With heat waves, droughts, flooding, and hurricanes occurring more frequently on a global scale, sustainability is high on the agendas of policy makers and scholars alike (e.g. European Commission, 2019; United Nations, 2019; Kelly and Clarke, 2016). Sustainability has been defined as a process of mutually interacting socio-cultural, environmental, and socio-economic perspectives (United Nations, 2015). Policy documents put forward Education for Sustainability (EfS), as an adequate educational approach to prepare current and future generations for becoming change-makers capable of taking on sustainability challenges (e.g. UNESCO, 2017). EfS is a democratic educational approach that aims to empower students so they are capable of making their own decisions, rather than pushing them towards uncritical social reproduction (Audigier, 2000; Jickling & Wals, 2008). Currently, evidence of the effectiveness of Education for Sustainability was found (e.g. Olsson et al., 2022; Sass et al., submitted).

Education for sustainabilty

EfS consists of a holistic approach to sustainability problems (Stables & Scott, 2002; United Nations, 2019). Moreover, different perspectives are encouraged when developing actions that aim to contribute to sustainability (Van Poeck et al., 2019). Finally, EfS is oriented towards active student participation and action-taking in order to contribute to solving real-world problems (Sinakou et al., 2022; Varela-Losada et al., 2016). Consensus on the central learning outcome of this type of education is growing, with the concept of action competence appearing in the forefront of the academic discourse (Sass et al., 2020). However, so far no study has investigated more into detail how these different sub units of EfS relate to each other and if these differ according to the national and educational settings in which they occur. This research gap is addressed in this study.

In order to implement EfS, teachers need to employ a complex set of professional competences. However, evidence suggests that they often find themselves ill-equipped to take on this formidable task (Taylor et al., 2019; Boeve-de Pauw et al., 2022). The need for a tool that allows monitoring of quality education for sustainability teaching is apparent. Such a tool can allow us as a research community to study how EfS is put into practice and develops as teachers e.g. participate in (continuous) professional development. It may also be relevant for teachers to reflect on their current and desired practices concerning EfS.

The current study aims to propose and operationalise a Quality Education for Sustainability Teaching (QUEST) framework and research tool (QUEST-Q). Three research questions are central in the current study:

1. What content, educational approach (‘how’), partners (‘with whom’), and venues (‘where’) should be included in Quality Education for Sustainability Teaching?

Guided by the literature, we look into the ‘what’ of teaching (i.e. content in terms of knowledge and skills), the ‘how’ of an action-oriented EfS approach, with whom, and where is taught and learnt.

2. How can QUEST be measured?

Starting from the proposed QUEST framework, we aim to provide a novel measurement instrument  developing Swedish and Dutch versions of a questionnaire (the QUEST-Q) fit to answer the third research question. In line with the emancipatory character of education for sustainability, we take the point of view of students into account. In order to do so, we will develop a questionnaire for tapping into their experiences with EfS at secondary school.

3. How do Flemish, Dutch, and Swedish higher secondary students experience EfS teaching at their school?

At ECER, we will provide results regarding the quality of the QUEST-Q (i.e. reliability and validity of the questionnaire) and describe how Flemish, Dutch, and Swedish upper secondary students experience Education for Sustainability Teaching at their school as measured by means of the QUEST-Q.

Four steps (Furr, 2011) guide the development of the QUEST-Q. In a first step, we search the literature in order to articulate the QUEST framework. We then collected an initial item pool in step two. Thirdly, a qualitative pilot provides feedback on accuracy of the questionnaire’s format and phrasing (in Dutch and Swedish). Finally, we collect data from minimally 400 respondents and examine psychometric properties and quality of the initial questionnaire through statistical analysis. Step 1: articulation of the framework We reviewed literature on EfS and available measurement instruments. This yielded a framework consisting of four main components, i.e. educational content, approach, partners, and venues. Step 2: development of an initial item pool Based on the results of the literature review in step 1, we developed an initial item pool of statements regarding the different components that were articulated in the QUEST framework (i.e. content, approach, partners, and venues). All items shared stem ‘At our school, we learn…’. This initial items pool resulted in 111 items in total. Step 3: accuracy check with representatives of the population (15 to 19-year-olds) A limited number of higher secondary school students run through the first version of the questionnaire. They provide feedback through a think-aloud protocol, while reading the entire questionnaire (including introduction with information provided for asking students’ active informed consent). A researcher takes notes of their remarks and these are discussed with all researchers involved in this study. In this stage general remarks are discussed within the entire research team, while remarks referring specifically to Swedish or Dutch language issues are discussed among Swedish or Dutch-speaking researchers, respectively. The questionnaire is adapted with respect to the participants’ comments. Step 4: statistical verification of the questionnaire’s psychometric properties and quality We pilot a first version of the QUEST-Q with minimally 100 participants aged 15 to 19 in Sweden, the Netherlands, and Flanders, respectively. Reliability is examined through calculation of Cronbach’s alphas of the main and sub-components. Factor analyses will shed light on the construct validity of the measurement instrument.

Step 1 Based on the literature review, we defined four QUEST components: 1) content, 2) educational approach, 3) partners, and 4) venues. Content includes a holistic view (United Nations, 2019) on real-world complex sustainability problems (Sinakou et al., 2022; Varela-Losada et al., 2016), norms and values regarding such problems (Van Pouck et al., 2019) and skills such as problem solving, communication, critical, systems, and future thinking (e.g. Jensen & Schnack, 2006). Educational approach focuses on engaging with different perspectives (Rudsberg & Öhman, 2010). Educational partners consist of, amongst others, teachers of different subjects, parents, experts inside the school and beyond, and fellow students. This also involves cross-curricular cooperation (Boeve-de Pauw et al., 2022). Venues can be indoor or outdoor, in nature, in or out of school, or in the local and global community (Sinakou et al., 2022; Varela-Losada et al., 2016). Step 2 An initial item pool has been created covering each (sub)component of the QUEST framework as derived from the literature. The stem ‘At our school we learn…’ is completed by statements regarding the what, how, with whom, and where of EfS. Sample items are: … to weigh the pros and cons of different solutions to the same sustainability problems. … to reflect on actions taken. … from teachers in natural sciences, social sciences, and language teachers. … in nature. Results of the validation process (steps 3 and 4) will be available timely for discussion at ECER2023. Feedback from the participants will be welcomed as an opportunity to add validation of the item pool by academic experts to the students’ perspective (cf. accuracy check in step 3 of the development process). Descriptive statistics will provide insight in possible differences between Sweden, Flanders, and the Netherlands. Further avenues for research and implications for EfS teaching and implementation will be discussed.

Audigier (2000). Project “Education for democratic citizenship: basic concepts and core competencies for education for democratic citizenship. Council of Europe. Boeve-de Pauw, J., Olsson, D., Berglund, T., & Gericke, N. (2022). Teachers’ ESD self-efficacy and practices: A longitudinal study on the impact of teacher professional development. Environmental Education Research, 28(6), 867-885. European Commission (2019). The European Green Deal (COM(2019) 640 final). Furr, R. M. 2011. Scale Construction and Psychometrics for Social and Personality Psychology. London, New Oakes, New Delhi, Singapore: Sage Publications. Jickling, B. & Wals, A.E.J. (2008). Globalization and environmental education: looking beyond sustainable development. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(1), 1-21. Kelly, A., & Clarke, P. (2016). The challenges of globalisation and the new policy paradigms for educational effectiveness and improvement research. In C. Chapman, D. Muijs, D. Reynolds, P. Sammons, & C. Teddlie, (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Educational Effectiveness and Improvement (pp. 365–379). London and New York: Routledge. Olsson, D., Gericke, N., & Boeve-de Pauw, J. (2022). The effectiveness of education for sustainable development revisited - a longitudinal study on secondary students’ action competence for sustainability. Environmental Education Research. Sass, W., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Olsson, D., Gericke, N., De Maeyer, S., and Van Petegem, P. (2020). Redefining Action Competence: The Case of Sustainable Development. The Journal of Environmental Education, 51(4), 292–305. Sass, W., Claes, E., Boeve-de Pauw, J., De Maeyer, S., Schelfhout, W., Van Petegem, P., & Isac, M.M. (2021). Measuring Professional Action Competence in Education for Sustainable Development (PACesd). Environmental Education Research, 28(2), 260-275. Sass, W., De Maeyer, S., Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (submitted). Effectiveness of Education for Sustainable Development Practices Regarding Students’ Action Competence in Sustainable Development: The importance of an action-oriented approach. Stables, A. & Scott, W. (2002). The Quest for Holism in Education for Sustainable Development. Environmental Education Research 8(1), 53–60. Taylor, N., Quinn, F., Jenkins, K., Miller-Brown, H., Rizk, N., Prodromou, T., Serow, P., & Taylor, S. (2019). Education for Sustainability in the Secondary Sector—A Review. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 13(1), 102-122. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations. (2019). Report of the Secretary-General on the 2019 Climate Action Summit and the Way Forward in 2020. Van Poeck, K., Östman, L., & Öhman, J. 2019. Sustainable Development Teaching: Ethical and Political Challenges. London & New York: Routledge.