At first glance, the topic presented might appear to have an exclusively national focus, but it is tied to a process that has been started on an international level. The Brundtland report from 1987 (WECD) first outlined the importance of education as a main driver of individual and collective transformation that is necessary to tackle global sustainable development and was the beginning of the discourse on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). Since then, the role of education for a global sustainability transformation has been growing. The 2030 Agenda by the German Federal Government aims to structurally implement ESD into the formal school system (Nationale Plattform Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung, 2017). The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a part of this process. SDG 4 – Quality Education – represents a foundation to all other SDGs and states that all learners should “acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development” (United Nations 2015, p. 21). ESD itself is a part of SDG 4 (see SDG 4.7).

The dissertation „Education for Sustainable Development as an integral component of education – experts‘ perspectives on the concept and targets of ESD“ is embedded in these current policy developments that aim to mainstream ESD and implement it systematically into the formal education system in Germany (e.g. DUK, 2019; DUK, 2014; DUK, n.d.). In this process, various interfaces arise between the levels of (educational) policy, ESD practice (e.g., schools and extracurricular educational institutions), and the scientific examination of ESD. For the implementation process to succeed, it is assumed that the fields of policy, practice and science need to share a joint understanding of what is fundamentally understood by ESD and what targets are (to be) pursued with ESD.

The current state of research suggests a consensus that the target dimension of ESD is primarily the development of competences (UNESCO, 2017; Rieckmann, 2011 and 2018; de Haan, 2008 and 2009; Bormann, 2008). Nevertheless, there are different competence models and approaches for their operationalization. This is clarified by the concept of “Gestaltungskompetenz” (“Engagement Competence”) that de Haan suggests (2008) or the concept of key competences used by OECD (2005). There are other concepts that developed key competences specifically for sustainable development (Rieckmann, 2011; Wiek et al., 2011; UNESCO, 2017). Furthermore, there is the Göttingen model of assessment competence (Eggert & Bögeholz, 2006), the Orientation Framework for Global Development Learning (KMK & BMZ, 2016) and a synthesis of ESD competences that brings together different competence models that Lozano et al. formulated (2017). This variety of models addresses partly similar, partly different competences and competence facets. Several questions arise from this:

(1) According to experts in ESD policy, practice, and science, what competences should young people develop in the context of ESD in school for a global sustainability transformation?

(2) Which congruencies and incongruencies exist between the three stakeholder groups?

(3) Which implications can be formulated for the implementation process of ESD into the formal education system?

To address these research questions, guided interviews were conducted with 15 experts from ESD policy, practice and science in Germany between May and August 2019. Five experts from each field were interviewed. Consequently, the experts were selected to be heterogeneous to capture diverse perspectives. Accordingly, extracurricular providers who bring ESD offers into school were also included and not only experts from schools for the field of ESD practice. Interviewees came from different federal states (the former West- and East-German states; urban and rural regions) for the field of policy. For the field of science, the disciplines of psychology and didactics, were represented in addition to educational sciences. Furthermore, gender balance was considered. The interviews were subsequently transcribed and the interview situations as well as the course of the interviews were recorded. The transcripts were analysed using the method of Qualitative Content Analysis according to Gläser & Laudel (2010). The approach according to Gläser & Laudel had advantages over other methods for the qualitative analysis of interviews: Since all qualitative material is included in the analysis process equally, a permanent correspondence with the research question is ensured. This is realized by only adding to, but not discarding, the analysis categories based on the theory-guided variables in the process of extraction. Thus, the results of the theoretical preliminary considerations remain present throughout the analysis process. At the same time, the principle of openness is realized by this manner of handling the category system. The procedure solves the apparent contradiction between the principle of theory-guided procedure and the principle of openness, which is the claim of qualitative research, in this way. After a first round of analysing the interview material, the code system was revised, and the finalised code system was applied on the material in a second round of analysis. After the coding process, as a further step, an analysis of the frequency of the mentioning of competences and competence models of ESD across all three stakeholder groups was performed. In addition, another step concentrated on the analysis of the frequencies according to each stakeholder group individually. The entire analysis of the interview material was carried out computer-supported, using the program MAXQDA. Finally, the results of each analysis were brought in relation to one another.

The analysis of the expert interviews shows that across the three groups surveyed, the competence to act, systematic thinking competences, and the concept of “Gestaltungskompetenz” (“Engagement Competence”; de Haan, 2008) were named by far the most frequent. Additionally, the ability to anticipate the consequences of one's actions, solution-oriented thinking, and the ability to reflect were rated as important. First references to relevant competence models were established as well. The analysis of the individual stakeholder groups showed differences. While a clear focus on the competence to act emerged in the field of educational practice, systematic thinking was in first place among the experts from the field of science. However, ESD-policy experts emphasized the competence model "Perceive, Assess, Act", which is based on a recommendation from the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs and the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (KMK&BMZ, 2016). This in turn had received little attention from the other two groups. In the field of educational practice, it was mentioned by two experts, while experts from the field of science did not mention this competence model at all. It seems as if there are specific characteristics in the prioritization of sustainability competences for pupils in the three stakeholder groups. It could be assumed that the experts’ professional background is a factor. However, there are results that contradict this explanatory approach. For example, only one ESD-policy expert explicitly mentioned the ability to participate, although it can be assumed that participation has an important role in this field. Until the conference, these results will be analysed in more depth regarding content and possible explanatory approaches as well as resulting implications for the implementation process of ESD into the formal education system in Germany.

Bormann, I. (2008): ‚Steuerungswissen‘ – Kompetenzen im Spiegel von Indikatoren. In: Bormann, I. & de Haan, G.: Kompetenzen der Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Operationalisierung, Messung, Rahmenbedingungen, Befunde. Wiesbaden: Springer VS Verlag, 253–271. De Haan, G. (2008): Gestaltungskompetenz als Kompetenzkonzept der Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. In: Bormann, I. & de Haan, G.: Kompetenzen der Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Operationalisierung, Messung, Rahmenbedingungen, Befunde. Wiesbaden: Springer VS Verlag, 23–43. De Haan, G. (2009): Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Hintergründe, Legitimation und (neue) Kompetenzen. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin, Programm Transfer 21. DUK - Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission e.V. (2014): UNESCO-Roadmap zur Umsetzung des Weltaktionsprogramms „Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung“ Bonn: Brandt. DUK - Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission e.V. (2019): Mannheimer Appell. URL: https://www.unesco.de/sites/default/files/2019-06/DUK_BNE%20Resolution.pdf DUK - Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission e.V. (n.d.): Das Weltaktionsprogramm Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. URL: https://www.bne-portal.de/de/bundesweit/weltaktionsprogramm-deutschland Eggert, S. & Bögeholz, S. (2006): Göttinger Modell der Bewertungskompetenz – Teilkompetenz „Bewerten, Entscheiden und Reflektieren“ für Gestaltungsaufgaben Nachhaltiger Entwicklung. In: Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften 12, 177–197. Gläser, J. & Laudel, G. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. KMK & BMZ (2016): Orientierungsrahmen für den Lernbereich Globale Entwicklung im Rahmen einer nachhaltigen Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Bonn. URL: https://www.globaleslernen.de/sites/default/files/files/link-elements/orientierungsrahmen_fuer_den_lernbereich_globale_entwicklung_barrierefrei.pdf Lozano, R. & Merrill, M. & Sammalisto, K. & Ceulemans, K. & Lozano, F. (2017): Connecting Competences and Pedagogical Approaches for Sustainable Development in Higher Education. A Literature Review and Framework Proposal. In: Sustainability 9(11), 1889. Nationale Plattform Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung (2017): Nationaler Aktionsplan Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Frankfurt/Main: Zarbock. OECD (2005): Definition und Auswahl von Schlüsselkompetenzen. Zusammenfassung. URL: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/35693281.pdf Rieckmann, M. (2011): Schlüsselkompetenzen für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung der Weltgesellschaft. Ergebnisse einer europäisch-lateinamerikanischen Delphi-Studie. In: Gaia 20(1), 48–56. Rieckmann, M. (2018): Learning to transform the world: key competencies in ESD. In: Leicht, A. & Heiss, J. & Byun, W. J. (Ed.): Issues and trends in education for sustainable development. Paris: UNESCO, 39–59. UNESCO (2017): Education for Sustainable Development Goals. Learning Objectives. URL: https://www.unesco.de/sites/default/files/2018-08/unesco_education_for_sustainable_development_goals.pdf United Nations (2015): Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1 URL: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf WCED – World Commission on Environment and Development (1987): Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wiek, A.; Withycombe, L.; Redman, C. L. (2011): Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. In: Sustainability Science 6(2), 203–218.