The United Nations declared that education for sustainability (EfS) is a key approach to solving the environmental crisis affecting all nations (UNESCO/UNEP, 1977). The goal of EfS is to provide students with the skills to work towards sustainability, to build a sustainable culture, and to lead behavioral change for improving the environment (Sauvé, 1996). Pre-service teachers play an important role in reaching these EfS goals. Therefore, it is important to identify self-efficacy predictors in order to promote EfS.

In this study, we applied three theoretical frameworks: EfS as a conceptual framework, self-efficacy theory, and educational constructivist versus positivist ontological perspectives.

Education for Sustainability (EfS)

EfS includes holistic views, beliefs, values, norms, and critical thinking. It encourages students to be involved in their environment as activists, while also focusing on individuals and communities using and sharing natural and social resources equitably. Furthermore, EfS develops civic action skills and fosters pro-environmental behavior (Tilbury, 1995). Environmental behavior can be classified into two categories: the ‘private sphere’—which generally refers to individual behaviors, such as recycling, that directly influence the environment—and the ‘public sphere’—which refers to social behaviors, such as donating money to environmental NGOs, that indirectly influence the environment.

Self-Efficacy

The self-efficacy theoretical framework is based on social cognitive theory, which identifies several conditions that influence self-efficacy, such as proficient performance, skills for critical thinking, and mastery experiences (Bandura, 2006). Self-efficacy is “concerned with people’s beliefs in their capabilities to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 2006, p. 307). Furthermore, self-efficacy can predict behavioral change, as illustrated by teachers who believe in their ability to motivate students and thus produce the expected learning (Bandura, 2006).

Constructivist versus Positivist Ontological Perspectives

The constructivist and positivist ontological perspectives allow for a dual exploration of knowledge as related to EfS. The constructivist notion of knowledge focuses on the production of knowledge through a student-centered approach, using methods such as experiential learning and active learning. This approach to knowledge supports the idea that knowledge is constructed by people, whose interactions are embedded within the social and cultural context of their world (Gordon, 2009). The positivist notion of knowledge emphasizes the need for core and general knowledge. It is important to provide broad knowledge to students by teaching general principles with diverse examples (Hirsch, 2001). According to this approach, it is more effective to teach the broad concept before moving to the specific details. The approach also emphasizes the role of science, which includes testing and a core curriculum (Stevenson, 2007).

We framed this study according to the EfS lens, based on Bandura’s (2006) self-efficacy theory. We investigated Israeli pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy in promoting EfS. We also applied the constructivist-positivist ontological perspectives to explore the instructors’ points of view. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate whether EfS courses in a teacher’s pre-service training led to self-efficacy in promoting EfS and pro-environmental behavioral change, while also considering instructors’ perspectives on content knowledge and pedagogical skills.

Accordingly, we asked the following questions:

1. Does an EfS course act as a predictor in increasing pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy in promoting pro-environmental behaviors in the school and community?
2. How do instructors of EfS courses perceive their role in leading pro-environmental behavior change, developing skills to promote EfS, and constructing environmental knowledge in pre-service teachers?

Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, 5(307-337). Davim, J. P., & Leal, F. W. (2016). Challenges in higher education for sustainability: Springer. Gordon, M. (2009). Toward a pragmatic discourse of constructivism: Reflections on lessons from practice. Educational studies, 45(1), 39-58. Hirsch, E. (2001). Seeking breadth and depth in the curriculum. Educational Leadership, 59(2), 22-25. Sauvé, L. (1996). Environmental education and sustainable development: a further appraisal. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education (CJEE), 1(1), pp. 7-34. Stevenson, R. B. (2007). Schooling and environmental/sustainability education: from discourses of policy and practice to discourses of professional learning. Environmental education research, 13(2), 265-285. Tilbury, D. (1995). Environmental education for sustainability: Defining the new focus of environmental education in the 1990s. Environmental education research, 1(2), 195-212. UNESCO/UNEP. (1977). Intergovernmental conference on environmental education, Tbilisi Declaration. Tbilisi: UNESCO/UNEP.