In regard to the discussion on societal transformation towards sustainable development, great importance and expectations are attributed to education of sustainable development (ESD) (Fischer et al., 2022). Particular focus is placed on school education as “an institution play[ing] a leading role in the implementation of sustainable development” (Bertschy et al., 2013, S. 5068). In order to enable the implementation of ESD in schools, the importance of teachers is emphasized.  Although ESD-related teacher education is a central prerequisite (Rieckmann, 2020), it is still a niche innovation, as Fischer et al. (2022) state. In designing teacher education on ESD, Bertschy et al. (2013) highlight that both sustainability-related knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge are crucial for building professional action competence. Bürgener and Barth (2018) express a need in practice-based learning opportunities for student teachers and therefore view collaboration with educational practice as essential. The implementation of ESD related to teacher education can be considered on two levels: On the one hand, student teachers should be enabled to implement ESD in schools. On the other hand, teacher education itself represents an implementation of ESD. In this context, the question arises what is to be achieved with ESD. International scientific discourse distinguishes between two approaches (Vare & Scott 2007). ESD 1 assumes that the task of education for sustainable development is to impart knowledge and behavior defined as sustainable (ibid.). In this context, Pauw et al. (2015) warn against instrumentalisation or even indoctrination through educational policy guidelines if a pluralistic and holistic view is not desired. Furthermore, Ideland (2019) considers the danger of subjectification of sustainability, as the responsibility for societal transformation rests on the shoulders of the individual and thus the possibilities for change may even disappear. The emancipatory approach (ESD 2) focuses on a critical examination of issues relevant to sustainability. The complexity and contradictoriness of the social sustainability problem and the uncertainty resulting from it, are particularly taken into account and addressed. Accordingly, sustainable development is not a closed expert discourse, but an open social (learning) process. Education for sustainable development, in the sense of emancipatory ESD, promotes the ability to self-reflect and take responsibility in the social negotiation process (Sterling 2010). In this sense, Vare and Scott (2007) understand sustainable development in itself as a learning process. Ojala (2013) highlights the need to include the emotional level, as dealing with global challenges can be associated with negative feelings and hopelessness. In the context of teacher education, student teachers are therefore initially required to engage with the concept and content of ESD themselves (Rieckmann, 2022). In this light, critical-emancipatory reflection processes play a special role in teacher education. Viewing education for sustainable education itself as a learning process requires the training of teachers as learning facilitators. "This avoids viewing teachers as technicians who deliver predetermined results and instead views them as facilitators of knowledge production and value identification" (Vare, 2022, p. 15).

Looking at the state of research on teacher education in ESD in this regard, Evans et al. (2017) find, based on an international literature review, that while ESD is embedded in schools and curricula in many cases, there are still no requirements for teacher education in most countries. Little progress can be seen here in recent years - this includes European countries (ibid.). A research desideratum is to explore to what extent the required competencies of prospective teachers in the field of ESD are supported by the teaching-learning concepts used (Brandt et al., 2019). According to Evans et al. (2017), there is a lack of critical reflection on the applied teaching-learning concepts and the evaluation of their effectiveness.

To address this research desideratum, the aim of our study is to empirically investigate the implementation of a teaching and learning concept to ESD in teacher education in University. A special focus is being placed on the practical part of the teacher training program. The 2022 curricular anchoring of ESD as a seminar profile of the preliminary and accompanying seminars in educational sciences for the practical semester offers student teachers the possibility of an in-depth examination of the educational mandate of ESD, independent of subject and interdisciplinary. The link between the practical school part and the cooperation between the university and the schools aims to reflect on implementation possibilities in school practice combined with scientific discourse. The study will examine the extent to which student teachers' knowledge, views, attitudes and self-efficacy with regard to ESD change as a result of participating in seminars during the practical period in educational science with a thematic focus on ESD. These changes will be investigated in relation to the engagement with ESD in context of the preparatory seminar on the one hand and in relation to the connection with school experiences during the practical semester on the other hand. In an online-questionnaire student teachers will be asked to answer questions about ESD at the beginning (M1) and at the end (M2) of the preparatory seminar. The third measurement point (M3) will take place at the end of the seminar accompanying the practical semester. The plan consits of surveying students from SoSe 2023 and WiSe 2023/24 (a total of eight seminars, up to 240 students). Students from preparatory seminars with other seminar profiles serve as the control group (a total of 16 seminars, up to 480 students). The survey contains scales on attitudes towards sustainable development, knowledge about sustainable development and education for sustainable development, perspectives on the ESD mandate, motivation and self-efficacy, each in relation to education for sustainable development, one's own value in relation to ESD and personal information, including subject choice and previous experience. The quantitative data will be analysed with the program R. In our paper, data from the first and second measurement time points (M1 and M2) are used to perform structural equation models and variance analysis.

On the basis of the initial results at the first and second measurement points, insights will be gained into the extent to which the view of education for sustainable development as well as the self-efficacy and motivation related to teaching this content has changed due to the engagement with this topic in the preparatory seminar. For this purpose, comparisons will be conducted between before and after the preparatory seminar with the profile on ESD, as well as comparisons between the control group and other seminar profiles. Based on the data of the pretest, at measurement time M1, in regard to the perception of education for sustainable development, normative ideas of drawing attention to this topic as well as the provision of knowledge and action strategies within the framework of environmentally oriented teaching are expected. If the preparatory seminars succeed in promoting an emancipatory understanding of ESD among the student teachers, it is expected to be reflected in the results of the variance analysis. With regard to the development of self-efficacy, on the other hand, it must be taken into account that dealing with sustainable development can lead to a lower level of self-efficacy, since capturing the complexity of the topic makes the challenges related to teaching sustainability-related topics apparent to the prospective teachers. The results are discussed with the regard to the seminar concept. At this point, the question of the possibilities and challenges for professionalizing prospective teachers with regard to ESD will be brought into focus. As an outlook, the further course of the study is outlined, in which the participation during the practical semester and thus the cooperation of student teachers with schools with regard to ESD will be further investigated.

Bertschy, F., Künzli, D. & Lehmann, M. (2013). Teachers’ Competencies for the Implementation of Educational Offers in the Field of Education for Sustainable Development. In Sustainability 5 (12), 5067–5080. Brandt, J., Bürgener, L., Barth, M. & Redman, A. (2019). Becoming a competent teacher in education for sustainable development. In IJSHE 20 (4), 630–653. Bürgener, L., & Barth, M. (2018). Sustainability competencies in teacher education: Making teacher education count in everyday school practice. Journal of cleaner production, 174, 821-826. Evans, N., Stevenson, R., Lasen, M., Ferreira, J. & Davis, J. (2017). Approaches to embedding sustainability in teacher education: A synthesis of the literature. In Teaching and Teacher Education 63, 405–417. Fischer, D., King, J., Rieckmann, M., Barth, M., Büssing, A. & Hemmer, I. (2022). Teacher Education for Sustainable Development: A Review of an Emerging Research Field. In Journal of Teacher Education, 1-16. Ideland, Malin (2019). The Eco-Certified Child. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Ojala, M. (2013). Emotional Awareness: On the Importance of Including Emotional Aspects in Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). In Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 7 (2), 167–182. Pauw, J., Gericke, N., Olsson, D. & Berglund, T. (2015): The Effectiveness of Education for Sustainable Development. In Sustainability 7 (11), 15693–15717. Rieckmann, M. (2022). Developing and Assessing Sustainability Competences in the Context of Education for Sustainable Development. In Karaarslan-Semiz, G. (eds.) Education for Sustainable Development in Primary and Secondary Schools: Pedagogical and Practical Approaches for Teachers (pp. 191-203). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Sterling, S. (2010). Learning for resilience, or the resilient learner? Towards a necessary reconciliation in a paradigm of sustainable education. In Environmental Education Research 16 (5-6) 511–528. Vare, P. (2022). The Competence Turn. In Vare, P., Lausselet, N. & Rieckmann, M. (eds.). Competences in Education for Sustainable Development. Critical Perspectives. Cham: Springer International Publishing.