Academic Staffs’ Conceptions of Sustainable Development in Education

Author(s):

Eleni Sinakou(presenting / submitting)Jelle Boeve-de Pauw Peter Van Petegem

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)

Format:

Paper

Session Information

ERG SES D 07, Research in Education

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-22

13:30-15:00

Room:

OB-E2.18

Chair:

Meinert Arnd Meyer

Contribution

Sustainable Development (SD) is often considered as a concept based on three dimensions namely the environment, the economy and the society (Summers and Childs 2007; Walshe 2008; Berglund, Gericke, Rundgren, 2012; Borg, Gericke, Höglund & Bergman, 2014). The object of the current paper lies on the content of Sustainable Development issues dealt within the context of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). The paper focuses on the conceptual understanding that scholars in the field of ESD hold of sustainable development issues. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to lead to a consensus definition among scholars, on which future directions of the training of teachers can be built. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to explore how academic staff in the field of ESD conceive the concept of Sustainable Development in education. Currently, we are in the process of collecting the participants’ responses.

A holistic approach to ESD, which takes into account all the three dimensions of SD, is often deemed to be important (see for example Summers & Childs 2007); it enables us to consider SD as a unit of its components (Olsson, Gericke & Rundgren, 2015) and to understand better the aspects of SD issues that are related to its three dimensions (Berglund & Gericke, 2015). Berglund & Gericke (2015) consider approaching the three dimensions either separate from each other or integrated. The integrated approach reveals the contradictions among the dimensions as we treat SD issues from several conflicting perspectives. Eventually, this permits us to decide which aspects of the issues are more important and to reach a final decision on how to deal with them (Berglund & Gericke, 2015).

Both approaches to the concept of SD and sustainability have encountered difficulties on the part on students and teachers in understanding the interrelation among the three dimensions (Summers and Childs 2007; Walshe 2008). Recent research has also traced a lack of holistic understanding of SD (Borg, Gericke, Höglund & Bergman, 2014; Boeve-de Pauw, Gericke, Olsson & Berglund, 2015). Borg, Gericke, Höglund & Bergman (2012) have argued that good practices to inspire teachers as well as expertise in SD are lacking. Berglund & Gericke (2015) have concluded that students’ understanding of the SD concept depends on their personal values as well as on the perspective they adopt (either separated or integrated).

Academic staff in the field of ESD can have an influence on teachers. It can be certainly said that academic staff influences directly or indirectly practices at school. According to this line of thinking, the conceptions of academic staff are regarded of great importance. In fact, previous research has shown that conceptions of academic staff about SD has a significant influence concerning the incorporation of ESD in higher education (Holmberg, Svanström, Peet, Mulder, Ferrer-Balas & Segalàs, 2008). However, this research refers to academic staff from several subjects and no research has been conducted so far with regard to the conceptions of academic staff about SD particularly in the field of ESD. To bridge this gap, we will answer the following research question:

To what extent do academic staff in the field of Education for Sustainable Development perceive holistically the concept of Sustainable Development within the framework of Education for Sustainable Development?

Method

This research is based on a delphi-study and aims at leading the experts to a consensus about future directions in teacher training. We have decided on two rounds of questionnaires (Nworie, 2011). The results of the first questionnaire will be used for the construction of the round-two questionnaire. For the questionnaires, we make use of the on-line D-PAC tool (Digital Platform for the Assessment of Competences, http://www.d-pac.be/english/). D-PAC utilizes a comparative judgement methodology (Mortier, Lesterhuis, Vlerick, & de Maeyer, 2015). Our instrument puts emphasis on the integrated approach to SD. We classify the statements according to levels which depict the extent of holism of the SD concept. Level 0 reflects the one-dimensional understanding of holism of the SD concept. Level 3 reflects the highest integrated view. The higher the level, the more complex are the statements. Specifically, the first level (level 0) includes the statements which exclusively refer to one single dimension. The next statements have been constructed based on two dimensions but only one is emphasized. These statements form level 1, which indicates a starting point of holism in the structure of the SD concept. Likewise, the level 2 statements consider all three dimensions but they prioritize only one of them. The last statements which are the level 3 ones, put equal emphasis on the three dimensions providing the most integrated view of the SD concept. In each comparison, the participants will have to justify their choice by giving short explanations. Okoli and Pawlowski (2004) recommend 10-18 panelists since the most effective group size depends on group dynamics rather than statistical power. The panel consists of 31 invited participants. The selection is based on the fact that about 30% -50% of the participants drop out (Thomas, 2004). The invited panelists have significantly contributed to the field of ESD and/or EfS (Education for Sustainability). They have published their research in the concept of Sustainable Development or Sustainability in education in important academic journals in the field of ESD/ EfS. They also hold a doctorate and academic positions at universities worldwide.

Expected Outcomes

The analysis of the participants’ answers of the first round will be displayed in a diagram depicting which statements are most often chosen. In this way, we can understand which of the aforementioned levels better represents the SD concept, according to the respondents. The participants’ explanations enable us to explore the reasons for their choices. In the second round, the participants focus on the statements of the chosen level. At this stage, they have to choose, once again, the statements which according to them better represent the idea of SD in education. Next, we identify the most emphasized dimensions. In other words, we determine the center of gravity between the dimensions in order to identify ‘to what extent a certain conception of SD can be said to be holistic’ (Borg et al. 2014. p. 530). The study can lead to several results: (a) They may indicate that the academic staff agree on the one-dimensional view of SD; (b)They may show that SD issues should be structured, based on two or three dimensions, but that only one of them should be emphasized; (c) alternatively, the academic staff could agree that SD issues should put equal emphasis on all three dimensions. Based on the results, we will be able to determine a consensus definition among the academic staff worldwide in the field of ESD/EfS on the SD issues.

References

Berglund, T., Gericke, N., & Chang Rundgren, S.-N. (2014). The Implementation of Education for Sustainable Development in Sweden: Investigating the Sustainability Consciousness among Upper Secondary Students. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(3), 318–339. doi:10.1080/02635143.2014.944493 Berglund, T., & Gericke N. (2015). Separated and Integrated Perspectives on Environmental, Economic, and Social Dimensions – An Investigation of Student Views on Sustainable Development. Environmental Education Research, 3(1). doi:10.1080/13504622.2015.1063589 Boeve-de Pauw, J., Gericke, N., Olsson, D., & Berglund, T. (2015). The Effectiveness of Education for Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 7, 15693-15717. doi:10.3390/su71115693 Borg, C., Gericke, N., Höglund, H. O. & Bergman, E. (2012). The Barriers Encountered by Teachers Implementing Education for Sustainable Development: Discipline Bound Differences and Teaching Traditions. Research in Science and Technological Education, 30(2), 185–207. doi:10.1080/02635143.2012.699891 Borg, C., Gericke, N., Höglund, H. O., & Bergman, E. (2014). Subject- and Experience bound Differences in Teachers’ Conceptual Understanding of Sustainable Development. Environmental Education Research, 20(4), 526–551. doi:10.1080/13504622.2013.833584 Holmberg, J., Svanström, M., Peet, D.-J., Mulder, K., Ferrer-Balas, D., & Segalàs, J. (2008). Embedding Sustainability in Higher Education through Interaction with Lecturers: Case studies from three European Technical Universities. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33, 271-282. doi:10.1080/03043790802088491 Mortier, A., Lesterhuis, M., Vlerick, P., & de Maeyer, S. (2015). Comparative judgment within online assessment: exploring students feedback reactions. In E. Ras & D. Joosten-ten Brinke (Eds.), Computer assisted assessment : research into E-assessment (Vol. 571, pp. 69–79). Springer. Nworie, J., (2011). Using the Delphi Technique in Educational Technology Research, TechTrends, 55(5), 24-30. Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. (2004). The Delphi Method as a Research Tool: an Example, Design Considerations and Applications. Information & Management, 42, 15-29. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002 Olsson, D., Gericke, N., & Chang Rundgren, S. -N. (2015). The Effect of Implementation of Education for Sustainable Development in Swedish Compulsory Schools – Assessing Pupils’ Sustainability Consciousness. Environmental Education Research. doi:10.1080/13504622.2015.1005057 Summers, M., & Childs A. (2007). Student Science Teachers’ Conceptions of Sustainable Development: An Empirical Study of Three Postgraduate Training Cohorts. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(3), 307–327. doi:10.1080/02635140701535067 Thomas, S. (2004). Using Web and Paper Questionnaires for Data-Based Decision Making: From Design to Interpretation of the Results (1st ed.): Corwin. Walshe, N. (2008). Understanding Students’ Conceptions of Sustainability. Environmental Education Research, 14(5), 537–558. doi:10.1080/13504620802345958 This study is supported by a grant from the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation, Greece awarded to Eleni Sinakou.

Author Information

Eleni Sinakou (presenting / submitting)

University of Antwerp

Training and Education Sciences

Antwerp

Jelle Boeve-de Pauw

University of Antwerp, Belgium

Peter Van Petegem