reflection, analysing student
learning, presenting theory).
Firestone et al. (2020)
Timperley et al. (2007)
Van Driel et al. (2012)
Session 1, part 1 and 2
Session 2, part 2
Session 3, part 2
Session 4, part 2 and 3
Session 5, part 2 and 3
Session 6, part 2
3. PD is collaborative in nature. Teachers
develop their understanding and skills of
SSI subject matter and student learning
through interaction, argument-driven
discourse and collaborative reflection.
Kinskey & Zeidler (2020)
Lee & Yang (2019)
Mukagihana et al. (2021)
Van Driel et al. (2012)
Session 1, part 2
Session 2, part 2 and 3
Session 3, part 3
Session 4, part 2 and 3
Session 5, part 2 and 3
Session 6, part 2
4. PD is coherent in terms of its goals and
design, and based on a theory of
improvement that specifies how features
of the intervention(s) relate to each other
and the goals of the PD.
Timperley et al. (2007)
Van Driel et al. (2012)
All sessions
5. PD provides detailed SSI content related
to the instructional programme.
Mukagihana et al. (2021)
Timperley et al. (2007)
Van Driel et al. (2012)
Session 1, part 2
Session 2, part 1, 2 and 3
Session 3, part 1
Session 4, part 1
Session 5, part 1
6. PD systematically includes modelling of
SSI classroom practices by a teacher
educator or experienced teacher
(opportunities to see approaches
implemented in real or simulated
classroom situations) and engages
teachers as SSI learners (make implicit
knowledge explicit, examine own and
others' beliefs, consideration of the
nature of science, appreciation of
complexity).
Evagorou & Mauriz (2017)
Gray & Bryce (2006)
Leung (2021)
Struyven et al. (2010)
Timperley et al. (2007)
Van Velzen (2013)
Session 1, part 1 and 2
Session 2, part 2 and 3
Session 6, part 2 if guest speakers
are invited and they present
something
7. PD includes redesigning SSI lesson
plans based on reflection on data of
one's own classroom (being observed,
observing students, questioning
students) and providing theory informed
feedback to each other.
Foulk et al. (2020)
Kinskey & Zeidler (2020)
Lee & Yang (2019)
Leung (2021)
Schnellert et al. (2008)
Timperley et al. (2007)
Van Driel et al. (2012)
Session 2, part 2
Session 3, part 2 and 3
Session 4, part 2
Session 5, part 2 and 3
Session 6, part 1
Part 2 - Design of the EASE course | 17
B. Skills regarding EESD B. Skills regarding EESD
1. The ability to redesign learning activities according to the educational principles for group problem
solving: (1) argumentation, (2) connected learning, (3) decision making and (4) thinking together.
2. The ability to stimulate students’ group problem solving skills.
a. The ability to help students make connections between science, SSI (Kinskey & Zeidler, 2020;
Kokolaki & Stavrou, 2022), and the EGD.
b. The ability to facilitate moral and ethical development of students (Garrecht et al., 2022;
Kinskey & Zeidler, 2020)
c. The ability to facilitate discussion and argumentation in the classroom, evaluate students’ SSI
arguments during the discussions in the classroom, and provide feedback (Bossér et al., 2015;
Chen & Xiao, 2021; Evagorou [2015] and Evagorou et al. [2014] in Evagorou & Puig Mauriz,
2017; Kinskey & Zeidler, 2020)
d. The ability to facilitate science learning in the context of SSI (Kinskey & Zeidler, 2020; Kokolaki
& Stavrou, 2022).
3. The ability to value students’ resources in EESD (Bossér et al., 2015; Klaver et al., 2023).
C. Attitudes towards EESD C. Attitudes towards EESD
1. Being interested in SSI (Chen & Xiao, 2021; Kilinç et al., 2013) and the EGD
2. Feeling responsible for addressing SSIs (Chen & Xiao, 2021; Kilinç et al., 2013) and the EGD in the
classroom
3. Feeling secure about the uncertainties and unpredictability related to SSI (Garrecht et al., 2022)
a. the handing of control to students (Bossér et al., 2015; Chen & Xiao, 2021; Garrecht et al.,
2022; Kahn, 2021; Sadler, 2011),
b. being honest about knowledge limitations (Sadler, 2011)
c. willingness to position themselves as knowledge contributors rather than the sole authority
(Bossér et al., 2015; Sadler, 2011)
d. confidence to touch upon controversial aspects (Bossér et al., 2015; Chen & Xiao, 2021;
Garrecht et al., 2022)
e. open-mindedness to student positions that differ from the teacher’s own (Kahn, 2021)
The above goals that relate to participants’ knowledge, skills and attitudes are translated in the study
guide into student learning objectives that meet the following requirements:
• They form the basis for the design and implementation of teaching and assessment.
• They indicate to students what they are expected to learn during the course. They also indicate
what will be tested and assessed.
• They give (to colleagues and external institutions) an impression of the teaching and of the
minimum level achieved by successful students.
The learning objectives as they are presented in the study guide are as follows.
After the EASE course, participants will be able to:
1. Describe the vision of different actors for different themes of the European Green Deal.
2. Draw up their own lesson objectives for a lesson in which a European sustainable development
problem is central, from the core objectives of ‘Citizenship’ and ‘Orientation to yourself and the
world’ (Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap, 2006; SLO, 2024).
3. Explain to primary school students about different themes within the EGD (both from a scientific
and social point of view), connecting to and using students’ prior knowledge, experiences, and
beliefs.
4. Use the four didactic principles when redesigning learning activities.
5. Guide learners while applying the four didactic principles and using effective teaching approaches.
Part 2 - Design of the EASE course | 18
2.3 FEEDBACK IN THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING THE COURSE
After finishing the first version of the EASE course five experts studied the study guide and the
accompanying script for teacher educators and provided these documents with feedback. Below, this
feedback is discussed and it is explained how the feedback is used to improve the course programme.
Teacher experienceTeacher experience
The first issue the experts highlighted, was that the course relies too much on experienced teachers
who 1) are familiar with various activities to enable students to collaborate and 2) know how to guide
students in a classroom or group discussion. In response to the first issue, we added in the study guide
for each step of the GPS model an appendix describing an activity that can be applied in the step in
question. Less experienced teachers (such as pre-service teachers) may use these descriptions, more
experienced teachers adapt these activities according to their own insights or use a self-devised activity
appropriate to their practice situation. Furthermore, to support participants in guiding students during
group discussions, a table of conversation techniques has been added in the study guide. During the
second meeting, the participants are asked to study a transcript of a conversation of a teacher with a
group of students and to determine which conversation techniques in the table are used by the teacher
and with which of those techniques the discussion could have been deepened. By discussing these
questions with each other, the participants become aware of the effect of the conversation techniques,
lowering the threshold for applying them. For experienced teachers the focus is more on how the con-
versation techniques can be applied in the specific situation of the EGD issues, while for less experien-
ced teachers it is more about mastering the techniques themselves.
Pedagogical climatePedagogical climate
Another point raised by one of the experts is that the course focuses mainly on didactics and hardly on
pedagogy while creating a good pedagogical climate is important during collaborative assignments as
recommended in the EASE course. To improve this, we provided standard questions focusing on the
pedagogical climate to assist participants in providing each other adequate peer feedback in sessions 3
and 4. For example: ‘how do you ensure a good pedagogical climate when the students work together in
groups?’ As participants pose these questions to each other, they reflect on the consequences concerning
the pedagogical climate of their lesson design and consider possible improvements. Although we
considered raising the subject of pedagogical climate more thoroughly in the EASE-programme, we
decided not to do so since this subject is already sufficiently covered in other parts of teacher education.
Therefore, the EASE programme refers pre-service teachers to the knowledge addressed in those specific
parts of teacher education. Participating in-service teachers are expected to be acquainted with the
strategies related to the pedagogical climate or at least possess such knowledge within the team.
GoalsGoals
The next issue several experts drew attention to is that the goals were not sufficiently sharply
formulated resulting in participants not having a clear idea of the success criteria. So, we revised
the goals and formulated them more specifically, focusing on output. For example, instead of ‘After
the course, the participant will be able to set goals for a lesson focusing on a sustainable development
problem’, this goal was formulated as follows: ‘After the course, the participant will be able to draw up
their own lesson objectives for a lesson in which an EGD theme is central, based on the curriculum
standards of “Citizenship” and “Orientation to Yourself and the World” (Ministerie van Onderwijs,
Cultuur en Wetenschap, 2006; SLO, 2024)’.
Subject knowledgeSubject knowledge
Two experts mentioned that participants may not have the assumed prior knowledge of science. In
the script, participants are assumed to have a basic knowledge of, for example, ‘enhanced greenhouse
effect’, but the experts indicated that this is certainly not always the case. They therefore recommend
a more extensive exploration of the underlying natural science knowledge. As a result, we adapted the
programme of the first meeting and added an explanation by the teacher educator to clarify the four
Part 2 - Design of the EASE course | 19
issues in relation to the Green Deal: 1) the enhanced greenhouse effect, 2) loss of biodiversity through
nitrogen emissions, 3) loss of biodiversity through pesticide use, and 4) issues surrounding waste
(including plastic soup).
Apart from the above-mentioned issues, the experts also mentioned several minor suggestions, such
as: some textual adjustments to make the study guide easier to read, consistent use of terms, explaining
certain terms in more detail and making more specific reference to the appendices. By following these
suggestions and addressing the issues, the programme and the accompanying study guide have been
improved significantly.
2.4 THE FINAL EASE COURSE
Structure of the sessions Structure of the sessions
In the EASE course, teachers and students learn how to shape (their own) sustainable development
lessons using the group problem solving approach (GPS lesson model) and the four didactic principles.
The full course consists of six sessions that are designed based on the seven design principles for
EESD. During the first four meetings, participants reflect on the EGD issues and the elaboration of the
four didactic principles and how these take shape in practice within the GPS lesson model. During the
last two meetings, the participants are designing their own lessons. Table 2 depicts an overview of the
sessions. In most cases participants will try out (a part of) the designed lessons in their own practice
between the 5th and 6th session, however this is not obligatory.
Table 2
EASE course overview with content and didactical themes per session
In view of different types of participants, for example, participants with significant teaching experience
or those having limited time, the EASE course can be shortened.
Three scenarios are:
• Try out – 2 sessions
• Intermediate – 4 sessions
• Top gun – 6 sessions
The programme below describes the full ‘Top gun’ scenario. In the ‘Try out’ version only session 1 and
2 are included, in the ‘Intermediate’ version session 2 and 3 are merged, as well as session 4 and 5.
Ideally, each meeting takes 3 hours. If this is not possible, decisions need to be made to create
meetings that fit within 1,5-hours and meet the goals (see paragraph 2.2) and the design principles
(see paragraph 2.1) for the EASE course. During the programme, participants are asked to complete a
preparation assignment prior to the meetings.
Session EGD Issue GPS model step(s) Didactical Principle
1 Increase of CO2, decline of biodiversity,
and plastic waste.
1 and 2 All principles in general
2 Costs and benefits of clean energy. 2 Arguing/thinking together
3 The own environment 2 and 3 Network thinking
4 Climate action 3 and 4 Decision making
5 Own choice All steps All principles
6 Own choice All steps All principles
Part 2 - Design of the EASE course | 20
Description of the sessions Description of the sessions
Session 1: Learning about the European Green Deal issues Session 1: Learning about the European Green Deal issues
In order to obtain an impression of where the EASE course is about, prior to this session, students
read through the introduction to the study guide (Appendix A). Then the first session starts with an
introduction of the issues addressed in the European Green Deal (EGD), followed by a demonstration
of a GPS lesson. Herein, participants experience a lesson on EGD themself. By reflecting on this lesson,
the participants discover how the GPS lesson model and the didactic principles work in practice. The
session ends with the assignment to try-out the first two steps of the GPS model in practice.
Session 2: Thinking together and arguing Session 2: Thinking together and arguing
Prior to this meeting, participants deepen their understanding of the content by reading an article on the
global warming issue. They also conduct and record a talk with some students (3 or 4) on that topic. In
the second session the participants use the (transcripts of) audio recordings to evaluate their students’
argumentation in small groups using guiding questions like: what do you think of your students’
argumentation? How did the activity itself go? How did the didactic principle of argumentation work for
you? Were you satisfied, would you do it differently another time? During this evaluation they examine
their students’ praxis of the didactic principles of thinking together and argumentation. After that the
participants experience the principles arguing and network thinking by performing a role-play around
the energy transition. Taking different perspectives is central to this.
Session 3: Network thinking Session 3: Network thinking
Prior to this session, participants read an article on the various processes occurring to make the
Netherlands climate neutral and Appendix A and H of the study guide about Network thinking.
Furthermore, they take stock of what climate and environmental issues are going on in their group
by using an appropriate work format for this (for example Appendix F of the study guide). During the
session, participants create a network map around a topic within their students’ perceptions. From
there, they develop a lesson design for their own class in which their students have to create a network
map and learn how to take different perspectives. This session ends with the assignment to try out the
lesson design in their own practice and collect data on what their colleagues and/or students think of
their EGD-lesson.
Session 4: Decision making Session 4: Decision making
Prior to the session the participants have tried out their EGD-lesson and collected data. The session
starts with a discussion of the didactic principles network thinking and decision making. Then, in
groups, participants discuss how they experienced practicing their EGD-lesson and the collected data.
Next, the participants discuss how teachers in general should guide students in the process of making
decisions together and how to review with students the process of thinking together, arguing, network
thinking, and decision making (the 3rd and 4th steps of the GPS model). In groups, participants figure
out how they, as a teacher, can ensure that the students make joint decisions based on arguments.
Finally, the participants discuss with which actions their students would probably like to contribute
to solving the problem using the network drawn in session 3. This session ends with the assignment
to study the Scientific Citizenship teaching materials on file and choose lessons suitable for the
participant’s own practice.
Session 5: Designing EGD-lessonsSession 5: Designing EGD-lessons
This session starts with an introduction about the EGD outlining the broader picture (i.e., connection
to global approaches to sustainable development) and discusses which of the Scientific Citizenship
teaching materials participants think fit with the EGD and are suitable for their own group (and why).
Then, groups of participants who want to work with (roughly) the same teaching materials are formed.
Within those groups the participants (re)design a lesson series on one of the EGD issues for their own
group, according to the GPS model. The design should clearly indicate what science knowledge students
gain and how the four didactic principles are applied. In the final part of the session, participants are
Part 2 - Design of the EASE course | 21
instructed to decide how to test the designed lesson series by collecting feedback from students or
colleagues. If possible, they apply the designed lessons in their class.
Session 6: PresentationsSession 6: Presentations
In the pre-service teacher training, for this session, guests (e.g., mentors or colleagues of participants’
internship such as the citizenship/culture/science coordinator or school director) are invited.
Prior to this session, participants prepare a short presentation (pitch) of the lesson series design and
the feedback from their colleagues and students. In the session, the participants pitch their lesson
design, the collected feedback, and their recommendations for practice, followed by questions from the
other participants and a short discussion. In the pre-service teacher training the guests act as judges
and determine which lesson series they thought was best and why.
The EASE study guide and teacher educator script can be found in Appendix A and B, respectively.
REFERENCES
Bossér, U., Lundin, M., Lindahl, M., & Linder, C. (2015). Challenges faced by teachers implementing
socio-scientific issues as core elements in their classroom practices. European Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 3(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9429
Chen, L., & Xiao, S. (2021). Perceptions, challenges and coping strategies of science teachers in
teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32(100377),
1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377
Evagorou, M., & Puig Mauriz, B. (2017). Engaging elementary school pre-service teachers in
modeling a socioscientific issue as a way to help them appreciate the social aspects of science. In-
ternational Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 113–123. https://doi.
org/10.18404/ijemst.99074
Foulk, J. A., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. M. (2020). Facilitating preservice teachers’ socioscientific
issues curriculum design in teacher education. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 5(3), 1–18.
https://innovations.theaste.org/facilitating-preservice-teachers-socioscientific-issues-curricu-
lum-design-in-teacher-education/
Garrecht, C., Czinczel, B., Kretschmann, M., & Reiss, M. J. (2022). ‘Should we be doing it, should we
not be doing it, who could be harmed?’: Addressing ethical issues in science education. Science and
Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00342-2
Gray, D. S., & Bryce, T. (2006). Socio-scientific issues in science education: Implications for the
professional development of teachers. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(2), 171–192. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03057640600718489
Kahn, S. (2021). No child too young: A teacher research study of socioscientific issues implementation
at the elementary level. In W. A. Powell (Ed.), Socioscientific issues-based instruction for scientific
literacy development (pp. 1–30). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4558-4.ch001
Kilinç, A., Kartal, T., Eroǧlu, B., Demiral, Ü., Afacan, Ö., Polat, D., Demirci Guler, M. P., & Görgülü, Ö.
(2013). Preservice science teachers’ efficacy regarding a socioscientific issue: A belief system ap-
proach. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2455–2475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-
9368-8
Kinskey, M., & Zeidler, D. (2020). Elementary preservice teachers’ challenges in designing and
implementing socioscientific issues-based lessons. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1826079
Klaver, L. T., Sins, P. H. M., Walma van der Molen, J. H., & Guérin, L. J. F. (2023). Strengthening
science education through attention to student resources: A conceptualization of socioscienti-
fic capital. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(5), 1162–1192. https://doi.org/10.1002/
tea.21827
Kokolaki, A., & Stavrou, D. (2022). Pre-service primary teachers develop teaching artifacts on
contemporary socioscientific issues. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.
1080/1046560X.2022.2078546
Part 2 - Design of the EASE course | 22
Lee, H., & Yang, J. (2019). Science teachers taking their first steps toward teaching socioscientific
issues through collaborative action research. Research in Science Education, 49(1), 51–71. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9614-6
Leung, J. S. C. (2021). Shifting the teaching beliefs of preservice science teachers about socioscientific
issues in a teacher education course. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10177-y
Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap. (2006). Kerndoelenboekje basisonderwijs.
Ministerie van Algemene Zaken. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rappor-
ten/2006/04/28/kerndoelenboekje
Mukagihana, J., Nsanganwimana, F., & Aurah, C. M. (2022). Effect of instructional methods on
pre-service science teachers learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Education and Information Techno-
logies, 27, 2137-2163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10696-9
Özden, M. (2015). Prospective elementary school teachers’ views about socioscientific issues:
A concurrent parallel design study. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(3),
333–354.
Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues-based education: What we know about science education
in the context of SSI. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: teaching, learning
and research (pp. 355–369). Springer Science Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-
007-1159-4_20
Schnellert, L. M., Butler, D. L., & Higginson, S. K. (2008). Co-constructors of data, co-constructors of
meaning: Teacher professional development in an age of accountability. Teaching and Teacher Edu-
cation, 24(3), 725–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.04.001
SLO. (2024). Conceptkerndoelen leergebied burgerschap + toelichtingsdocument. SLO.
https://www.slo.nl/publicaties/@23473/conceptkerndoelen-leergebied-burgerschap/
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development.
Best evidence synthesis iteration. Ministry of Education. https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/pu-
blications/series/2515/15341
UNECE (2008). Competencies for ESD teachers; A framework to integrate ESD in the curriculum of
teacher training institutes. https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/esd/inf.meeting.docs/EGC/
CSCT_Handbook_11_01_08.pdf.
UNESCO (2019). Report on the project: Teacher Education for ESD in the Asia-Pacific Region.
http://ceteesd.ed.okayama-u.ac.jp/pdf/200511.pdf.
Van Driel, J. H., Meirink, J. A., van Veen, K., & Zwart, R. C. (2012). Current trends and missing links
in studies on teacher professional development in science education: A review of design features
and quality of research. Studies in Science Education, 48(2), 129–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/030
57267.2012.738020
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 23
PA RT 3
Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course
To find out whether the final version of the EASE course meets the set goals described in session 2.2,
the course was implemented in different groups of pre-service and in-service teachers and evaluated.
In this part, first the implementation is outlined followed by a qualitative and a quantitative evaluation.
3.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EASE COURSE
OverviewOverview
The EASE course has been implemented in five different groups of teachers. In November/December
2023 the first implementation occurred in Rotterdam with a group of twenty parttime pre-service
teachers. Unfortunately, this was cancelled after two sessions because the participants did not think
the EASE course fitted in the programme of their teacher training. This will be discussed more in-depth
below. The second implementation was also in Rotterdam with 15 pre-service teachers. The third
implementation was with a group of pre-service teachers (3rd years). In this case the EASE course was
embedded in an international minor (Saxion minor Innovative Educational Approaches). Session 1, 2,
and 3 were carried out with the whole group in the Netherlands. Since most students had an internship
abroad, the 4th (and final) session was carried out online in small groups. The participants were 21
Dutch and 2 Italian students and 1 student from the United Kingdom. The fourth implementation was
with a large group of fifty two pre-service teachers (3rd year of teacher training). This group was split into
four groups since it was not considered feasible to carry out the learning activities in a large group. The
fifth and final implementation was with a group of 12 in-service teachers of a primary school in Enschede.
Table 3 summarises the five implementations carried out and the type of data collected.
Table 3
Overview of the various implementations of EASE course
Brief recap of the first implementation in Rotterdam, November 2023 Brief recap of the first implementation in Rotterdam, November 2023
The participants in the implementation of the EASE course in Rotterdam were part-time students already
working as teachers in a primary school. These students did not see the relevance of the didactics,
deliberative democracy did not resonate immediately. Furthermore, the course strongly aimed at primary
upper grades and was therefore not considered as relevant by part of the group. Another problem was
that these students were mostly in their thirties and had already had a lot of practical teaching experience.
The six sessions version was therefore experienced as too much dry practice; they would rather try out
the theory immediately into practice. Moreover, the GPS model can only be applied if certain conditions
are met (concerning class climate, prior knowledge level, cooperation skills).
Group Period EASE course type Participants N Data collection
Rotterdam
parttime
Nov. – Dec. 2023 Cancelled after 2 sessions Pre-service teachers 15 Pre-test initial questionnaire
Rotterdam
Bachelor
March - Jun. 2024 4 sessions (intermediate) Pre-service teachers 15 Pre- and post-
questionnaires
Saxion Minor Feb. – Jun. 2024 4 sessions (intermediate) Pre-service teachers 24 Pre- and post-
questionnaires
Saxion Bachelor May – Jul. 2024 6 sessions (top gun) Pre-service teachers 52 Pre- and post-
questionnaires, two focus
group interviews
School Sept. - Nov. 2024 4 sessions (intermediate) In-service teachers 12 Pre- and post-
questionnaires, one focus
group interview
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 24
Based on the comments above we made some changes to the programme. In the first place, we added
examples of how the Green Deal lessons could be applied in the lower grades of primary school. Further,
we focused less on dry practice and more on practical execution. In the following implementations, all
participants performed one or more lessons in practice between the second to last and last session.
Recruiting in-service teachersRecruiting in-service teachers
Finding in-service teachers willing to participate in the EASE course was a challenge. This is possibly
due to the teacher’s deficit in the Netherlands resulting in teachers who are fully committed to the
classroom and have no time left to attend training. In addition, a citizenship coordinator of the
municipality of Utrecht explained to us that many schools in the Netherlands are not yet ready for the
EASE teacher training. They are still thinking about how citizenship can have a place in the curriculum.
Finally, we found a primary school in Enschede who was ready and eager to participate in the EASE
course. This school is in a part of the Netherlands where the shortage of teachers is less acute.
In addition, this school has been focusing on citizenship for some time.
3.2 QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF THE EASE COURSE
This paragraph reports and discusses the methods and results of the focus group interviews about two
implementations of the EASE course. First, the implementation of the top gun version with pre-service
teachers and then the intermediate version with in-service teachers.
MethodMethod
To evaluate the EASE teacher training courses, we organized three focus groups. Regarding the first
implementation, both pre-service teachers and teacher educators were interviewed, regarding the
second implementation only in-service teachers were interviewed. All groups were asked to reflect
on their experiences, specifically regarding their participation in the EASE courses, which focused on
citizenship education within the framework of the European Green Deal.
Focus group 1: Pre-service teachers (top gun version)Focus group 1: Pre-service teachers (top gun version)
The first focus group comprised seven pre-service teachers who had completed an EASE module
(“Beroepstaak”). These third-year bachelor’s degree pre-service teachers (aged 19–27) participated
in the EASE training while they also did internships in upper and middle primary education, as well
as in special education. It was a convenient sample but there were participants from all subgroups.
The focus group followed a semi-structured interview guide, which began with informed consent,
emphasizing the anonymization and secure storage of data according to ethical guidelines of our
university. Participants were informed that there were no right or wrong answers, and the session
was recorded for later analysis.
The discussion included the following questions:
• How did you experience the sessions?
• What are your thoughts on the course goals?
• What did you think about the course structure and the teaching methods?
• How did you find the assignments, and what did you learn (in terms of subject matter, didactics,
knowledge, skills, and attitudes)?
• Is this knowledge applicable to your future teaching practice? Why or why not?
• Was there anything missing from the course or areas that could be improved?
• Would you recommend the course to others? Why or why not?
The focus group lasted approximately one hour and concluded with an open invitation for participants
to add any final thoughts.
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 25
Focus group 2: Educators (top gun version)Focus group 2: Educators (top gun version)
The second focus group comprised of all four educators from various disciplines (mathematics,
language, technology, and history) who had delivered the EASE lessons. Led by two interviewers,
this group focused on the educators’ experiences in teaching the course.
The interview followed a similar informed consent process and included questions on:
• Their experience delivering the EASE lessons.
• Opinions on the developed materials.
• Student motivation levels.
• Their assessment of how much the students learned.
• The strengths and weaknesses of the teacher training course.
• Suggestions for improvement and whether the course should be integrated into the teacher training
curriculum.
The educators’ focus group lasted 30 minutes and also ended with an opportunity for participants to
share any additional comments.
Focus group 3: In-service teachers (intermediate version)Focus group 3: In-service teachers (intermediate version)
This focus group consisted of three teachers from the single primary school that had attended the
EASE course. These teachers had volunteered after all participants were asked in the last session who
would like to participate in the focus group interview. The same informed consent procedure and same
set of questions was used as in the focus groups with pre-service teachers.
By conducting these focus groups, we aimed to gain a comprehensive understanding of both pre-service
teachers’ learning experiences and educators’ teaching experiences, with the goal of improving the
EASE teacher training programme.
Analysis of the dataAnalysis of the data
The focus groups were recorded, and the recordings were subsequently transcribed. In analysing the
transcriptions of the two focus groups, we specifically looked at what the respondents (students,
teachers, and educators) indicated concerning three themes:
1. Quality of the content;Quality of the content; Sub-themes: objectives, materials, teaching methods, and structure;
2. Practical applicability; Practical applicability; Sub-themes: alignment with target groups, alignment with other lessons and
the curriculum, and challenges in the implementation;
3. Perceived effectiveness;Perceived effectiveness; Sub-themes: positive learning outcomes for pre-service teachers and
students, alignment with citizenship education, opportunities for enhancing the curriculum,
positive appreciations, and curricular challenges.
What stood out was that experiences regarding the lesson series were mentioned on two levels. For
teacher educators, it mainly concerned their own reflections and what they observed in their students.
For the pre- and in-service teachers, it concerned both their own experiences with the lesson series and
how they perceived their students experienced it. In the following, the pre-service teachers are called
‘students’, the in-service teachers ‘teachers’, and the teacher educators ‘educators’.
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 26
Results: Quality of the contentResults: Quality of the content
ObjectivesObjectives
Particularly, students indicated that it was not always clear what the objectives of the lesson series
were for them:
“That was especially the final product. I think we focused more on that than on the lessons themselves.
In the beginning, there was a lot of information, and it wasn’t clear: what exactly are you supposed to do
to pass the course? I think that initial information, the purpose of it, may have come across, but it kind of
went by, because we still weren’t sure what we were supposed to do for this module.” (student)
When it comes to the implementation of the lesson series with their students, students noted that the
achieved learning outcomes depend on the goal the teacher has in mind. Content knowledge does not
always stick during the lessons. An example mentioned was the nitrogen crisis:
“It depends on your goal, it’s theme-dependent and how you explain it. You can talk to a group about
molecules and that nitrogen is a molecule, but that goes in one ear and out the other; you don’t get
learning outcomes from that. So, it depends a bit on the group.” (student)
The in-service teachers think the objectives of the course are well-suited to current educational needs,
combining both content and skills development.
“Well, I think they fit perfectly in this time, and yes, they have substance. Indeed, they include skills,
collaboration, and methods—pretty much everything that comes from the literature is combined here.
So, that’s great—yes, definitely, and manageable.” (teacher)
MaterialsMaterials
Teacher educators mentioned that the distinction between the four didactic principles and the steps of
the GPS model was sometimes confusing:
“Or yes, what I found difficult sometimes? Switching between the four principles and the four steps. Some
steps cover more principles, while other steps don’t touch on them at all. But maybe that’s just how it is.”
(teacher educator)
Students agreed (they found it confusing that there are 4 didactic steps and 4 principles; principle 1
does not necessarily match step 1, etc.) and attributed this to a lack of explanation and information
on the subjects covered, the GPS model, and the didactic principles. The study guide was not
understandable for students because all the knowledge was new, so it did not align well with their
prior knowledge. The study guide seemed more suitable for teacher educators.
“But I also think because the theme is somewhat abstract for us, the study guide was kind of
meaningless, because you don’t know what it’s talking about. You don’t know the themes, you don’t know
the Green Deal, you don’t know the GPS model, nor the didactic principles. You can read through it, but
you don’t really understand it. So, more explanation from the teacher is needed.” (student)
A suggestion made by a teacher educator was to reduce the number of topics or allow students to
choose within a topic:
“I noticed that students prefer to follow a straightforward path, to be sure. ‘Oh, I’ve done step one, so I’ve
also covered principle one.’ So, that’s something to be aware of, and if we develop this further, it might be
advisable to focus on fewer topics, maybe just two instead of all four.” (teacher educator)
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 27
Students suggested that a lesson preparation form specifically tailored to the GPS model, with
assignments and requirements outlined, could be a useful tool. The didactic principles could be
explained in a justification for the lesson:
“Well, I think it’s actually useful, but I also think that for this lesson series, there should be a specific
lesson preparation form where the assignments and GPS requirements are listed.” (student)
Teachers emphasized the need for guided instruction in the EASE training to bridge the gap between
didactics and practical lesson design. They felt that the transition from introduction to independent
work was too abrupt and suggested adding structured activities, such as collaborative planning or
workforms, to narrow ideas and improve effectiveness. This additional step could better support
teams, particularly those new to the content, and enhance the training’s impact:
“I think it would have been valuable to guide us a bit more, perhaps with some sort of structured
instruction like, ‘Okay, what could you consider?’ and maybe include a workform so that we could work
with more concrete ideas. Of course, we had the didactics from the book at hand, but an intermediate
step might have been helpful for the effectiveness of the collaboration.” (teacher)
Teachers stated that the course materials, such as the study guide, contain valuable content, but some
sentences are complex and can be difficult to understand. The use of technical terms can be confusing
for some participants, reducing accessibility.
“Yes, the only point I have is that some sentences need to be read more than once. Then I tend to set it
aside.” (111-113 teacher)
Teaching methodsTeaching methods
Regarding teaching methods, teacher educators suggested integrating peer feedback:
“Maybe we should integrate a bit of peer feedback, so students can observe how others do it and reflect on
their own teaching. I think it’s valuable for them to gain insight by watching how others teach.” (teacher
educator)
Regarding working with the network map during the lessons, students indicated that it gave them
more insight into different perspectives:
“Our teacher gave us an example, and, in a group, we had to write down all the actors involved. Then we
discussed them in class. This helped us see that many actors are affected, and we can use this for our own
topics as well.” (students)
The teachers appreciated the teaching methods, like “choose a corner” and collaborative lesson
development and the variety of methods, like presentations and interactive assignments:
“Regarding the closing activity: I found the “choose a corner” exercise in the hall very engaging.
It sparked good conversations.” (teacher)
StructureStructure
For teacher educators, the structure of the lesson series, as described in the provided materials,
seemed clear:
“The module book was clear. I needed to figure out the overall direction, but it was workable.” (teacher
educator)
From the students’ perspective, teacher educators pointed out the importance of a clear structure,
including deadlines or checkpoints (go/no-go decisions):
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 28
“Students tend to rush through lessons without accountability. Setting clear checkpoints for progress
could help.” (teacher educator)
One teacher educator elaborated by suggesting that the course should start with knowledge building
around the topics, before moving on to the application:
“It would be interesting to first have a few sessions where we focus on understanding the content before
jumping to application.” (teacher educator)
There was also a suggestion to reduce the content further and better delimit it for students (see also
under materials):
“Maybe narrow it down and set a clearer timeline, so students can focus on one lesson, bring the
feedback, and then teach another lesson at the end.” (teacher educator)
Another teacher educator mentioned that the topics were divided among students to keep it
manageable. However, students found many topics to be new, causing confusion:
“It’s challenging to grasp the topics in such a short time, and students didn’t seem to study them all
equally.” (teacher educator)
“The first session was overwhelming because the European Green Deal was new to us, and we had to
present so much content right away.” (student)
Students agreed that the structure could be clearer by starting with the necessary prior knowledge,
especially on the topics and GPS:
“If the structure had been clearer from the start, we wouldn’t have wasted so much time.” (student)
Some students felt there was not enough time for thorough understanding, and that the course
duration was too short (see also under practical applicability):
“I wish I had more time to deepen my understanding of the subject, especially since students might ask
questions.” (student)
“I felt I didn’t have enough time to teach properly.” (student)
“We won’t achieve our intended goals due to the limited time available. This is a weak point of the
course.” (teacher educator)
Lessons learned:Lessons learned:
• Clearly define objectives—in both materials and lessons;
• Align the study guide better with students’ prior knowledge;
• Provide prior knowledge on topics, didactic principles, and the GPS model, and allow time for this.
A strong introduction to sustainable development and relevant European themes would be beneficial;
• Clarify the distinction between didactic principles and GPS model steps;
• Reduce the number of topics to those more relevant to primary school students or allow students
to choose within topics;
• Structure the course for students using clear planning with deadlines/checkpoints. Improve the
study guide by including a clear line with submission moments for interim products;
• Consider using a lesson preparation form and peer feedback.
• Enhance the readability of the course materials.
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 29
Results: Practical applicabilityResults: Practical applicability
Alignment with target groupsAlignment with target groups
With regard to the practical applicability of the lesson series in the classrooms of their students,
teacher educators indicated that this depends on the population within students’ internship class (and
that in some cases a translation is necessary). The subjects and the didactic approach do not always
align with the target group in education, such as special education or lower grades. It fits best with the
upper grades:
“In the beginning, it was like: I had a student who worked in special education with less cognitively
strong students, and she ran into: hey, how do I shape this now? And then, when I looked at everything,
it is very much aimed at the upper group, so that translation would need to be worked on next time. And
at some point, the student chose, well, the easiest way, from her point of view, to go to another school and
complete the assignment there, while I think it could be adapted just fine. And you learn a lot from that
for your own development.” (teacher educator)
“Yes, in some cases, you can translate it well to a kindergarten group and have discussions together,
exchanging ideas. That’s certainly possible. But yes, in such a specific group, where students are
basically only guided individually and where there is very little contact possible, that really plays a role.”
(teacher educator)
A difference in perspective is that teacher educators also see it as an advantage that students can
choose what they find interesting and suitable for their target group:
“The advantage, however, is that students can choose something themselves that they find interesting
and that fits their target group. Although I think that my group has also come out mainly on waste or
specifically plastic. Which is not necessarily bad.” (teacher educator)
However, students say they would like more choice from different themes or subjects that are closer to
their target group (simplification)—many students chose the plastic waste issue—so they can provide
lessons more specifically aimed at their student population:
“Yes, the first lesson went fine. The second lesson felt like you were really talking to a wall; it was all just
a bit too much. So actually, I think I should have chosen plastic waste. But yes, you don’t really have much
choice in that, or so. So there could perhaps be a bit more variation, so you have more options from different
themes. Yes, I also understand that there are certain things we can’t do anything about.” (student)
Alignment with other lessons and the curriculumAlignment with other lessons and the curriculum
Some students found the connection with other lessons in the curriculum and this lesson series to be
challenging. The six-week duration is perceived as short, especially since there is another large project
running parallel to this course, in which students also have to develop many new skills (see also under
structure):
“Yes, the connection with the lessons from J., the research, yes, there I noticed that my students found it
difficult to figure out how to position that in the report.” (teacher educator)
However, students indicate that the didactic principles could also be integrated into other subjects:
“You can’t only use this here, but also in many other subjects for sure. Well, we also have... Maybe you
shouldn’t do all four [didactic principles] at once, but I think thinking together, making decisions could
be done more often in a classroom setting instead of being teacher-directed, absolutely.” (student)
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 30
Both students and teacher educators indicated that the timing of the lesson series in the curriculum
should be reconsidered. The timing at the end of the school year means that there is less space and
attention to deliver these lessons properly. Earlier in the year would be more effective:
“If we still want students to give thorough lessons, really take time for it and make space for it, then such
a module shouldn’t actually be in the last quartile.” (teacher educator)
“That would fit better, in my opinion, also in terms of quantity, because that was also the internship
coming to an end, and then you still have to give those lessons. It was all quite tight.” (student)
“Yes, but I would, well, yes, I would recommend it. But not in this phase of the training. No, exactly.”
(student)
Challenges in the implementationChallenges in the implementation
Students indicate that the combination of the complex themes, the GPS model, and the didactic
principles does not enhance the applicability of the lesson material—resulting in it “not receiving the
attention it deserves” or potentially leading to a less effective implementation:
Speaker 2: “I think the themes are too difficult, and it’s not the fault of the didactic principles.”
Speaker 6: “That was also the case. It’s the GPS model and a new subject, and that’s exactly what you
actually need to understand in six weeks. And yes, as you say, implementing it in a lesson series, to say,
is a bit much.”
Speaker 3: “Then you’re still busy with the research, doing that alongside the other reports that also
need to be done. It’s quite a lot of new information and many other things you have to do alongside it,
which makes this also a bit.”
Speaker 2: “Doesn’t get the attention it deserves!”
Speaker 4: “Yes, I sometimes honestly find it a bit... I don’t know if it’s our class or something. But the
idea is nice, but the execution is actually always a bit lacking. Then I think: yes, I could have used this
time more effectively, or in a class setting where you receive something more. Yes, it sounds a bit easy, but
now you always have to take action yourself before that really happens.” (students)
Finally, students say that taking perspectives did not come naturally for their students during the exe-
cution of the lesson series:
“Oh, think about how that is for a farmer. Oh yes, oh yes, oh, we forgot that. I think, yes, yes, but that’s
difficult because they’re then working in groups. You almost have to poke a bit at each group to get them
to think about that, but that can’t be done, so that was indeed challenging.” (student)
Developing lesson materials on complex topics like biodiversity and the European Green Deal was
challenging for the teachers. They needed to expand their own knowledge to create effective lessons,
which made preparation time-consuming. Finding the right teaching methods and creating a clear
lesson plan were also challenges.
“Ehh, yes, it was a bit of a challenge. It’s a complex topic, so we had to adjust and figure things out
ourselves. Like biodiversity—what does it all entail? You hear things but don’t know all the details. You
really need to have knowledge yourself to create good activities for the children.” (teacher)
Lessons learned:Lessons learned:
• Tailor instruction/teaching to the student population—simplifying content/methods/topics.
• Reduce the complexity of the EASE lessons by clarifying the connections with other lessons in the
curriculum or considering the suggestions mentioned under quality content.
• Consider what a good position for the EASE lessons is within the curriculum of the teacher training
programme.
• Give teachers enough source materials to expand their own topic knowledge.
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 31
Results: Experienced effectivenessResults: Experienced effectiveness
Positive (learning) outcomes for pre-service teachers and studentsPositive (learning) outcomes for pre-service teachers and students
According to the judgment of teacher educators, the curriculum landed better when students started
teaching—the motivation of the students increased when they also began giving lessons in practice:
“at one point students found it very difficult and had no clear picture of it. But at a certain moment, when
you yourself give that example lesson and engage in discussion with them about a certain topic, they
start talking about it. And then, when you link it back to the professional tasks, it lands a bit.” (teacher
educator)
Students have also indicated, both by themselves and according to the judgment of teacher educators,
that they have learned something about the subjects discussed and acquired skills. Students with the
greatest motivation have learned the most in terms of subject content and didactics. This also de-
pended on the group in which the internship was conducted:
“I think it’s a very strong introduction for students about sustainability, just at their own level of what’s
happening in that area in Europe.” (teacher educator)
“Some have really learned a lot in terms of content and learned a lot from executing it, while others who
took the easiest route—maybe a bit harsh to say—but who chose the least resistance, I think they will
have learned the least from it.” (teacher educator)
Speaker 7: “Yes, in terms of content, I also find it nice, and I have actually felt that some are [doing their
internship] in grade 1 and cannot be obligated to deal with nitrogen.”
Speaker 2: “No, but I still think it would be good for everyone to get a bit more of all the themes.” (students)
Teacher educators indicated that their students gave lessons more consciously and reflected on their
practices:
“You see a strong element of language coming through there, so I found that very nice, and you really
see it come back. And what you also see is that when you talk about students who develop significantly,
those are the students who, in that lesson series, at some point in practice realize that they still have not
reached the starting situation of the next lesson, so I need to adjust something.” (teacher educator)
For students, the lesson series also offers an opportunity to work on language and language
production in an integrated manner:
Speaker 2: “Well, I think it’s a great topic in terms of language. And what children need to demonstrate
in terms of language production at school and which aspects of language come up—yes, this is a fantastic
topic; a discussion, argumentation, everything is included. They have to present; GPS (project-based
learning) includes a bit of presentation. Well, the topic also speaks for itself, and we need to do a bit more.”
Speaker 5: “You could also have language lessons for it.”
Speaker 2: “I could take this more into the language lessons.”
Speaker 3: “And many skills, indeed, for the teacher. How can you stimulate discussion? How can I bring
the students to healthy discussions?” (teacher educators)
Teachers indicated that thematic projects have led to a significant attitude change in students, which is
not typically observed in regular lessons. This involves for instance younger students actively sepa-
rating waste and addressing others about it, and older students becoming aware of biodiversity and
taking actions like working on their gardens, balconies, or schoolyards:
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 32
“What I also find beautiful is that you ultimately see a change in the attitude of the children. This is a
thematic project, so you have that. You don’t get that in a regular lesson […] In grades 1 and 2, I see that
the children are very good at separating waste and even addressing others about it. Yes. In grades 3 and
4, well, the awareness of biodiversity—how important it is—and that they can actually do something
about it themselves. With their own gardens, on their balconies, or in the schoolyard, which we are also
continuing to work on. So that’s really beautiful, that there is truly an attitude change taking place in
students, which you don’t get with other subjects at all.” (teacher)
Alignment with citizenship educationAlignment with citizenship education
Teacher educators and teachers find the course valuable. It offers an opportunity to shape citizenship
education across subjects with social themes. The series of lessons aligns with citizenship education,
where good discussions are central. Teacher educators indicated that there is little room for this in the
current primary teacher education curriculum. Various teacher skills are called upon. These skills are
not only important for students with a specialization in upper-grade teaching. Students learn to design
meaningful education independent of a method. Teacher educators indicated that subjects addressed
in the lesson series, such as sustainability and a healthy living environment, deserve a solid place in
the curriculum:
“This [sustainability], I mean, is topic number one in the societal debate, and aside from that, nature
and living environment and a healthy living environment—I can’t imagine that this will ever come off
the agenda. So, in whatever form, you could always pick this part up and indeed give citizenship a solid
place.” (teacher educator)
“But I think it would be a missed opportunity if we don’t do this for all students because, you know, those
skills of bringing a group into conversation and being aware of perspectives and weighing them, yes,
those are just essential teacher skills.” (teacher educator)
Also, teachers emphasized the importance of integrating the course with citizenship education, high-
lighting its relevance in today’s world. The speaker sees the course as a valuable resource for schools
and teachers to effectively incorporate citizenship into their teaching:
“Yes, I would definitely do it because I know that this subject and citizenship, yes, are incredibly important
in today’s world. So, anything that can help schools and teachers to give this a proper place within their
education is very important, yes” […] “How do you really shape citizenship education and so on? In that
regard, it also provides concrete tools for teams that are still very much searching for it. Yes.” (teacher)
Opportunities for enhancing the curriculumOpportunities for enhancing the curriculum
Students indicated that the lesson series has contributed to improving the quality of their lessons by
teaching them to use discussion techniques in which they maintain a neutral position as a teacher:
“Also, especially learning questioning techniques and during circle discussions, where I had that you
let the children think for themselves and also that you listen neutrally. As a teacher, you actually try to
always do that, remain neutral.” (student)
The lesson series also provided a way to integrate subjects. There are opportunities to integrate subjects
and thus create more space in the curriculum. Teacher educators, students and in-service teachers all
mentioned how the course helped them realize the value of subject integration, emphasizing that there
are no simple solutions and that this broader thinking is a significant takeaway:
“I do think that, in that sense, the strengths of natural integration bring together a number of fields and
important content, and I think this is the moment to do something with sustainability, for sure.” (teacher
educator)
“But I find it easier to apply subject integration now, because now you know citizenship is broad, and you
can link a language to it.” (student)
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 33
“Well, there is, of course, a lot to learn, and there are no ready-made solutions. So you have to look at
things from multiple perspectives to arrive at a shared solution. And I think that’s what makes it so that,
at school, it’s usually like, well, one and one is two. But now we really have to look more broadly. And I
think that this content really requires that, and I find that very beautiful. That’s what I have learned, at
least. Subject integration.” (teacher)
Teacher educators indicated that they have been able to work with alternative forms of work and
didactics in the lesson series—such as arguing based on statements:
“I find the connection to citizenship very nice because then you have opinion formation; you can discuss
this here with students based on the statements. In the first lesson, we had very nice conversations, and I
realize that this comes up very little in the curriculum. In technology, I occasionally have discussions, all
about robotics and how society should look, whether or not to include more technology. But this was, as
far as citizenship is concerned, the first time I experienced it so clearly.” (teacher educator)
Positive appreciations and curricular challengesPositive appreciations and curricular challenges
Students expressed their positive appreciation for the lesson series. At first, the material was
somewhat abstract; as it became clearer, it became more interesting. Initially, it was not clear what
one could do with this in their internship class:
Speaker 2: “Interesting topic, very nice.”
Speaker 4: “At the beginning, it was a very abstract topic, which wasn’t very clear. Maybe I was the only
one who experienced it that way, but afterwards, when it eventually became clearer, it was interesting.”
(students)
While students also provide a realistic view and indicate that the lesson series was simply part of the
(mandatory) curriculum:
“Yes, this could have been introduced earlier in the programme because I find it very useful. This is really
something that should recur more often in the future.” (student)
Students indicated that at this stage of their education, they would have preferred to spend their time
on other topics that seemed more meaningful to them, such as conducting parent-teacher conferences,
writing reports, and making group plans.
Speaker 2:“Well, I found it worthwhile to have practiced it once, but this might not be the best place to
indicate that. However, there are so many other things I would have preferred to learn instead of this. I
would have liked to have more depth in parent-teacher conversations: how do you prepare for that? Are
you actually going to see the child that day? Are you going to make transcripts about it? How are you
going to create a plan? What questions are you going to ask? Look, those are things that don’t need to be
discussed here, but I would have preferred them instead.” (student)
Speaker 1: “When I look at the programme, I think I could learn better things. You know, it’s an impor-
tant topic, of course, it’s something that’s relevant, the EGD (socially relevant education).
[…]: Waste is important because of course, it’s relevant.” (student)
“But I can maybe do that myself after graduation, deepen myself. Maybe, yes, because very often, that
isn’t done. Therefore, if something comes up in the news, you can create a nice lesson around it.
[…] I think that the topic itself is important to address, but I believe there are other things that haven’t
been covered in the programme that are much more useful to learn: how to write a report, how to conduct
a parent-teacher conference, group plans, that kind of thing. That’s what this is.” (students)
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 34
In addition, students experience confusion because the same components within the curriculum are
referred to in different ways. The didactics of the GPS model, for example, seem very similar to doing
inquiry learning, with some specific nuances:
Yes, I think the theme is very useful, but I think of the GPS model and its principles: yes, we already have
inquiry learning because we learn. It sounds like the same thing but just slightly different every time.
I get so many rounds or rules that you must include in a report. I think, yes, it often comes down to the
same thing. So maybe it should be a bit more about the substance but with more knowledge and less focus
on all those principles. And yes. (student)
Teachers highlighted the difficulty of measuring whether goals, such as raising awareness about
biodiversity, have been achieved, even when the goals themselves are clear. While factual knowledge can
be easily tested, assessing deeper awareness and understanding remains challenging and unresolved:
“The goal is clear, but how do you measure that goal? Because that’s quite difficult. For us, the goal was
for the children to become more aware of the importance of biodiversity, and actually, the first part of the
goal—what is biodiversity—can be easily tested. But the other part is a bit more challenging. Yes, how do
you measure that? I still find that difficult. That’s a question, and we don’t have to solve it right now, but
it’s something to think about” (teacher)
Lessons learned:Lessons learned:
• The course is highly appreciated in terms of positive learning and motivational outcomes for
pre-service teachers and students;
• More room for active work forms, such as teaching a lesson oneself;
• Avoiding terminological confusion by ensuring that the same terms are consistently used in the
curriculum;
• More attention to practical skills within the EASE course;
• Integration of subjects is valuable: The interdisciplinary approach of EASE is viewed positively
• Provide teachers with strategies and tools for assessing less tangible outcomes such as shifts in
awareness in addition to factual knowledge.
3.3 QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF THE EASE COURSE
Below the quantitative evaluation based on data collected from participants in the three completed
implications described in paragraph 3.1 is presented.
Methods Methods
To evaluate the EASE course, a questionnaire was administered prior to (T1) and after the EASE course
(T2) to measure participants’ development of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that were the objectives
of the course. In addition, after the course participants were asked to evaluate the usability of what they
learned, the overall quality of the course, and the effectiveness of the course for their development.
Instrument Development Instrument Development
Considering the learning objectives, and a self-assessment of participants’ knowledge and skills with
questionnaire items would be similar to measuring participants’ self-efficacy beliefs, we decided to
focus on measuring self-efficacy for EESD1.
Since EESD is a new approach to education for sustainable development, there are no instruments that
measure teachers’ self-efficacy for EESD. Because of the similarities between EESD, the group problem
solving approach, and SSI-based teaching, we first explored instruments that measure teachers’ SSI
teaching self-efficacy to use as inspiration. We used the instruments of Kilinç et al. (2013), Muğaloğlu
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 35
et al. (2016), Lee et al. (2006), and Kara (2012), who developed their instruments based on the Science
Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI). Muğaloğlu et al. used the STEBI items and replaced the
words “scientific” in the STEBI items with the words “socio-scientific”. Lee et al. (2006) developed a
questionnaire that measured Korean secondary science teachers’ general perceptions of teaching SSI
and other personal and situational factors related to the implementation of SSI. One of the three scales
measured teachers’ personal science teaching efficiency beliefs with regard to dealing with SSI. Kara
(2012) also used these scales and similar items and confirmed its structure among Turkish pre-ser-
vice biology teachers. We also used an adapted version of the Dimensions of Attitude Toward Science
(DAS) Instrument by Van Aalderen-Smeets and Walma van der Molen (2013), which is developed for
primary teachers. This questionnaire was adapted previously to SSI education in the context of the
project ‘Working together towards scientific citizenship’ in which teachers learnt to teach about SSI ac-
cording to the group problem solving approach (Guérin et al., 2021; Personal communication). Finally,
we used the questionnaire of Yahaya et al. (2015), who developed the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale
(TSES) to measure pre-service secondary biology/science teachers’ sense of efficacy for learning and
teaching controversial family health issues. They used Bandura’s Social Learning Theory for describing
efficacy. See Appendix C for the relations between the learning objectives of the EASE course, existing
questionnaires, and the items of the EESD questionnaire.
During the first (aborted) pilot at the parttime bachelor teacher education programme in Rotterdam,
a pretest questionnaire was administered that 11 of the 28 participants did not finish. This question-
naire consisted of 12 items about knowledge, 22 items about skills, and 9 items about attitudes. To
ensure that participants finish the questionnaire, we have decided to shorten it to 8 items, focusing on
those items that best measure the most prominent learning objectives. See Appendix C for the initial
extensive questionnaire and the final shortened version.
In addition to measuring participants’ self-efficacy prior to and after the course, in the questionnaire
after the course we have also asked the participants to evaluate the course. We developed questions to
measure the usability of what they learned, their overall assessment of the quality of the course, and
the effectiveness of the course for their development.
Instruments Instruments
The final T1 questionnaire consisted of (1) an introduction on the study and EGD issues (including a
short video), (2) a question to ask explicit permission for research by the EASE project team, (3) the
development of a personal code to allow the researchers to compare the participants’ answers on T1
and T2, (4) general questions about the characteristics of the participants’ (internship) school, their
function in their school, years of work experience in education, age and gender, and (5) eight Likert
scale items assessing participants’ EESD self-efficacy beliefs.
The T2 questionnaire also consisted of (1), (3), and (5). In addition, at T2 (6) eight Likert scale items
were included for the participant to evaluate the course.
All Likert scale items could be answered on the following scale: 1 Totally disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Neu-
tral, 4 Agree, and 5 Totally agree.
On average, participants finished the T1 questionnaire in 4.83 minutes (SD = 1.72, min. = 1.25, max.
= 10.43). Excluding one outlier of 103 minutes, the T2 questionnaire was finished in on average 3.46
minutes (SD = 3.57, min. = 0.62, max. = 21.59).
1 Self-efficacy is not the only attitude that is relevant with regards to the goals of our training and the likelihood that teachers
implement EESD in their classrooms. Other attitudes that are relevant are, for instance, teachers’ collective efficacy beliefs, their
perceived relevance of EESD, their emotions with regards to EESD, and the extent to which they belief that they are dependent on
material or colleagues for EESD. However, investigating the effect of the training on all these attitudes with our small sample would
arise the problem of multiple comparisons. Because we believe that the training is most likely to influence teachers’ self-efficac y
beliefs and self-efficacy is most prominent in the goals of the training, we have decided to focus primarily on teachers’ self-efficacy.
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 36
Procedure Procedure
The questionnaire was administered prior to the course (T1) during the first lesson through a link on
the digital learning environment and a QR-code on the smartboard. The questionnaire after the course
(T2) was administered via both the digital learning environment and email after the first deadline for
the course assignments.
Participants Participants
Within the full sample at T1, 7 participants did not give active permission for the study and 6 partici-
pants did not enter a personal code. At T2, 5 participants did not enter a personal code. These parti-
cipants were omitted from further analyses. This resulted in a sample of 80 participants at T1 and a
T2 dataset of 50 participants. Combining these two datasets resulted in a sample of 91 participants of
which 39 participants responded to both the T1 and T2 questionnaire and 33 participants responded
to the self-efficacy items at both T1 and T2.
See Table 4 for the characteristics of the full sample and the sample of participants that were included
in the analysis comparing T1 and T2.
Table 4
Participant Characteristics
Characteristic Full sample Test sample
Questionnaire language T1 T2 T1 T2
Dutch 77 48 32 32
English 3 2 1 1
Schooltype
Primary education 72 31
Special primary education 4 1
Special education 3 1
Other (secondary education) 1 0
Schoolconcept
Regular 63 24
Dalton 8 5
Montessori 4 3
Jenaplan 2 0
Freinet 1 0
Other (Unit, Bilingual) 2 1
School denomination
Public 45 13
Roman-Catholic 16 11
Protestant-Christian 4 3
General special education 14 6
Functiona
Teacher 35 20
Lower grades (ages 4-6)
9
5
Middle grades (ages 7-9)
15
8
Upper grades (ages 10-12)
11
7
Intern 73 31
Lower grades (ages 4-6)
10
5
Middle grades (ages 7-9)
34
12
Upper grades (ages 10-12)
29
14
Coordinator 3 3
Administrator 7 5
Educational assistant 6 4
Internal counselor 6 4
Other (No, Tutor, Collegial consultant,
Confidante, Secondary teacher) 6 4
Gender
Female 64 28
Male 16 5
Experience
I am still studying 67 26
Less than 5 years 2 1
5 to 10 years 3 1
10 to 15 years 2 1
15 to 20 years 2 2
More than 20 years 4 2
Group T1 T2 T1 and T2
Saxion bachelor 37 24 17
Saxion minor 19 13 9
Rotterdam bachelor 12 5 1
School 12 8 6
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 37
Analysis Analysis
To check whether the participants in the test sample differed from those participants with missing
data, the self-efficacy scores of these two groups were compared. The differences were investigated
using two-way bootstrapped independent sample t tests in SPSS. Vertical bar graphs were made in
Excel to visually inspect the differences between the test sample and participants with missings.
For both the self-efficacy and evaluation items, descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations)
were computed for the full sample and the test sample in JASP. Also for each group (Saxion bachelor,
Saxion minor, Rotterdam bachelor, and school), descriptive statistics were computed.
To investigate the development of students’ self-efficacy beliefs, scores on T1 and T2 were compared
using one-way bootstrapped paired samples t tests in SPSS. Vertical bar graphs were made in Excel to
visually inspect the differences in this test group between T1 and T2, also per group.
For the evaluation items, all participants that answered these items on the T2 questionnaire were
included in the analysis, not only the test group. Means per subgroup were visualized using bar graphs
in Excel. Moreover, frequencies were visualized as stacked horizontal bar graphs in Excel, showing the
percentage of participants giving a certain answer.
Results Results
Missings checkMissings check
Comparisons of the scores of students with missings to the students in the test sample show no
significant differences, neither for the T1 data, nor for the T2 data. All bootstrapped independent
sample t-test were non-significant. See Appendix D for a visualization of these differences.
Comparing T1 and T2Comparing T1 and T2
See Table 5 for the descriptive statistics of the full sample and test sample at T1 and T2. The differences
between T1 and T2 for the test sample are visualized in Figure 3. This shows that all the scores at T2 are
on average higher than at T1. Note also that most standard deviations are lower at T2 than at T1.
The bootstrapped paired samples t tests show that these differences are all significant, except for the
differences in attitudes (see Table 6). Participants’ beliefs about the importance of education about
Characteristic Full sample Test sample
Questionnaire language T1 T2 T1 T2
Dutch 77 48 32 32
English 3 2 1 1
Schooltype
Primary education 72 31
Special primary education 4 1
Special education 3 1
Other (secondary education) 1 0
Schoolconcept
Regular 63 24
Dalton 8 5
Montessori 4 3
Jenaplan 2 0
Freinet 1 0
Other (Unit, Bilingual) 2 1
School denomination
Public 45 13
Roman-Catholic 16 11
Protestant-Christian 4 3
General special education 14 6
Functiona
Teacher 35 20
Lower grades (ages 4-6)
9
5
Middle grades (ages 7-9)
15
8
Upper grades (ages 10-12)
11
7
Intern 73 31
Lower grades (ages 4-6)
10
5
Middle grades (ages 7-9)
34
12
Upper grades (ages 10-12)
29
14
Coordinator 3 3
Administrator 7 5
Educational assistant 6 4
Internal counselor 6 4
Other (No, Tutor, Collegial consultant,
Confidante, Secondary teacher) 6 4
Gender
Female 64 28
Male 16 5
Experience
I am still studying 67 26
Less than 5 years 2 1
5 to 10 years 3 1
10 to 15 years 2 1
15 to 20 years 2 2
More than 20 years 4 2
Group T1 T2 T1 and T2
Saxion bachelor 37 24 17
Saxion minor 19 13 9
Rotterdam bachelor 12 5 1
School 12 8 6
Characteristic Full sample Test sample
Questionnaire language T1 T2 T1 T2
Dutch 77 48 32 32
English 3 2 1 1
Schooltype
Primary education 72 31
Special primary education 4 1
Special education 3 1
Other (secondary education) 1 0
Schoolconcept
Regular 63 24
Dalton 8 5
Montessori 4 3
Jenaplan 2 0
Freinet 1 0
Other (Unit, Bilingual) 2 1
School denomination
Public 45 13
Roman-Catholic 16 11
Protestant-Christian 4 3
General special education 14 6
Functiona
Teacher 35 20
Lower grades (ages 4-6)
9
5
Middle grades (ages 7-9)
15
8
Upper grades (ages 10-12)
11
7
Intern 73 31
Lower grades (ages 4-6)
10
5
Middle grades (ages 7-9)
34
12
Upper grades (ages 10-12)
29
14
Coordinator 3 3
Administrator 7 5
Educational assistant 6 4
Internal counselor 6 4
Other (No, Tutor, Collegial consultant,
Confidante, Secondary teacher) 6 4
Gender
Female 64 28
Male 16 5
Experience
I am still studying 67 26
Less than 5 years 2 1
5 to 10 years 3 1
10 to 15 years 2 1
15 to 20 years 2 2
More than 20 years 4 2
Group T1 T2 T1 and T2
Saxion bachelor 37 24 17
Saxion minor 19 13 9
Rotterdam bachelor 12 5 1
School 12 8 6
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 38
EGD issues and the extent to which they dare to teach about EGD issues did not significantly increase
at alpha .05. However, both participants scored already relatively high on these attitudes at T1.
Looking at the 95% confidence interval shows that the development of participants’ beliefs about their
knowledge is most positive (knowledge about EGD issues and about how to teach about them).
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics for Self-Efficacy
Figure 3
Means for T1 and T2 of the Test Sample (n = 33)
Item
Full sample Test sample (
n
= 33)
T1 (
n
= 77) T2 (
n
= 45) T1 T2
MSD MSD MSD MSD
I have enough knowledge about EGD issues to
teach about this. 2.48 0.97 3.69 0.73 2.45 0.97 3.70 0.73
I know how I can effectively teach about EGD
issues. 2.39 0.86 3.62 0.75 2.36 0.93 3.70 0.68
I can adapt existing materials so that they are
suitable to teach about EGD issues to my students. 2.79 0.92 3.69 0.67 2.88 0.93 3.70 0.68
I can teach students to work with a group on solving
EGD issues. 3.01 0.98 3.87 0.76 3.18 1.01 3.85 0.80
I can stimulate students’ moral thinking through
teaching about EGD issues. 3.00 1.00 3.84 0.64 3.18 1.04 3.88 0.60
I can stimulate learning about science and
technology through teaching about EGD issues. 2.94 0.91 3.60 0.86 3.09 0.88 3.61 0.93
I think it is important that students receive education
about EGD issues. 3.78 0.88 4.02 0.87 3.88 0.93 4.09 0.95
I dare to teach about EGD issues. 3.60 0.94 4.04 0.60 3.70 0.92 4.03 0.64
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 39
Table 6
One-Way Bootstrapped Paired Samples T-Test Comparing T2 to T1 Scores
Subgroups descriptivesSubgroups descriptives
Figure 4 visualizes the means and standard deviations of the test sample at T1 and T2 per subgroup.
This shows that, at Saxion, the minor students scored on average higher than the bachelor students,
both at T1 and T2.
Figure 4
Means for T1 and T2 of the Test Sample per Subgroup
Note.
The subgroup ‘Rotterdam bachelor’ is not visualized, because this was only 1 student with scores
of 4 on all items at both T1 and T2.
Evaluation of the course Evaluation of the course
After the course, participants were asked to evaluate the usefulness, effectiveness, and quality of the
course. See Table 7 for the means and standard deviations. Figure 5 shows the frequencies and Figure
Item
tM
dif
Bootstrap
Bias SE
p
95% CI
Lower Upper
I have enough knowledge about EGD issues to teach about
this. 6.38 1.24 0.00 0.19
<.001
* 0.88 1.61
I know how I can effectively teach about EGD issues. 6.44 1.33 0.00 0.21
<.001
* 0.94 1.73
I can adapt existing materials so that they are suitable to
teach about EGD issues to my students. 4.63 0.82 0.00 0.17 .002* 0.49 1.15
I can teach students to work with a group on solving EGD
issues. 3.45 0.67 -0.01 0.19 .005* 0.30 1.06
I can stimulate students’ moral thinking through teaching
about EGD issues. 3.30 0.70 -0.01 0.21 .005* 0.30 1.09
I can stimulate learning about science and technology
through teaching about EGD issues. 2.78 0.52 0.00 0.19 .016* 0.15 0.85
I think it is important that students receive education about
EGD issues. 1.23 0.21 -0.01 0.17 .235 -0.12 0.52
I dare to teach about EGD issues. 1.82 0.33 0.00 0.18 .072 -0.03 0.67
Note
. For all tests, the alternative hypothesis specifies that T2 is greater than T1. Degrees of freedom are 32. Bootstrap
results are based on 1000 bootstrap samples.
* Significant at = .05
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 40
6 shows the means per subgroup. Overall, the participants were quite positive about the course,
especially about the usefulness of what they learned in their teaching practice. The results also show
room for improvement, with many students evaluating the effectiveness and quality of the course
neutrally. Figure 6 shows that, on average, especially the Saxion bachelor students score relatively low.
Table 7
Descriptive Statistics for Evaluation of the EASE Course
Figure 5
Evaluation of the EASE Course, Frequencies
Note. N =
45.
Figure 6
Evaluation of the EASE Course, Means per Subgroup
Item
MSD
The course has contributed to my professional development . 3.69 0.82
I can use what I have learned in my teaching practice. 4.04 0.47
Through the course I am more positive about teaching about EGD issues. 3.64 0.93
Through the course I feel more confident about teaching about EGD issues. 3.53 0.84
Through the course I have developed didactical skills for teaching about EGD issues. 3.53 0.73
Through the course I have increased my didactical knowledge about teaching about EGD issues. 3.76 0.68
Through the course I have increased my content knowledge about EGD issues. 3.53 0.81
I think it is a good course . 3.38 0.78
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 41
ConclusionConclusion
Overall, the quantitative results provide a quite positive view on the EESD course. The comparison
between the pre- and posttests showed significant differences for the items measuring participants’
self-efficacy beliefs regarding their knowledge and skills for teaching EESD. The development of the
two attitudes (importance of teaching about EGD issues and daring this) was not significant. The
evaluation of the course was overall quite positive, with all means (also per subgroup) above 3, which
meant neutral.
The development of students’ knowledge and skills is as expected because these items aligned with
the goals of the course. Similarly, a positive development of students’ attitudes was also expected
but not found. This could be because influencing knowledge and skills seems easier than influencing
attitudes (Savelsbergh et al., 2016) but it may also be that explicit attention for participants’ attitudes
was lacking within the course. This is an important component of teacher training courses that aim to
improve teachers’ attitudes (Van Aalderen-Smeets & Walma van der Molen, 2015), but this was not
one of the design principles for the EESD course.
The four different groups that participated in the course show differing results on the pre- and
post-measurement of their self-efficacy beliefs and on the evaluation of the course. This is not
remarkable because the four groups differed regarding participants (e.g., pre- and in-service teachers,
age), course characteristics (e.g., number of meetings, final assignment), and teacher educator (e.g.,
developer of the course or not, science background or not). For instance, it is noticeable that the Saxion
bachelor students scored relatively low on both measures. This could have many reasons. One of the
likely reasons is the fact that the Saxion bachelor students were taught by colleagues that were not
directly involved in the development of the EESD course, while this was different for the minor students
and bachelor students from Rotterdam. Moreover, the background and expertise of the teacher
educators of the Saxion bachelor course was not always in teaching science and technology. Another
reason could be the fact that the minor students have chosen their minor while the EESD course was
obligatory for the bachelor students.
This could maybe also explain why the T1 scores of the bachelor students were relatively low
compared to the other participants. The Saxion bachelor students did not chose to learn about EESD;
this may be related to a lower engagement with EGD and teaching about EGD beforehand.
Furthermore, we see that the development of the ability to teach students to work with a group on
solving EGD issues is relatively small for the Saxion minor students. This may be explained by their
already relatively high scores at T1. The development of the ability to stimulate learning about science
through teaching about EGD issues is relatively small for the Saxion bachelor students. This could be
explained by the teacher trainers of this course: these were not science teacher trainers.
3.4 IMPRESSIONS OF PRE- AND IN-SERVICE TEACHERS’ PRAXIS
During the EASE course, participants designed lessons about an EGD issue, based on the GPS model.
As teacher educators for the Rotterdam students, the Saxion minor students, and the in-service
teachers, two of the authors of this ebook have assessed the lessons that the participants developed.
Moreover, the teacher educators of the Saxion bachelor students were asked to share some exemplary
work of their students. In what follows, we first give an impression of the lessons that the pre-service
teachers designed and then of the lessons designed by the in-service teachers.
Lesson activities of pre-service teachersLesson activities of pre-service teachers
Most participating pre-service teachers designed lessons that followed the GPS model steps, although
the fourth step (debriefing) was often missing or barely addressed. Below, the activities pre-service
teachers have designed are discussed per GPS model step:
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 42
1. Students explore the issue by investigating what they already know about the topic and what they still
need to find out.
To start this step, participants often used activities like a quiz, placemat (see study guide), or choose a
side where statements were posed and students had to choose whether to agree or disagree by walking
to the left or right side of the classroom. In the latter activity participants posed statements as:
‘It is fine to throw waste into nature because it eventually decays’ or ‘it is important to keep our
environment clean by picking up litter when we see it lying around´. These introducing activities
were followed by activities such as mind mapping or making infographics to clarify what the students
already knew on the subject and what they wanted to know more about.
2. In this step the issue is analysed. Students immerse themselves in a party and start collecting knowledge
from different sources. Then it is not only knowledge from books; they can also question experts or
organize a visit to a company or institution.
To shape this step, most participants chose to start by making a network map with the whole group.
Some participants had made the network map themselves because they thought this was too difficult
for their students. One participant had made part of the network map himself and completed the map
with his students by asking them which stakeholders were still missing. Next, the group was split into
small groups which delved into the perspective of one of the stakeholders of the network map. To
this end, most participants used the activity to make passports for their stakeholder, which is also
suggested in the study guide.
3. Students work toward a decision that they make collectively based on good arguments.
In this step some participants organised a debate. All small groups had to prepare the debate, and,
in the debate, they were to bring forward the arguments of their stakeholder. Each small group had a
few minutes to do so, and, in the end, they made a joint whole class decision on wat to do. Other
participants worked more directly to a decision by using the jigsaw or expert method. Each small group
of students represented one of the stakeholders and had to find out what their stakeholder should do
to solve the litter problem in the neighbourhood. Next, they worked out with the whole group what
they could do to help the stakeholders.
4. Students reflect on how the process of group problem solving went.
As far as this step is concerned, there was not much variation in activities. Most participants carried
out a whole-class talk. However, some participants had their students first fill in a questionnaire and
then discussed the process with the whole class based on the students’ responses. The advantage of
doing so was that students first expressed their opinions individually and the participant knew the
different opinions before the discussion started.
Lesson activities of in-service teachersLesson activities of in-service teachers
The in-service teachers of the attending primary school had decided to engage in a school-wide Green
Deal theme. For three weeks, the afternoon activities evolved around the Green Deal. In the highest
grades (10-12 year), the steps of the GPS model were followed. Although elements from the GPS
model were used in the lower grades, the teachers opted not to follow the model strictly in these
groups. Going deeper into knowledge about, for example, global warming and the social discussion
about it requires too high a level of abstraction for these students.
In the lowest grades (4-6 year), for instance, the children were read from a book about animals who
wanted to clean the forest. Following this, it was decided in a class discussion that there was also too
much waste in school and that they wanted to repurpose (recycle) the waste. Thus, like in the book, the
children decided to reuse the waste. They brought their toys that were broken to the repair shop run by
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 43
the students of upper classes (more about this later). Next, a tree was placed in the school on which all
students could attach their question about a EGD issue (Figure 7).
In the middle grades (7-9 year), activities were carried out to enhance students’ knowledge and
awareness of biodiversity. The teachers took their students outside and observed the school
environment. Next, they made a plan to improve the biodiversity in the environment by removing
tiles to provide opportunities for plants and animals and creating special places to stay for animals
like hedgehogs and bees. Finally, the students displayed all they had learned on posters (Figure 8).
In the highest grades (10-12 year), the steps of the GPS model were followed. They focused on the EGD
issue environmental pollution caused by waste. The students delved groupwise into different aspects of this
issue. In the 3rd GPS step they decided to set up a repair shop and a nature museum. With the repair shop
they wanted to reduce waste by preventing broken things from being thrown away and ending up as trash;
the nature museum was meant to raise parents’ and students’ awareness of the beauty and diversity of
nature and how that is jeopardised by human behaviour. Through these activities, they wanted to
contribute to a better environment (Figure 10). Both activities were realised. At the repair shop, children
and their parents could have their broken items fixed for two weeks. If the students could not fix it them-
selves, they asked parents or experts in the neighbourhood for help. An example of something the students
could fix themselves is a puzzle the teachers wanted to throw away because some pieces were missing. In
the repair shop the missing pieces could be made so that the puzzle was again ready for use (Figure 9).
Figure 7
Wonder tree placed in the school hall.
Figure 8
Posters presented by students (7-9 years)
Figure 9
Puzzle was fixed in the repair shop
Figure 10
Item on plastic soup in the Nature Museum
Part 3 – Implementation and evaluation of the EASE course | 44
REFERENCES
Guérin, L. J. F., Klaver, L., Walma van der Molen, J., & Sins, P. (2021). Onderzoeksrapport Samen
werken aan Bèta Burgerschap. TechYourFuture. https://www.techyourfuture.nl/wp-content/up-
loads/2023/04/Onderzoeksrapport-Samen-werken-aan-Beta-Burgerschap.pdf
Kara, Y. (2012). Pre-service biology teachers’ perceptions on the instruction of socio-scientific issues
in the curriculum. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1080
/02619768.2011.633999
Kilinç, A., Kartal, T., Eroǧlu, B., Demiral, Ü., Afacan, Ö., Polat, D., Demirci Guler, M. P., & Görgülü, Ö.
(2013). Preservice science teachers’ efficacy regarding a socioscientific issue: A belief system ap-
proach. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2455–2475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-
9368-8
Lee, H., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Choi, K. (2006). Korean science teachers’ perceptions of the
introduction of socio-scientific issues into the science curriculum. Canadian Journal of Science, Ma-
thematics and Technology Education, 6(2), 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150609556691
Muğaloğlu, E. Z., Doğança Küçük, Z., & Güven, D. (2016). Pre-service science teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs to teach socio-scientific issues. Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(1), 95–110. http://kutuphane.
uludag.edu.tr/Univder/uufader.htmE.
Savelsbergh, E. R., Prins, G. T., Rietbergen, C., Fechner, S., Vaessen, B. E., Draijer, J. M., & Bakker, A.
(2016). Effects of innovative science and mathematics teaching on student attitudes and
achievement: A meta-analytic study. Educational Research Review, 19, 158–172. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.07.003
Van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I., & Walma van der Molen, J. H. W. (2015). Improving primary teachers’
attitudes toward science by attitude-focused professional development. Journal of Research in Scien-
ce Teaching, 52(5), 710–734. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21218
Van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I., & Walma van der Molen, J. H. (2013). Measuring primary teachers’
attitudes toward teaching science: development of the dimensions of attitude toward science (DAS)
instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 35(4), 577–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/09
500693.2012.755576
Yahaya, J. M., Zain, A. N. M., & Karpudewan, M. (2015). The effects of socio-scientific instruction on
pre-service teachers’ sense of efficacy for learning and teaching controversial family health issues.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 467–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10763-014-9537-x
Part 4 – Conclusions and recommendations | 45
PART 4
Conclusions and recommendations
Our findings show that this study’s EASE course provides in- and pre-service teachers with the required
knowledge and skills to teach about EGD issues. In addition, the participants’ confidence to teach EGD
issues seems to be improved. Teachers indicated that the course was instructive both in terms of EGD
content and didactic skills and that they considered the topic increasingly important during the course.
However, the results also showed some areas for improvement. For instance, the complexity was too
high for several participants; regarding the EGD issues content as well as the didactic knowledge.
The EGD issues addressed in the course were: global warming, declining biodiversity and the waste
problem. However, in our study it was practically not possible to always employ science teachers,
therefore these sessions were performed by other teacher educators who did attend a short training on
the EGD issues. To ensure that pre-service teachers have these complex issues explained clearly it is
advisable that these sessions are carried out by teacher educators specialising in science education. As
it was done in the EASE course with the in-service teachers and with the Saxion minor and Rotterdam
bachelor students.
Besides, participants experienced the didactic knowledge as complex since there were four didactic
principles and a lesson model (GPS model) which were not easy to link together. Therefore, it would
be advisable to specify in the study guide per GPS model step which of the didactic principles are to be
applied there. In addition, in the sessions the teacher educator should draw specific attention to how
didactic principles are applied in the different steps of the GPS model.
In addition to the above-mentioned, the participating pre-service teachers also stressed that they
appreciated the use of the network map. While drawing up the network map, it became clear to them
who exactly is affected in the EGD issue but also who will be affected if changes take place. This
overview of the people involved in the problem helped them to see the EGD issues more as a social
problem. In the current EASE course, the network map is introduced in the third session, but it could
probably be better introduced at an earlier stage, maybe even in the first session. This might aid
participants to be more motivated from the beginning since in our experience primary teachers are
more interested in social than scientific issues.
Besides the above recommendations pertaining to the implementation of the EASE course, it is also
recommendable to share this studies’ findings in a global setting. Since teacher training on ESD is a
global concern, this study might contribute to the development of teacher training world-wide.
Finally, we would like to recommend the EASE course. The course appears to be highly suitable to
support in- as well as pre-service teachers in gaining self-efficacy regarding knowledge and skills
necessary for carrying out well-designed Green Deal lessons. We tested the course with different types
of teachers in different circumstances; in each case we have tried to be responsive to their situation.
Based on the results, the course is ready to be to upscaled, however, we recommend further improving
the course at the same time. Hopefully the lessons learned and recommendations from this design-
based research will help teacher educators and researchers in improving (primary) teachers’
competencies for ESD and, more specifically, teaching the Green Deal in their own context.
Part 4 – Conclusions and recommendations | 46
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to the people who helped to successfully complete the EASE project. First of all,
we would like to thank the management and teachers of the Enschedese Schoolvereniging for
enabling us to test the EASE course with in-service teachers, especially Lianne Molkenboer and
Roos Hartman for all their effort in organising it. We also want to thank teacher educators
Frank Brinkman, Leo Klapwijk, José Koggel, and Mario Schutte for their contribution in conducting
and evaluating the EASE course and dr. Renske de Leeuw for her help in writing the study guide.
In addition, we thank the students from the teacher training institutes of Rotterdam University of
Applied Sciences and Saxion for participating in the EASE course, completing the questionnaires and
answering our questions in the interviews. Finally, we want to thank dr. Maria Hendriks, Pieter-Jan
Ruiter, Patrick Schutte, and Ineke Vermeulen for their critical review of the initial study guide and
course script, dr. Katrin Kohl and prof. dr. Charles Hopkins for their feedback and encouragements,
and dr. Laurence Guérin for writing a great foreword.
Appendix A - EASE study guide | 47
APPENDIX A.
EASE study guide (Intermediate scenario)
EASE-PROJECT, TEACHER TRAINING MINOR
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL APPROACHES
EASE-project is a collaboration between
the school of education of Saxion (Deventer/Enschede)
and Thomas More (Rotterdam).
Authors: Peter Bom, Tamara van Heel, Jasmijn Maseland, Renske de Leeuw,
Lida Klaver Patrick Sins, and Symen van der Zee.
2024
Appendix A - EASE study guide | 48
INTRODUCTION
The EASE Project The EASE Project
Many teachers consider teaching about sustainability important but are unfamiliar with how to tackle
the topic in the classroom. How do you address sustainable development issues? And what can you do
as a teacher to contribute to this?
In the project EASE (European Assembly for a Sustainable Europe) we equip in- and pre-service
teachers with the knowledge and skills needed to teach about sustainable development. Specifically,
we contribute to the professional development of pre- and in-service teachers to teach sustainable
development lessons on themes within the European Green Deal. Project EASE is an Erasmus+ project
carried out in collaboration with teacher trainers and researchers from Saxion and the Rotterdam
University of Applied Sciences.
The European Green Deal (EGD) is the European Union’s scheme to make its economy more
sustainable. To help shape this future, teachers need to take action. This includes encouraging
students to acquire knowledge, become critical thinkers and teach them values, attitudes and
behaviors so that they actively participate in issues related to the EGD. For example, a clean and
circular economy, reducing greenhouse gases and improving global environmental standards.
Group Problem Solving Group Problem Solving
In EASE, we build on the principles and goals of an approach based on the idea of deliberative democracy
(Guérin, 2018). This view assumes a society in which citizens make informed decisions together and
have a say. The deliberative democracy view aims to encourage citizens’ autonomy, takes into account
the complexity of issues relevant to the EGD, and recognizes the controversy of such issues, but also
understands what kind of solutions are possible or what kind of solutions have already been developed.
For education, this means teaching students to come up with collaborative solutions to social problems.
For example, you can get students to work on the following issues: if we want to heat all houses in
the Netherlands without gas, would it be better to solve this by solar boilers or by switching to heat
pumps, what is a good solution to remove particulate matter from the air, what is the best way to
prevent the plastic soup from growing, and how do we deal with nanotechnology?
We have translated this vision into a practical didactic lesson model for teachers called group problem
solving (GPS; see Appendix A). GPS involves students working in groups on learning activities,
discussing, and making decisions together about social issues. In the process, students learn to think
critically and ultimately come to a solution together. The GPS lesson model consists of the following
four steps:
2. Students explore the issue by investigating what they already know about the topic and what they
still need to find out.
3. In this step the issue is analyzed. Students immerse themselves in a party and start collecting
knowledge from different sources. Then it is not only knowledge from books; they can also question
experts or organize a visit to a company or institution.
4. Students work toward a decision that they make collectively based on good arguments.
5. The groups present their solutions to each other. And there is reflection on how the process of
group problem solving went.
As a guide for the teacher to support students as they move through these steps, we have set up four
didactic principles. These are: (1) thinking together, (2) arguing, (3) network thinking and (4) decision
making. Thinking together is about students learning to work together where knowledge is synthesized,
shared, and disseminated among themselves. Arguing involves students learning to use evidence and
Appendix A - EASE study guide | 49
knowledge to support positions, solutions, and decisions. Network thinking involves students learning
about the interconnections between different perspectives and different levels (local-global). Finally,
students also learn to choose solutions based on thorough and collaborative consideration (decision
making).
European Green Deal European Green Deal
The European Green Deal (EGD) is an ambitious European Union (EU) plan to make Europe climate neu-
tral and protect biodiversity. Figure 1 shows the goals being pursued to ensure a sustainable future and
reduce the negative effects of climate change. As a teacher, you can play an important role in embedding
sustainability in education and fostering an environmentally conscious attitude among students.
One of the main goals of the European Green Deal is to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. This means
reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero. To achieve this, we need to reduce CO2 emissions by
switching to clean energy sources, promoting energy efficiency, and encouraging sustainable practices.
In addition, the European Green Deal also focuses on protecting biodiversity and restoring ecosystems.
The loss of natural habitats and the decline of plant and animal species pose serious threats to our
planet. The belief of the European Commission is that the above goals can only be achieved in a
sustainable manner. This means that the burden to achieve this plan must be shared in a fair way.
Figure 1
Overview of the EGD-goals
Note:
copied from: https://economie.fgov.be/nl/themas/intellectuele-eigendom/innovatie-en-intellec-
tuele/green-deal-voor-europa
GENERAL INFORMATION
Learning Objectives Learning Objectives
After completing the course, participants will be able to:
o Describe the views of different actors in the themes of the European Green Deal (EGD).
o Draw up their own lesson objectives for lessons in which a European sustainable development
problem is central and indicate how these are related to the National curriculum requirements
regarding to ‘Citizenship’ and Science’. (The Dutch national requirements are called “Kerndoelen”
(Tule-SLO; citizenship > mens en samenleving, science ≈ Natuur en Techniek)
o Explain to primary school students the main issues addressed in the EGD (e.g., biodiversity loss
and the energy transition), both from a scientific and social point of view, and using students’ prior
knowledge, experiences, and beliefs.
Appendix A - EASE study guide | 50
o Use the four didactic principles when redesigning learning activities.
o Guide learners while applying the four didactic principles, using effective activities.
The sessions and preparation time The sessions and preparation time
Number of sessions: 4
Duration per session: 90 minutes
Preparation time: 2 hours per session
CONTENT OF THE SESSIONS
Structure of the sessions Structure of the sessions
During this course, teachers and students learn how to shape (their own) sustainable development
lessons using the group problem solving approach and the four didactic principles. The course consists
of four sessions. During the first three sessions we will focus on the elaboration of the principles and
how you as a teacher can apply these principles during the process of GPS. In the last session (online)
we discuss everyone’s practical experience with using the didactic principles in the EGD lessons.
Description of the sessions Description of the sessions
Table 1 displays an overview of the sessions. The fourth session is an assessment.
Table 1
Overview sessions
Session 1: Learning about sustainability Session 1: Learning about sustainability
Prior to the session Prior to the session
Read the introduction of this study guide and Appendix A.
Content of the session Content of the session
This first session will start with an introduction of the issues addressed in the European Green Deal,
followed by a demonstration of a GPS-lesson. Herein, you will experience a citizenship lesson on EGD
yourself. By reflecting on this lesson, we will discover how the structure and didactic principles function.
The session will end with the assignment to have a conversation with students on an EGD topic.
Assignment for the next session Assignment for the next session
Conduct a conversation of 5-10 minutes with at least two students (aged 9 – 13) about one of the
European Green Deal issues. Record and transcribe this conversation and translate the transcription in
English.
Session Subject Date Time Place
1 EGD issues 28-02-2024 11:00 u P 0.19
2 The 4 didactic Principles 13-03-2024 09:15 u P 0.19
3 Designing an EGD-lesson 25-02-2024 12:30 u P 0.19
4 Present your EGD-lesson June 2024 Negotiable Online
Appendix A - EASE study guide | 51
Session 2: Using the four didactic principles Session 2: Using the four didactic principles
Prior to the session Prior to the session
Read Appendix B, C, D and E.
Bring the transcript of the conversation you had with your students (the English version).
Content session Content session
In this session, we start with the assignment. Using the transcripts, we analyze the conversations and
examine the student’s reasoning and the guidance from you as the teacher. Further, we study and
practice thinking together, arguing, network thinking and decision making in the context of hope (and
action) when it comes to environmental issues. We end with an exploration of potential ingredients for
EGD lessons with hope (and action).
Assignment for the next session Assignment for the next session
Draw up a lesson design on an EGD issue that recognizably incorporates the four didactic principles.
Session 3: Drawing up a lesson design (with hope and action?) Session 3: Drawing up a lesson design (with hope and action?)
Prior to the session Prior to the session
Study Appendix F, G and H.
Bring your lesson design on an EGD issue.
Content session Content session
We take a critical look at each other’s design to optimize the lesson designs and do not go home until
everyone is completely content.
Assignment for the next session Assignment for the next session
Perform the designed EGD-lesson in your internship class and make a presentation showing how you
taught your students the science and social aspects associated with the EGD issue in question.
Session 4: Presenting and discussing the EGD-lesson Session 4: Presenting and discussing the EGD-lesson
Prior to the session Prior to the session
Prepare the presentation.
Content session Content session
In an online session, you and two other students will present the process of designing and
implementing the EGD lesson (Please note the criteria in advance; see learning objectives).
Assessment Assessment
Whether the learning objectives (p. 5) have been achieved will be assessed in an on-line session. In a
presentation, you show:
o The views of at least four different actors in the EGD topic of your lesson-design.
o A lesson-design in which in-depth scientific knowledge on an EGD topic is tailored to the level of
the target group and how this content is related to the National curriculum requirements regarding
to ‘Citizenship’ and Science’.
o How the EGD topic is approached from a social point of view and
is built on students’ prior knowledge, experiences, and beliefs.
o How the four didactic principles are used while (re)designing
the EGD-lessons.
o How effective strategies are used to apply the four didactic
principles in practice.
Appendix A - EASE study guide | 52
APPENDIX A: THE VISION OF STEM CITIZENSHIP
The vision of citizenship education underpinning this programme is based on the so-called deliberative
(in dialogue) conception of democracy. A deliberative democracy is a society in which citizens make
informed decisions together and have a say. Important in this respect is that citizens have autonomy,
develop understanding of and about complex issues and that pros and cons are weighed against each
other before a (joint) decision is taken. In a deliberative democracy, group problem solving is the core
competence.
In the classroom, group problem solving can be practiced as well. Using the STEM Citizenship
approach, your class will start working in groups on solutions to social problems and issues, in which
STEM and technology play an important role. These are technological and sustainable issues that are
currently central to our society and, above all, are extremely suitable for working on citizenship
competences. In the context of EASE, the main focus of the learning activities is that students engage
with socio-scientific issues (SSI) related to topics in the European Green Deal (EGD). In Europe, and
thus also in the Netherlands, we face sudden climate changes. In summers, for instance, there are dry
and hot summers with forest fires not only in countries like Portugal and Spain, but also in the
Netherlands. One period the rivers are dry, preventing ships from moving, and another period the
rivers overflow their banks and houses are flooded.
These current situations and problems require group decisions and actions. To arrive at these
decisions with the class, you go through four didactic principles.
Four didactic principles to crack the hard nut Four didactic principles to crack the hard nut
The vision of STEM citizenship has been translated into a practical didactic approach for teachers. To
promote the core competency of group problem solving, four didactic principles have been established
for the teacher (see Figure 2). These principles guide the preparation, implementation, and evaluation
of learning activities.
In this programme, we focus on the following four principles: (1) Thinking Together, (2) Arguing, (3)
Network Thinking, and (4) Decision Making. These four principles provide direction for student learning.
Figure 2
Didactic principles of EASE
Appendices B, C, D and E elaborate on each principle. In addition, examples of teaching activities are
given for each principle, pitfalls are identified and discussed, and try-outs are presented that support
the teacher to apply the didactic principles in daily lessons.
Preparation, implementation, and evaluation Preparation, implementation, and evaluation
The four didactic principles form the basis for the teacher’s actions and choice of learning activities.
Teachers organize learning activities according to the steps of the teaching design model: (1) explore,
(2) analyse, (3) decide, (4) debrief. The idea is that this way every teacher can get started with the STEM
Citizenship approach.
Appendix A - EASE study guide | 53
To prepare your EASE lesson series, it is important to first choose an SSI (or a EGD issue). Content
knowledge gives the headroom and peace of mind to focus on students and the organization of
learning activities during lessons. Moreover, with some prior knowledge, you can offer the student a
steppingstone from which they can continue working in an investigative and discovering way. From
this content preparation, you can start designing the EASE lessons so that the learners are group
problem solving the social problem. The educational design model group problem solving (GPS model)
has been developed for this purpose.
The educational design model: Group Problem Solving The educational design model: Group Problem Solving
Using the GPS model, you can get started on citizenship education as a teacher.
Figure 3 presents the model.
During group problem solving, students work in groups on various learning activities, engage in
discussions with each other and make joint decisions about possible solutions to the social issue they
have been working on. The four steps structure the learning process, with students first exploring
the problem, then analyzing the problem further, then making a decision together. A lesson or lesson
series is concluded with looking back and sharing the results (debriefing).
The Scientific Citizenship method has worked out suitable teaching methods for each step. These
teaching methods provide tools to give substance to learning activities. See Appendix F for an overview
of the teaching methods.
Figure 3
Educational design model (GPS model) in the STEM Citizenship approach
Note:
Copied from: Tolkamp, J., Guérin, L., & Klaver, L. (2019). Bèta en technologie in
burgerschapsonderwijs. TechYourFuture
Step 1: Explore Step 1: Explore
As a first step, students explore the issue by investigating why the issue is important (determine
relevance), what they already know about the topic (activate prior knowledge) and what they still need
to know (identify required knowledge).
Exploring the issue is necessary to activate prior knowledge and prepare students to gain new
knowledge and inspire and motivate them about the topic of the lesson.
Appendix A - EASE study guide | 54
Step 2: Analyse Step 2: Analyse
In the second step, learners engage in purposeful information search and, from a critical attitude, weigh
and select the information found. Using the information, new knowledge about the problem is gained and
insights into the problem can be deepened. The teacher can choose to explain relevant concepts and offer
specific information. Students can also search for information themselves. This information need not only
come from books or the internet. Learners can also question experts or organize a visit to a company or
institution. In this step, students can be split into groups, each of which looks into a party involved (explore
different perspectives). This so that in step 3 they can use the different perspectives to have a discussion
and come to new or different insights. In their ‘expert group’, children can prepare arguments together.
Step 3: Decide Step 3: Decide
In the third step, the expert groups are shuffled. In ‘decision groups’, students work towards a decision they
make together, taking into account the interests of the different parties involved. Learners work out diffe-
rent solutions and scenarios for the social issue and compare the possibilities, identifying the pros and cons
of the solutions. In this step, consequences of solutions can also be worked out as a deepening exercise;
what are the short- and long-term consequences of a proposed solution for different stakeholders?
By engaging in discussion with each other, arguments (based on the collected information and
elaborations) are used to arrive together at the best possible solution. It is important that during the
discussion, students listen to each other, respect each other and are open to other points of view.
The social issues dealt with in STEM citizenship lessons usually do not have an absolute solution, as
there are always pros and cons.
Step 4: Debrief Step 4: Debrief
The last and fourth step involves reflecting on what was learned and how the process of group problem
solving went. It is possible to reflect on which concepts were important and relevant to reach a
solution; which professions and parties were involved in the social problem; what the students found
relevant to learn; what the students thought of the working methods used to reach a discussion and
group decision; what the students thought of the collaboration and what could be done differently next
time. In this step, the different decision groups can present their solutions to each other or to parents,
for example, and they can also think about possible next steps. Will the children also commit to
implementing what they think is the optimal solution?
APPENDIX B: PRINCIPLE 1 - THINKING
TOGETHER
The essence of the principle of thinking together is in the ex-
change students have with each other. This ensures that all
students are involved and should avoid one student being
dominant from the start. Thinking together is also referred to
as ‘Exploratory Talk’. In these ‘thinking together’ conversations,
students exchange relevant information for joint consideration.
Their devised solutions, arguments and opinions are discussed,
and alternatives may be offered. Students look for similarities to
move forward (this can be done, for instance, with the placemat
method, see appendix F). Without fulfilling this principle, opinions
and arguments remain with the individual and it is impossible to
take another person’s interests into account. By thinking
together, the EGD issue can be more precisely understood, and
solutions and decisions are more strongly substantiated.
Note: Adapted with permission
from “Bèta en technologie in
burgerschapsonderwijs”, Tolkamp, J.,
Guérin, L., & Klaver, L. (2019).
TechYourFuture.
Appendix A - EASE study guide | 55
Thinking (learning) together is a group process. To be effective, the thinking process must be carried
out collaboratively. In this way, students can fully benefit from the knowledge and insights gained in
the group.
Thinking together in class means that students build on each other’s contributions and ideas by asking
each other questions, critically responding to the shared information and answers, and that all stu-
dents actively try to contribute to the shared understanding within the group. Thinking together in a
group is stimulated when learners have different types of information on the same topic. Students will
need to engage with each other to explain ideas, listen to each other and ask questions of each other to
consider different perspectives. By aggregating, sharing and disseminating knowledge, their individual
as well as common knowledge is increased and improved. While thinking together, students also learn
to formulate arguments to support or contradict a perspective or solution and to (re)consider jointly
thought-out solutions.
The essence of the collaborative thinking principle is that students acquire new knowledge or concepts
by benefiting from each other’s content by relating and integrating it.
Activities for thinking together Activities for thinking together
One activity that is very suitable for practicing ‘thinking together’ with students in class is Socratic
conversation. A kind of explorative talk, yet in a Socratic conversation students’ opinions are explicitly
included. A Socratic conversation is a structured dialogue in which students think more deeply about
important questions, such as the EGD issues and sustainability in the classroom. The conversation
starts by asking for students’ opinions on a question or statement that is meaningful to the students.
You can do this by having the students think about a concrete experience of their own that ties in with
the question. As a teacher, it is important to ask in-depth questions. Often this is the why- or how-to
question or by applying other questioning strategies. Make sure that not only you as a teacher ask the
questions, but that the students question each other. In this way, they practice groupwise exploring
each other’s opinions.
An important feature of a Socratic conversation is that students respect each other’s ideas.
The Socratic conversation ends by jointly establishing a conclusion, core assertion or principle.
APPENDIX C: PRINCIPLE 2 - ARGUING
In the learning activities of the GPS model, students will often
argue with each other. These arguments are formulated based
on evidence and are used to support positions, solutions, and
decisions. In discussions, learners engage with each other’s
arguments.
The didactic principle of arguing therefore revolves around
collective argumentation skills, the argumentation skills of a
group. These argumentation skills are reflected in interactions as
learners ask for explanations when exchanging evidence, as they
respond substantively and adequately to another’s argument, as
to how an argument is countered, but also how a student deals
with students’ counterarguments. Within this principle, arguing
does not aim to win the discussion, but the arguments (for and
against) are used to reach a deepening of the problem or solution.
The aim of the principle of arguing is that if students are able to
argue well (as a group) the group can come to a better formulation,
a better analysis of the social issue, and ultimately provide a rati-
onale for the best-fit solution. The quality of the arguments used
Note: Adapted with permission
from “Bèta en technologie in
burgerschapsonderwijs”, Tolkamp, J.,
Guérin, L., & Klaver, L. (2019).
TechYourFuture.
Appendix A - EASE study guide | 56
in discussion depends, among other things, on the extent to which students respond to each other’s
arguments and on the knowledge used.
Within this principle, it is important that every learner has space to contribute an argument. It is also
important that students listen to each other respectfully. To avoid only the dominant students making
themselves heard, various working methods can be used. Students can be explicitly asked to give their
argument or view on the subject, based on the information they have gathered earlier. When learners
have good argumentation skills, it increases learners’ autonomy. This is because learners learn how
to defend, confirm, or revise their own position or viewpoint. By hearing and using good arguments in
which facts are used to support a position, more knowledge about the issue is automatically gained.
Thus, arguing (together) leads to an enrichment of thinking together.
Activities for arguingActivities for arguing
Using an argumentation bingo card (see Appendix F), students can practice identifying different types
of arguments, as well as whether an argument is an opinion and not based on evidence. Some students
are assigned to keep track of the argumentation bingo card during a class discussion and to feed back
at the end what types of arguments they heard.
APPENDIX D: PRINCIPLE 3 - NETWORK
THINKING
An important step in the GPS model is to explore the different
perspectives, parties involved and decision levels (such as local
versus global). When learners start network thinking, the
interconnections between these different perspectives and
different levels are established. Learners start actively looking
for the similarities and differences in the perspectives and levels.
Network thinking reveals the network and interconnections of a
social problem, this is also called multiperspectivity.
The aim of the principle of network thinking is for students to
understand different perspectives. Thus, different people are
involved (actors) who each view the problem, but also the solution,
in their own way. The aim of network thinking is not to arrive at
a solution that meets all needs. That is impossible, because every
change has consequences, which can be positive and negative
and have a different impact per actor and level.
Starting from the principle of network thinking, learners learn
to understand the complexity of the issue by getting to know
different actors, the diverse interests of the actors and looking
at the issue from different contexts. Through various learning activities, interconnections of different
perspectives that were not immediately visible at first glance are made visible.
Multiperspectivity - Sustainable clothing
For example, a cotton farmer might have a different view than an environmentalist on how to save
water when producing clothes.
A solution that works fine at the local level is not always a meaningful solution at the global level.
Note: Adapted with permission
from “Bèta en technologie in
burgerschapsonderwijs”, Tolkamp, J.,
Guérin, L., & Klaver, L. (2019).
TechYourFuture.
Appendix A - EASE study guide | 57
Activities for network thinkingActivities for network thinking
For students to practice network thinking, there are various learning activities. These provide students
with new insights and make connections between different insights. For example, role-plays give
students the opportunity to learn about the different perspectives and interests of actors involved. For
role-playing, several passports can be made available for each actor, but students can also work with a
blank passport and an assignment to fill it in for different actors (see Appendix F).
Other activities include showing films, telling narratives or introducing students to different actors through
their own research, such as a company that makes toys from wood and a company that manufactures toys
from plastic or the living conditions of an agricultural worker in the Netherlands and in Romania.
The role of visual supportThe role of visual support
To support learners in “seeing” the connections in a network, visual supports are very useful. Visual
support, such as a network map or a mind map, unburdens working memory. Using these visual
supports, relationships and connections are visualized.
APPENDIX E: PRINCIPLE 4 - DECISION MAKING
The decision-making principle brings together all the skills and
acquired knowledge of the other principles. Students can make
decisions group-wise, when they formulate a solution on a socie-
tal issue where they use the knowledge gained during ‘thinking
together’ and ‘network thinking’ to form arguments (principle
‘arguing’) and then evaluate the solutions and decide together.
In a Green Deal issue (or socioscientific issue), making decisions
is a complex process. This is due to the number of different ac-
tors involved, the knowledge required and the level at which the
issue is situated (local, regional, national or global). In addition,
every solution has both positive and negative consequences.
By applying the principles of ‘thinking together’ and ‘network
thinking’, the complexity of the issue can be better understood
and addressed. When no attention is paid to making an informed
decision, the issue is simplified, and the most logical and easiest
solution is often chosen: a ‘short-cut’. This short-cut is then
made because it is difficult to view different perspectives, know-
ledge, and aspects when making decisions. However, the most
obvious solution is not immediately the best solution. When the
group makes a decision on which solution is the most appropriate option based on the knowledge and
insights gained, learners are supported to make moral and informed trade-offs. To prevent students
from making a short-cut, there are various forms of work that can support students in the process of
making a decision, such as the expert method elaborated below.
Making informed decisions promotes learners’ autonomy. They are given a voice. It is not the teacher
who decides what is right, but the students themselves who learn to weigh arguments and make a decisi-
on together.
Activities for Decision MakingActivities for Decision Making
The Expert Method (also known as jigsaw, see Figure 2 for a visual representation of the activity) is an
effective activity in which skills such as cooperation, communication and critical thinking are practi-
ced. In a structured approach, groups of students delve into a topic, these groups are the so-called ‘ex-
pert groups’. In the expert group, students delve into a particular piece of information or an actor. You
Note: Adapted with permission
from “Bèta en technologie in
burgerschapsonderwijs”, Tolkamp, J.,
Guérin, L., & Klaver, L. (2019).
TechYourFuture.
Appendix A - EASE study guide | 58
can give the students sources or hints where they can gather information about their specific topic.
New groups are then formed, the ‘jigsaw’ groups in which decisions will be made. Each jigsaw group
includes one student from an expertise group. In the jigsaw groups, students share their findings and
knowledge from their expertise. After all the information has been shared within the jigsaw group, the
students start asking each other questions and discussing the topic. Based on the information within
the jigsaw group, a solution can be chosen. Arriving at a solution or decision can occur within the jigs-
aw groups, as well as with the whole class.
Figure 2
Visual representation of the Expert or Jigsaw Method
APPENDIX F: FORMATS FOR ACTIVITIES AND READ MORE...
1. ARGUMENTS BINGOCARD 1. ARGUMENTS BINGOCARD
Activity: Have children monitor on the bingo cards below during a discussion in class or during a text
in which a discussion is written out. Which of the 4 elements occur in the discussion? What type of
argument is given? Who recognizes the most arguments?
Appendix A - EASE study guide | 59
2. PASSPORT 2. PASSPORT
Activity: Let students design their own passports for the actors involved in the European Green Deal
problem. For this, the passports from below, can be used as a format.
3. PLACEMAT3. PLACEMAT
4. Read more 4. Read more
Kennisrotonde. (2020). Wat kunnen basis- en middelbare scholen doen om duurzaam afvalgedrag van
hun leerlingen te bevorderen? https://www.kennisrotonde.nl/vraag-en-antwoord/duurzaam-afvalge-
drag-bevorderen-op-basisscholen-en-middelbare-scholen
Guérin, L.J.F. (2018). Deliberatieve democratie in de klas: hoe dan? Montessori Magazine (2)41.
https://www.saxion.nl/binaries/content/assets/onderzoek/meer-onderzoek/vernieuwingsonderwijs/
deliberatieve-democratie_guerin.pdf
Guérin, L.J.F. (2020). Position paper Bèta Burgerschap; Handelingsperspectieven voor de toekomst. TechY-
ourFuture. https://www.techyourfuture.nl/files/downloads/Beta_Burgerschap/TechYourFuture_Po-
sition_paper_Beta_Burgerschap_juli2020.pdf
Sins, P.H.M., & Van Der Zee, S. (2012). De effectiviteit van samenwerkend leren. In R. R. F. Berends &
P.H. M. Sins (Eds.), Samenwerken in het daltononderwijs: geschiedenis, praktijk en onderzoek (pp. 105-
148). Saxion Dalton University Press.
Tolkamp, J., Guérin, L., & Klaver, L. (2019). Bèta en technologie in burgerschapsonderwijs [Science and
technology in citizenship education]. TechYourFuture. https://www.techyourfuture.nl/wp-content/
uploads/2023/04/Praktijkboek-Beta-Burgerschap.pdf
Hoofdstuk aanduiding | 60
Appendix A - EASE study guide | 61
APPENDIX G: CONVERSATION TECHNIQUES
Conversation Techniques to stimulate arguing and thinking together
Note 1.
Adapted from: Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. M. (2018).
Teaching science in elementary and middle
school: A project-based approach.
Routledge.
Note 2.
Italic texts are meant to stimulate hands-on activities.
Conversation Technique Example
Clarifying
Rephrasing in a different (often more precise) way
I think you're saying...
Let me see if I understood correctly...
What do you see/smell/hear/taste/feel
?
Clarifying by summarizing
Having another student summarize what has been said
Can you summarize that briefly?
How else could you say that?
Can you tell me what happened?
Exploring the topic through expansion
Encouraging students to add to the mentioned ideas
Can you say something else about this? Who else knows
more about this?
Can you do it in a different way (or with different
materials)?
Exploring the topic through criticism. Challenging
students to criticize each other's ideas
Do you agree with that?
Why or why not?
Who thinks differently?
Deepening the topic through substantiation
Challenging students to support their ideas with facts
Why do you think that happens?
How do you know that for sure?
Can you prove that?
Deepening the topic by explaining
Asking students to explain their ideas further
When you said... what did you mean exactly? Can you
explain that?
Deepening the topic through prediction
Asking students to make predictions
What do you think will happen if... happens (or changes)?
What do you think will happen if I(/you) do this (or that
changes)?
Waiting
Allow students to think and to formulate a good
response
Waiting (about 5 seconds)
Appendix A - EASE study guide | 62
APPENDIX H: CREATING A NETWORK MAP
A network map shows, in the context of a particular social issue, how the various stakeholders (with
their own interests) and material goods relate to each other. A network map shows:
o Which stakeholders (actors) are involved in the issue
o From which perspectives they view the problem (e.g., what are their interests)?
o How the stakeholders relate to each other. (e.g., using a connecting line of a certain color).
Note:
Copied from: Tolkamp, J., Guérin, L., & Klaver, L. (2019).
Bèta en technologie in burgerschapson-
derwijs.
TechYourFuture.
Appendix B - EASE course script | 63
APPENDIX B
EASE course script (Top Gun - 6 sessions)
Meeting 1 Introduction
Lesson part Description learning activities Duration
(min.)
Kick-off The teacher educator briefly introduces the EGD themes and then
explains the teaching method ‘choose your subject’.
5
Introduction/
Energizer
(teaching
method;
choose your
course)
Using the ‘choose your subject’ teaching method, participants explore
and develop their own knowledge and opinions on sustainable
development (EGD themes). This activity also initiates group formation.
Guiding statements during this activity:
• I am consciously making sustainable choices every day.
• I have made my house sustainable (insulation, solar panels, a heat
pump, off the gas).
• I eat meat every/ almost every day/ meat half the week/ no meat/
I am vegan.
• When making purchases in shops and online, I try to get as little
single-use plastic as possible with my products.
• Weekly, I read and/or watch background information to increase my
knowledge on sustainability.
• I have a petrol/ diesel/ hybrid/ electric car/ no car.
15
Sample lesson
(teaching
method; Post-it
brainstorm)
After the introduction, the teacher educator gives a sample lesson. In
the sample lesson, the participants put themselves in the role of an
upper primary school student. Except for two participants, who are given
the role of observers. Observation points for the observers are:
• What structure do you see in the lesson?
• What didactic and subject-related aspects in the lesson stand out to you?
In the sample lesson, the first two steps of the Group Problem Solving
model (GPS model; 4 steps and 4 didactic principles) are implemented.
The teacher educator applies questioning strategies to ensure students
argue and think together.
Sample lesson
1. Step 1 GPS model; Introduce problem with a video about the natural
greenhouse effect. After the video, a brief explanation. Then students
per group (4 students) get a poster with the 4 questions from step 1
of the GPS model and fill them in together. - First, they write down
what globally is the problem (1st question). - Then they write their
own question(s) on a post-it and stick it on the poster. Before sticking
on a question, the student reads it aloud. Then, for each question,
they check whether they know the answer to the questions together
(they put that next to the question). Then they circle the questions
that remain and write down what they still want to find out. After 20
minutes, the posters are put up at the front of the classroom. (20
minutes). The teacher educator (teacher) walks around and directs
through questions (question strategy).
40
Appendix B - EASE course script | 64
Sample lesson
(teaching
method; Post-it
brainstorm)
2. Step 2 GPS model; Analysis - Classroom presentation (per group) and
discussion of the posters. If students do not remember, the teacher
explains (science knowledge). Then the teacher concludes with the
students which (possible) aspects are related to the problem and who
is involved in it (20 minutes).
Debriefing
sample lesson
Group discussion with the whole group. First, the observers tell what
structure (steps) and didactic actions they have seen, and it is checked
whether the ‘students’ have recognized the steps and didactics.
This is followed by a didactic deepening by the teacher educator. The
first two steps of the GPS model are explained, and the last two steps
are introduced. This is followed by a course explanation and explanation
of the course objectives (see study guide).
20
Processing
assignment
Give a lesson according to the first two steps of the GPS model and col-
lect data on students’ arguments (e.g., make video or audio recordings
of conversations, take account of GDPR). Then reflect on this data using
the instructions in Appendix C of the study guide. For meeting 2, bring
transcripts showing how students reason/argue and try to interpret the
comments, for example as: opinion, argument with/without eviden-
ce, counterargument, debunking one’s own argument, responding to
argument of the predecessor, etcetera. Then reflect on what you think of
your students’ argumentation.
10
Meeting 2 Thinking Together and Argumentation
Lesson part Description learning activities Duration
(min.)
Preparation
for students
Didactics: Read Appendix A, B and C of the study guide.
EGD background: Read Energy transition Netherlands, Green Peace,
Scientific fundament.
Introduction The teacher educator briefly reviews meeting 1 and checks to what
extent the GPS model and the 4 didactic principles have been understood.
10
Reflection on
data collection
task
This part starts with an introduction by the teacher educator on
argumentation skills (see Appendix C of the study guide). Then, in
groups of 3 or 4, participants discuss the data they have collected
(transcriptions/sound/video of argumentations). Guiding questions are:
what do you think of your students’ argumentation? How did the activity
itself go? How did the didactic principle of argumentation work for
you? Were you satisfied, would you do it differently another time?
First openly, then using Appendix C.
20
Taking a
perspective
(teaching
method;
Expert groups)
This part begins with a brief introduction of the teaching method Expert
Groups (Jigsaw method) by the teacher educator. The EGD issue around
Energy Transition is then worked out using expert groups. The participants
put themselves in the role of a particular ‘expert’ and analyze a particular
problem from that perspective.
45
Appendix B - EASE course script | 65
Taking a
perspective
(teaching
method;
Expert groups)
Goals: Deepening the content knowledge about the EGD issue of energy
transition and deepening the application of the didactic principles of
thinking together and argumentation.
The course of this part using the 4-steps of the GPS model:
1. Discussing the problem with the whole group according to the
four questions of step 1 (GPS model). Starting point is that the
participants have read the information at ‘preparation for students’.
Problem: Global warming has negative consequences for Europe and
the Netherlands. How do we get rid of fossil fuels (energy transition)?
After discussing the four questions from step 1, the ‘expert groups’
are introduced.
2. Analysis (step 2) is elaborated using the ‘expert groups’. First, the
whole group examines the perspectives (which parties are involved).
Each party is represented by an expert group of 2 or 3 participants
(government, energy companies, water boards, environmental lobby,
Formula 1 fans, Schiphol Airport, climate scientists...). Each group,
using the questions of the analysis step (GPS model), analyses the
problem from its own perspective and then devises solutions to
realize the energy transition.
3. Decision (step 3). The teacher educator leads the debate between the
different parties. Each party may first present its solutions. Then the
groups enter into discussion with each other. The aim is to arrive at a
widely supported solution to the problem.
4. Debriefing (step 4). During step 3 above, two participants observe the
argumentation and cooperation within the groups (step 2) and in the
debate (step 3). In this step, the two observers lead the evaluation
hereof. First, the observers discuss what they noticed in the behavior
of the teacher educator and fellow participants regarding their
argumentation and collaboration during the process, and then they
draw conclusions about the extent of science and technology content,
argumentation, and collaboration (didactic principles 2, 3 and 4).
Closure The teacher educator takes over from the observers and discusses
what lessons have been learned with regard to stimulating students’
argumentation and what role the teacher plays in this (modelling;
teacher educator explicates and discusses his/her teacher behavior).
Finally, the link is made to didactic principle network thinking, this will
be discussed in more detail in the next meeting.
15
Assignment
for meeting 3
Make an inventory of which climate and environmental topics are alive
in your classroom. Use a suitable teaching method for this (see also, for
example, Appendix F from the study guide).
Appendix B - EASE course script | 66
Meeting 3 Network Thinking
Lesson part Description learning activities Duration
(min.)
Preparation Didactics: Read Appendix C and D of the study guide.
EGD background: read Climate neutral, what does this mean?,
In class: Make an inventory of the climate and environmental issues in
your class. Use a suitable teaching method for this (see also Appendix F
from the study guide).
For those who cannot get enough: https://edepot.wur.nl/406796
Introduction It starts with a short group discussion, led by the teacher educator,
looking back on session 2, the GPS model and the 4 didactic principles
(zooming in on network thinking and argumentation). Then, introducing
network thinking, the didactics (Appendix D of the study guide), and in
the practice of Europe Climate Neutral.
Theory on cohesion in sustainable development; The dimensions of
sustainable development (from 1:33)
10
Making a
network map
Teacher educator introduces the network map task.
A network map is a tool to take a perspective and formulate arguments
pro/con from a perspective (EGD stakeholder). From each perspective,
we also look further into the future and other perspectives (what does
it mean for the next generation? What does our action for actor B mean
for actor C? For the environment you would do x, but for the economy?
And for people’s well-being? And is it feasible?)
Participants are then given the following task:
Make with your group (of 4) a network map about an EGD theme
(choose a specific theme within the students’ perceived world; perhaps
indicate choices/examples such as waste around the school/ too little
biodiversity around the school/ reducing CO2 emissions of the school or
of village/neighborhood).
This could also be the topic of meeting 1. You
will have 20 minutes for this.
During the group work, the teacher educator ensures that the
articipants show the different perspectives on the network map.
To do this, he/she uses the didactics described in the appendices
in the study guide on the didactic principles.
25
Lesson design The teacher educator asks in group discussion with the whole group
how the participants experienced his/her supervision. After linking his/
her own teacher behaviour to the didactics from the appendices of the
reader, the teacher educator introduces the assignment:
With your group, design a lesson for your own group, based on the
network map you have just created. In your lesson design, keep in mind
that you will indicate how you will ensure that on the network map your
students create, the different perspectives become clearly visible. (How
to use didactic principles)
20
Appendix B - EASE course script | 67
Presentation The groups present their own network map and how they arrived at a
lesson design from there. After each presentation, feedback is given
by the group and teacher educator and a short discussion is held.
Important discussion point is: how does the teacher ensure that
students think and argue together and take different perspectives
and does the network map help in this?
10
Closure The teacher educator briefly reviews meeting 3 and then presents the
processing assignment for the 4th meeting. He/she then brainstorms
with the participants on how to conduct the group interview and with
which questions the participants will get useful feedback from their
students. The feedback from students should be useful to improve their
lesson design and teacher behaviour. (What would you like to know from
your students? What do you need to improve your lesson?)
15
Processing
assignment
Present the lesson design of the network map to colleges and/or
students and interview a college and/or a group of students about
this lesson (group interview; participants are given a sheet with sample
interview questions and instructions on how to follow up on them).
Record this interview and make a transcription (tip: use software such
as Amberscript).
10
Meeting 4 Thinking Together and Making Decisions
Lesson part Description learning activities Duration
(min.)
Preparation Didactics: Read Appendix D and E of the study guide.
EGD issue: Watch the video ‘Green Deals Approach’ on the website:
Network of Green Deals.
Introduction The teacher educator discusses Appendices D and E with the group,
focusing on the following questions: What did you notice? What experience
do the participants themselves have? What barriers do they see (for
themselves or colleagues)? and how can these barriers be removed?
15
Discussing
students’
feedback
The teacher educator divides the group into small groups (3 or 4). In the
groups, the participants discuss the transcripts of the group interviews
with each other (per participant). Next, conclusions are drawn regarding
students’ thinking together, argumentation and network thinking, what
works/does not work. The conclusions of the different groups are then
shared in the large group.
25
Deciding and
taking action
The teacher educator then introduces the next group assignment:
Making a network map is part of the analysis step (step 2 of the GPS
model). Step 3 of the GPS model is about making decisions together and
step 4 is about debriefing. Guiding the processes during these last two
steps requires careful direction. Discuss in groups (same as in meeting
3) how this process can best be steered, which methods can be used
(see appendix G of the study guide) and what the teacher’s role is in this.
35
Appendix B - EASE course script | 68
Deciding and
taking action
First, each group presents their own schematic of steps 3 and 4 (GPS
model) and their prediction of what actions their students will come up
with. Then the teacher educator looks back on meeting 4 and introduces
the assignment for meeting 5.
15
Assignment
for meeting 5
Explore the archive of scientific citizenship lesson materials and then de-
cide which lesson series fits into your school’s curriculum and which you
yourself, after adapting, would like to work with in your classroom.
Meeting 5 Redesigning Scientific Citizenship Lesson Series
Lesson part Description learning activities Duration
(min.)
Preparation Participants study scientific citizenship teaching materials in the archive.
Recap The teacher educator begins with an introduction about the European
Green Deal outlining the broader picture (i.e., connection to global
approaches to sustainable development) and discusses which of the
scientific citizenship teaching materials participants think fit within the
EGD and are suitable for their own group (and why). Groups are then
formed of participants who want to work with (roughly) the same tea-
ching materials. The participants then (re)design a lesson series for their
own group according to the GPS model around an EGD issue. The design
should clearly indicate which science knowledge students gain and how
the four didactic principles are applied.
50
Discussing
students’
feedback
Participants have broadly designed their own lesson series. Now they
explore how they can evaluate their design in order to make subsequent
improvements. From whom can you collect different kinds of feedback
and how do you ensure that you can use that feedback to improve your
design?
Participants reflect on this and put their ideas on paper:
1. Participants discuss their ideas in groups and critique each other’s
ideas.
2. In the large group, the ideas are discussed and argued. Central ques-
tions here are: what feedback do you get from whom and how can
you make sure that the feedback is really useful for improving your
design (e.g., by asking open questions that focus on the intended
purpose).
25
Closure Brief review of the meeting and discuss the assignment for next time. 15
Assignment
for meeting 6
1) Collect feedback on the designed lesson series from at least two diffe-
rent types of respondents (colleagues/mentor/students). Make sure that
the feedback relates to students’ learning of content-related science
knowledge (does it fit the students, is there sufficient learning, etc.) and
to the didactic principles (is each principle sufficiently present).
15
Appendix B - EASE course script | 69
Assignment
for meeting 6
2) Adjust your design based on the feedback obtained.
3) Make a short presentation of maximum 5 minutes (pitch; choose your
own form; poster, PowerPoint, vlog, ...) about the adjusted design of
your lesson series and show in it how the goals are achieved (goals
regarding science knowledge and the four didactic principles) and
how you dealt with the feedback you received from colleagues and/or
students (point 1).
Meeting 6 Pitches (guests are invited to this meeting)
Lesson part Description learning activities Duration
(min.)
Preparation Participants prepare a pitch of max. 5 minutes (see assignment)
The teacher educator encourages participants to invite one or more
colleagues (e.g., the citizenship/culture/science coordinator) or the
mentor and makes an invitation to do so. Furthermore, he/she reserves
an extra room for the presentations.
Recap First, a brief review of the previous meeting, then discuss with the whole
group the experiences of collecting feedback on the design (discussing
what worked and what did not) and how the design was adapted based
on the feedback.
10
Presenting
the lesson
designs
(teaching me-
thod pitching;
Short convin-
cing presenta-
tion)
Participants are divided into 3 or 4 groups (based on content theme).
Guests are given the role of judges and divided among the groups.
Then each group (with guests) goes to its own room. Within the groups,
each participant pitches and presents the designed lesson series in 5
minutes. Afterwards, the judges ask (clarifying/critical) questions to
the participant (approx. 10 minutes). When all participants in the group
have presented, the judges choose a winner.
60
Closure The judges of all groups tell who has become the winner of their group
and motivate their choice. This is followed by a brief closing of the
course by the teacher educator.
20
Appendix C - Development of the EESD questionnaire | 70
APPENDIX C
Development of the EESD questionnaire
Learning objective Inspired by.. Items extensive EESD questionnaire
Item shortened
EESD
questionnaire
1 2 3 4 5
A. Knowledge
about EESD
A1. Knowledge of
the connection
between curriculum
standards,
citizenship
education, SSI
education, European
Education for
Sustainable
Development, and
the EGD.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues is related to citizenship
education.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues is related to science and
technology.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues contributes to knowledge
about Europe.
A2. Knowledge of
the essence of SSI
x I have enough knowledge about EGD
issues to teach about this.
I have enough
knowledge
about EGD
issues to teach
about this.
A2a. Knowledge of
and about the
science involved in
SSI
x x I have enough scientific and
technological knowledge to teach
about EGD issues.
x x I understand well enough how science
works to teach about EGD issues
A2b. Knowledge of
the moral/ethical
considerations
regarding SSI
I have enough knowledge about
ethical and moral considerations to
teach about EGD issues.
A2c. Knowledge of
the social
considerations
associated with
SSI
I have enough knowledge about social
considerations to teach about EGD
issues.
A3. Knowledge
about the
educational
principles for group
problem solving.
x x I have enough knowledge about good
didactics to teach about EGD issues.
x x I know how I can effectively teach
about EGD issues.
I know how I can
effectively teach
about EGD
issues.
A3a. Knowledge of
argumentation and
the evaluation of
arguments
I have enough knowledge about good
argumentation to teach about EGD
issues.
A4. Knowledge
about the resources
students bring into
EESD
I know enough about my students'
daily lives to understand how EDG
issues play a role in their lives.
B. Skills
regarding
EESD
B1. The ability to
redesign learning
activities according
to the educational
principles for group
problem solving: (1)
argumentation, (2)
connected learning,
(3) decision making
and (4) thinking
together.
x I can find materials that are useful for
designing education on EGD issues.
x
I can adapt existing materials so that
they are suitable to teach about EGD
issues to my students.
I can adapt
existing
materials so that
they are suitable
to teach about
EGD issues to
my students.
x I can develop appropriate learning
objectives for teaching about EGD
issues.
x I can evaluate the outcomes of
teaching about EGD issues.
B2. The ability to
stimulate students’
group problem
solving skills.
I can teach students to look at EGD
issues from different perspectives.
I can teach
students to work
with a group on
solving EGD
issues.
I can teach students to think in “if ...
then ...” reasoning about EGD issues.
I can teach students to discuss EGD
issues.
x I can teach students how to think
together about EGD issues.
I can teach students how they can
make decisions about EGD issues
together.
x x x I can properly help students who get
stuck during assignments on EGD
issues.
x x I can adapt my explanations of EGD
issues to the different levels in my
class.
x x x x I can deal appropriately with students'
questions about EGD issues.
x x I can motivate students to remain task
oriented while learning about EGD
issues.
B2a. The ability to
help students
make connections
between science,
SSI, and the EGD.
I can make clear to students what
scientific and technological
developments have to do with EGD
issues.
B2b.The ability to
facilitate moral and
ethical
development of
students
x I can stimulate students’ moral thinking
through teaching about EGD issues.
I can stimulate
students’ moral
thinking through
teaching about
EGD issues.
B2c. The ability to
facilitate
discussion and
argumentation in
the classroom,
evaluate students’
SSI arguments
during the
discussions in the
classroom, and
provide feedback
I can assess whether students use
good arguments in discussions about
EGD issues.
I can give students feedback on their
arguments on EGD issues.
x I can motivate students to discuss
EGD issues.
B2d. The ability to
facilitate science
learning in the
context of SSI
x x I can teach students how science
develops knowledge about EGD
issues.
I can stimulate learning about science
and technology through teaching about
EGD issues.
I can stimulate
learning about
science and
technology
through teaching
about EGD
issues.
B3. The ability to
value students’
resources in EESD
x x I can take into account students' daily
lives when teaching about EGD
issues.
x x I can let students use their knowledge,
skills and experiences in teaching
about EGD issues.
C. Attitudes
towards EESD
C1. Being interested
in SSI and the EGD
x I think EGD issues are interesting.
C2. Feeling
responsible for
addressing SSIs and
the EGD in the
classroom
I think it is important that students
receive education about EGD issues.
I think it is
important that
students receive
education about
EGD issues.
C3. Feeling secure
about the
uncertainties and
unpredictability
related to SSI
x x x I think I can deal well with the
unpredictability of teaching about EGD
issues.
I dare to teach
about EGD
issues.
C3a. the handing
of control to
students
x I dare to give students control over
their learning when teaching about
EGD issues.
C3b. being honest
about knowledge
limitations
I dare to tell students that I don't know
everything about EGD issues either.
C3c. willingness to
position
themselves as
knowledge
contributors rather
than the sole
authority
I dare to point out a student who
knows more about EGD issues than I
do as an expert.
C3d. confidence to
touch upon
controversial
aspects
x I dare to discuss also the controversial
aspects of EGD issues in class.
C3e. open-
mindedness to
student positions
that differ from the
teacher’s own
I can guide students in forming their
own opinions about EGD issues
without imposing my own opinion
(even if I think they have an “incorrect”
opinion).
Appendix C - Development of the EESD questionnaire | 71
Learning objective Inspired by.. Items extensive EESD questionnaire
Item shortened
EESD
questionnaire
1 2 3 4 5
A. Knowledge
about EESD
A1. Knowledge of
the connection
between curriculum
standards,
citizenship
education, SSI
education, European
Education for
Sustainable
Development, and
the EGD.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues is related to citizenship
education.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues is related to science and
technology.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues contributes to knowledge
about Europe.
A2. Knowledge of
the essence of SSI
x I have enough knowledge about EGD
issues to teach about this.
I have enough
knowledge
about EGD
issues to teach
about this.
A2a. Knowledge of
and about the
science involved in
SSI
x x I have enough scientific and
technological knowledge to teach
about EGD issues.
x x I understand well enough how science
works to teach about EGD issues
A2b. Knowledge of
the moral/ethical
considerations
regarding SSI
I have enough knowledge about
ethical and moral considerations to
teach about EGD issues.
A2c. Knowledge of
the social
considerations
associated with
SSI
I have enough knowledge about social
considerations to teach about EGD
issues.
A3. Knowledge
about the
educational
principles for group
problem solving.
x x I have enough knowledge about good
didactics to teach about EGD issues.
x x I know how I can effectively teach
about EGD issues.
I know how I can
effectively teach
about EGD
issues.
A3a. Knowledge of
argumentation and
the evaluation of
arguments
I have enough knowledge about good
argumentation to teach about EGD
issues.
A4. Knowledge
about the resources
students bring into
EESD
I know enough about my students'
daily lives to understand how EDG
issues play a role in their lives.
B. Skills
regarding
EESD
B1. The ability to
redesign learning
activities according
to the educational
principles for group
problem solving: (1)
argumentation, (2)
connected learning,
(3) decision making
and (4) thinking
together.
x I can find materials that are useful for
designing education on EGD issues.
x
I can adapt existing materials so that
they are suitable to teach about EGD
issues to my students.
I can adapt
existing
materials so that
they are suitable
to teach about
EGD issues to
my students.
x I can develop appropriate learning
objectives for teaching about EGD
issues.
x I can evaluate the outcomes of
teaching about EGD issues.
B2. The ability to
stimulate students’
group problem
solving skills.
I can teach students to look at EGD
issues from different perspectives.
I can teach
students to work
with a group on
solving EGD
issues.
I can teach students to think in “if ...
then ...” reasoning about EGD issues.
I can teach students to discuss EGD
issues.
x I can teach students how to think
together about EGD issues.
I can teach students how they can
make decisions about EGD issues
together.
x x x I can properly help students who get
stuck during assignments on EGD
issues.
x x I can adapt my explanations of EGD
issues to the different levels in my
class.
x x x x I can deal appropriately with students'
questions about EGD issues.
x x I can motivate students to remain task
oriented while learning about EGD
issues.
B2a. The ability to
help students
make connections
between science,
SSI, and the EGD.
I can make clear to students what
scientific and technological
developments have to do with EGD
issues.
B2b.The ability to
facilitate moral and
ethical
development of
students
x I can stimulate students’ moral thinking
through teaching about EGD issues.
I can stimulate
students’ moral
thinking through
teaching about
EGD issues.
B2c. The ability to
facilitate
discussion and
argumentation in
the classroom,
evaluate students’
SSI arguments
during the
discussions in the
classroom, and
provide feedback
I can assess whether students use
good arguments in discussions about
EGD issues.
I can give students feedback on their
arguments on EGD issues.
x I can motivate students to discuss
EGD issues.
B2d. The ability to
facilitate science
learning in the
context of SSI
x x I can teach students how science
develops knowledge about EGD
issues.
I can stimulate learning about science
and technology through teaching about
EGD issues.
I can stimulate
learning about
science and
technology
through teaching
about EGD
issues.
B3. The ability to
value students’
resources in EESD
x x I can take into account students' daily
lives when teaching about EGD
issues.
x x I can let students use their knowledge,
skills and experiences in teaching
about EGD issues.
C. Attitudes
towards EESD
C1. Being interested
in SSI and the EGD
x I think EGD issues are interesting.
C2. Feeling
responsible for
addressing SSIs and
the EGD in the
classroom
I think it is important that students
receive education about EGD issues.
I think it is
important that
students receive
education about
EGD issues.
C3. Feeling secure
about the
uncertainties and
unpredictability
related to SSI
x x x I think I can deal well with the
unpredictability of teaching about EGD
issues.
I dare to teach
about EGD
issues.
C3a. the handing
of control to
students
x I dare to give students control over
their learning when teaching about
EGD issues.
C3b. being honest
about knowledge
limitations
I dare to tell students that I don't know
everything about EGD issues either.
C3c. willingness to
position
themselves as
knowledge
contributors rather
than the sole
authority
I dare to point out a student who
knows more about EGD issues than I
do as an expert.
C3d. confidence to
touch upon
controversial
aspects
x I dare to discuss also the controversial
aspects of EGD issues in class.
C3e. open-
mindedness to
student positions
that differ from the
teacher’s own
I can guide students in forming their
own opinions about EGD issues
without imposing my own opinion
(even if I think they have an “incorrect”
opinion).
Learning objective Inspired by.. Items extensive EESD questionnaire
Item shortened
EESD
questionnaire
1 2 3 4 5
A. Knowledge
about EESD
A1. Knowledge of
the connection
between curriculum
standards,
citizenship
education, SSI
education, European
Education for
Sustainable
Development, and
the EGD.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues is related to citizenship
education.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues is related to science and
technology.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues contributes to knowledge
about Europe.
A2. Knowledge of
the essence of SSI
x I have enough knowledge about EGD
issues to teach about this.
I have enough
knowledge
about EGD
issues to teach
about this.
A2a. Knowledge of
and about the
science involved in
SSI
x x I have enough scientific and
technological knowledge to teach
about EGD issues.
x x I understand well enough how science
works to teach about EGD issues
A2b. Knowledge of
the moral/ethical
considerations
regarding SSI
I have enough knowledge about
ethical and moral considerations to
teach about EGD issues.
A2c. Knowledge of
the social
considerations
associated with
SSI
I have enough knowledge about social
considerations to teach about EGD
issues.
A3. Knowledge
about the
educational
principles for group
problem solving.
x x I have enough knowledge about good
didactics to teach about EGD issues.
x x I know how I can effectively teach
about EGD issues.
I know how I can
effectively teach
about EGD
issues.
A3a. Knowledge of
argumentation and
the evaluation of
arguments
I have enough knowledge about good
argumentation to teach about EGD
issues.
A4. Knowledge
about the resources
students bring into
EESD
I know enough about my students'
daily lives to understand how EDG
issues play a role in their lives.
B. Skills
regarding
EESD
B1. The ability to
redesign learning
activities according
to the educational
principles for group
problem solving: (1)
argumentation, (2)
connected learning,
(3) decision making
and (4) thinking
together.
x I can find materials that are useful for
designing education on EGD issues.
x
I can adapt existing materials so that
they are suitable to teach about EGD
issues to my students.
I can adapt
existing
materials so that
they are suitable
to teach about
EGD issues to
my students.
x I can develop appropriate learning
objectives for teaching about EGD
issues.
x I can evaluate the outcomes of
teaching about EGD issues.
B2. The ability to
stimulate students’
group problem
solving skills.
I can teach students to look at EGD
issues from different perspectives.
I can teach
students to work
with a group on
solving EGD
issues.
I can teach students to think in “if ...
then ...” reasoning about EGD issues.
I can teach students to discuss EGD
issues.
x I can teach students how to think
together about EGD issues.
I can teach students how they can
make decisions about EGD issues
together.
x x x I can properly help students who get
stuck during assignments on EGD
issues.
x x I can adapt my explanations of EGD
issues to the different levels in my
class.
x x x x I can deal appropriately with students'
questions about EGD issues.
x x I can motivate students to remain task
oriented while learning about EGD
issues.
B2a. The ability to
help students
make connections
between science,
SSI, and the EGD.
I can make clear to students what
scientific and technological
developments have to do with EGD
issues.
B2b.The ability to
facilitate moral and
ethical
development of
students
x I can stimulate students’ moral thinking
through teaching about EGD issues.
I can stimulate
students’ moral
thinking through
teaching about
EGD issues.
B2c. The ability to
facilitate
discussion and
argumentation in
the classroom,
evaluate students’
SSI arguments
during the
discussions in the
classroom, and
provide feedback
I can assess whether students use
good arguments in discussions about
EGD issues.
I can give students feedback on their
arguments on EGD issues.
x I can motivate students to discuss
EGD issues.
B2d. The ability to
facilitate science
learning in the
context of SSI
x x I can teach students how science
develops knowledge about EGD
issues.
I can stimulate learning about science
and technology through teaching about
EGD issues.
I can stimulate
learning about
science and
technology
through teaching
about EGD
issues.
B3. The ability to
value students’
resources in EESD
x x I can take into account students' daily
lives when teaching about EGD
issues.
x x I can let students use their knowledge,
skills and experiences in teaching
about EGD issues.
C. Attitudes
towards EESD
C1. Being interested
in SSI and the EGD
x I think EGD issues are interesting.
C2. Feeling
responsible for
addressing SSIs and
the EGD in the
classroom
I think it is important that students
receive education about EGD issues.
I think it is
important that
students receive
education about
EGD issues.
C3. Feeling secure
about the
uncertainties and
unpredictability
related to SSI
x x x I think I can deal well with the
unpredictability of teaching about EGD
issues.
I dare to teach
about EGD
issues.
C3a. the handing
of control to
students
x I dare to give students control over
their learning when teaching about
EGD issues.
C3b. being honest
about knowledge
limitations
I dare to tell students that I don't know
everything about EGD issues either.
C3c. willingness to
position
themselves as
knowledge
contributors rather
than the sole
authority
I dare to point out a student who
knows more about EGD issues than I
do as an expert.
C3d. confidence to
touch upon
controversial
aspects
x I dare to discuss also the controversial
aspects of EGD issues in class.
C3e. open-
mindedness to
student positions
that differ from the
teacher’s own
I can guide students in forming their
own opinions about EGD issues
without imposing my own opinion
(even if I think they have an “incorrect”
opinion).
Appendix C - Development of the EESD questionnaire | 72
Learning objective Inspired by.. Items extensive EESD questionnaire
Item shortened
EESD
questionnaire
1 2 3 4 5
A. Knowledge
about EESD
A1. Knowledge of
the connection
between curriculum
standards,
citizenship
education, SSI
education, European
Education for
Sustainable
Development, and
the EGD.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues is related to citizenship
education.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues is related to science and
technology.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues contributes to knowledge
about Europe.
A2. Knowledge of
the essence of SSI
x I have enough knowledge about EGD
issues to teach about this.
I have enough
knowledge
about EGD
issues to teach
about this.
A2a. Knowledge of
and about the
science involved in
SSI
x x I have enough scientific and
technological knowledge to teach
about EGD issues.
x x I understand well enough how science
works to teach about EGD issues
A2b. Knowledge of
the moral/ethical
considerations
regarding SSI
I have enough knowledge about
ethical and moral considerations to
teach about EGD issues.
A2c. Knowledge of
the social
considerations
associated with
SSI
I have enough knowledge about social
considerations to teach about EGD
issues.
A3. Knowledge
about the
educational
principles for group
problem solving.
x x I have enough knowledge about good
didactics to teach about EGD issues.
x x I know how I can effectively teach
about EGD issues.
I know how I can
effectively teach
about EGD
issues.
A3a. Knowledge of
argumentation and
the evaluation of
arguments
I have enough knowledge about good
argumentation to teach about EGD
issues.
A4. Knowledge
about the resources
students bring into
EESD
I know enough about my students'
daily lives to understand how EDG
issues play a role in their lives.
B. Skills
regarding
EESD
B1. The ability to
redesign learning
activities according
to the educational
principles for group
problem solving: (1)
argumentation, (2)
connected learning,
(3) decision making
and (4) thinking
together.
x I can find materials that are useful for
designing education on EGD issues.
x
I can adapt existing materials so that
they are suitable to teach about EGD
issues to my students.
I can adapt
existing
materials so that
they are suitable
to teach about
EGD issues to
my students.
x I can develop appropriate learning
objectives for teaching about EGD
issues.
x I can evaluate the outcomes of
teaching about EGD issues.
B2. The ability to
stimulate students’
group problem
solving skills.
I can teach students to look at EGD
issues from different perspectives.
I can teach
students to work
with a group on
solving EGD
issues.
I can teach students to think in “if ...
then ...” reasoning about EGD issues.
I can teach students to discuss EGD
issues.
x I can teach students how to think
together about EGD issues.
I can teach students how they can
make decisions about EGD issues
together.
x x x I can properly help students who get
stuck during assignments on EGD
issues.
x x I can adapt my explanations of EGD
issues to the different levels in my
class.
x x x x I can deal appropriately with students'
questions about EGD issues.
x x I can motivate students to remain task
oriented while learning about EGD
issues.
B2a. The ability to
help students
make connections
between science,
SSI, and the EGD.
I can make clear to students what
scientific and technological
developments have to do with EGD
issues.
B2b.The ability to
facilitate moral and
ethical
development of
students
x I can stimulate students’ moral thinking
through teaching about EGD issues.
I can stimulate
students’ moral
thinking through
teaching about
EGD issues.
B2c. The ability to
facilitate
discussion and
argumentation in
the classroom,
evaluate students’
SSI arguments
during the
discussions in the
classroom, and
provide feedback
I can assess whether students use
good arguments in discussions about
EGD issues.
I can give students feedback on their
arguments on EGD issues.
x I can motivate students to discuss
EGD issues.
B2d. The ability to
facilitate science
learning in the
context of SSI
x x I can teach students how science
develops knowledge about EGD
issues.
I can stimulate learning about science
and technology through teaching about
EGD issues.
I can stimulate
learning about
science and
technology
through teaching
about EGD
issues.
B3. The ability to
value students’
resources in EESD
x x I can take into account students' daily
lives when teaching about EGD
issues.
x x I can let students use their knowledge,
skills and experiences in teaching
about EGD issues.
C. Attitudes
towards EESD
C1. Being interested
in SSI and the EGD
x I think EGD issues are interesting.
C2. Feeling
responsible for
addressing SSIs and
the EGD in the
classroom
I think it is important that students
receive education about EGD issues.
I think it is
important that
students receive
education about
EGD issues.
C3. Feeling secure
about the
uncertainties and
unpredictability
related to SSI
x x x I think I can deal well with the
unpredictability of teaching about EGD
issues.
I dare to teach
about EGD
issues.
C3a. the handing
of control to
students
x I dare to give students control over
their learning when teaching about
EGD issues.
C3b. being honest
about knowledge
limitations
I dare to tell students that I don't know
everything about EGD issues either.
C3c. willingness to
position
themselves as
knowledge
contributors rather
than the sole
authority
I dare to point out a student who
knows more about EGD issues than I
do as an expert.
C3d. confidence to
touch upon
controversial
aspects
x I dare to discuss also the controversial
aspects of EGD issues in class.
C3e. open-
mindedness to
student positions
that differ from the
teacher’s own
I can guide students in forming their
own opinions about EGD issues
without imposing my own opinion
(even if I think they have an “incorrect”
opinion).
Learning objective Inspired by.. Items extensive EESD questionnaire
Item shortened
EESD
questionnaire
1 2 3 4 5
A. Knowledge
about EESD
A1. Knowledge of
the connection
between curriculum
standards,
citizenship
education, SSI
education, European
Education for
Sustainable
Development, and
the EGD.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues is related to citizenship
education.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues is related to science and
technology.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues contributes to knowledge
about Europe.
A2. Knowledge of
the essence of SSI
x I have enough knowledge about EGD
issues to teach about this.
I have enough
knowledge
about EGD
issues to teach
about this.
A2a. Knowledge of
and about the
science involved in
SSI
x x I have enough scientific and
technological knowledge to teach
about EGD issues.
x x I understand well enough how science
works to teach about EGD issues
A2b. Knowledge of
the moral/ethical
considerations
regarding SSI
I have enough knowledge about
ethical and moral considerations to
teach about EGD issues.
A2c. Knowledge of
the social
considerations
associated with
SSI
I have enough knowledge about social
considerations to teach about EGD
issues.
A3. Knowledge
about the
educational
principles for group
problem solving.
x x I have enough knowledge about good
didactics to teach about EGD issues.
x x I know how I can effectively teach
about EGD issues.
I know how I can
effectively teach
about EGD
issues.
A3a. Knowledge of
argumentation and
the evaluation of
arguments
I have enough knowledge about good
argumentation to teach about EGD
issues.
A4. Knowledge
about the resources
students bring into
EESD
I know enough about my students'
daily lives to understand how EDG
issues play a role in their lives.
B. Skills
regarding
EESD
B1. The ability to
redesign learning
activities according
to the educational
principles for group
problem solving: (1)
argumentation, (2)
connected learning,
(3) decision making
and (4) thinking
together.
x I can find materials that are useful for
designing education on EGD issues.
x
I can adapt existing materials so that
they are suitable to teach about EGD
issues to my students.
I can adapt
existing
materials so that
they are suitable
to teach about
EGD issues to
my students.
x I can develop appropriate learning
objectives for teaching about EGD
issues.
x I can evaluate the outcomes of
teaching about EGD issues.
B2. The ability to
stimulate students’
group problem
solving skills.
I can teach students to look at EGD
issues from different perspectives.
I can teach
students to work
with a group on
solving EGD
issues.
I can teach students to think in “if ...
then ...” reasoning about EGD issues.
I can teach students to discuss EGD
issues.
x I can teach students how to think
together about EGD issues.
I can teach students how they can
make decisions about EGD issues
together.
x x x I can properly help students who get
stuck during assignments on EGD
issues.
x x I can adapt my explanations of EGD
issues to the different levels in my
class.
x x x x I can deal appropriately with students'
questions about EGD issues.
x x I can motivate students to remain task
oriented while learning about EGD
issues.
B2a. The ability to
help students
make connections
between science,
SSI, and the EGD.
I can make clear to students what
scientific and technological
developments have to do with EGD
issues.
B2b.The ability to
facilitate moral and
ethical
development of
students
x I can stimulate students’ moral thinking
through teaching about EGD issues.
I can stimulate
students’ moral
thinking through
teaching about
EGD issues.
B2c. The ability to
facilitate
discussion and
argumentation in
the classroom,
evaluate students’
SSI arguments
during the
discussions in the
classroom, and
provide feedback
I can assess whether students use
good arguments in discussions about
EGD issues.
I can give students feedback on their
arguments on EGD issues.
x I can motivate students to discuss
EGD issues.
B2d. The ability to
facilitate science
learning in the
context of SSI
x x I can teach students how science
develops knowledge about EGD
issues.
I can stimulate learning about science
and technology through teaching about
EGD issues.
I can stimulate
learning about
science and
technology
through teaching
about EGD
issues.
B3. The ability to
value students’
resources in EESD
x x I can take into account students' daily
lives when teaching about EGD
issues.
x x I can let students use their knowledge,
skills and experiences in teaching
about EGD issues.
C. Attitudes
towards EESD
C1. Being interested
in SSI and the EGD
x I think EGD issues are interesting.
C2. Feeling
responsible for
addressing SSIs and
the EGD in the
classroom
I think it is important that students
receive education about EGD issues.
I think it is
important that
students receive
education about
EGD issues.
C3. Feeling secure
about the
uncertainties and
unpredictability
related to SSI
x x x I think I can deal well with the
unpredictability of teaching about EGD
issues.
I dare to teach
about EGD
issues.
C3a. the handing
of control to
students
x I dare to give students control over
their learning when teaching about
EGD issues.
C3b. being honest
about knowledge
limitations
I dare to tell students that I don't know
everything about EGD issues either.
C3c. willingness to
position
themselves as
knowledge
contributors rather
than the sole
authority
I dare to point out a student who
knows more about EGD issues than I
do as an expert.
C3d. confidence to
touch upon
controversial
aspects
x I dare to discuss also the controversial
aspects of EGD issues in class.
C3e. open-
mindedness to
student positions
that differ from the
teacher’s own
I can guide students in forming their
own opinions about EGD issues
without imposing my own opinion
(even if I think they have an “incorrect”
opinion).
Appendix C - Development of the EESD questionnaire | 73
Learning objective Inspired by.. Items extensive EESD questionnaire
Item shortened
EESD
questionnaire
1 2 3 4 5
A. Knowledge
about EESD
A1. Knowledge of
the connection
between curriculum
standards,
citizenship
education, SSI
education, European
Education for
Sustainable
Development, and
the EGD.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues is related to citizenship
education.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues is related to science and
technology.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues contributes to knowledge
about Europe.
A2. Knowledge of
the essence of SSI
x I have enough knowledge about EGD
issues to teach about this.
I have enough
knowledge
about EGD
issues to teach
about this.
A2a. Knowledge of
and about the
science involved in
SSI
x x I have enough scientific and
technological knowledge to teach
about EGD issues.
x x I understand well enough how science
works to teach about EGD issues
A2b. Knowledge of
the moral/ethical
considerations
regarding SSI
I have enough knowledge about
ethical and moral considerations to
teach about EGD issues.
A2c. Knowledge of
the social
considerations
associated with
SSI
I have enough knowledge about social
considerations to teach about EGD
issues.
A3. Knowledge
about the
educational
principles for group
problem solving.
x x I have enough knowledge about good
didactics to teach about EGD issues.
x x I know how I can effectively teach
about EGD issues.
I know how I can
effectively teach
about EGD
issues.
A3a. Knowledge of
argumentation and
the evaluation of
arguments
I have enough knowledge about good
argumentation to teach about EGD
issues.
A4. Knowledge
about the resources
students bring into
EESD
I know enough about my students'
daily lives to understand how EDG
issues play a role in their lives.
B. Skills
regarding
EESD
B1. The ability to
redesign learning
activities according
to the educational
principles for group
problem solving: (1)
argumentation, (2)
connected learning,
(3) decision making
and (4) thinking
together.
x I can find materials that are useful for
designing education on EGD issues.
x
I can adapt existing materials so that
they are suitable to teach about EGD
issues to my students.
I can adapt
existing
materials so that
they are suitable
to teach about
EGD issues to
my students.
x I can develop appropriate learning
objectives for teaching about EGD
issues.
x I can evaluate the outcomes of
teaching about EGD issues.
B2. The ability to
stimulate students’
group problem
solving skills.
I can teach students to look at EGD
issues from different perspectives.
I can teach
students to work
with a group on
solving EGD
issues.
I can teach students to think in “if ...
then ...” reasoning about EGD issues.
I can teach students to discuss EGD
issues.
x I can teach students how to think
together about EGD issues.
I can teach students how they can
make decisions about EGD issues
together.
x x x I can properly help students who get
stuck during assignments on EGD
issues.
x x I can adapt my explanations of EGD
issues to the different levels in my
class.
x x x x I can deal appropriately with students'
questions about EGD issues.
x x I can motivate students to remain task
oriented while learning about EGD
issues.
B2a. The ability to
help students
make connections
between science,
SSI, and the EGD.
I can make clear to students what
scientific and technological
developments have to do with EGD
issues.
B2b.The ability to
facilitate moral and
ethical
development of
students
x I can stimulate students’ moral thinking
through teaching about EGD issues.
I can stimulate
students’ moral
thinking through
teaching about
EGD issues.
B2c. The ability to
facilitate
discussion and
argumentation in
the classroom,
evaluate students’
SSI arguments
during the
discussions in the
classroom, and
provide feedback
I can assess whether students use
good arguments in discussions about
EGD issues.
I can give students feedback on their
arguments on EGD issues.
x I can motivate students to discuss
EGD issues.
B2d. The ability to
facilitate science
learning in the
context of SSI
x x I can teach students how science
develops knowledge about EGD
issues.
I can stimulate learning about science
and technology through teaching about
EGD issues.
I can stimulate
learning about
science and
technology
through teaching
about EGD
issues.
B3. The ability to
value students’
resources in EESD
x x I can take into account students' daily
lives when teaching about EGD
issues.
x x I can let students use their knowledge,
skills and experiences in teaching
about EGD issues.
C. Attitudes
towards EESD
C1. Being interested
in SSI and the EGD
x I think EGD issues are interesting.
C2. Feeling
responsible for
addressing SSIs and
the EGD in the
classroom
I think it is important that students
receive education about EGD issues.
I think it is
important that
students receive
education about
EGD issues.
C3. Feeling secure
about the
uncertainties and
unpredictability
related to SSI
x x x I think I can deal well with the
unpredictability of teaching about EGD
issues.
I dare to teach
about EGD
issues.
C3a. the handing
of control to
students
x I dare to give students control over
their learning when teaching about
EGD issues.
C3b. being honest
about knowledge
limitations
I dare to tell students that I don't know
everything about EGD issues either.
C3c. willingness to
position
themselves as
knowledge
contributors rather
than the sole
authority
I dare to point out a student who
knows more about EGD issues than I
do as an expert.
C3d. confidence to
touch upon
controversial
aspects
x I dare to discuss also the controversial
aspects of EGD issues in class.
C3e. open-
mindedness to
student positions
that differ from the
teacher’s own
I can guide students in forming their
own opinions about EGD issues
without imposing my own opinion
(even if I think they have an “incorrect”
opinion).
Learning objective Inspired by.. Items extensive EESD questionnaire
Item shortened
EESD
questionnaire
1 2 3 4 5
A. Knowledge
about EESD
A1. Knowledge of
the connection
between curriculum
standards,
citizenship
education, SSI
education, European
Education for
Sustainable
Development, and
the EGD.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues is related to citizenship
education.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues is related to science and
technology.
I understand well how teaching about
EGD issues contributes to knowledge
about Europe.
A2. Knowledge of
the essence of SSI
x I have enough knowledge about EGD
issues to teach about this.
I have enough
knowledge
about EGD
issues to teach
about this.
A2a. Knowledge of
and about the
science involved in
SSI
x x I have enough scientific and
technological knowledge to teach
about EGD issues.
x x I understand well enough how science
works to teach about EGD issues
A2b. Knowledge of
the moral/ethical
considerations
regarding SSI
I have enough knowledge about
ethical and moral considerations to
teach about EGD issues.
A2c. Knowledge of
the social
considerations
associated with
SSI
I have enough knowledge about social
considerations to teach about EGD
issues.
A3. Knowledge
about the
educational
principles for group
problem solving.
x x I have enough knowledge about good
didactics to teach about EGD issues.
x x I know how I can effectively teach
about EGD issues.
I know how I can
effectively teach
about EGD
issues.
A3a. Knowledge of
argumentation and
the evaluation of
arguments
I have enough knowledge about good
argumentation to teach about EGD
issues.
A4. Knowledge
about the resources
students bring into
EESD
I know enough about my students'
daily lives to understand how EDG
issues play a role in their lives.
B. Skills
regarding
EESD
B1. The ability to
redesign learning
activities according
to the educational
principles for group
problem solving: (1)
argumentation, (2)
connected learning,
(3) decision making
and (4) thinking
together.
x I can find materials that are useful for
designing education on EGD issues.
x
I can adapt existing materials so that
they are suitable to teach about EGD
issues to my students.
I can adapt
existing
materials so that
they are suitable
to teach about
EGD issues to
my students.
x I can develop appropriate learning
objectives for teaching about EGD
issues.
x I can evaluate the outcomes of
teaching about EGD issues.
B2. The ability to
stimulate students’
group problem
solving skills.
I can teach students to look at EGD
issues from different perspectives.
I can teach
students to work
with a group on
solving EGD
issues.
I can teach students to think in “if ...
then ...” reasoning about EGD issues.
I can teach students to discuss EGD
issues.
x I can teach students how to think
together about EGD issues.
I can teach students how they can
make decisions about EGD issues
together.
x x x I can properly help students who get
stuck during assignments on EGD
issues.
x x I can adapt my explanations of EGD
issues to the different levels in my
class.
x x x x I can deal appropriately with students'
questions about EGD issues.
x x I can motivate students to remain task
oriented while learning about EGD
issues.
B2a. The ability to
help students
make connections
between science,
SSI, and the EGD.
I can make clear to students what
scientific and technological
developments have to do with EGD
issues.
B2b.The ability to
facilitate moral and
ethical
development of
students
x I can stimulate students’ moral thinking
through teaching about EGD issues.
I can stimulate
students’ moral
thinking through
teaching about
EGD issues.
B2c. The ability to
facilitate
discussion and
argumentation in
the classroom,
evaluate students’
SSI arguments
during the
discussions in the
classroom, and
provide feedback
I can assess whether students use
good arguments in discussions about
EGD issues.
I can give students feedback on their
arguments on EGD issues.
x I can motivate students to discuss
EGD issues.
B2d. The ability to
facilitate science
learning in the
context of SSI
x x I can teach students how science
develops knowledge about EGD
issues.
I can stimulate learning about science
and technology through teaching about
EGD issues.
I can stimulate
learning about
science and
technology
through teaching
about EGD
issues.
B3. The ability to
value students’
resources in EESD
x x I can take into account students' daily
lives when teaching about EGD
issues.
x x I can let students use their knowledge,
skills and experiences in teaching
about EGD issues.
C. Attitudes
towards EESD
C1. Being interested
in SSI and the EGD
x I think EGD issues are interesting.
C2. Feeling
responsible for
addressing SSIs and
the EGD in the
classroom
I think it is important that students
receive education about EGD issues.
I think it is
important that
students receive
education about
EGD issues.
C3. Feeling secure
about the
uncertainties and
unpredictability
related to SSI
x x x I think I can deal well with the
unpredictability of teaching about EGD
issues.
I dare to teach
about EGD
issues.
C3a. the handing
of control to
students
x I dare to give students control over
their learning when teaching about
EGD issues.
C3b. being honest
about knowledge
limitations
I dare to tell students that I don't know
everything about EGD issues either.
C3c. willingness to
position
themselves as
knowledge
contributors rather
than the sole
authority
I dare to point out a student who
knows more about EGD issues than I
do as an expert.
C3d. confidence to
touch upon
controversial
aspects
x I dare to discuss also the controversial
aspects of EGD issues in class.
C3e. open-
mindedness to
student positions
that differ from the
teacher’s own
I can guide students in forming their
own opinions about EGD issues
without imposing my own opinion
(even if I think they have an “incorrect”
opinion).
Note.
1 = Van Aalderen-Smeets & Walma van der Molen (2013), 2 = Kilinc et al. (2013),
3 = Lee et al. (2006) and Kara (2012), 4 = Muğaloğlu et al. (2016), 5 = Yahaya et al. (2015).
Appendix D - Comparison for Missing Data Sample versus the Test Sample | 74
APPENDIX D
Comparison for Missing Data Sample
versus the Test Sample
