‘Leaving no one behind’ is the core and transformative promise of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This pledge underscores the significance of education for sustainable development. However, the challenges facing education systems and teachers continue to intensify. For instance, the teaching environment has increasing become heterogenous and multicultural, classrooms have become more diverse, offering educators and institutions both opportunities and challenges, (Al Musawi et al., 2022: 1; Popova et al., 2018: 11; Sarı & Yüce, 2020: 90; Pit-ten Cate et al., 2021: 1). With such a complex combination, maintaining a balance among equity, delivering a fair and excellent education to all, identifying and attending to individual learning needs of learners has made a teacher’s job extremely challenging, (Burns & Van Damme, 2018: 54). The diversified teaching environment also makes teachers struggle to create closeness in relation to the student, in relation to fellow staff, and in relation to knowledge domains and the social situations, (Ramdani et al., 2022: 157; Mengesha, 2022: 1). Sometimes, it creates also frustrations, disharmony and digression in education institutions because providing all students with the skills and competencies required to thrive in education system and beyond means being able to meet their diverse sets of needs, (Cornelissen et al., 2015: 1; Burns & Van Damme, 2018: 57). This raises therefore the question, what is the best way to ensure that all students can succeed both in and outside the educational institutions’ learning environment? Research on pedagogies in innovative learning environments indicate that a first step in better serving all students is to move away from the ideal of homogeneity to consideration of diverse needs of learners in learning and teaching context, (Burns & Van Damme, 2018: 53). In this regard, the importance of relationships, of connections and of care, within learning and teaching environment, have recently come to the fore mainly within higher education institutions as a means to think beyond an uncaring neoliberal, competitive and individualizing education system, (Gravett et al. (2021: 1). Relational pedagogies position meaningful relationships as fundamental to effective learning and teaching and explore ways of fostering connections, authenticity and responsiveness, (Gravett and Winstone 2020). This study focuses therefore on integration of ESD as a relational teaching and learning process. In this conceptualization, the study explores how the theoretical underpinnings of relational pedagogy based on Martin Buber’s understanding of the twofold attitude of human beings toward the world, could be used to recast teachers’ diverse relations and harnessed to integrate ESD in teaching and learning activities. Buber’s twofold dimensions are the I-Thou or I-It relation. According to Buber, the I-Thou is a relation of subject-to-subject, while I-It is a relation of subject-to-object, (Buber, 1937: 3). The twofold dimensions reveal a dialogue, meeting, encounter, and exchange that can exist between human and human or human and non-human entities, (Buber, 1937: 4; Guilherme & Morgan, 2009 566). For Buber, education takes place when there is a relation and without relation education cannot take place, (Biesta, 2012: 584). The research question is: what is the significance of Buber’s theoretical underpinnings of relational pedagogy to the integration of ESD in teaching and learning activities? In other words, how could ESD be integrated in teaching and learning activities in the light of Buber’s relational pedagogical assumptions?

The study employed a qualitative research paradigm because this research paradigm enabled the researcher to investigate, explore and gather in-depth information through active engagement with the research participants in order to gain a deeper understanding of ways in which ESD could be integrated into teacher education within the context of the participants´ natural setting, lived experiences and processes, and also grasp the meaning the participants ascribed to their experiences, processes and views. Research data were collected from four teacher education institutions in Uganda. Data were collected from teacher educators in order to collect their views on how ESD could be integrated in a relational teaching and learning process in teaching and learning activities. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews, observation and document analysis. A purposive sampling technique was employed and a number of 24 teacher educators participated in the study. During data analysis, data were coded, emergent patterns identified, refined, aligned, and distinct thematic categories created. Research trustworthiness was based on five criteria, that is, credibility, dependability, transferability, confirmability and reflexivity. Research ethical considerations were followed judiciously.

The findings of the study revealed that Buber’s philosophical underpinnings of relational pedagogy could be applied by teachers in five dimensions. These dimensions are relational ways associated with teachers’ professional life. These relations are teacher-student, teacher-teacher, teacher’s teaching subject-other subjects, teacher-community engagement, and teacher-nature relationships. These dimensions indicate avenues in which the philosophical underpinnings of Buber’s relational pedagogy could aid teachers in enhancing their relationships and also integrating ESD in teaching and learning activities. The teacher-student relational dimension is at the core of the teaching and learning process because the way teachers relate with their learners has a lot of influence on the learning process and outcomes. The remaining four relations are also very important because they enrich and support the integration of ESD in teaching and learning activities. For instance, teachers’ relationship and cooperation with colleagues is very important. A teacher needs also to relate well with their fellow teachers so that through networking and cooperation they produce and share knowledge about ESD integration. Whereas interrelationships among academic disciplines foster ESD integration through transdisciplinary teaching and learning. Furthermore, teachers through community engagement not only fulfill their professional mandate but also get an opportunity to connect theory with practice. Finally, peaceful co-existence with nature is in itself a sustainability mechanism. Therefore, the teacher’s body of values in relation to nature influences their commitment to integrating sustainability issues in teaching and learning activities. In brief Buber’s relational pedagogy can be an indispensable instrument for enhancing teachers’ ability and improvement on their relationship with students, colleagues, nature, and the wider society.

Al Musawi, A., Al-Ani, W., Amoozegar, A., & Al-Abri, K. (2022). Strategies for Attention to Diverse Education in Omani Society: Perceptions of Secondary School Students. Education Sciences, 12(6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12060398 Aspelin, J. (2012). Co-Existence and Co-Operation: The Two-Dimensional Conception of Education. Education, 1(1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.edu.20110101.02 Burns, T., & Van Damme, D. (2018). Education and Diversity: Challenges and Opportunties. The Global Talent Competitiveness Index 2018 Diversity for Competitiveness, 53–59. https://gtcistudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/GTCI-2018-web.r1-1.pdf Dunnett, C., & Jones, M. (2020). Guidance for Developing Relational Practice and Policy. 77. https://www.babcockldp.co.uk/babcock_l_d_p/Core-Downloads/Covid/Back-to-School/vlog5/Guidance-for-Developing-Relational-Practice-and-Policy.pdf Gravett, K., Taylor, C. A., & Fairchild, N. (2021). Pedagogies of mattering: re-conceptualising relational pedagogies in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1989580 Hershkovitz, A. (2018). The student-teacher relationship in one-to-one computing classroom. Paginás de Educación, 11(1), 37–66. https://doi.org/10.22235/pe.v11i1.1553 I. Kaplan & M. B. Bista. (2022). Welcoming Diversity in the Learning Environment: Teachers’ Handbook for Inclusive Education. In วารสารวิชาการมหาวิทยาลัยอีสเทิร์นเอเชีย (Vol. 4, Issue 1). UNESCO, Paris France. Lundberg, A., & Stigmar, M. (2022). University teachers’ shifting views of successful learning environments in the future. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2115127 Mengesha, N. D. (2022). Practices and Challenges of Diversity Management to Ensure Educational Equity in Some Selected Secondary Schools of Jimma Zone. 3(4), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.scidev.20220304.12 Pit-ten Cate, I. M., Rivas, S., & Busana, G. (2021). Increasing the Diversity of the Teacher Workforce: Socio-Political Challenges to Reducing Inequalities in Access to Teacher Education Programs. Frontiers in Education, 6(May), 1–10. Popova, Z., Medda-windischer, R., & Jiménez-rosano, M. (2018). Handbook on Teaching in Diversity (Erasmus Schulbildung (ed.)). Ramdani, Z., Amri, A., Hadiana, D., Warsihna, J., Anas, Z., & Susanti, S. (2022). Students Diversity and the Implementation of Adaptive Learning and Assessment. Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Conference of Psychology, Health, and Social Science (ICPHS 2021), 639(Icphs 2021), 157–161. Sarı, M. H., & Yüce, E. (2020). Problems experienced in classrooms with students from different cultures. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 13(2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2020.130204 Vranješević, J. (2014). The main challenges in teacher education for diversity. Zbornik Instituta Za Pedagoska Istrazivanja, 46(2), 473–485. https://doi.org/10.2298/ZIPI1402473V Walsh, Z., Böhme, J., & Wamsler, C. (2021). Towards a relational paradigm in sustainability research, practice, and education. Ambio, 50(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01322-y West, S., Haider, L. J., Stålhammar, S., & Woroniecki, S. (2020). A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations. Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 304–325.